Questions: The distinction between the ruling on the individual and the ruling on the description, and whether one should say so-and-so is a martyr, and whether it is permissible to fight the polytheists if there are Muslims in their ranks?

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : Yes, they distort the words from their context. They say that the intended meaning of "seeing" is the seeing of knowledge and certainty, not the seeing of the eye. But how can the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) say and and then say that the intended meaning is the seeing of knowledge, the seeing of knowledge, even in this world? For the people of certainty worship Allah as if they see Him, as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said regarding ihsan (excellence in worship) Yes.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : It is like any other case, like any other case. Every statement that entails disbelief requires that the proof be established against the one who made it, just like any other case. I mean, if we suppose that they have doubts that excuse them, we do not declare them disbelievers, because there is a difference between declaring someone a disbeliever as an individual and declaring them a disbeliever by description. Likewise, in every matter, there is a distinction between the individual and the description. If I say, "Whoever is killed in the cause of Allah is a martyr," that is correct. But if so-and-so was killed in the battle, you do not say he is a martyr; you say it is hoped that he is among the martyrs, it is hoped that he is among the martyrs. As for testifying to him specifically that he is a martyr, you do not know. This is the man about whom the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said , even though he did not leave a single stray or lost item of the enemy without taking it, and he said that he is in the Fire. And 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) gave a sermon and said: "You say so-and-so is a martyr, so-and-so is a martyr, and perhaps he has loaded his camel with " "plunder. So do not say that, but say: Whoever dies in the cause of Allah or is killed, he is a martyr" "Whoever dies" in the general sense. And for this reason, we say that every believer is in Paradise, and we testify to that. But if we see a man who is a believer in appearance, do we testify to him that he is in Paradise? No. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) has clarified that two men emigrated; one emigrated to Allah and His Messenger, and the other emigrated for worldly gain. And how do we know? Perhaps this one who is fighting is fighting for the sake of the world. We do not know. For this reason, the Shaykh al-Islam, regarding the opposite of this issue, when asked about the soldiers who hesitated to fight the Tatars, saying that the Tatars have Muslims with them who are coerced, said: It is obligatory to fight them, even if the Muslims are killed. He said that it is permissible to kill those who were coerced to come out for the benefit of Islam, because if we leave them, we do not know the coerced from the non-coerced, so their account is with Allah, based on what is in their hearts. As for us, we fight whoever we find in the ranks of our enemy, even if he is a Muslim, even if he says he is coerced. And the Shaykh al-Islam said that these are martyrs, those who came coerced and fought in the ranks of the disbelievers, or is he speaking about the Tatars? They will be martyrs with Allah based on what is in their hearts. As for us, we have nothing but the apparent.
And he mentioned a report regarding his captivity. Such issues cannot be fully comprehended because they are based on what is in the hearts, and no one knows what is in the hearts except the Knower of the Unseen. Everyone says, "I was coerced." For this reason, he said: "It is the consensus of the Muslim scholars that if the disbelievers take Muslim captives as a shield, and it is feared that the Muslims will be deterred from fighting them by the captives", because the Muslims do not kill their own captives who are with the disbelievers. He said: "If it is feared from them, then the Muslim who is being used as a shield by the disbeliever is killed, and if we kill him, we are excused and there is no sin upon us. And he himself will be a martyr, because he was killed to support the truth". He was killed to support the truth. These are, in reality, delicate issues. A person should not let emotion take over in judging these matters, but should refer to the words of the scholars and what the people of knowledge said about these issues, so as not to judge with misguidance. These issues are very serious, especially in our current events. Many people have forgotten some of the calamities that befell the Muslims and lament for a group that the enemy is using as a shield. They lament for them. We say these are martyrs if they are killed, if Allah wills, if they are killed while upon Islam, they are martyrs. But as for leaving this enemy to use what he uses of Muslims as a shield, this is not possible, this is not possible, otherwise matters will be lost. The important thing is to say that those who deny the seeing of Allah, we do not declare every individual a disbeliever, but we say that whoever denies the seeing of Allah after the proof has reached him is a disbeliever, because he is a liar against Allah and His Messenger, and against what the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) agreed upon. Yes.