What is the ruling on one who pronounces the testimony of faith and slaughters for other than Allah, and is there a difference between hidden and apparent matters regarding the excuse of ignorance?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : May the peace of Allah, His mercy, and His blessings be upon you, esteemed Shaykh.
The Shaykh : And upon you be peace, and Allah's mercy and blessings.
The questioner : What is your opinion, may Allah reward you, of one who says, "There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah," and then commits a major sin, which is slaughtering for other than Allah? Is this person a Muslim, given that he grew up in the lands of Islam?
The Shaykh : Slaughtering for other than Allah, what do you mean by that?
The questioner : Slaughtering for other than Allah. He says, "If I leave this matter, it will harm me or harm my family."
The Shaykh : No, I am asking how he slaughters for other than Allah?
The questioner : He slaughters for other than Allah.
The Shaykh : Do you mean he draws near to this other entity by slaughtering for it?
The questioner : Yes, he draws near to it.
The Shaykh : The one who draws near to other than Allah by slaughtering for it—that is, for this other entity—is a mushrik (one who associates partners with Allah) committing major shirk (associating partners with Allah). His saying, "There is no god but Allah," and his prayer, and anything else, do not benefit him, except if he grew up in distant lands where they do not know this ruling. In that case, he is excused by ignorance, but he must be taught.
The questioner : What do you mean by distant lands?
The Shaykh : Suppose, for example, that he lives in distant lands, not in the Kingdom, in distant lands where they slaughter for other than Allah, they slaughter for graves, and they slaughter for the awliya (close friends of Allah). Yes, and they do not see any harm in this, and they do not know that this is shirk (associating partners with Allah) or haram (forbidden). This person is excused by ignorance. But as for a person who is told, "This is kufr (disbelief)," and he says, "No, I cannot leave slaughtering for the wali (close friend of Allah)," then the proof has been established against him, and he becomes a kafir (disbeliever).
The questioner : Regarding the advice, it was said that this is shirk (associating partners with Allah).
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Was he declared a mushrik (one who associates partners with Allah)?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : A mushrik (one who associates partners with Allah), a kafir (disbeliever).
The Shaykh : A mushrik (one who associates partners with Allah), a kafir (disbeliever), and a murtadd (apostate). He is asked to repent; if he repents, well and good, otherwise he is killed.
The questioner : And is there a difference between apparent matters and hidden matters?
The Shaykh : The hidden ones are clarified.
The questioner : What do you mean, like what?
The Shaykh : The hidden ones, like this issue, if we suppose he says, "I live among people who slaughter for the awliya (close friends of Allah), and I did not know that this is haram (forbidden). Do you understand?
Then this would be a hidden matter, because hiddenness and apparentness are relative. What is apparent to me may be hidden from you, and what is apparent to you may be hidden from me.
The questioner : Okay, how do you establish the proof against him, O Shaykh? What is the proof that I establish against him?
The Shaykh : The proof against him is that Allah said:[Al-An'am 6:162-163], and He the Exalted said: [Al-Kawthar 108:1-2]. This is evidence that slaughtering for the purpose of drawing near and honoring is worship, and whoever directs worship to other than Allah is a mushrik (one who associates partners with Allah).
The questioner : Regarding one who was negligent, O Shaykh, and it was said that he is not excused by ignorance in apparent matters, but in hidden matters where people disagree, this is, of course!
The Shaykh : I told you now, and you know, do people agree on apparentness and hiddenness or not?
The questioner : No, they do not agree.
The Shaykh : They do not agree. This thing may be apparent to me with no doubt, while it is hidden from the other person. Even in citing evidence, some scholars see this evidence as clear regarding the ruling, while it is hidden from the other. The discussion is only about the person's understanding.
The questioner : The understanding of the proof.
The Shaykh : The proof.
The questioner : Because the Qur'an has reached him.
The Shaykh : If the proof has reached him and he is told that the action he is performing is shirk (associating partners with Allah), and he does it, he has no excuse left.
The questioner : Do you mean he is informed?
The Shaykh : Yes, it is necessary, he must be informed, yes.
The questioner : This issue, regarding some of the principles, as is not hidden from you, and there is a doubt mentioned: that his action is shirk (associating partners with Allah) but he is not a mushrik (one who associates partners with Allah). How do we respond?
The Shaykh : This is correct; he is not a mushrik (one who associates partners with Allah) if the proof has not been established against him.
The questioner : The proof has not been established against him means the Qur'an reached him.
The Shaykh : Is not the one who said:Sahih Muslim 2747a Is this not kufr (disbelief)?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And he was not declared a disbeliever because he erred out of extreme joy. Likewise, is not the coerced person forced into kufr (disbelief) and appears to be a disbeliever, but his heart is at peace with faith? And the scholars who say, "The word is kufr (disbelief) but not the person," this is if the proof has not been established against him and we do not know his state. But if we know his state, what remains? Do we say he is not a disbeliever? That would mean no one is a disbeliever! No one remains a disbeliever, even the one who prays, we say he might be a disbeliever.
The questioner : No, but regarding the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah.
The Shaykh : Even Ibn Taymiyyah says: If the proof reached him, the proof is established against him.
The questioner : If the proof reached him and he was not informed, the reaching of the proof is by the Qur'an and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).
The Shaykh : It is not sufficient, it is not sufficient.
The questioner : What do you mean?
The Shaykh : Suppose he is a non-Arab who does not know the meanings of the Qur'an.
The questioner : Then it did not reach him.
The Shaykh : No, it reached him, the Qur'an came to him and he heard it, but he must understand the meaning.
The questioner : How, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : I say: He must understand the meaning, may Allah reward you.
The questioner : It says: A disbeliever is not excused.
The Shaykh : No, it does not say that.
The questioner : There is a treatise by Shaykh Ishaq ibn Abd al-Rahman.
The Shaykh : The Shaykh al-Islam's treatises are well known, and he is the furthest of people from takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever).
The questioner : No, it is not takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever), but he says: This issue means establishing the proof is required, but it is not necessary to inform him because it is from the apparent matters.
The Shaykh : It is not apparent. I told you, he is a non-Arab. If an Arab reads the Qur'an to him, he might know, but this one is a non-Arab.
The questioner : Is it possible, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : No, no, wait. This issue is not a debate in this place. This place is for questions and answers. The debate between you and me is not in front of people; rather, now it is for everyone, the benefit is for everyone.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : That it is not sufficient for mere reaching, until he understands it, because if we suppose he is a non-Arab and we read the Qur'an to him morning and evening, but he does not know its meaning, has the proof been established against him?
[Ibrahim 14:4].
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : And upon you be peace, and Allah's mercy and blessings.
The questioner : What is your opinion, may Allah reward you, of one who says, "There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah," and then commits a major sin, which is slaughtering for other than Allah? Is this person a Muslim, given that he grew up in the lands of Islam?
The Shaykh : Slaughtering for other than Allah, what do you mean by that?
The questioner : Slaughtering for other than Allah. He says, "If I leave this matter, it will harm me or harm my family."
The Shaykh : No, I am asking how he slaughters for other than Allah?
The questioner : He slaughters for other than Allah.
The Shaykh : Do you mean he draws near to this other entity by slaughtering for it?
The questioner : Yes, he draws near to it.
The Shaykh : The one who draws near to other than Allah by slaughtering for it—that is, for this other entity—is a mushrik (one who associates partners with Allah) committing major shirk (associating partners with Allah). His saying, "There is no god but Allah," and his prayer, and anything else, do not benefit him, except if he grew up in distant lands where they do not know this ruling. In that case, he is excused by ignorance, but he must be taught.
The questioner : What do you mean by distant lands?
The Shaykh : Suppose, for example, that he lives in distant lands, not in the Kingdom, in distant lands where they slaughter for other than Allah, they slaughter for graves, and they slaughter for the awliya (close friends of Allah). Yes, and they do not see any harm in this, and they do not know that this is shirk (associating partners with Allah) or haram (forbidden). This person is excused by ignorance. But as for a person who is told, "This is kufr (disbelief)," and he says, "No, I cannot leave slaughtering for the wali (close friend of Allah)," then the proof has been established against him, and he becomes a kafir (disbeliever).
The questioner : Regarding the advice, it was said that this is shirk (associating partners with Allah).
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Was he declared a mushrik (one who associates partners with Allah)?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : A mushrik (one who associates partners with Allah), a kafir (disbeliever).
The Shaykh : A mushrik (one who associates partners with Allah), a kafir (disbeliever), and a murtadd (apostate). He is asked to repent; if he repents, well and good, otherwise he is killed.
The questioner : And is there a difference between apparent matters and hidden matters?
The Shaykh : The hidden ones are clarified.
The questioner : What do you mean, like what?
The Shaykh : The hidden ones, like this issue, if we suppose he says, "I live among people who slaughter for the awliya (close friends of Allah), and I did not know that this is haram (forbidden). Do you understand?
Then this would be a hidden matter, because hiddenness and apparentness are relative. What is apparent to me may be hidden from you, and what is apparent to you may be hidden from me.
The questioner : Okay, how do you establish the proof against him, O Shaykh? What is the proof that I establish against him?
The Shaykh : The proof against him is that Allah said:
(162) Say, "Indeed, my prayer, my rites of sacrifice, my living and my dying are for Allah, Lord of the worlds. (163) No partner has He. And this I have been commanded
قُلْ إِنَّ صَلاتِي وَنُسُكِي وَمَحْيَايَ وَمَمَاتِي لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ * لا شَرِيكَ لَهُ وَبِذَلِكَ أُمِرْتُ(1) Indeed, We have granted you, [O Muhammad], al-Kawthar. (2) So pray to your Lord and sacrifice [to Him alone].
إِنَّا أَعْطَيْنَاكَ الْكَوْثَرَ * فَصَلِّ لِرَبِّكَ وَانْحَرْThe questioner : Regarding one who was negligent, O Shaykh, and it was said that he is not excused by ignorance in apparent matters, but in hidden matters where people disagree, this is, of course!
The Shaykh : I told you now, and you know, do people agree on apparentness and hiddenness or not?
The questioner : No, they do not agree.
The Shaykh : They do not agree. This thing may be apparent to me with no doubt, while it is hidden from the other person. Even in citing evidence, some scholars see this evidence as clear regarding the ruling, while it is hidden from the other. The discussion is only about the person's understanding.
The questioner : The understanding of the proof.
The Shaykh : The proof.
The questioner : Because the Qur'an has reached him.
The Shaykh : If the proof has reached him and he is told that the action he is performing is shirk (associating partners with Allah), and he does it, he has no excuse left.
The questioner : Do you mean he is informed?
The Shaykh : Yes, it is necessary, he must be informed, yes.
The questioner : This issue, regarding some of the principles, as is not hidden from you, and there is a doubt mentioned: that his action is shirk (associating partners with Allah) but he is not a mushrik (one who associates partners with Allah). How do we respond?
The Shaykh : This is correct; he is not a mushrik (one who associates partners with Allah) if the proof has not been established against him.
The questioner : The proof has not been established against him means the Qur'an reached him.
The Shaykh : Is not the one who said:
0 Lord, Thou art my servant and I am Thine Lord
اللهم أنت عبدي وأنا ربكThe questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And he was not declared a disbeliever because he erred out of extreme joy. Likewise, is not the coerced person forced into kufr (disbelief) and appears to be a disbeliever, but his heart is at peace with faith? And the scholars who say, "The word is kufr (disbelief) but not the person," this is if the proof has not been established against him and we do not know his state. But if we know his state, what remains? Do we say he is not a disbeliever? That would mean no one is a disbeliever! No one remains a disbeliever, even the one who prays, we say he might be a disbeliever.
The questioner : No, but regarding the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah.
The Shaykh : Even Ibn Taymiyyah says: If the proof reached him, the proof is established against him.
The questioner : If the proof reached him and he was not informed, the reaching of the proof is by the Qur'an and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).
The Shaykh : It is not sufficient, it is not sufficient.
The questioner : What do you mean?
The Shaykh : Suppose he is a non-Arab who does not know the meanings of the Qur'an.
The questioner : Then it did not reach him.
The Shaykh : No, it reached him, the Qur'an came to him and he heard it, but he must understand the meaning.
The questioner : How, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : I say: He must understand the meaning, may Allah reward you.
The questioner : It says: A disbeliever is not excused.
The Shaykh : No, it does not say that.
The questioner : There is a treatise by Shaykh Ishaq ibn Abd al-Rahman.
The Shaykh : The Shaykh al-Islam's treatises are well known, and he is the furthest of people from takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever).
The questioner : No, it is not takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever), but he says: This issue means establishing the proof is required, but it is not necessary to inform him because it is from the apparent matters.
The Shaykh : It is not apparent. I told you, he is a non-Arab. If an Arab reads the Qur'an to him, he might know, but this one is a non-Arab.
The questioner : Is it possible, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : No, no, wait. This issue is not a debate in this place. This place is for questions and answers. The debate between you and me is not in front of people; rather, now it is for everyone, the benefit is for everyone.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : That it is not sufficient for mere reaching, until he understands it, because if we suppose he is a non-Arab and we read the Qur'an to him morning and evening, but he does not know its meaning, has the proof been established against him?
And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for them
وَمَا أَرْسّلْنّا مِنْ رَسُولٍ إِلاَّ بِلِسَانِ قَوْمِهِ لِيُبَيِّنَ لَهُمْThe questioner : May Allah reward you with good, O Shaykh.