The Book of Faith-07b

The reciter: Muhammad ibn Rafi' narrated to me, he said: 'Abd al-Razzaq narrated to us, he said: Sufyan informed us, from al-A'mash, from Dhukwan, from Abu Hurayrah, tracing it back to the Prophet, who said: Then he mentioned it in a manner similar to the hadith of Shu'bah.

The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
This hadith, as you have heard, was narrated by the author (may Allah have mercy on him) through multiple chains, and it contains several issues. The first issue is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) denied faith from the one who commits these acts, but he did not deny it absolutely; rather, he denied it from the one who commits these acts at the moment he commits them. This is because when one proceeds to commit these sins while knowing that Allah has forbidden them and prohibited them, he is in that state and at that moment deprived of faith, because if he had faith, or if faith were present in him, he would not dare to do what Allah has forbidden. So you will find the fornicator, for example, when he is fornicating, that he does not have the faith that would restrain him from fornication at that moment. The same is said regarding the rest: the thief, the one who seizes by force, the drinker of intoxicants, and others. The scholars differed on how to interpret this hadith. Some said: The meaning is the disbeliever, meaning that the disbeliever does not commit fornication, theft, drink intoxicants, seize by force, or commit embezzlement while doing so as a believer. This is the view of the Murji'ah, who say that sins do not negate faith, and that faith is not harmed by sin, just as disbelief is not benefited by obedience. The second view is that this indicates disbelief that expels one from the religion, because if faith is negated, disbelief takes its place, since they are opposites; if one is lifted, the other is established. This is the view of the Khawarij and the Mu'tazilah. However, the Mu'tazilah deny faith from him but do not establish disbelief for him, while the Khawarij deny faith from him and establish disbelief for him. The Khawarij say: So if faith is negated, the establishment of disbelief is necessary, and we do not know in the Shari'ah a station between two stations, neither disbelief nor faith. As for the Mu'tazilah, they said that faith is negated from him, but he does not deserve the description of disbelief; rather, he is in a station between two stations. So they innovated the "station between the two stations," and this has no basis in the Book or the Sunnah. The third view says that the perfection of faith is negated from him, and the meaning is: "The fornicator is not a believer while he is fornicating," meaning: a believer with perfect faith, but he still has faith in general. This view is the methodology of the people of the Sunnah and the community. They said that these acts mentioned by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) are not greater than killing a soul without right intentionally, and yet a person does not exit faith by killing a believer intentionally, due to the saying of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He): When is retaliation established? When the killer is intentional. And at the end He said: If it were disbelief, brotherhood would not be established, because faith-based brotherhood is not established with disbelief ever, but only with sins that lead to disbelief. So the meaning of His saying: is: perfect faith. And what compelled us to this are the other texts that prevent his complete exit from Islam. Then we have a rule that a student of knowledge should understand: Negation has three levels: The first level is negation of existence, the second is negation of validity, and the third is negation of perfection. Negation of validity is a negation of existence in reality, but it is a negation of legal existence, not sensory existence. For example, if we say: "There is no creator except Allah," this is a negation of existence; no one exists who creates except Allah (Mighty and Majestic). And if we say: "There is no prayer without ablution," this is a negation of validity. And if I say: "There is no prayer in the presence of food," this is a negation of perfection. So on which of these levels does the negation fall? We say: It falls on the first, negation of existence. If that is impossible because the thing exists, it is taken as negation of validity. If that is impossible because the thing is valid despite the negation, then it is negation of perfection. Therefore, if two men dispute a negation, and one says it is a negation of perfection and the other says it is a negation of validity, the word of the one who says it is a negation of validity is accepted, until evidence is established that the intended meaning is negation of perfection.
So this hadith narrated by Abu Hurayrah and presented by the author through several chains falls under which type of negation? It falls under the third, which is negation of perfection. If someone asks: What is the ruling on the act if perfection is negated while it exists? We say: The rule among the scholars is: "That for which the negation of faith is established is among the major sins" And in the hadith: This indicates that a small seizure that people do not care about does not necessitate the negation of perfect faith, and this is correct. If someone asks: What is the difference between theft and seizure? We say: Theft is taking money secretly, and seizure is taking money by snatching and speed... No, not always; the thief does not take by speed. He is cautious and listens to see if anyone is around or not. He tries to open it secretly... The thief takes money secretly... by snatching and speed. Yes, good. This is an interjection...