If a person commits an act of disbelief, do we rule that he is a disbeliever until an impediment is found?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Do we have the right to rule on a man who has done something, without, for example, discussing it with him or explaining it to him?
The Shaykh : I mentioned to you a moment ago that we rule that he is a disbeliever. If he says, "I did not know; I was unaware of this," and he mentions an impediment, we lift the ruling from him.
The original ruling is that if a person commits an act of disbelief or open sinfulness, we rule that he is a disbeliever or open sinner based on the implications of the act, unless he presents an impediment. Just as the original ruling in inheritance is that if a person is a father or a son, he inherits, unless an impediment is found. Likewise, in the issue of divorce, the original ruling is that if a man divorces, his divorce takes effect unless he mentions an impediment. For this reason, we do not see the merit in what some people do when they write records, saying, for example, "Did you divorce her?" He says, "Yes." "Was she menstruating?" He says, "No." "Did you have intercourse with her during her period of purity?" He says, "No." What is the need for this? Because it is agreed upon that mentioning the absence of an impediment is not a condition. Otherwise, every person would bring us a hypothetical or non-hypothetical issue, and we would mention the impediments. For example, if a person sold to someone, would we ask, "Did you sell to him after the second call to Friday prayer?" It is not obligatory. The original ruling is that things proceed according to their conditions and the absence of their impediments. If an impediment is found, or if an impediment is mentioned, it is looked into.
The Shaykh : I mentioned to you a moment ago that we rule that he is a disbeliever. If he says, "I did not know; I was unaware of this," and he mentions an impediment, we lift the ruling from him.
The original ruling is that if a person commits an act of disbelief or open sinfulness, we rule that he is a disbeliever or open sinner based on the implications of the act, unless he presents an impediment. Just as the original ruling in inheritance is that if a person is a father or a son, he inherits, unless an impediment is found. Likewise, in the issue of divorce, the original ruling is that if a man divorces, his divorce takes effect unless he mentions an impediment. For this reason, we do not see the merit in what some people do when they write records, saying, for example, "Did you divorce her?" He says, "Yes." "Was she menstruating?" He says, "No." "Did you have intercourse with her during her period of purity?" He says, "No." What is the need for this? Because it is agreed upon that mentioning the absence of an impediment is not a condition. Otherwise, every person would bring us a hypothetical or non-hypothetical issue, and we would mention the impediments. For example, if a person sold to someone, would we ask, "Did you sell to him after the second call to Friday prayer?" It is not obligatory. The original ruling is that things proceed according to their conditions and the absence of their impediments. If an impediment is found, or if an impediment is mentioned, it is looked into.