Explanation of the author's statement: The ninth: That he entered the Fire because of that fly which he did not intend, but rather he did it to escape from their evil.

The reader: "The ninth: That he entered the Fire because of that fly which he did not intend, but rather he did it to escape from their evil".

The Shaykh : This is not actually conceded; this is not conceded. Because their saying: implies that he did it intending to draw near. But if he did it to escape from their evil, he does not become a disbeliever because he did not intend to draw near. For this reason, the scholars said in fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence): "If a man is coerced to divorce his wife and he divorces in accordance with their words", meaning he divorces with the intention of divorce. In that case, the divorce takes effect. But if he divorces to repel the coercion, the divorce does not take effect. And this is the truth, by the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): . The apparent meaning of the story mentioned by the author in this hadith indicates that the man drew near with the intention of drawing near, because the default is that an act built upon a request is a response to that request. As long as he performed an act built upon a request, and that request was to draw near to this idol, we know that he did it with the intention of this drawing near. And we see the opposite of what the author sees... because if he did it with the intention of escaping, or with the intention of drawing near to this idol... he does not become a disbeliever, due to the generality of the saying of Allah the Exalted: . And what he did does not necessitate disbelief; he escaped while his heart was at rest in faith, his heart at rest in faith. So the correct view is: There is no difference between the coerced statement and the coerced act, even though some scholars differentiate, saying: If he is coerced to speak and he speaks, he does not become a disbeliever; but if he is coerced to act and he acts, he becomes a disbeliever. They cite the story of the fly as evidence. And the story of the fly, as you see, has a point of consideration regarding its authenticity, and it also has a point of consideration regarding its indication, as we have explained to you. What is the explanation we mentioned? An act built upon a request is attributed to that request. Clear. And if it were assumed that there is a possibility that the man drew near with the fly to escape, if this were assumed, yes, then we have a clear text on the matter, a clear Qur'anic text, which is: . He did not say with the statement . So as long as we have a clear and explicit text from the Qur'an, if a sound Sunnah comes in a way that causes confusion, it is attributed to this clear text. Yes.
The student: ... .

The Shaykh : ... It may not occur to a person that he is doing something to draw near. It may not occur to him. And perhaps this story is also from the Shari'ah of those before us, that they are held accountable for coercion, and that they must be patient even if they are killed. We have a text from the Messenger speaking about... the first... which is drawing near to the idols, even with something of no importance. Yes. But we have a verse, and many of the burdens and shackles upon the previous nations have been lifted from them. Yes.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Perhaps, yes. Perhaps he was truthful in his saying: . Or perhaps he also intended to repel it. In any case, if we take it at its apparent meaning, it means that he slaughtered this fly to draw near to this idol. The current indication shows that he intended to draw near. Yes.
The reader: "The tenth: Knowing the degree of shirk (associating partners with Allah) in the hearts of the believers; how he was patient with the killing and did not agree with their request, even though they did not ask him for anything but the outward act".

The Shaykh : Yes, and this issue has a detailed explanation in reality. Is it better for a person to be patient if he is coerced into disbelief? Is it better that he be patient and be killed, or is it better that he agree outwardly and interpret (ta'wil)?
As for his agreeing outwardly and inwardly, there is no doubt that this is not permissible. Agreeing outwardly and inwardly is not permissible because it is apostasy (riddah). So the categories are three:
Either he agrees outwardly and inwardly, and this is forbidden and not permissible.
Or he agrees outwardly but not inwardly: but he intends to escape from the coercion. This is permissible.
Or he does not agree outwardly or inwardly and is killed, for example. This is also permissible, and it is from patience.
But which is better: to be patient even if he is killed, or to agree outwardly?
There is a detailed explanation: If the coercion does not result in a defect in the religion for the general public, if the coercion does not result in harm to the religion for the general public, then it is better to agree outwardly but not inwardly, especially if his remaining alive is a benefit for the people, such as a person of wealth or a person of knowledge, or the like. Even if there is no benefit, in his remaining upon Islam there is an increase in good deeds, which is better. And he has been granted a dispensation (rukhsah) in what? In becoming a disbeliever outwardly under coercion. So it is better that he interpret (ta'wil) and agree outwardly but not inwardly.
But if there is harm in Islam in his agreeing and not being patient, then he should be patient. And patience may become obligatory, and patience at that time is from jihad in the path of Allah. For this reason, when the Companions complained to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) about what they found of harassment from the polytheists, he told them the story of one of those before us, that a person is combed between his flesh and his skin with iron combs, and he is patient. And the meaning of that is that he is saying to them: Be patient with the harm.
And for this reason, Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) was harmed and he was patient, while he saw some scholars being tested. Because if Imam Ahmad had agreed with them outwardly, it would be a great matter in the religion. So patience here is from the category of patience in jihad in the path of Allah; it is not from the category of preserving the self. This is not from the category of patience to preserve the self; it is from the category of patience for jihad in the path of Allah. And a person must strive in the path of Allah with his wealth and his self. So there is a difference between personal coercion where nothing results, for which, as I said, how many cases are there? No, three cases: agreeing outwardly and inwardly, which is not permissible; agreeing outwardly but not inwardly, which is permissible; and the third: patience with killing, which is also permissible. But the better is to take the dispensation (rukhsah) because of the benefit in remaining alive.
But if the matter of coercion harms the religion, meaning he is coerced to do an act, and if he agrees with them on it, it harms the religion of Allah, then the obligatory thing is patience to protect the self, or to protect the religion?
The student: To protect the religion.

The Shaykh : To protect the religion, because this is from the category of jihad in the path of Allah. And the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), if they had, may Allah protect us, agreed with the polytheists at that time, and the Muslims were few, this would be a great harm to Islam. Similarly, Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him), if he had agreed outwardly, there would be harm to Islam in that. This is the detailed explanation in the issue of coercion. Yes.
The reader: "The eleventh: That the one who entered the Fire was a Muslim, because if he had been a disbeliever, he would not have said: 'I entered the Fire because of a fly'".

The Shaykh : This is correct, meaning that this man committed disbelief (kufr) with the fly, so it was the cause of his entering the Fire. So he was originally a Muslim, then he committed disbelief by drawing near to the idol and saying: . The "in" (fi) is for the circumstance (zarf), as I said, "in" is for the circumstance, but because of (bi sabab). And its parallel is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): . The "in" (fi) is for causality.
The reader: "The twelfth: It contains a corroborating narration for the authentic hadith".

The Shaykh : Ten (ashar) or tenth (ashirah)?
The reader: Tenth (ashirah).

The Shaykh : Yes.
The reader: "It contains a corroborating narration for the authentic hadith:

Paradise is nearer to any of you than the Shirak (leather strap) of his shoe, and so is the (Hell) Fire.

الجنة أقرب إلى أحدكم من شراك نعله، والنار مثل ذلك

Sahih al-Bukhari 6488

".

The Shaykh : Allahu Akbar. And the purpose of this is to encourage and warn... The purpose of this, if a person knows that Paradise is closer to him than the strap of his sandal, yes, it encourages him to strive. It is not far, as he said: . Then he said: . So if Paradise is brought close and it is said to a person that it is closer than the strap of his sandal, he is encouraged and strives for it. And if the Fire is said to be closer to him than the strap of his sandal, he fears and is cautious in his walking so that he does not slip and perish. And perhaps a word leads a person to the highest of the highest, and another word leads him to the lowest of the low. Yes.
The student: The strap of his sandal.

The Shaykh : The strap is this... that is on the top of the foot. Yes.
The reader: "The thirteenth: Knowing that the work of the heart is the greatest objective, even among the worshippers of idols"

The Shaykh : Worshippers
The student: Worshippers of idols.

The Shaykh : The truth is that the thirteenth and the ninth contain a kind of contradiction, because in the thirteenth, the ruling is based on the action of the heart, whereas in the ninth, it is based on the outward appearance, because he said: "to escape from their evil." This means that his inner state is sound. Here, however, he says that the action is an action of the heart. There is no doubt that what the author said is true regarding the fact that the criterion is the heart. In reality, action is composed of the heart, and people differ more in their actions of the heart than in their actions of the body. The distinction between them in terms of intention and humility is greater than the distinction between their bodily actions, is it not? Yes, indeed, because many people, for example, may worship Allah and intend for Allah,
but they have a kind of... may Allah spare us, they have a kind of... they do not humble themselves to the truth or submit to all of the truth. Some people also have humility toward all of the truth but are lacking in intention; they have a kind of showing off, for example, may Allah spare us. But the actions of the heart are of great importance, and we always repeat to you—and in reality, it is a repetition to ourselves—that a person should purify his actions of the heart, his words of the heart, his beliefs, his actions, and his movements. Yes, so faith in Allah, His angels, His books, His messengers, the Last Day, and the divine decree, its good and its evil—where does this come from? From his beliefs and his words of the heart, such as love, fear, hope, reliance upon Allah, seeking help from Him, and the like. Sincerity is also among the actions of the heart. We always repeat to you the importance of attending to the actions of the heart and that a person should strive for them with the utmost effort, more than he strives for the actions of the body and the words of the tongue, because if they are sound, as the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Hold fast to the Qur'an and the Sunnah. This is the medicine. The Qur'an and the Sunnah are the medicine, and returning to the biography of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) by knowing his states, his words, his struggle, and his calling, this is what helps in the rectification of the heart. Then, what helps in the rectification of the heart, as the author said in the terminology, is that a person turns away from the worldly life so that he does not make it a concern in his heart at all, except to the extent that he can maintain his... and his religion, meaning that the worldly life never enters his heart.
...no religion and no worldly life, and he wishes to acquire wealth in the heart. Yes, and if he sees the owners of wealth, his heart is torn with regret. Yes, and yet he has no wealth. I mean, the presence of wealth in a person's hand is not proof of his attachment to it, for the heart is not the hand. Therefore, among the wisdom of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is that when he saw something in the worldly life that pleased him, he would say: "Here I am," meaning "I have responded to you," because the soul may become arrogant, especially for the one who pleased it... he says "Here I am," meaning turning toward you and responding to you. Then he consoles the soul and reassures it, saying to it: "Life is the life of the Hereafter, and this is the truth. The life of this world, whatever it is, is transient, and whatever comfort, joy, and happiness it contains is not equal to a single moment of faith and turning toward Allah for the believer. This is a matter in which no experienced person doubts. Some of the Salaf said: "If the kings and the sons of kings knew what we are in, they would fight us for it with swords." The kings and the sons of kings do not have more than us in the realm of the worldly life. Yes, and if they knew what we are in, they would fight us for it with swords, because the joy of the heart in faith and piety is different from its joy in abundant wealth, or in beautiful palaces, or in luxurious cars, or in beautiful wives, or the like. There is a difference. Yes.
The student : Is not the intention, some people... .

The Shaykh : In any case, I my intention is that you do not follow your heart toward the worldly life. I do not say do not work in the worldly life; the Companions worked in the worldly life, they sold and bought, but it was in their hands and not in their hearts. The important thing, as the Messenger said to 'Umar, he said: Do not let your heart always be attached to wealth, except for something by which you establish... and satisfy your needs, and become independent of people, or you acquire it to draw near to Allah with it. So, just as this person seeks knowledge to benefit from it and benefit others, perhaps there is a person who has wealth and seeks wealth to benefit from it and benefit others. Therefore, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Yes, and in what benefits him, wealth and knowledge. But my intention is that one of the causes of the rectification of the heart is not to occupy your heart with the worldly life; do not occupy it with the worldly life.
The student : What is the meaning of "no envy except in two things"?

The Shaykh : It means that there is nothing for which a person is envied except this matter. The envy here is the envy of gladness. What is the meaning? That you envy him that Allah gave him this thing... .
The student: ... .

The Shaykh : Yes, it does not contradict anything. Yes, there is no obstacle... He said: "If I had so-and-so's wealth, I would do with it what so-and-so did." He said: "They are equal in reward."