Explanation of the author's statement: (… and one who believes in sorcery, and one who severs family ties) narrated by Ahmad and Ibn Hibban in his Sahih.

The Shaykh : He said: The author (may Allah have mercy on him) cited this hadith in the chapter on astrology because he holds that the sorcery referred to here is a type of it, namely astrology. This is because it was previously established that whoever takes a branch from the stars has taken a branch from sorcery. This is an addition, and what was added preceded the hadith and its explanation of its authenticity. Accordingly, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) interpreted the sorcery here as what? As astrology. And the one who believes in it is the one who believes in what the astrologers report. So if the astrologer says that such and such will happen, and one believes him, this person does not enter Paradise because he believed in knowledge of the unseen other than from Allah. And Allah the Exalted said: But if someone were to say to us: Let us make the sorcery here general, encompassing astrology and other things, encompassing astrology and its like. Yes, we say: If we make it general, what is the meaning of the one who believes in sorcery? Does it mean the one who believes in what the sorcerers report regarding matters of the unseen? Yes? We say yes, and this is a correct meaning. As for the one who believes that sorcery has an effect, this threat does not apply to him, because sorcery undoubtedly has an effect, but it is an effect on imagination and does not transform things. For example, a person may cast a spell on people's eyes so that they see a pebble as wolves, or is that not possible? It is possible, just as the sorcerers of Pharaoh cast a spell on the people so that they saw the ropes and staffs as if they were snakes moving. And one may cast a spell on people's eyes so that they see him flying in the air while he is not flying. Yes, this effect is believed in because it is a reality we witness, even though it has no true substance, but it is an effect on our eyes. And the sorcerer casts a spell on a person to put affection for so-and-so or hatred for so-and-so in his heart. Does it have an effect or not? It has an effect. Allah the Exalted said: This belief in the effect of sorcery in this manner does not fall under the threat, because it is belief in a reality, and belief in a reality carries no threat. Yes, whoever believes that sorcery affects the hearts of things, such that it turns gold into wood or wood into gold or the like, this undoubtedly falls under this threat. The reason is that transforming the hearts of things is something only Allah (Mighty and Majestic) can do. Accordingly, it is not permissible to believe in it.
So the one who believes in sorcery has two aspects for us. The first aspect: We go by the apparent view of the author, which is that we make sorcery specific to…
And in that case, believing in it, if it is regarding matters of the unseen, or believing that they can transform the hearts of things, this falls under the threat, or not? It falls under the threat. But if believing in sorcery means that we believe it has an effect in terms of enmity and friendship, love and hatred, sickness and health, movement of the stationary or stillness of the moving, yes, the illusion that this thing is another thing, this is a reality and does not fall under the hadith.
We now return to his statement: Is the meaning exclusion, and that others enter? The answer is no, because there are others who also do not enter Paradise. Yes, good. Second: Are these people disbelievers because he said and whoever does not enter Paradise is a disbeliever? The scholars differed on this issue and on hadiths similar to this hadith of threat, because there are hadiths of this pattern. The school of the Khawarij, the Mu'tazilah, and those similar to them takes the hadiths of threat and the texts of threat and holds that such people are disbelievers. They hold that they are disbelievers. This is the view of the Khawarij and the view of the Mu'tazilah that they are in a position between two positions, but they are eternal in the Fire. They apply this hadith to its apparent meaning and do not look at the other hadiths indicating that whoever has faith in his heart must enter Paradise. This is the view.
The second view: That this threat, which is the negation of entering Paradise, is for the one who considers it permissible. Did we negate the first view or affirm it? We negated it with what? With the many texts indicating that whoever has faith in his heart must enter Paradise. The second view: They say this is for the one who considers it permissible, the one who considers this act permissible. And this view is not correct, because whoever considers it permissible, even if he does not do it, is a disbeliever. The one who considers it permissible, if he did not do it, is a disbeliever. Whoever considers severing family ties permissible, or considers intoxicants permissible, or considers habitual intoxication permissible, is a disbeliever even if he did not drink or did not sever ties. And likewise, whoever considers believing in sorcery permissible in what makes one a disbeliever by believing in it, is a disbeliever even if he did not believe. Did you understand? So is this view correct or not?
The student: It is not correct.

The Shaykh : Not correct. Interpreting the hadith as applying to the one who considers it permissible is not correct.
The third aspect: That this is from the chapter of hadiths of threat that are passed over without addressing their meaning. We say: Thus Allah said, and we remain silent. Thus the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, and we remain silent. For example: We say this verse is from the texts of threat, so we believe in it and do not address its meaning or its contradiction with other texts. We say: Thus Allah said, and Allah knows best what He intended. Did you understand? And many of the Salaf went to this. Yes, many of the Salaf went to this, such as Malik and others. And he said: We do not speak about them. We say: Thus Allah said, and thus the Messenger of Allah said, and we do not speak. And we say: We state that the habitual drunkard and the one who severs family ties do not enter Paradise. Yes, and the one who believes in sorcery.
The fourth aspect: That we say this is an absolute negation, is that so? And the absolute negation is interpreted as restricted. It is said: They do not enter Paradise with an absolute entry, meaning their entry is not preceded by punishment. But they enter Paradise with an entry preceded by punishment according to the magnitude of their sins. And they say: We adopted this school in order to be understanding of the texts, not passing them over without addressing them. Rather, we address them and say that the texts of the Shari'ah corroborate each other and harmonize with each other. Accordingly, we say that entering Paradise is divided into two categories: absolute entry not preceded by punishment, and restricted entry preceded by punishment. So what is intended by his statement: here, is it the absolute negation or the restricted one? The restricted one, meaning they do not enter it with an entry not preceded by punishment, but they must be punished, and then their return is to Paradise. Undoubtedly, the previous view is more effective in deterrence. The previous view is more effective in deterrence: that we say thus Allah said, thus the Messenger of Allah said, and we do not say anything. You are in danger of not entering Paradise. You are in danger, O killer, of being eternal in the Fire. And thus we say this is the statement of Allah and we do not address it.
And the last view is more established, closer to the principles, and clearer and more explicit, so that the indication of the texts does not remain ambiguous. Thus the texts restrict each other. Yes.
The student: … the last view…

The Shaykh : Yes, its apparent meaning is generality… absolutely. But we say no, the other texts indicated that the habitual drunkard, as long as he has faith, must enter Paradise. This is how it came in the texts, clearly.
The student: ... .

The Shaykh : It is more effective in deterrence and more awe-inspiring. And when a person is told this, he undoubtedly fears that he is in danger. But this is more established in reality, because what do we do with the other texts indicating that it is necessary for the one who has faith in his heart to enter Paradise, even if he commits zina and steals, as in the hadith of Abu Dharr? Yes, and this is more jurisprudential and more established, and that one is more deterrent and more effective in deterrence.
Good. If someone were to say: This may indicate that the one in this state is sealed with a bad ending until he dies in disbelief, and this threat is considered in light of what his state leads to. Yes, imagine this. Meaning, if someone were to say that such texts containing this threat indicate that the one who does this is likely to be sealed with a bad ending until he dies in disbelief, and in that case, there is no problem in the issue. If he dies in disbelief, he is not entering Paradise. And if he dies in disbelief, he is also eternal in the Fire. And perhaps this is supported by the statement of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him): So this possibility becomes a fifth meaning. We have now mentioned four meanings, and this possibility becomes a fifth meaning: that it is possible that this threat regarding this specific sin is a cause for a bad ending by which he is deprived of entering Paradise. And the negation remains in its generality in his statement: or not? He does not enter, considering that this becomes a cause for a bad ending, and may Allah protect us. In any case, this hadith is clearly a witness to the chapter heading. Where do we take it from? From his statement: If we interpret sorcery as the knowledge of stars, the matter is clear. And if we say it is general, then the knowledge of stars is included in it. Yes. Raise your voice.

The questioner : ... such as the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) ... .

The Shaykh : No, that is not possible, because there must be faith in the heart of these people, except according to the view of the Mu'tazilah and the Khawarij.

The questioner : Shaykh, if we say that the "entry" referred to is absolute entry, do we not say this regarding all sins?

The Shaykh : Except...

The questioner : Even in prayer.

The Shaykh : No, regarding prayer, nothing like this has been reported; rather, disbelief has been reported regarding it.

The questioner : Yes, my intention is that absolute entry is not necessary ...

The Shaykh : That is, those who abandon prayer.

The questioner : All sins.

The Shaykh : In every case where such a statement has been reported, and which is that one exits faith by this action, this statement is made.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : The restriction is always on this, until ... other than this, and "three whom Allah will not speak to."

The questioner : Even in cases where it has not been reported, for example, we do not say this thing because ...