Explanation of the author's statement: "And the thief does not steal while he is a believer, nor does the drunkard drink wine while he is a believer, nor does he seize a plunder of honor that people raise their eyes to, while he is a believer"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: " Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2625 "
This is the desire for wealth. The first is the desire for the private parts, and this is the desire for wealth.
Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2625 Because faith restrains him from stealing, but when he proceeds to steal and opens the door, he opens the door of the safe and takes the bag. In this state, is he a believer or not? Not a believer, not a believer. All right.
He said: "Sahih Muslim 57a ". Wine is forbidden by the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the believers. When he drinks wine, he is not a believer, but before he drinks it and after, he may be a believer. So this man, his soul prompts him to drink wine, but he withdraws, then he proceeds, and he withdraws, then he proceeds, and he withdraws until he falls into it. Then after he drinks, he regrets it.
He said: "Mishkat al-Masabih 53, 54 "
"Of honor" means having value in the eyes of people. For this reason, people raise their eyes to it. He does not seize it while he is a believer when he seizes it, right or not? For example, if a man finds a pen in another man's chest that is worth one hundred riyals and comes to snatch it, he does not seize it while he is a believer when he seizes it, because the pen is of honor and people raise their eyes to it. But if a man has a date in his lap and is eating from it, and another man comes next to him and takes one, what is this? Does his faith drop when he takes the date? No, why? It is not of honor, and people do not raise their eyes to it at all, because they do not care about such things.
These are four things: unlawful sexual intercourse, theft, drinking wine, and seizing a plunder that has honor, value, and weight in the eyes of people. No one does them while he believes in Allah and the Last Day when he does them, when he does them. So what is meant by the negation here? Is it the negation of faith entirely, or the negation of the completeness of faith? The latter. So this man did not deem unlawful sexual intercourse permissible; if he had deemed it permissible, he would have committed disbelief. But he did it for a desire that drove him to it, may Allah protect us, and he forgot the admonisher in his heart, he forgot the tranquil soul that commands him to do good.
We say that the completeness of faith is negated from him, not the essence of faith.
He said: " And we say ": We say, to whom does the pronoun refer? We are the people of the Sunnah, because the man says at the beginning: "And from the principles of the people of the Sunnah." That is, we, the people of the Sunnah, say: " He is a believer whose faith is deficient, or a believer in his faith but an open sinner by his major sin. He is not given the absolute name, nor is the absolute name stripped from him ".
"Stripped" means it is negated from him. So here we must know the difference between the absolute of a thing and the absolute thing.
The absolute thing is the complete thing, and the absolute of a thing means: the essence of the thing, even if it is deficient.
So the open sinner is not given the absolute name in faith, which is the complete name. So we say, by Allah, this is a believer; we do not give him this, and we do not strip him of the absolute name. We do not say: He is not a believer. Rather, we say: He is a believer whose faith is deficient, or a believer in his faith but an open sinner by his major sin.
This is the doctrine of the people of the Sunnah and the community. For this reason, even among people now, if you tell a man known for open sinfulness and debauchery, "By Allah, this is a believer," look, this man is a believer, what do people say? They take offense at you, right? Yes, they take offense at you. They say, "I seek refuge in Allah, how much he drinks wine, commits unlawful sexual intercourse, and steals. Yes, you say this is a believer?" But if you said, "By Allah, this man's faith is deficient; if he had complete faith, he would not have done this thing," do they take offense at you or not? They do not take offense.
So we do not give the open sinner the absolute name. And although he does not deserve the absolute name, there is also a great error in this from the social and educational aspect, because all the common people, if you say about an open sinner that he is a believer, do they consider this praise for him or a defect in him? Ah? They consider it praise for him, or praise of him. And in that case, you are praising one who does not deserve praise in their view, or you are praising an open sinner whom you fear that by your praising him, people will take lightly what he was doing? What? The sinfulness. He says: "By Allah, I heard so-and-so say that so-and-so is a believer," and you are now claiming against him, saying he is an open sinner and has what he has. Such things. The entire discussion on faith is not intended for us to understand the scholars' opinions on it, but rather that its effects follow from it? Its effects, its effects.
If we know that he is a believer whose faith is deficient, then our love for him is not complete love, why? Because of the open sinfulness with him. And if we hate him, our hatred for him is not complete hatred because of the faith with him, because of the faith with him.
And in all things, you find people are at two extremes and a middle. You find some people saying, "How do you say this man is an open sinner? How do you hate him? He is a believer who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." Until some people say, "How do you declare a disbeliever one who does not pray? How do you declare a disbeliever one who does not pray, even though Allah and His Messenger have declared him a disbeliever?" And they say: "How do you declare a disbeliever one who does not pray?" And some people, if they see a man shaving his beard and not leaving its roots, say, "This is a disbeliever, this is a disbeliever. Do not greet him, do not respond to his invitation, do not follow his funeral, and do not visit him in his sickness, because he is openly committing sin."
Rather, he says: "Is not the Sunnah, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), to leave the beard?" So you say? Yes. Did not the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) say:Sahih Muslim 1401? You say yes.
Is not the principle of disavowal from others to be on a path different from theirs? You say: Yes. Is he confirming this for you? He waits for you to say, "One who shaves the beard is a disbeliever." This is problematic. And some people say, "Shaving the beard in our present age is better than leaving it." Yes, we have heard people say this. Why? They say, "The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was commanded to let the beard grow to differ from the polytheists, and now the polytheists and the Zoroastrians let their beards grow, so our differing from them, ah? is to shave it. That is the Sunnah." All right, and what do you say about this? These are great confusions. This one says he is a disbeliever, and this one says: "It is the perfection of his faith to shave it, because this is differing from the polytheists." What is the answer? Yes.
The student: ... He is a believer whose faith is deficient.
The Shaykh : Ah? We say he is a believer whose faith is deficient, so we do not agree with those who declared him a disbeliever, and we do not agree with those who said he has complete faith, right?
But the difference between him and the Murji'ah, as the brother Rami said, is that the Murji'ah say that he is a believer with complete faith and do not say that it is a sin.
As for this one, he does not say that it is a sin; he says that it is obedience and a Sunnah, because we are commanded to differ from them.
The answer to this, my brothers, is very simple, that we say:
First: The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade it to differ from the Zoroastrians. And what is forbidden to differ from the Zoroastrians does not mean that if the Zoroastrians agree with us in it, we return and differ from them, because if we did that, we would be a plaything in their hands, with something new for us every day.
The second thing: If they agree with the fitrah, this does not necessitate that we leave the fitrah. And the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) made letting the beard grow part of the fitrah, as in the hadith narrated by Muslim in his Sahih: أن من الفطرة إعفاء اللحية، وما كان موافقا للفطرة فلا يمكن الخروج عنه لكون أهل الكتاب والمجوس يأخذون به وإلا لكنا نقول كل صفة حسنة يأخذونها منا نحن المسلمين يجب علينا أن نخالفهم فيها وندعها، لكن بعد لو يصلون لا نصلي حنا نعم؟ هذا ما هو صحيح، فهذه أصول ثابتة، وكون هؤلاء المشركين إن صح مع أننا نقول هذا تسليما جدليا، وإلا فإن الواقع أن المشركين والمجوس لا يطلقون لحاهم أبدا، يمكن يطلقها واحد بالمائة منهم ممكن، لكن عامتهم ايش؟ يحلقون لحاهم.
انظر الآن إلى كبرائهم وانظر إلى عوامهم وانظر إلى ما يسمون بالمثقفين عندهم تجدوهم كلهم حالقي اللحى.
الحاصل أنا نقول : إن مذهب أهل السنة والجماعة هو المذهب العدل الوسط الذي ينزل الأمور في منازلها، فمن كان فيه إيمان وفسق، وإيمان وكفر، وعدالة وضدها يجب أن يقال، أن يعامل بالمعيار بالقسطاس المستقيم، صح وإلا لا؟ نحبه لما معه من إيمان، نكرهه لما معه من المعاصي، لا نخرجه من الدين، لأن معه الإيمان، ولا نعفيه من الفسق، لأن معه المعاصي، واضح؟
ينبني على ذلك مسألة مهمة : هل المجاهر بالفسق يجب أن يهجر؟ نعم؟ نشوف الآن، المجاهر بالفسق مؤمن ؟ مؤمن لكن ناقص الإيمان، والنبي عليه الصلاة والسلام قال : لا يحل للمؤمن أن يهجره أخاه فوق ثلاثة يلتقيان فيعرض هذا ويعرض هذا وخيرهما الذي يبدأ بالسلام كذا؟
إذن ما دام هذا الفاسق مؤمنا لا يحل لي أن أهجره فوق ثلاثة أيام.
لكن إذا قال لك قائل : أليس النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قد هجر كعب بن مالك وصاحبيه، فستقول : بلى، لكن أجيب عن ذلك بأن هجر هؤلاء الثلاثة فيه مصلحة، وأي مصلحة فيه؟ من أعظم ما كان فيه من المصلحة حيث إن هؤلاء امتحنوا هذا الامتحان العظيم وصبروا وثبتوا على إيمانهم، حتى إن كعبا وهو أجلد الثلاثة أتاه كتاب من ملك غسان، وقال: " إنه بلغنا أن صاحبك قد قلاك وهجرك فالحق بنا نواسك "، شوف الفتنة العظيمة. ما تقولون لو نزل بنا مثل هذا الأمر ؟ ما نصبر، رجل مهجور لا يكلَّم، ولا حتى ابن عمه أبو قتادة ما كلمه، حتى ناشده قال : أتعلم أناشدك الله أتعلم أني أحب الله ورسوله؟ فلم يكلمه، بل قال : الله ورسوله أعلم، ونحن نعلم أن أبا قتادة ما أراد بهذا تكليم كعب بن مالك، بل قال الله ورسوله أعلم.
هؤلاء ضاقت عليهم الأرض بما رحبت، يأتي لهذا الرجل الشاب الجلد كتاب من ملك يذكره بأن صاحبه قلاه ويدعوه إلى أن يأتي إليه ليواسيه، ومواساة ملك معناه يبي يجعله ملكا مثله، أو بمنزلة الملك، أليست هذه فتنة؟ والله من أعظم الفتن، لكن امتحان، والذهب لا يظهر أنه ذهب إلا بعرضه على النار، بعد احتمائه بالنار.
ماذا صنع كعب بن مالك رضي الله عنه؟ أخذ الكتاب وذهب إلى التنور وهو يتقد بالنار فسجره، وضع الكتاب في النار، الله أكبر! شف أتلفه إتلافا لا يمكن أن يرجع إليه فيما بعد، لأنه خاف أن نفسه الأمارة بالسوء في يوم من الأيام تقول يلا هذا الكتاب رح، قطعه بالكلية.
إذن فيه فائدة هجرهم و لا لا؟ فيه فائدة عظيمة، فنحن لا نهجر العاصي إلا إذا استفدنا بالهجر، إذا كان هذا الرجل المجاهر بالمعصية أهجره أنا ويهجره الثاني والثالث والرابع وكل مؤمن، ينتفع بهذا الهجر ولا لا؟ ينتفع ينتفع بلا شك. الإنسان مدني بالطبع لا يمكن أن ينفرد عن الناس، لكن إذا هجرته أنا وذهب إلى واحد جنبي، أهلا بو فلان يلا حيو كيف أصبحت؟ تفضل اجلس هنا تغدى معنا اليوم تعشى معنا الليلة، هل يستفيد من هجري أنا ولا لا؟ أبدا ما يستفيد، بل ما يزداد إلا طغيانا وكراهة لي وعدم قبول لما أقول مهما كان.
وهذه المسائل ينبغي للإنسان أن يلاحظ المقاصد الشرعية. صحيح أن العلماء رحمهم الله قالوا : يسن أن يهجر من جهر بالمعصية، يسن.
الإنسان إذا أخذ هذه العبارة على ظاهرها يقول : أنا أهجره مطلقا، نفع ولا ما نفع، لكن إذا رأى مقاصد الشريعة، وأنه يوجد الفسق في كل زمان ومكان وأن هجر الفاسق قد يؤدي إلى طغيانه وزيادته في الفسوق ولا يستفيد الهاجر فإنه يجب أن يراعي ذلك.
وكم من أناس اهتدوا وهم فساق بلين الداعية وسلامه، يمر الفاسق برجلين كلاهما ذو دين وعلم، أحدهما يسلم عليه، والثاني يهجره، أيهما الذي يقبل منه؟ الي يسلم عليه بلا شك يبي يقبل، يقول هذا والله رجل طيب، هذا واسع الصدر، ثم يقبل ما جاء به، لكن ذاك والله هذا لو يعطيني كل شيء ما أقبل منه، ليش يهجرني؟ واضح ذلك.
إذن فائدة المعرفة بهذا الفصل مو مجرد عقيدة أن نعتقد أن هذا مؤمن كامل الإيمان وهذا مؤمن ناقص الإيمان، لكن عقيدة مع عمل وتطبيق، مع عمل وتطبيق، والعقائد ثمرتها العمل والتطبيق ... .
الطالب : عشر دقائق.
الشيخ : ... .
الطالب : ... يميل إلى الطرف الثالث يقول من الحكمة أدخل مع الطرف الثالث ويميع بعض الدين يجلس معه في بعض المعاصي.
الشيخ : أي.
الطالب : يتنازل معه في بعض الأمور... يقول لا ما قالوا حرام ويحاول يخفف الدين.
الشيخ : لا لا هذا ما هو طيب ذا، لأن اللين الذي يؤدي إلى عدم العمل بالشرع ما هو طيب، لكن اللين الذي يتوصل به إلى العمل بالشرع هذا طيب.
مثلا لو قال قال بعض العلماء إنها مكروهة مثلا قال بعض العلماء إنها مكروهة. أقول : نعم قال بعض العلماء إنها مكروه كما أباح بعض العلماء أشياء محرمة واضحة، ولكن ما المرجع يا أخي، أنت يوم القيامة تبي تسأل عما قال فلان ولا عما قال الرسول؟ أجيبوا بهذه الأشياء، والإنسان يميل بفطرته إلى الإسلام، أي إنسان معه أصل الإيمان إذا قلت قال الرسول كذا وأنت سـتسأل عما قال الرسول أعتقد أنه ما يتأخر.
مثل واحد قال : العلماء مختلفون في تحية المسجد، هل هي واجبة ولا غير واجبة؟ أقول: يا أخي دعهم، دع العلماء وخلافهم، هذا النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام يقول : إذا دخل أحدكم المسجد فلا يجلس حتى يصلي ركعتين وقوم الرجل وهو في الخطبة قال : قم صل ركعتين .
افرض أن الرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام الآن أمامك، وقد قال : إذا دخل أحدكم المسجد فلا يجلس حتى يصلي ركعتين وهو أمامك الآن. أنت بإيمانك به تستطيع إنك تجلس وقال هذا القول وهو أمامك؟ أبدا، ودع الخلاف الي يقول إنه حرام تجلس والي يقول إنه مكروه، خله على جنب، أنت يا أخي تعبد لله بما قاله الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم، إن كان واجبا فقد أبرأت ذمتك وأسقطت الواجب، وإن كان مستحبا فقد كنت من السابقين إلى الخيرات فمنهم ظالم لنفسه ومنهم مقتصد ومنهم سابق للخيرات أنت على خير يا أخي، ويش المجادلة، ليش يجادل هو واجب ولا مو بواجب.
صحيح ربما إنك تقول هو واجب ولا مو واجب عند الضرورات، يعني مثلا إذا ضاق الأمر فتقول : إذا كان واجب لا بد أن أفعله ولو حصل علي مشقة ولو تكلفت، إذا كان مستحب أقول الحمد لله على تيسيره وإذا قال عندي شيء من الضيق بتنفيذه فأجد نفسي في سعة.
أما مع السعة وعدم الضيق يا أخي افعل ما أمر الرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام، لا تقول هو واجب ولا مو بواجب.
تصور أن الرسول الآن أمامك عند الأوامر أو عند النواهي أيضا اترك النواهي وافعل الأوامر، وقل اللهم لك الحمد، وهذا من تحقيق متابعة الرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام، وثق بأنك إذا مشيت على هذه الخطة سوف تجد لذة الإيمان وتجد الراحة والطمأنينة وتنسى كل الدنيا، إذا مشيت على هذه الخطة.
أما إذا مشيت على طريق الجدل والمناظرة وهذا واجب، ويش الدليل؟ ويرد عليك كذا، ويجاب بكذا، فإنك ستضيع.
خلك خط مستقيم قال الرسول كذا نفذه، إن كان واجبا فقد أبرأت الذمة وإن كان مستحبا فقد سبقت بالخيرات بإذن الله، والله الموفق. It is part of the fitrah (the innate natural disposition) to let the beard grow, and whatever is in accordance with the fitrah cannot be abandoned. If we were to say that every good attribute that the People of the Book and the Zoroastrians adopt, we Muslims must oppose and abandon, then if they do not pray, we would not pray either, right? That is not correct. These are established principles. And regarding these polytheists—if we accept this for the sake of argument, though in reality the polytheists and Zoroastrians never let their beards grow; perhaps one percent of them might, but the majority? They shave their beards. Look at their elites, look at their common people, and look at what they call their intellectuals; you will find them all shaving their beards. The bottom line is that we say: the methodology of the people of the Sunnah and the community is the just, middle path that places things in their proper stations. So, if a person has faith and open sinfulness, or faith and disbelief, or righteousness and its opposite, it must be said that he is to be treated by the standard of the straight balance. Is that right or not? We love him for the faith he has, and we dislike him for the sins he has. We do not expel him from the religion because he has faith, nor do we excuse him from open sinfulness because he has sins. Is that clear? Based on this is an important issue: must the one who openly commits open sinfulness be boycotted? Yes? Let us see now. Is the one who openly commits open sinfulness a believer? He is a believer, but his faith is deficient. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "It is not permissible for a believer to boycott his brother for more than three days. They meet, and this one turns away and that one turns away, and the best of them is the one who begins with the greeting." Is that so? So, as long as this open sinner is a believer, it is not permissible for me to boycott him for more than three days. But if someone says to you: Did not the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) boycott Ka'b ibn Malik and his two companions? You will say: Yes. But I answer that regarding the boycotting of these three, there was a benefit. What benefit was there? Among the greatest benefits was that these men were tested with this great test, and they were patient and steadfast in their faith. So much so that Ka'b, who was the most steadfast of the three, received a letter from the King of Ghassan, which said: "It has reached us that your companion has rejected you and boycotted you, so come to us and we will comfort you." Look at the great trial. What would you say if such a matter happened to us? We would not be patient. A man is boycotted, no one speaks to him, not even his cousin Abu Qatadah spoke to him, until he appealed to him, saying: "Do you know? I appeal to you by Allah, do you know that I love Allah and His Messenger?" But he did not speak to him. Rather, he said: "Allah and His Messenger know best." And we know that Abu Qatadah did not intend by this to speak to Ka'b ibn Malik, but rather said: "Allah and His Messenger know best." The earth became narrow for them despite its vastness. A letter came to this young, steadfast man from a King, reminding him that his companion had rejected him and inviting him to come to him to be comforted. The comfort of a King means he would make him a king like him, or in the position of a king. Is this not a trial? By Allah, it is one of the greatest trials. But it is a test, and gold does not appear to be gold except when it is put through the fire, after it has been protected by the fire. What did Ka'b ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) do? He took the letter and went to the oven which was burning, and he fanned it, and put the letter in the fire. Allahu Akbar! Look, he destroyed it completely so that it could not be recovered later, because he feared that his soul, which commands evil, might one day say: "Let's go, this letter is gone," and he cut it off completely. So, is there a benefit in boycotting them or not? There is a great benefit. So, we do not boycott the sinner except if we benefit from the boycotting. If this man who openly commits sin is boycotted by me, and by the second, and the third, and the fourth, and every believer, does he benefit from this boycotting or not? He benefits, he benefits without a doubt. Man is by nature a social being; he cannot be isolated from people. But if I boycott him and he goes to someone next to me, and that person says: "Welcome, so-and-so, come in, how are you? Please, sit here, have lunch with us today, have dinner with us tonight," does he benefit from my boycotting or not? Absolutely not. Rather, he only increases in tyranny and hatred toward me, and rejection of what I say, no matter what it is. And in these matters, a person should observe the objectives of the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law). It is true that the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) said: It is recommended (sunnah) to boycott the one who openly commits sin. It is recommended. If a person takes this phrase at its face value, he says: "I boycott him absolutely, whether it benefits or not." But if he sees the objectives of the Shari'ah, and that open sinfulness exists in every time and place, and that boycotting the open sinner may lead to his tyranny and increase in sinfulness, and the boycotter does not benefit, then he must take that into account. How many people have been guided while they were open sinners, through the gentleness of the caller and his greeting. An open sinner passes by two men, both of whom have religion and knowledge. One of them greets him, and the other boycotts him. Which one will he accept from? The one who greets him, without a doubt. He will accept, saying: "By Allah, this is a good man, this is a man of broad chest." Then he accepts what he brought. But as for that other one, "By Allah, if he gave me everything, I would not accept from him. Why does he boycott me?" Is that clear? So, the benefit of knowing this chapter is not just a belief that we believe this one is a believer with complete faith and this one is a believer with deficient faith, but it is a belief with action and application, with action and application, and the fruit of beliefs is action and application... The student: Ten minutes. The Shaykh: ... The student: ... He leans toward the third party, saying: "It is wisdom to join the third party and blur some of the religion, sitting with them in some sins." The Shaykh: Yes. The student: He compromises with them in some matters... saying: "No, they did not say it is forbidden," and he tries to lighten the religion. The Shaykh: No, no, that is not good, because the gentleness that leads to not acting according to the Shari'ah is not good, but the gentleness by which one reaches acting according to the Shari'ah is good. For example, if some scholars said that it is disliked (makruh), for example, some scholars said it is disliked. I say: Yes, some scholars said it is disliked, just as some scholars permitted things that are clearly forbidden. But what is the reference, my brother? On the Day of Resurrection, do you want to be asked about what so-and-so said, or about what the Messenger said? Answer with these things. And a person leans by his fitrah toward Islam. Any person who has the foundation of faith, if you say: "The Messenger said so-and-so, and you will be asked about what the Messenger said," I believe he will not delay. Like one who said: "The scholars differ on the greeting of the mosque. Is it obligatory or not?" I say: "My brother, leave them, leave the scholars and their disagreement. This is the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) saying: 'When one of you enters the mosque, let him not sit until he prays two rak'ahs.' And the man stood up while he was in the sermon and said: 'Stand up and pray two rak'ahs.' Suppose the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is now in front of you, and he has said: 'When one of you enters the mosque, let him not sit until he prays two rak'ahs,' and he is in front of you now. With your faith in him, can you sit and say he said that while he is in front of you? Absolutely not. And leave the disagreement of the one who says it is forbidden to sit and the one who says it is disliked. Leave it aside. You, my brother, worship Allah by what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said. If it is obligatory, you have cleared your conscience and fulfilled the obligation. If it is recommended, you are among those who hasten to good deeds. Some are wrongdoers to themselves, some are moderate, and some are hastening to good deeds. You are on the right path, my brother. What is the argument? Why argue whether it is obligatory or not? It is true that you might say it is obligatory or not in cases of dire necessity (darurah). For example, if the matter becomes tight, you say: "If it is obligatory, I must do it even if it brings me hardship and I have to make an effort. If it is recommended, I say: Praise be to Allah for making it easy. And if I have some tightness in implementing it, I find myself in ease." But with ease and no tightness, my brother, do what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded. Do not say it is obligatory or not. Imagine the Messenger is now in front of you regarding the commands or the prohibitions. Also, leave the prohibitions and do the commands, and say: "O Allah, to You is praise." And this is part of implementing following the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). And be assured that if you walk on this path, you will find the sweetness of faith, and you will find comfort and tranquility, and you will forget all the world. If you walk on this path. But if you walk on the path of argument and debate, "Is this obligatory? What is the evidence? And he responds to you with this, and it is answered with that," then you will be lost. Keep your path straight: the Messenger said so-and-so, implement it. If it is obligatory, you have cleared your conscience. If it is recommended, you have hastened to good deeds, by the permission of Allah. And success is from Allah.
and the thief is not a believer while he is stealing
ولا يسرق السارق حين يسرق وهو مؤمنThis is the desire for wealth. The first is the desire for the private parts, and this is the desire for wealth.
and the thief is not a believer while he is stealing
لا يسرق السارق حين يسرق وهو مؤمنHe said: "
and no drunkard who drinks wine is a believer as long as he drinks it
ولا يشرب الخمر حين يشربها وهو مؤمنHe said: "
when one takes plunder on account of which men raise their eyes at him he is not a believer
ولا ينتهب نهبة ذات شرف يرفع الناس إليها فيها أبصارهم حين ينتهبها وهو مؤمن"Of honor" means having value in the eyes of people. For this reason, people raise their eyes to it. He does not seize it while he is a believer when he seizes it, right or not? For example, if a man finds a pen in another man's chest that is worth one hundred riyals and comes to snatch it, he does not seize it while he is a believer when he seizes it, because the pen is of honor and people raise their eyes to it. But if a man has a date in his lap and is eating from it, and another man comes next to him and takes one, what is this? Does his faith drop when he takes the date? No, why? It is not of honor, and people do not raise their eyes to it at all, because they do not care about such things.
These are four things: unlawful sexual intercourse, theft, drinking wine, and seizing a plunder that has honor, value, and weight in the eyes of people. No one does them while he believes in Allah and the Last Day when he does them, when he does them. So what is meant by the negation here? Is it the negation of faith entirely, or the negation of the completeness of faith? The latter. So this man did not deem unlawful sexual intercourse permissible; if he had deemed it permissible, he would have committed disbelief. But he did it for a desire that drove him to it, may Allah protect us, and he forgot the admonisher in his heart, he forgot the tranquil soul that commands him to do good.
We say that the completeness of faith is negated from him, not the essence of faith.
He said: " And we say ": We say, to whom does the pronoun refer? We are the people of the Sunnah, because the man says at the beginning: "And from the principles of the people of the Sunnah." That is, we, the people of the Sunnah, say: " He is a believer whose faith is deficient, or a believer in his faith but an open sinner by his major sin. He is not given the absolute name, nor is the absolute name stripped from him ".
"Stripped" means it is negated from him. So here we must know the difference between the absolute of a thing and the absolute thing.
The absolute thing is the complete thing, and the absolute of a thing means: the essence of the thing, even if it is deficient.
So the open sinner is not given the absolute name in faith, which is the complete name. So we say, by Allah, this is a believer; we do not give him this, and we do not strip him of the absolute name. We do not say: He is not a believer. Rather, we say: He is a believer whose faith is deficient, or a believer in his faith but an open sinner by his major sin.
This is the doctrine of the people of the Sunnah and the community. For this reason, even among people now, if you tell a man known for open sinfulness and debauchery, "By Allah, this is a believer," look, this man is a believer, what do people say? They take offense at you, right? Yes, they take offense at you. They say, "I seek refuge in Allah, how much he drinks wine, commits unlawful sexual intercourse, and steals. Yes, you say this is a believer?" But if you said, "By Allah, this man's faith is deficient; if he had complete faith, he would not have done this thing," do they take offense at you or not? They do not take offense.
So we do not give the open sinner the absolute name. And although he does not deserve the absolute name, there is also a great error in this from the social and educational aspect, because all the common people, if you say about an open sinner that he is a believer, do they consider this praise for him or a defect in him? Ah? They consider it praise for him, or praise of him. And in that case, you are praising one who does not deserve praise in their view, or you are praising an open sinner whom you fear that by your praising him, people will take lightly what he was doing? What? The sinfulness. He says: "By Allah, I heard so-and-so say that so-and-so is a believer," and you are now claiming against him, saying he is an open sinner and has what he has. Such things. The entire discussion on faith is not intended for us to understand the scholars' opinions on it, but rather that its effects follow from it? Its effects, its effects.
If we know that he is a believer whose faith is deficient, then our love for him is not complete love, why? Because of the open sinfulness with him. And if we hate him, our hatred for him is not complete hatred because of the faith with him, because of the faith with him.
And in all things, you find people are at two extremes and a middle. You find some people saying, "How do you say this man is an open sinner? How do you hate him? He is a believer who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." Until some people say, "How do you declare a disbeliever one who does not pray? How do you declare a disbeliever one who does not pray, even though Allah and His Messenger have declared him a disbeliever?" And they say: "How do you declare a disbeliever one who does not pray?" And some people, if they see a man shaving his beard and not leaving its roots, say, "This is a disbeliever, this is a disbeliever. Do not greet him, do not respond to his invitation, do not follow his funeral, and do not visit him in his sickness, because he is openly committing sin."
Rather, he says: "Is not the Sunnah, the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), to leave the beard?" So you say? Yes. Did not the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) say:
And he who turns away from my Sunnah, he has no relation with Me
من رغب عن سنتي فليس منيIs not the principle of disavowal from others to be on a path different from theirs? You say: Yes. Is he confirming this for you? He waits for you to say, "One who shaves the beard is a disbeliever." This is problematic. And some people say, "Shaving the beard in our present age is better than leaving it." Yes, we have heard people say this. Why? They say, "The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was commanded to let the beard grow to differ from the polytheists, and now the polytheists and the Zoroastrians let their beards grow, so our differing from them, ah? is to shave it. That is the Sunnah." All right, and what do you say about this? These are great confusions. This one says he is a disbeliever, and this one says: "It is the perfection of his faith to shave it, because this is differing from the polytheists." What is the answer? Yes.
The student: ... He is a believer whose faith is deficient.
The Shaykh : Ah? We say he is a believer whose faith is deficient, so we do not agree with those who declared him a disbeliever, and we do not agree with those who said he has complete faith, right?
But the difference between him and the Murji'ah, as the brother Rami said, is that the Murji'ah say that he is a believer with complete faith and do not say that it is a sin.
As for this one, he does not say that it is a sin; he says that it is obedience and a Sunnah, because we are commanded to differ from them.
The answer to this, my brothers, is very simple, that we say:
First: The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade it to differ from the Zoroastrians. And what is forbidden to differ from the Zoroastrians does not mean that if the Zoroastrians agree with us in it, we return and differ from them, because if we did that, we would be a plaything in their hands, with something new for us every day.
The second thing: If they agree with the fitrah, this does not necessitate that we leave the fitrah. And the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) made letting the beard grow part of the fitrah, as in the hadith narrated by Muslim in his Sahih: أن من الفطرة إعفاء اللحية، وما كان موافقا للفطرة فلا يمكن الخروج عنه لكون أهل الكتاب والمجوس يأخذون به وإلا لكنا نقول كل صفة حسنة يأخذونها منا نحن المسلمين يجب علينا أن نخالفهم فيها وندعها، لكن بعد لو يصلون لا نصلي حنا نعم؟ هذا ما هو صحيح، فهذه أصول ثابتة، وكون هؤلاء المشركين إن صح مع أننا نقول هذا تسليما جدليا، وإلا فإن الواقع أن المشركين والمجوس لا يطلقون لحاهم أبدا، يمكن يطلقها واحد بالمائة منهم ممكن، لكن عامتهم ايش؟ يحلقون لحاهم.
انظر الآن إلى كبرائهم وانظر إلى عوامهم وانظر إلى ما يسمون بالمثقفين عندهم تجدوهم كلهم حالقي اللحى.
الحاصل أنا نقول : إن مذهب أهل السنة والجماعة هو المذهب العدل الوسط الذي ينزل الأمور في منازلها، فمن كان فيه إيمان وفسق، وإيمان وكفر، وعدالة وضدها يجب أن يقال، أن يعامل بالمعيار بالقسطاس المستقيم، صح وإلا لا؟ نحبه لما معه من إيمان، نكرهه لما معه من المعاصي، لا نخرجه من الدين، لأن معه الإيمان، ولا نعفيه من الفسق، لأن معه المعاصي، واضح؟
ينبني على ذلك مسألة مهمة : هل المجاهر بالفسق يجب أن يهجر؟ نعم؟ نشوف الآن، المجاهر بالفسق مؤمن ؟ مؤمن لكن ناقص الإيمان، والنبي عليه الصلاة والسلام قال : لا يحل للمؤمن أن يهجره أخاه فوق ثلاثة يلتقيان فيعرض هذا ويعرض هذا وخيرهما الذي يبدأ بالسلام كذا؟
إذن ما دام هذا الفاسق مؤمنا لا يحل لي أن أهجره فوق ثلاثة أيام.
لكن إذا قال لك قائل : أليس النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قد هجر كعب بن مالك وصاحبيه، فستقول : بلى، لكن أجيب عن ذلك بأن هجر هؤلاء الثلاثة فيه مصلحة، وأي مصلحة فيه؟ من أعظم ما كان فيه من المصلحة حيث إن هؤلاء امتحنوا هذا الامتحان العظيم وصبروا وثبتوا على إيمانهم، حتى إن كعبا وهو أجلد الثلاثة أتاه كتاب من ملك غسان، وقال: " إنه بلغنا أن صاحبك قد قلاك وهجرك فالحق بنا نواسك "، شوف الفتنة العظيمة. ما تقولون لو نزل بنا مثل هذا الأمر ؟ ما نصبر، رجل مهجور لا يكلَّم، ولا حتى ابن عمه أبو قتادة ما كلمه، حتى ناشده قال : أتعلم أناشدك الله أتعلم أني أحب الله ورسوله؟ فلم يكلمه، بل قال : الله ورسوله أعلم، ونحن نعلم أن أبا قتادة ما أراد بهذا تكليم كعب بن مالك، بل قال الله ورسوله أعلم.
هؤلاء ضاقت عليهم الأرض بما رحبت، يأتي لهذا الرجل الشاب الجلد كتاب من ملك يذكره بأن صاحبه قلاه ويدعوه إلى أن يأتي إليه ليواسيه، ومواساة ملك معناه يبي يجعله ملكا مثله، أو بمنزلة الملك، أليست هذه فتنة؟ والله من أعظم الفتن، لكن امتحان، والذهب لا يظهر أنه ذهب إلا بعرضه على النار، بعد احتمائه بالنار.
ماذا صنع كعب بن مالك رضي الله عنه؟ أخذ الكتاب وذهب إلى التنور وهو يتقد بالنار فسجره، وضع الكتاب في النار، الله أكبر! شف أتلفه إتلافا لا يمكن أن يرجع إليه فيما بعد، لأنه خاف أن نفسه الأمارة بالسوء في يوم من الأيام تقول يلا هذا الكتاب رح، قطعه بالكلية.
إذن فيه فائدة هجرهم و لا لا؟ فيه فائدة عظيمة، فنحن لا نهجر العاصي إلا إذا استفدنا بالهجر، إذا كان هذا الرجل المجاهر بالمعصية أهجره أنا ويهجره الثاني والثالث والرابع وكل مؤمن، ينتفع بهذا الهجر ولا لا؟ ينتفع ينتفع بلا شك. الإنسان مدني بالطبع لا يمكن أن ينفرد عن الناس، لكن إذا هجرته أنا وذهب إلى واحد جنبي، أهلا بو فلان يلا حيو كيف أصبحت؟ تفضل اجلس هنا تغدى معنا اليوم تعشى معنا الليلة، هل يستفيد من هجري أنا ولا لا؟ أبدا ما يستفيد، بل ما يزداد إلا طغيانا وكراهة لي وعدم قبول لما أقول مهما كان.
وهذه المسائل ينبغي للإنسان أن يلاحظ المقاصد الشرعية. صحيح أن العلماء رحمهم الله قالوا : يسن أن يهجر من جهر بالمعصية، يسن.
الإنسان إذا أخذ هذه العبارة على ظاهرها يقول : أنا أهجره مطلقا، نفع ولا ما نفع، لكن إذا رأى مقاصد الشريعة، وأنه يوجد الفسق في كل زمان ومكان وأن هجر الفاسق قد يؤدي إلى طغيانه وزيادته في الفسوق ولا يستفيد الهاجر فإنه يجب أن يراعي ذلك.
وكم من أناس اهتدوا وهم فساق بلين الداعية وسلامه، يمر الفاسق برجلين كلاهما ذو دين وعلم، أحدهما يسلم عليه، والثاني يهجره، أيهما الذي يقبل منه؟ الي يسلم عليه بلا شك يبي يقبل، يقول هذا والله رجل طيب، هذا واسع الصدر، ثم يقبل ما جاء به، لكن ذاك والله هذا لو يعطيني كل شيء ما أقبل منه، ليش يهجرني؟ واضح ذلك.
إذن فائدة المعرفة بهذا الفصل مو مجرد عقيدة أن نعتقد أن هذا مؤمن كامل الإيمان وهذا مؤمن ناقص الإيمان، لكن عقيدة مع عمل وتطبيق، مع عمل وتطبيق، والعقائد ثمرتها العمل والتطبيق ... .
الطالب : عشر دقائق.
الشيخ : ... .
الطالب : ... يميل إلى الطرف الثالث يقول من الحكمة أدخل مع الطرف الثالث ويميع بعض الدين يجلس معه في بعض المعاصي.
الشيخ : أي.
الطالب : يتنازل معه في بعض الأمور... يقول لا ما قالوا حرام ويحاول يخفف الدين.
الشيخ : لا لا هذا ما هو طيب ذا، لأن اللين الذي يؤدي إلى عدم العمل بالشرع ما هو طيب، لكن اللين الذي يتوصل به إلى العمل بالشرع هذا طيب.
مثلا لو قال قال بعض العلماء إنها مكروهة مثلا قال بعض العلماء إنها مكروهة. أقول : نعم قال بعض العلماء إنها مكروه كما أباح بعض العلماء أشياء محرمة واضحة، ولكن ما المرجع يا أخي، أنت يوم القيامة تبي تسأل عما قال فلان ولا عما قال الرسول؟ أجيبوا بهذه الأشياء، والإنسان يميل بفطرته إلى الإسلام، أي إنسان معه أصل الإيمان إذا قلت قال الرسول كذا وأنت سـتسأل عما قال الرسول أعتقد أنه ما يتأخر.
مثل واحد قال : العلماء مختلفون في تحية المسجد، هل هي واجبة ولا غير واجبة؟ أقول: يا أخي دعهم، دع العلماء وخلافهم، هذا النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام يقول : إذا دخل أحدكم المسجد فلا يجلس حتى يصلي ركعتين وقوم الرجل وهو في الخطبة قال : قم صل ركعتين .
افرض أن الرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام الآن أمامك، وقد قال : إذا دخل أحدكم المسجد فلا يجلس حتى يصلي ركعتين وهو أمامك الآن. أنت بإيمانك به تستطيع إنك تجلس وقال هذا القول وهو أمامك؟ أبدا، ودع الخلاف الي يقول إنه حرام تجلس والي يقول إنه مكروه، خله على جنب، أنت يا أخي تعبد لله بما قاله الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم، إن كان واجبا فقد أبرأت ذمتك وأسقطت الواجب، وإن كان مستحبا فقد كنت من السابقين إلى الخيرات فمنهم ظالم لنفسه ومنهم مقتصد ومنهم سابق للخيرات أنت على خير يا أخي، ويش المجادلة، ليش يجادل هو واجب ولا مو بواجب.
صحيح ربما إنك تقول هو واجب ولا مو واجب عند الضرورات، يعني مثلا إذا ضاق الأمر فتقول : إذا كان واجب لا بد أن أفعله ولو حصل علي مشقة ولو تكلفت، إذا كان مستحب أقول الحمد لله على تيسيره وإذا قال عندي شيء من الضيق بتنفيذه فأجد نفسي في سعة.
أما مع السعة وعدم الضيق يا أخي افعل ما أمر الرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام، لا تقول هو واجب ولا مو بواجب.
تصور أن الرسول الآن أمامك عند الأوامر أو عند النواهي أيضا اترك النواهي وافعل الأوامر، وقل اللهم لك الحمد، وهذا من تحقيق متابعة الرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام، وثق بأنك إذا مشيت على هذه الخطة سوف تجد لذة الإيمان وتجد الراحة والطمأنينة وتنسى كل الدنيا، إذا مشيت على هذه الخطة.
أما إذا مشيت على طريق الجدل والمناظرة وهذا واجب، ويش الدليل؟ ويرد عليك كذا، ويجاب بكذا، فإنك ستضيع.
خلك خط مستقيم قال الرسول كذا نفذه، إن كان واجبا فقد أبرأت الذمة وإن كان مستحبا فقد سبقت بالخيرات بإذن الله، والله الموفق. It is part of the fitrah (the innate natural disposition) to let the beard grow, and whatever is in accordance with the fitrah cannot be abandoned. If we were to say that every good attribute that the People of the Book and the Zoroastrians adopt, we Muslims must oppose and abandon, then if they do not pray, we would not pray either, right? That is not correct. These are established principles. And regarding these polytheists—if we accept this for the sake of argument, though in reality the polytheists and Zoroastrians never let their beards grow; perhaps one percent of them might, but the majority? They shave their beards. Look at their elites, look at their common people, and look at what they call their intellectuals; you will find them all shaving their beards. The bottom line is that we say: the methodology of the people of the Sunnah and the community is the just, middle path that places things in their proper stations. So, if a person has faith and open sinfulness, or faith and disbelief, or righteousness and its opposite, it must be said that he is to be treated by the standard of the straight balance. Is that right or not? We love him for the faith he has, and we dislike him for the sins he has. We do not expel him from the religion because he has faith, nor do we excuse him from open sinfulness because he has sins. Is that clear? Based on this is an important issue: must the one who openly commits open sinfulness be boycotted? Yes? Let us see now. Is the one who openly commits open sinfulness a believer? He is a believer, but his faith is deficient. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "It is not permissible for a believer to boycott his brother for more than three days. They meet, and this one turns away and that one turns away, and the best of them is the one who begins with the greeting." Is that so? So, as long as this open sinner is a believer, it is not permissible for me to boycott him for more than three days. But if someone says to you: Did not the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) boycott Ka'b ibn Malik and his two companions? You will say: Yes. But I answer that regarding the boycotting of these three, there was a benefit. What benefit was there? Among the greatest benefits was that these men were tested with this great test, and they were patient and steadfast in their faith. So much so that Ka'b, who was the most steadfast of the three, received a letter from the King of Ghassan, which said: "It has reached us that your companion has rejected you and boycotted you, so come to us and we will comfort you." Look at the great trial. What would you say if such a matter happened to us? We would not be patient. A man is boycotted, no one speaks to him, not even his cousin Abu Qatadah spoke to him, until he appealed to him, saying: "Do you know? I appeal to you by Allah, do you know that I love Allah and His Messenger?" But he did not speak to him. Rather, he said: "Allah and His Messenger know best." And we know that Abu Qatadah did not intend by this to speak to Ka'b ibn Malik, but rather said: "Allah and His Messenger know best." The earth became narrow for them despite its vastness. A letter came to this young, steadfast man from a King, reminding him that his companion had rejected him and inviting him to come to him to be comforted. The comfort of a King means he would make him a king like him, or in the position of a king. Is this not a trial? By Allah, it is one of the greatest trials. But it is a test, and gold does not appear to be gold except when it is put through the fire, after it has been protected by the fire. What did Ka'b ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) do? He took the letter and went to the oven which was burning, and he fanned it, and put the letter in the fire. Allahu Akbar! Look, he destroyed it completely so that it could not be recovered later, because he feared that his soul, which commands evil, might one day say: "Let's go, this letter is gone," and he cut it off completely. So, is there a benefit in boycotting them or not? There is a great benefit. So, we do not boycott the sinner except if we benefit from the boycotting. If this man who openly commits sin is boycotted by me, and by the second, and the third, and the fourth, and every believer, does he benefit from this boycotting or not? He benefits, he benefits without a doubt. Man is by nature a social being; he cannot be isolated from people. But if I boycott him and he goes to someone next to me, and that person says: "Welcome, so-and-so, come in, how are you? Please, sit here, have lunch with us today, have dinner with us tonight," does he benefit from my boycotting or not? Absolutely not. Rather, he only increases in tyranny and hatred toward me, and rejection of what I say, no matter what it is. And in these matters, a person should observe the objectives of the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law). It is true that the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) said: It is recommended (sunnah) to boycott the one who openly commits sin. It is recommended. If a person takes this phrase at its face value, he says: "I boycott him absolutely, whether it benefits or not." But if he sees the objectives of the Shari'ah, and that open sinfulness exists in every time and place, and that boycotting the open sinner may lead to his tyranny and increase in sinfulness, and the boycotter does not benefit, then he must take that into account. How many people have been guided while they were open sinners, through the gentleness of the caller and his greeting. An open sinner passes by two men, both of whom have religion and knowledge. One of them greets him, and the other boycotts him. Which one will he accept from? The one who greets him, without a doubt. He will accept, saying: "By Allah, this is a good man, this is a man of broad chest." Then he accepts what he brought. But as for that other one, "By Allah, if he gave me everything, I would not accept from him. Why does he boycott me?" Is that clear? So, the benefit of knowing this chapter is not just a belief that we believe this one is a believer with complete faith and this one is a believer with deficient faith, but it is a belief with action and application, with action and application, and the fruit of beliefs is action and application... The student: Ten minutes. The Shaykh: ... The student: ... He leans toward the third party, saying: "It is wisdom to join the third party and blur some of the religion, sitting with them in some sins." The Shaykh: Yes. The student: He compromises with them in some matters... saying: "No, they did not say it is forbidden," and he tries to lighten the religion. The Shaykh: No, no, that is not good, because the gentleness that leads to not acting according to the Shari'ah is not good, but the gentleness by which one reaches acting according to the Shari'ah is good. For example, if some scholars said that it is disliked (makruh), for example, some scholars said it is disliked. I say: Yes, some scholars said it is disliked, just as some scholars permitted things that are clearly forbidden. But what is the reference, my brother? On the Day of Resurrection, do you want to be asked about what so-and-so said, or about what the Messenger said? Answer with these things. And a person leans by his fitrah toward Islam. Any person who has the foundation of faith, if you say: "The Messenger said so-and-so, and you will be asked about what the Messenger said," I believe he will not delay. Like one who said: "The scholars differ on the greeting of the mosque. Is it obligatory or not?" I say: "My brother, leave them, leave the scholars and their disagreement. This is the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) saying: 'When one of you enters the mosque, let him not sit until he prays two rak'ahs.' And the man stood up while he was in the sermon and said: 'Stand up and pray two rak'ahs.' Suppose the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is now in front of you, and he has said: 'When one of you enters the mosque, let him not sit until he prays two rak'ahs,' and he is in front of you now. With your faith in him, can you sit and say he said that while he is in front of you? Absolutely not. And leave the disagreement of the one who says it is forbidden to sit and the one who says it is disliked. Leave it aside. You, my brother, worship Allah by what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said. If it is obligatory, you have cleared your conscience and fulfilled the obligation. If it is recommended, you are among those who hasten to good deeds. Some are wrongdoers to themselves, some are moderate, and some are hastening to good deeds. You are on the right path, my brother. What is the argument? Why argue whether it is obligatory or not? It is true that you might say it is obligatory or not in cases of dire necessity (darurah). For example, if the matter becomes tight, you say: "If it is obligatory, I must do it even if it brings me hardship and I have to make an effort. If it is recommended, I say: Praise be to Allah for making it easy. And if I have some tightness in implementing it, I find myself in ease." But with ease and no tightness, my brother, do what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded. Do not say it is obligatory or not. Imagine the Messenger is now in front of you regarding the commands or the prohibitions. Also, leave the prohibitions and do the commands, and say: "O Allah, to You is praise." And this is part of implementing following the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). And be assured that if you walk on this path, you will find the sweetness of faith, and you will find comfort and tranquility, and you will forget all the world. If you walk on this path. But if you walk on the path of argument and debate, "Is this obligatory? What is the evidence? And he responds to you with this, and it is answered with that," then you will be lost. Keep your path straight: the Messenger said so-and-so, implement it. If it is obligatory, you have cleared your conscience. If it is recommended, you have hastened to good deeds, by the permission of Allah. And success is from Allah.