And whoever denies the prohibition of zina or any of the apparent prohibitions upon which there is consensus, out of ignorance, if he is one who knows that, and if one like him would not be ignorant of it, he is a disbeliever.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author moved on to another type of causes of apostasy, which is denial. Which of the four previous matters does this fall under? It falls under belief, because denial, whether it is in the heart, it is in belief; if it is with the tongue, it is from speech.
He says, "Whoever denies the prohibition of zina" by saying that zina is lawful, may Allah protect us from that. If he denies it, we look at the situation: if he is ignorant, he does not become a disbeliever; but if he is knowledgeable, he becomes a disbeliever. However, by what standard do we determine whether he is knowledgeable or not? If he grew up among Muslims, this implies that he is knowledgeable, and even if he claims ignorance, it is not accepted. But if he recently converted to Islam or grew up in a remote desert area, because the desert and the Bedouins are far from knowing the limits of what Allah revealed to His Messenger, then he does not become a disbeliever if he claims that he is ignorant and says, "Allah, we did not know. We have been, since we were young, and one would graze the sheep with his cousin's daughter, yes, and enjoy her, and I considered that there was nothing wrong with it and we saw it as lawful. Could this be the case, or is it not possible? Right? In the remote desert, it is possible. The remote desert, it is possible." So if he denies its prohibition and says he is ignorant, he does not become a disbeliever. But if he is taught and then persists, saying, "By Allah, we are not going to leave our custom, even if you say it is forbidden. You city dwellers do not know, yes, we are more knowledgeable than you, and this is lawful in our school of thought, yes, but we do not accept the school of thought of the city dwellers," then what is the ruling? Right? He becomes a disbeliever. Why? Because he persisted after being informed. Now, if he denies the prohibition of one of the apparent prohibitions on which there is consensus, such as the prohibition of riba, and says that riba is lawful, meaning he did not deny the prohibition of a specific type of it where there is disagreement among scholars—for example, an apple for two apples is riba according to al-Shafi'i and is not riba according to Imam Ahmad—then if the followers of Imam Ahmad say that an apple for two apples is lawful, do they become disbelievers? No. But the author's intention is if he denies the prohibition of riba in general and says that riba is lawful, then he is a disbeliever without doubt. Why? Because the prohibition of riba is explicit in the Qur'an[Al-Baqarah 2:275], so denying its prohibition is what? It is a lie against Allah the Mighty and Majestic, so he becomes a disbeliever. Is the prohibition of riba in general a matter of disagreement or consensus?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is consensus. In general, it is a definitive consensus. All Muslims agree that riba is forbidden. Okay, is alcohol a matter of consensus?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, the prohibition of khamr is a matter of definitive consensus among Muslims. So if someone says that khamr is not forbidden, right? He is a disbeliever, but on the condition that he grew up among Muslims and knows the rulings of Islam. But if it is assumed that he recently converted to Islam and did not know, and in his state of disbelief he used to drink khamr, and we found him drinking khamr after his Islam, and we ask, "How do you drink khamr?" ... "Khamr is lawful, it is not forbidden," then he does not become a disbeliever. Why? Because he is ignorant, and if he denies the prohibition while being ignorant of it, he does not become a disbeliever. For this reason, the author qualified it. Now, the author said, "the apparent prohibitions", to be careful of what? Of the hidden prohibitions whose prohibition is known only to scholars, for in that case, the one who denies their prohibition does not become a disbeliever, because most people are ignorant of them. Now, the scholars also said, or if he denies the permissibility of the apparent permissibles on which there is consensus, right? Then he becomes a disbeliever, for example, right?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Eggs?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, if he denies the permissibility of eggs, chicken eggs as well, and says that chicken eggs are forbidden, yes, why? Because they are not elongated, and the lawful eggs are the first chicken eggs that are elongated, but these are round, so they are forbidden. We tell him, is this by figurative interpretation or without figurative interpretation?
The questioner : By figurative interpretation.
The Shaykh : It is by figurative interpretation, but we do not know if it is acceptable or not. We will see after the adhan, if Allah wills.
He denied the permissibility of something from the apparent permissibles upon which there is consensus. The scholars said that he is a disbeliever because he denied a ruling from the rulings of Islam in a way that does not allow for figurative interpretation. I mentioned an example of that, such as if he denies the prohibition of eggs. Okay, if he denies the permissibility of eggs from poultry on the grounds that they are round and that the previous eggs were elongated. The permissibility was intentional. If he denies its permissibility, we say this figurative interpretation is not acceptable. But perhaps if he is a pure commoner, this might be a doubt in his mind, so we teach him that this reasoning has no effect and that eggs, whether elongated or round, are lawful in all cases. Yes?
The questioner : We seek His help and we seek His forgiveness and we repent to Him, and we seek refuge in Allah from the evils of our souls and the badness of our deeds. Whoever Allah guides has no misleader, and whoever He misleads has no guider. And I bear witness that there is no god but Allah alone, with no partner, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and His Messenger. May Allah send prayers and blessings upon him and his family and his companions and those who follow them with excellence until the Day of Judgment, and may He send abundant peace.
He says, "Whoever denies the prohibition of zina" by saying that zina is lawful, may Allah protect us from that. If he denies it, we look at the situation: if he is ignorant, he does not become a disbeliever; but if he is knowledgeable, he becomes a disbeliever. However, by what standard do we determine whether he is knowledgeable or not? If he grew up among Muslims, this implies that he is knowledgeable, and even if he claims ignorance, it is not accepted. But if he recently converted to Islam or grew up in a remote desert area, because the desert and the Bedouins are far from knowing the limits of what Allah revealed to His Messenger, then he does not become a disbeliever if he claims that he is ignorant and says, "Allah, we did not know. We have been, since we were young, and one would graze the sheep with his cousin's daughter, yes, and enjoy her, and I considered that there was nothing wrong with it and we saw it as lawful. Could this be the case, or is it not possible? Right? In the remote desert, it is possible. The remote desert, it is possible." So if he denies its prohibition and says he is ignorant, he does not become a disbeliever. But if he is taught and then persists, saying, "By Allah, we are not going to leave our custom, even if you say it is forbidden. You city dwellers do not know, yes, we are more knowledgeable than you, and this is lawful in our school of thought, yes, but we do not accept the school of thought of the city dwellers," then what is the ruling? Right? He becomes a disbeliever. Why? Because he persisted after being informed. Now, if he denies the prohibition of one of the apparent prohibitions on which there is consensus, such as the prohibition of riba, and says that riba is lawful, meaning he did not deny the prohibition of a specific type of it where there is disagreement among scholars—for example, an apple for two apples is riba according to al-Shafi'i and is not riba according to Imam Ahmad—then if the followers of Imam Ahmad say that an apple for two apples is lawful, do they become disbelievers? No. But the author's intention is if he denies the prohibition of riba in general and says that riba is lawful, then he is a disbeliever without doubt. Why? Because the prohibition of riba is explicit in the Qur'an
But Allah has permitted trade and has forbidden interest
وأحل الله البيع وحرم الرباThe questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is consensus. In general, it is a definitive consensus. All Muslims agree that riba is forbidden. Okay, is alcohol a matter of consensus?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, the prohibition of khamr is a matter of definitive consensus among Muslims. So if someone says that khamr is not forbidden, right? He is a disbeliever, but on the condition that he grew up among Muslims and knows the rulings of Islam. But if it is assumed that he recently converted to Islam and did not know, and in his state of disbelief he used to drink khamr, and we found him drinking khamr after his Islam, and we ask, "How do you drink khamr?" ... "Khamr is lawful, it is not forbidden," then he does not become a disbeliever. Why? Because he is ignorant, and if he denies the prohibition while being ignorant of it, he does not become a disbeliever. For this reason, the author qualified it. Now, the author said, "the apparent prohibitions", to be careful of what? Of the hidden prohibitions whose prohibition is known only to scholars, for in that case, the one who denies their prohibition does not become a disbeliever, because most people are ignorant of them. Now, the scholars also said, or if he denies the permissibility of the apparent permissibles on which there is consensus, right? Then he becomes a disbeliever, for example, right?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Eggs?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, if he denies the permissibility of eggs, chicken eggs as well, and says that chicken eggs are forbidden, yes, why? Because they are not elongated, and the lawful eggs are the first chicken eggs that are elongated, but these are round, so they are forbidden. We tell him, is this by figurative interpretation or without figurative interpretation?
The questioner : By figurative interpretation.
The Shaykh : It is by figurative interpretation, but we do not know if it is acceptable or not. We will see after the adhan, if Allah wills.
He denied the permissibility of something from the apparent permissibles upon which there is consensus. The scholars said that he is a disbeliever because he denied a ruling from the rulings of Islam in a way that does not allow for figurative interpretation. I mentioned an example of that, such as if he denies the prohibition of eggs. Okay, if he denies the permissibility of eggs from poultry on the grounds that they are round and that the previous eggs were elongated. The permissibility was intentional. If he denies its permissibility, we say this figurative interpretation is not acceptable. But perhaps if he is a pure commoner, this might be a doubt in his mind, so we teach him that this reasoning has no effect and that eggs, whether elongated or round, are lawful in all cases. Yes?
The questioner : We seek His help and we seek His forgiveness and we repent to Him, and we seek refuge in Allah from the evils of our souls and the badness of our deeds. Whoever Allah guides has no misleader, and whoever He misleads has no guider. And I bear witness that there is no god but Allah alone, with no partner, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and His Messenger. May Allah send prayers and blessings upon him and his family and his companions and those who follow them with excellence until the Day of Judgment, and may He send abundant peace.