Earn On-Going Rewards Now
Abandoning The Innovator (Full Version)
Channel: Bilal Philips
File Size: 21.28MB
Episode Transcript ©
Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate and at times crude. We are considering building a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system. No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever.
address a series of questions by the US
issues that were addressed,
have to do with some of the problems that we face.
those who are seeking to follow the way of
according to the understanding of the early generations
those who are trying to power that way
divisions and attitudes developed amongst them was created
because of you
among those who are trying to follow the products.
So, we will present
as a team, I will read
the question or reading your question
and then at the end, we will
give you an opportunity to ask any questions
or issues that are
represents the transcription of a tape
containing passwords or explanations given the loss of data
recorded by Elena
sharp and the F 1413, corresponding to the 25th of January 1993.
They represent a series of questions which were directed
by us from Emory
and his actors address a number of problems which face
present movements, most of them towards establishing the way on the internet as understood by the early generations of righteous
scholars and those who carried their traditions and our time known the way
were where certain extreme views and attitudes have developed in the ranks of those who are calling to the past
to address them, and in particular, the issue
and that is abandonment.
Those who have been accused of innovation
This is a major issue which is dealt with
in the course of this tape. Anyway.
Brother waste will present the question that was presented last year and I will read your response and at the end there any questions
in regards to further clarification on the issues raised and we will try to answer them
considered among the leading scholars of Hadith
half a century.
He is originally from Tanzania. He grew up in Syria.
He became the leading scholar there became one of the notable
Promise of hobbies he has written extensively in the field, he has a collection of
he went through the holidays
that we spoke about
authenticate them, as well as a number of other major works.
compiling connection of the authenticity along with a hydration body for or compiling together also
as well as a number of other where he's also noted
for promoting very strongly the idea of
following the planet
the blind, following
you know, he has warned against spoken against is written against too many students continue to
centuries, and the continual harm which means
And also that so much of it is
not based on the evidence.
Muslims are not free to choose what is in fact, the most correct rulings for the different circumstance because they end up being locked into one school or another, you don't feel obliged to stick with that school where a ruling in another school may be more applicable, to try to free people out to be able to make those kinds of choices
in which the early generation of scholarship
said he taught at University of Medina for a period of time. Also he presently resides in Jordan is currently on his deathbed.
Continue in life.
What do you do OSHA
should not be honorable. For those who contradict the bill
mckibben has, you know, he even hasn't even read until the
close of the past, as well as those more than leaders like companies say it's good, considering that you are familiar with what
was his book?
The devil was
We believe that
Mercy is a statement supplicating to a law to have mercy on
permissible for any Muslim and forbidden for any believer?
This answer refers
to the belief which is held in the soul of the individual.
So whoever believes
that those who are mentioned in the question and those similar to them?
And the answer is known from what was said previously, that is, it is permissible to make application for them. That's a lot of money, mercy on them and forgive them.
And whoever considers those mentioned in the question to be none with
me or not, not let them be,
then asking for a lot of mercy for them would not be permissible, because mercy has been made for visit,
whether it is delivered as a response relative to what came
from the methodology of the high speed assistance, they will not ask for mercy for the people of innovation. Consequently, systems were mentioned in the original question or considered amongst the people innovation.
They didn't ask for them.
We have already stated mercy or the supplication for mercy is permissible for anyone not permissible for any non Muslim.
If that is correct, then the second question is without foundation it is not correct. And there is basis for this
have been labeled by some, as among the people of innovation, have falafel janaza preyed on them.
It was from the belief of the seller,
which had been acquired by the
generation that we pray behind the righteous, as well as the unrighteous.
We also pray for oxygen as a prayer for any righteous or unrighteous Muslim.
The disbeliever, on the other hand, has no financial performance.
Therefore, those who request in circulates around whether or not they were among the people of innovation, should one phrase before them or shouldn't one do so, I did not wish to get into a discussion on this
is the answer as well as the ones who preys on others another on them or not? Is that one should do so? Then the answer is finished. The subject has ended, and there remains no place for conversation.
For the second question, as the grandparents would put it, if you believe
it is not acceptable to perform prayer for them, then an opportunity for discussion is open. And it may proceed
that we do not pray for them, because they are from amongst the innovators. What would you also then be? What is the evidence, as you do not make a law for them to use evidence and practice of the service, and then make a distinction between sinful people and innovators? who make innovations in a religion that others did not use? Don't use to make selaginella for the people of innovation, nor do they fit within will have links with them. And on the basis of that they made this claim.
The question whether we should make the law for them or not? No, you extended your answer to the question and missed the point. The question was, what was the evidence?
You claim you mentioned the claim. And the claim is not the same as evidence.
And the claim was that philosophy should not be made or innovative.
There is no evidence they only use as evidence the actions of the seller, is the action of the seller evidence. This is what they claim. Where's the evidence for this evidence? The arguments are usually very general and this issue didn't discover the seller cut off certain individuals, for some are innovation. Does that mean that they used to declare the disbelievers? No, it did not. Therefore, they rule that they were worth we do not have any in between position between the Muslims and the disbeliever in their Muslims and
or the disbelievers and as such, we do not have any intermediary position as claimed by the Morteza knights, who say that there is a place between belief and
furthermore, we allow Bless you, my brother, this is merely a claim. That is that the seller did not make, you know prayers for the innovator in general, is merely a claim, which has found its way into the minds of some people, the minds of some good people, while still taken on several issues with great enthusiasm not accompanied by correct knowledge based on the statement of the law and the messenger of the law.
I have presented to you a reality, which no two people will differ on that is that either the individual is a Muslim, or is a disbeliever and the Muslim regardless of what the state is, has
performed for him.
In addition, his inheritance is distributed among the inheritors. His body is Washington shrouded and he's buried in the various plates. If he's not a Muslim, he's thrown like a seed and buried in the graveyard for the disbelievers, we do not have any middle position. However, if an individual person does not make a lot of janazah for this, or some scholar does not do so for a Muslim, that does not indicate that a lot for this individual is not permissible. This means that the individual was trying to practice some wisdom and address some points, which could not be fulfilled by other than Him, as in the case of the handi which you must remember in which Prophet Muhammad wa sallam
had said in some of his narration makes a lot of janazah for this companion of yours.
did not make up for the individual. What do you think, is about to prevent yourself from making profits and other families more significant? Or is it a scholar who refuses to prey on them more significant refusal of the problem is more important in the province. refusal to pray for a Muslim does not indicate that prayer for that Muslim is prohibited, then obviously, the abandonment of this law by a scholar or seller does not indicate that one should not make a lot for the individual. Furthermore, if it does indicate that the law should not be performed, does that then mean that one cannot add a lot of mercy and forgiveness for the individual?
Considering that we believe that that individual is a Muslim.
Briefly, the refusal of the scholars to pray for someone, because of their innovation does not cancel the legality of the law for every Muslim.
This is because this was from the general category of warning away from an evil and indicating to those similar to them, the correct manner is
done with regard to that individual who did not pray for the one the only thing that was on him, that is the man
wishes to be was that he died owing a debt for some part of the world booty which he
to frequent individual which is more important, as well as the refusal of some of the scholars to do so, does not negate or cancel the legality of the law for the individual that is innovative.
There is a necessary research which needs to be done.
It is just as necessary for us to know who the innovator
is, as it is wants to know who the disbeliever is there the question which must be asked at this point, does anyone who falls into this belief to actually become a disbeliever?
Likewise, does the label of innovator in its totality apply to anyone who falls into an act of innovation? Or is that not the case? If the answer is that it is not the case, and we can continue to look into the subject? And if it is not clear, then it needs to be clarified.
The issue involved in this question with additional detail, what is an innovation and you affair or a new action which contradicts
the one who does it
so designed to increase his or her closer to Allah, medieval as an exalted, does everyone who commits an innovation become an innovator
Who then is the
one to whom clear and convincing evidence has been brought, and he is continuing to touch the innovation which he has committed good.
So, those about whom it was that mercy should not be asked for them with clear evidence brought to them
what then is the foundational principle regarding them as
it is that they are Muslim. Therefore, it is permissible for one to seek for a long Murthy to the
foundational principle again, is that we should be able to seek forgiveness or mercy for that is not the case. And the issue has ended it is not permissible for us to adopt a man
today, in which we say that it is not permissible to request a lot of mercy for so and so, so and so and so on. So, in general or even in particular, our in regard to the scholars why, for two reasons, which will be a summary on what was given. The first reason is that they are.
Second reason is that if it is that we know that they are innovators, we do not know that evidence has been brought to them, and that they insisted on following the innovation and continuing their misguided because of that. I say that among the grave mistakes today is that the young practicing listens who firmly hold on to the listener according to their belief
into contradicting the granite sooner without realizing it. Consequently, according to them,
it is my right to label them as innovators,
because they have gone against.
However, I would not go against
the basic principles regarding the date that they are Muslim, and they are not, and that they are not intending the innovation and that they are not rejecting clear evidence which is brought to them. Instead, we say that they have made a mistake, while seeking what is correct. And if we realize it will escape for many of the fears, which are prevalent.
From this very thing situation is that group known as asset fear when he was was in Egypt.
It spreads ideas, some of which Wisteria in the days when I was there, as well as today. And we have some brothers there who are on the path of the Quran and Sunnah
who are affected by this false call, and then abandoned prayer in congregation.
Even karasuma was abandoned. They used to make a lie in their home until we had a meeting with them. We had three different cities. The first session was between Madrid and Asia, and they refuse to play behind the policy is that about myself, we rely on your books. And in spite of that, they will not play behind me. Why? Because we did not label those who they declared as is delivered the same way.
The second sitting was in the midst of their headquarters. And the discussion continued until the middle of the night. However, some good signs began to appear.
And they began to respond to our call to the truth. So when we announce and establish the prayer at almost midnight, they prayed behind it. The second question regarding the third question is continued until after proposition all the way up to the anana budget. This was the decisive sitting and they have been with us since then, which is close to 12 years.
Always has been was mere misunderstanding, which came to them due to the lack of
deep understanding of the laws, books and sooner, perhaps you can understand
the Quran and Sunnah is not easy in our times today, after our inheritance of many different matters, and many, many texts,
as well as
therefore, the new students of knowledge, will not be able to guide will not be able to guide them to the root
of all of these differences, until he goes through a very long period of study, what is now called
study of the various evidences of those who have differed in the fundamental principles, and the tertiary principles, and the different schools of thought, reality it requires a long line Firstly, secondly, it requires the guidance of the mind of the world before a lot enables them to actuate the call, which messenger
as a signal for us to follow us to say in some of these libraries, or law guide me is on issues regarding the truth, which people have different. Indeed, you guide whoever you wish to the
economy. We advise our growing youth today, who are on the map have a requirement to unite and contemplate masters matters carefully not to declare rulings based on some of the apparent meanings of the evidence. This is because it is not suitable for Muslims to stop every seemingly obvious ruling. Otherwise, we would end up living in a confused state of knowledge, which has no ending to it. I think you know that the matter which is closest to the ground as soon as the might have on the people
know that they have been scholars relied on narrations of some innovations, if they were reliable, and good narrators. This means that they did not include them among the group of believers, nor among those who the seeking of mercy for is the forbidden. In fact, they are leading scholars who are following today about who knows who Muslim scholars doubt that they are most people are considered notable scholars. Despite that, they have contradicted the Quran and Sunnah and contradicted the position of the seller in a number of issues. I mean by that, for example, and
mercy on him who said that a man needs
increases nor decreases. He also said that it is not permissible for Muslims to say, I am a believer in sha Allah. And if he says in sha Allah is nothing.
There is no doubt that this is an innovative statement in the religion, because it is in contradiction to the client and this one, however, he did not intend on innovation. He was seeking the truth but Eric, consequently, to open this avenue of doubts about the leading Muslim scholars of the oma, whether there are amongst fellow or the color is in contradiction to working with them to follow us and our Lord, a lot of them was great and glorious, depending upon whoever goes against the messenger, after the evidence has been made clear to him, and follow the different data, we will link him with whatever he has chosen, will put him in hell and he will return I want to remind you
of a reality on which there is no difference. And then I want to add to it something which young people are times are not thinking about, reality is a statement of the problem, as I
mentioned, in a number of Hadith, whoever declares the Muslim to be a disbeliever has himself
This is a reality in which there is no doubt
the well known additional clarification of his hobbies is found in some of the other narration that is, it is that the one who has been declared a disbeliever is in fact it is. And he is correct. Otherwise, the statement goes back to him. This does not require any research, because they had a very clear, however, I would like to add to it, saying that in the case of someone who declared the Muslim to be an innovator, it is either that the label moves Muslim isn't an innovator
or the one who made the declaration is himself an innovator.
This is the reality, which I said to you earlier, that our young people are declaring our scholars to be innovators. And they are the ones who themselves have fallen into innovation. However, they do not know they do not intend to commit innovation. In fact, innovation, the following thing of the past applies to them.
Our other our other,
sitting cross legged fat, less than a quarter.
That isn't the way to give camels water
that is channeled how to be controlled when fed and fed from buckets. Otherwise, they fight and trample over each other. To take one
just pointing to the requirement
deal with issues, you know, as according to the needs of the issue,
not leave things to take their own path. Because of that, we advise our users to hold on to acting according to the Quran and the Sunnah, within the bounds of their knowledge. And not to have the audacity to accuse others who are not human whose knowledge they cannot compare their knowledge to. nor can they compare their understandings of these people, nor perhaps even their righteousness. That is people like a Naui. Hopper didn't 100 Ronnie, Who in the world today is anywhere near these two leaves this photo, because he's a regular individual, we praise him for his effort in jihad. But this does not in any way, change the fact that he was really only a writer. He had literary skills,
but he was not a scholar. So there is no surprise that a number of things would come from him which contradict the correct methodology. As for those who are mentioned along with him, and I know where it is wrong and apprentice to refer to them as being among the people of innovation. I know that they were among the Ashanti
but they did not intend to contradict the Koran.
It is only that they mistakenly thought two things regarding the Akita, which they had inherited from Australia. The first is that the moment I shot he actually held that position, when in fact, that was only his early position, which he recanted.
And secondly, they mistakenly thought to be correct, when it was an incorrect
because it's correct, that the school does have the sort of successor wants to be from a system that is on the verge of dishonest unless you had the characteristics of assets on and he innovated or praise those who innovated he would be considered among them as the source of the service used to say that's true. So whoever said that the law is not above the heavens is Jeremy Chairman
There is some of that.
But do not forget what I said earlier. That does not mean that he is not a Muslim,
as was exemplified in the Prophet, refusal to make the offers and other for the one, we're taking some of the booty without permission on the one who killed
this was considered a part of the education process. But it does not mean that he was not a Muslim. Another point is that the narrations from the center if they are not in large amounts, and are not all agree, it is not suitable to take from them a few individuals or an individual among them
then that methodology becomes in contradiction to the practice of the seller themselves is well known that a Muslim does not go outside the circle of Islam because of a sin or innovation he has done. So, we find what contradicts this basic rule, we turn to what I mentioned from the earlier explanation, that is
that this is from the avenue of cautioning and educating, Take, for example, a man
and what could make us really understand who
are some of the scholars of Hadith left
and did not know any narrations from him. Why? Because he used to make a distinction between one who said that the cloud is created,
such as individuals,
such an individual will be a misguided innovator, a disbeliever, according to the position, different positions held by the scholars in their expression. And between one who says my reputation of the Koran is
considered the one who says my recitation of the Quran is created to be in the general category of the judgment.
And based on that, some who came out to the time have
made the judgment on alcohol, that one should not take narrations from him because he makes the claim and Jeff might make. However, the judgment did not say my recitation of Quran is created. They held that the Quranic was not the word of the law was one of the laws of creation.
What do we say concerning emammal Buhari, who made this distinction and said that my reservation of the pond is great, as well as the statement of a hadith scholar, like
we said as well, it says that the recitation of grants created as adjustment
is not possible for us to say both statements are correct.
Except by making a correction, it is not possible for us to say both statements are correct, except by making a correct interpretation, which follows the basic rules. Before going on, I believe that you will make a distinction of along with me and to anyone who says the Quran is created
in my recitation of
then how would we respond to the statement of your mom, when he said that whoever did
there is no response except when I mentioned to you that it was a means of wanting move them away from making a statement, which could be used as a means by which people have innovation and guidance and judgment, which promotes their belief.
So much is referring to the marginalized, those who are denying the attributes.
This is because a person might say, in order to deceive those around him, my reputation of the crime is created, while meaning that the crime itself is created. That does not mean that everyone wants to make the statements that is
a brand new screen has the same evil attention. Like for example,
he is not in need of anyone to recommend him because the law is so often already done. So, by making his book The most accepted book in the opinion of the masses of Muslims after the book have a lot of whatever differences they have among themselves over other issues. Therefore, when he said my revision of the plan is created, he intended something which is true. However, you may or may not have fear, that as well as whatever is such and such.
What I said whenever is such and such, therefore,
that should be considered in the category of wanting another principle of belief.
believes that whoever says so and so is actually a gentleman, we find in some of the statements of the scholars
ruling stating that one who falls into an innovation is in fact an innovator, it should be taken from the point of view, that it is a statement of warning, and not a statement of belief. Perhaps it is also suitable dimension on this occasion the well known family
setting about the throne
and how it is so, is unknown, and asking about it as a form of innovation. So, I spell this man for he is an innovator, this famous variation took place, on an occasion when a man came to America and asked him about
his rising above the Throne, as regards to a law,
married responded to something above it is known,
and how it is always unknown, and asking about it is a form of innovation, so expel a man who is an innovator, he did not become an innovator for merely asking about, the man wanted to understand something, but in my mind is fear that while questioning, he may make some statements which are against the belief of the seller, so he told them to remove the man from listening, remove the man for his innovative look now, how the means are different. What do you think, if I or any other personal knowledge were asked the same thing by either the generality of Islam or by specific groups among them who have more knowledge? Do you think we should give the answer which Mr. Maliki, we
should tell the people to get him out of our yummy because he's an innovator?
No, why? Because the times are different. So the methods which were used in those times were acceptable, then they're not acceptable today, because they will harm more than they were benefit. And we can add to this the principle of boycotting
which is known in Islam. We are often asked, so and so a friend doesn't pray, he smokes. He does this and that, should we boycott. I say, No, you should not boycott him because boycotting him is what he would like for you to do. You're boycotting him would not benefit him. In fact, it is the opposite. It would make him happy. And it would allow him to continue in his misguided Not to mention on this occasion, a Xiaomi saying relative to a man who is corrupt, and has abandoned prayer, man repented and when to pray, express prayer in the masses, only to find the door the man says his response to this was your clothes. So I'll drop the prayer. The individual was abandoned
prayer that he wants the practicing Muslim to boycotting.
Just like the example your clothes, so I won't bother to trade. The boycotting man would similarly say I do not need his companionship, I do not want to be with him anyway. This is because the companionship of the righteous with the corner prevents the laughter from being free to do whatever he wants to do. The corrupt individual does not really want that. The boycotting of the unrighteous by the righteous is what the unrighteous prefers. Consequently, the islamically legal boycott is intended to fulfill a legal benefit, which is to teach the individual. So if the boycott is in no way, enjoying teaching him a lesson, when in fact increases him in misguidance. On top of his
already misguided state, in such a circumstance, boycotting is not applicable or appropriate. Consequently, today is not suitable to imitate the methods used by the early scholars, because they did so from a position of strength and the ability to present today, look at how the situation wasn't there or weaken everything, not only in the government, but in the individuals as well as iteration is a process rather than describing when he says Islam began with something strange into return again, becoming something strange. So give glad tidings to the strangers. He was out who was a messenger, he responded to people who believed a few righteous individuals among many people.
Those who disobey them are many more than those who obey them.
So if we open the door for boycotting and declaring people innovators, we may as well go and live in the mountains. What is obligatory on up today is to crawl to the way of our Lord with rice preaching and a good expression and discuss with them with that method in order to complete the benefit
This issue and it is an issue about which there is a number of questions today. I will mention that they say from we advise that we should not ask for mercy for them to seeking mercy for them, it's not compulsory, it is a permissible thing. We are not messing around the seeking of mercy Couldn't we avoided in order that there cannot be any form of praise and admiration for those people who innovation to those who we may not say our innovations for example, so, we just do not praise them for we do not refer to them as emails, as leading scholars, for example, it's a mention is made of Unknowing we do not prefer to say email and no we say
email No, we said for the even avoid erasing from the correlating person statements to the four attributes in certain statements to the some of the brothers the racist Some said had narrations which are from some of these and it was sent to them, how can you erase from these people the letter or not like As mentioned earlier, or even husband or unknowingly, but people like to say put Omaha's put to decide how to generate from these people and to know that these people are not certainties. So, you as a society, as you know, right from the degenerate from them, you are praising them and giving the impression to people that they are selfies. This is a way by which the up and coming
fresh students will be fooled or misinformed about these people, or perhaps caused them to become like them in innovation and deviation to being far away from the grid path. Could you please make some comments on the statement?
I do not believe that this is their intention, first and foremost. And secondly, if this was in fact, your intention, I do not believe that this is an acceptable method of educating people or making them aware these individuals that you refer to do they read
or do they not read either of these two images, suppose it will be considered error with regard to them, if they say we do not read it, where do they get their understanding
with regard to explanation, as well as understanding, understanding from the point of view of the studies regarding differences as well as the terminologies etc, they will not find amongst the commentators on political parties, anywhere in the world in fallacy according to their definition.
If there is any commentary, it will be brief explanations are heading. As for the vast sea of knowledge contained,
open to anyone who opened it cannot be found in any of the books that have taken up the task of writing again.
In that case, they would lose a great amount of knowledge, if they meant by the statements to one the masses away from
wanting people among the general statements,
which they want people away from, that they do not take benefits from the statement of the obvious demands and scholars, they have lost knowledge, even though it was possible for them to combine, attaining what is good and preventing or avoiding when it's harmful and corrupted, as was the way to call it.
There is no scholar after the time of even a journalist
or unknowing who could do without taking benefits from their commentaries.
There is no scholar after the time of even hydrological
or unknown, who could do without taking benefits from their commentary on the hill behind
the scholars to benefit from the books of these two great scholars in a number of issues. They are ashari. And they contradicted the main highlights of the righteous.
They were able to take knowledge from these two books, taking knowledge benefited them, and avoiding it was harmful. I fear what is behind these statements. These statements mentioned there's a warning against warning from these books, in which case, this would be a great loss to they say on the other hand, no, we do not take benefit from their books. And we read them outside. We do not take them and we read them and we confirm them. In which case
we do take benefits. We do take benefit from the books. We read them and we confirm them in which case what is the benefit of these methods?
They're refusing to ask mercy for these policies. There are most of them, as we have stated in the beginning of our talk. Furthermore, what is the benefits of this statement, that they're not saying that it is not permissible to outwards for them, but we won't ask for them. Why? Because you had committed or made an innovation. As we said earlier, not everyone who makes an innovation is considered an innovator. And not everyone who doesn't have to become the believer, the individual innovation have become confused to him. And for the other, his belief has become confused. That is, that they are not clear acts of innovation or disbelief,
that so called precaution has no benefit. Furthermore, the telethia, or the
scholars from whom we have inherited this righteous call, was this their position with regard to the
position of this new group who claim to have a fear the opposite of the truth, they should be like those who preceded us, to this righteous call.
Something that's limited commits, I be the better customer, I suppose innovation, which gorgeous causes the one who committed to leave the force of Islam, or you become a disbeliever leaves the circle or actress on the one jamara and one who commits a better possible occurrence of innovation, one, which was the person who committed to be a corrupt individual, or a center, but not a disbeliever does not leave the circle of Muslims, even if evidence is brought to him and the person continued to do was such the person, we still considered the people at the center in such a case, what is the bidder look after? And what is the visa?
event lucasta is where the person makes a statement, which is a statement of disbelief by declaring that the Lord alone is not about his throne. The same is similar to that.
is like the innovations in acts of worship, like the moon, for example.
This is a statement which is not correct. This statement is a product of L McCallum.
This distinction made between innovation in
the fundamental principles and innovations in our world the secondary principles, or the visa in the laws and design evolved after worship. This distinction is itself and innovation. What if an individual approached one of the profit centers like the Cerner project, and he made it four units with this innovation be classified? How would this innovation be classified in foster care innovation or a McCarthy era innovation? If he made it sooner for instead of
and insisted on continuing to do it?
According to the excellent explanation, it will be classified as a vertical innovation.
That is a nonsensical statement among the things, which the later generation have inherited from the saga. And by the terms of here, I intend a different meaning than the technical meaning, which is understood
is the distinction between errors in furore. And errors in
an error in secondary principles is forgivable, whereas an error in primary principles is unforgivable.
Daddy whose authenticity is well known. If a judge makes a ruling and strives to find the truth is correct, he gets to reward and if you make the mistake, he gets one reward. That is supposedly a secondary principle.
As for the fundamental principles, they are not excusable. that distinction has no foundation, neither in the Quran nor in the Sunnah, nor among the statements of the righteous predecessors. What exists in the in the statements of the righteous predecessors is a strong warning against innovation in general, whether it be in Akita or in Nevada. I mentioned earlier that the reality that whoever declared a Muslim to be a disbeliever has himself is believed. And I added to it as whoever declared the Muslim to be an innovator, etc.
Because in reality, there is no difference to me between this belief and innovation. If a Muslim begins when innovation, and the innovative reality of it was made clear to him, but he insists on doing it, as in the example which I mentioned earlier, it would be like one who denies
goes above its creation or denies that the Quran is from a speech etc.
There is no difference between this or that at all, either negatively or positively, positively, we will say that he has this belief based on the condition which we mentioned earlier, the evidence was made clear to him and the other has this belief because after evidence has been brought to you, negatively speaking, there is no declaration of this belief
or apostasy In either case, neither the first nor the second, only with the existence of the condition which I mentioned. I will go back to the statement that the Morteza nights and holidays
coincide in some of the issues in which they went astray and disagreed on some, for example, the college I agree with the market is much more centralized on the position that the Quran is created.
The ideas coincide. And as I mentioned before, the scholars have had these did not declare the Hawaii's to be disbelievers. Then how do we combine the ideas in our mind as one would deny the principle of belief is a bit disbelievers and one would make an innovation in Nevada
and we have the leaders in the science of the narration of hubby's narrating from metabolites and holotype in spite of the fact that they contradict authentic
Those who say that a lot of speeches created will also deny seeing alive the next life. Denial denial, along with the previous denial makes our previous definition applicable to them. It is
but not everyone who falls into an act of disbelief has become a disbeliever. How do we rationalize the fact that the leaders of Hadith scholars, and the scholars of the Salah like even Tamia Empire rule that the cottage isin martyrs delights were a stray without any doubt, but they do not refer to them as being disbelievers, apostate from their religion, because they lay down the principle of the possibility that the issue was confused to them Firstly, and that the evidence was not brought to them. Secondly, let us return to the basis of our original assumptions. Those people were innovators. But we do not know if they intended innovation, all with evidence of their error brought
to them etc. That is the methodology of
the rule at the mortars, the lights were straight, the highlights were straight, and lights were straight in a number of issues. But they do not declare them to be disbelievers, they do not expel them from the circle of Islam based on the possibility which was mentioned earlier, they go back to issues.
I mentioned them again, first, that they did not intend an innovation and contradiction. Secondly, we do not know whether evidence proof of their error was brought to them in a convincing way or not. Therefore their judgment is led to a loss and for us is the outer judgment with regards to them, which is that they are Muslim, and they died believing in Islam were buried in the graveyard and therefore, they are
the distinction made between an era and as
Firstly, it is a linguistic technical difference, which is a product of scholars of philosophy. Secondly, there is no evidence to support it at all. Now, I'd like to close the discussion on this issue with
which I will point you to which I mentioned earlier, that not everyone who does an act of disbelief
or disbelief has become confused, becomes
I mean by that is
narrated by two great companions of the Prophet.
And philosopher even the man said, The Lord messenger said,
there was a man among those who were before you was on his deathbed. And he gathered his children around him. He said to them, what kind of father was it you replied?
He said, I've never done a single good deed. So when I died, burn me, crushed my body and scattered the resulting ashes on a windy day in Sun
gathered his particles and asked him what made you do so he replied, fair of you, to allow forgiving.
The question is this man is believed by statements are able to get a hold of me, or does he know?
It is believed, but a lot of forgave him
and we know from the noble crimes
Allah will not forgive anyone with friends partners to him, and he forgives anything less than that. He wishes. How do we understand this hadith in the light of the obvious meaning of the Quran, he does not forgive one time partners to him intentionally. What is your opinion of that condition? One was assigned partners to you intentionally?
It is correct. But is it in the verse noises? Where did we get the tongue
is not taken from a single Hadith
or from a single verse, but it is taken from a combination of all that is relevant on the issue. Consequently, is not only
that, it is necessary to combine all of the relevant texts, until we know the abrogating and abrogated text, the general from the specific and the unconditional from the conditional etc. In fact, this is much more needed in the case about PETA, when the scholars explained the words indeed allow will not forgive anyone with science partners to him, they do not get into the details, usually, because the issue to them is quite clear, it does not require these kinds of details. But when problems and confused issues arise at this time, the scholar is required to explain the knowledge that he has.
So this man who made the will, and the abovementioned, at least
mentioned it is not imagine that is contained and incompatible wrong.
He thought dragons have burned in order to hide from his Lord. Why the law says, He puts forth for us the parable and forgets his own creation.
Who will give last to these bones, when they have rotted away and because they he created, he who created them, the first time will give nice to them, he is only about creation. And after that, our lawyers
Why? Because this belief has not entered into the hearts.
It is only that he imagined his sins before law and his fear of him. And that if a law reached him, he would give him a very severe punishment. This fear and humility blinded him from the correct aqeedah. So he made that will
clear in the way in which she told get out. Because
Therefore, it is not suitable for us to imagine that said photo had fallen into us that you would use as even Harvey for example.
And he meaningfully intended it. And his heart was set on it like even out of the misguided millions of Sufi Muslims, etc. Perhaps it was only a leftover of some Sufi thoughts, which came to his mind or his heart while he was a prisoner. And he has not developed complete knowledge about the issue. And he wrote that statement, which I was the first
we cannot rule that he was a disbeliever because we do not know that this disease has become set in his heart, or that the evidence of the error of his writing or thoughts was brought to him, especially while he was in prison. I do not think that once again. Because of that, we do not link the fact that a Muslim may do an act of disbelief.
With him being a disbeliever we do not link those two issues together. That is first and foremost.
And warning against this have been repeated. And certainly we do not distinguish between innovations and aqeedah innovation in acts of worship. Both of them are either misguided, or their disbelief. Perhaps the efficient.
is praising people innovations, like agility, and people have been listening to this book. As they come they claim that they are serving and that they are striving for the for the poor and sick. Robbie.
Robbie is one of the leaders of the Islamic movement in Sudan is known to have made some outlandish statements regarding Sharia
movements to one point in time.
He became sort of a spiritual leader of the movements within Sudan Islamic movement in Sudan took over the country and the country arising trying to follow this video.
The answer will vary in varying situation. If the intended meaning of praising him is praising amongst them, we think is a
Innovation. And we do not say that he's actually an innovator after this long lecture, we can distinguish between the two issues.
If the intended meaning of praising him is defending him relative to the disbelievers, that is obligatory.
The intended meaning of praising him in defending him relative to the disbelievers is
if the intended meaning of praising him is beautifying his methodology, and inviting people to it, then misguided and we'll call this guidance of others.
The truth that we hit that one should boycott in these times, we should not
the means to say is is preferable not to be implemented. What is correct is that boycotting is not implemented, because the innovators and the corruption of the majority
it would be better to say it is preferable, probably not implemented. Perhaps the questioner intended myself whether you intended myself or not, I say yes, that is the case. It is better that it is not implemented. And I already said in no uncertain terms previously, when I gave the shiny thing
that did come into existence, an environment in which the majority of those in it was from conditionals. And there were some elements to be integrated into the laws religion, for example, should boycotting be implemented, or should it not be in this circumstance? It is obligatory that we use wisdom in dealing with a situation
faction, which has the upper hand and is strong the boycott the faction which has deviated from the community, will that benefit the faction that is holding on firmly to the truth? I wouldn't harm them. Now, that is relative to them. Secondly, Will those who have been boycotted by the main group, will they benefit them, or will it harm them, as has been previously answered, It is not appropriate or suitable, as we take these issues emotionally or enthusiastically. Instead, we should it should be done cautiously and with wisdom. For example, one of them goes off and holds the position contradictory to the rest of the group. The others quickly say, this is a this is zero to law, being
jealous about the law, the law
is broken. So we will boycott him, is it better to be kind and gentle with him and try to guide him advise him etc.
Be his companion for some time, then if you give up hope, and there is not seem to be any hope for him to change first and foremost, then, and then the fear that the sickness will spread to say that to others.
At this point, he should be boycotted, seems most likely that boycotting him would be the best treatment. As he said, the last method of treatment in isolation. Today, I do not advise or encourage the youth to boycott the causes for arms more, much more than
the biggest evidence of it is the fitness which is presently existing in
your area. And the regions of Mecca, Medina,
they're all specific men in the area of Medina, they're all brought together in the call to talk the call to the Quran and Sunnah. But some of them have their own unique activities, either in politics, or in some other ideas, which were not known before from any other people or knowledge. These ideas could be erroneous, or they could be corrected. We were not able to bear to hear anything, which is new, especially if it is an affair, which is rejected, in our opinion. And immediately we began to begin to fight them. This is a mistake, rather, you wish a friend who has no fault.
But does sandalwood burn without smoke?
We wish, if only the one and was the mean will be with us on the principle of power he's so that we would be with them. But they are not pleased with us, even in the issues of al Qaeda. So they say that mentioning the differences have split up the group.
These brothers from whom some groups have split off, or they they have split off from some foods and a lot of those that they are with us all the way all along the way with regard to Planet Fitness and the methodology of the ranch its predecessors, but they have brought something new in reality, some of which is in error, and some of which is correct, is in reference.
So why should we spread division amongst ourselves and functionalism and fanaticism? When before we were one unit
So when they became two, after being two groupings, we then became three,
then they became
And they will not stick up for anything which deserves the Singapore, there is no difference in the great issues that could be conceived as
we all know well, the differences and permission, but their methodology was wrong.
If one was to imagine that a group from Addison nojima, and from the Victorian
era has split off, we should take a hold of them with kindness and gentleness, rather, we try to keep them with the Gema do not boycott them, cut them off, except if we fear from them. And that will not become a pirate immediately. It is not that simply when somebody expresses an opinion,
which goes against the opinion or position of the group, that it is appropriate for us to immediately boycott an individual, it should be done
with patience, until it becomes clear to us that perhaps the law will guide is hard.
Because evidence was cutting off from
the anything necessary besides establishing the proof on the disbelievers, for them to be classified, it is believed, for innovation for them to be classified as humans, for the simple, like convincing removing the adults, no, this is not necessary. necessity, but what is necessary is knowledge. It is the knowledge by which the proof is established. He that is the one was publishing the proof should be an inheritor of the Prophet, fellow, and not any individual among the various individuals,
or the genesis of live to be considered among the six parts of the political level. So those are the first four months the second
No, no one was having their members from all of the various factions, among them are the Shia, etc, etc. Consequently, it is not correct to put on them a single label. Instead, we say, as well, right, that's a methodology contradicting the way
for converting the way among the individual members, as individual would not be from the same sex. Instead, he would be from the destroyer. As regards the group, I would not even say that the selfies are from the same sex fantasies themselves. What do you think the judgment is made? on the individual?
addressing? I think twice the number of issues which have plagued the community here in England, and I'll be able to follow it.
Sharla Do you have any questions concerning it?
There to me,
what he said was
that you don't want to put a general label on all you have to judge them as individual,
the judge the one with the moon movement, as being from one of the SEC going to help
the destroyed sec
judge the whole group, no,
you can judge the individual because amongst them are some who are salaried.
Some way as far with the other side as being Shia,
we have to judge them on an individual basis.
Some glaring status they made please clarify what acts of innovation the likes of snipe could Mohammed could and has not been and Hudson sohrabi have perpetrated all these people have been written down in the reserve receptacle Akita of Imam Hassan al Banna, this salad is full of is fully in accordance to the arcade of the seller. And this is the official one is done
in terms of the errors in
In their statements, I think you can find that in the book, which was written called the methodology of the prophets and Collins,
at the end of that book, the author and gathered together statements made by all of these individuals with the exception
payments made by these individuals. And if you want to read on them, you can find them. Because, you know, to say, for example, that Metallica, pirates, you know, is the definitive statement is to deny a number of other things which were written by
the manner in which there were errors. And the point of the point of the matter here is the fact that there were errors in some aspects of al Qaeda, or our understanding of methodology. I mean, this does not write the individual off, this is what she was pointing out. You mean, there were areas that he made, when he was a human being?
If we can tolerate, you know, errors, from Imam Al Bukhari, you know, as as perceived by the mom,
or the errors made by even 100 Afghani in his commentary,
and the no in comments or anti muslim, we are able to tolerate these, then we should be able to tolerate errors made by lots of people.
since you can't judge a person will say that he is
unless he has a tendency as proof was corrected. And why this shift NASA, NASA, saying that psychosis is illusory
to say that, she has not said that study is to contradict all of what I just narrated to you. Share NASA does not say that he said as his favorite phrase use it No, no, let the
know that not everyone who has committed an innovation actually becomes an innovator.
The point that he clarified that they could or would not be classified as an innovator. He'd be classified as someone who made statements, which were innovative statements.
He made some kind of, you know, excuse for him saying some of his statements and probably leftovers from a Sufi, you know, background growing up as a youth whatever these things have been expected supposed to. He was not a scholar. He was not a scholar. He was a writer. You know, it was a, he was a well known, you know, writing style, wonderful writing style and copywriting. He was right out of college. And he wrote these things when he was in prison in all by himself, you know, with any proof brought to him when he was in prison.
So on that basis, you know, he refused to label him as an innovator. Yes, he says he said, some of the statements that he made were innovational innovative statements. And in fact, the chairman said he was the first gentleman that was the first to point them out. I
just wanted to add to that. So when when he is mentioned, is it permissible to say? Yes.
From the very beginning, it is permissible to say rocky my whole long a lie of federal forgiveness for him. It is perfectly permissible. That's what he argues on the whole beginning there as a matter of the Muslim was bad as a Muslim, nobody can say as I was, right and as a Muslim is permissible, but the other day, may Allah have mercy on it.
This, this point here, which needs to be addressed for everybody, we we've been in some discussion for some time with regards to publishing this as a book. Two questions here. What we'll be reading from and also is the book that is an aspect of 1000 Muslims abandoning the innovator is available from the bookshop inshallah, to Allah, we hope inshallah, in the near future, we'll be able to deal with that particular question. This question
was covered, I believe yesterday briefly. This question, it might be out of the topic. I don't think it is 100 law. It still was indeed yesterday. 100 comments about Noah min Keller? It would be it would be much. It would be good. If you could tell us a bit about Hamza uses an American speaker as his understanding of the deen as we find lots of his tapes circling between brothers and sisters.
How the user
has an underlying as good, as acknowledged, he also has been exposed to a lot of
legal knowledge. However, he has taken the position of man have fanaticism, that is, you must follow a man's heart. And this is what he preaches.
not fall in a man's house.
He also, in order to promote the course of study that he went,
he also stresses that the only valid
is from those who studied from a share who has attended,
you can trace your teacher through his teacher through his teacher all the way back to the Sahaba department. You know, that's the kind of teacher that you're supposed to have otherwise studying at institutions like the University of Medina, and Mecca, and things with us
kind of promoting this issue of you know, you have to go to Mauritania, where I went to get this knowledge, and anybody else who didn't go that route, then, you know, it's kind of putting others down, I think this is a kind of error in his
in his way, I mean, why promote yourself in that fashion, you know, if what you have is useful and beneficial, give it to the people don't try to put other people down because they didn't study the rules in which you study. Now, the reality is that those who studied Medina, etc, they study on the scholars who said, on the colleges, but on the scholars, and ultimately you can trace these things back, you know, if people wanted to make an issue, but really, it is only amongst the Sufi that this becomes really critical issue, you know, with the exception of those who specialize in recitation of Quran, especially around the issue of being able to trace your teachers all the way back. I mean,
this is an issue. But outside of that, it is the Sufi They are the ones who make the big game will machine
learn from sorts of share all the way back to nature, and
to try to justify whatever program they're promoting.
The other, possibly negative factor is that, you know, unfortunately, when the user is or has become a frontman, for you're happy,
because he's done a number of programs with him, brought him together, you know, and by bringing him side by side on the same page with him and being involved directly with him, he is innocent, and this is where Mohammed killer is openly calling, to praying to the problem of using an intercessor when someone is openly doing that, and you're sitting with him, and you're doing programs with him, you know, side by side with him, in a sense, you are supporting it, you know, you don't speak out against it or anything, you will become a supporter. So this is the other area, which I think is
dangerous. And that, you know, he has helped to manage, you know, validate, you know, harming children or having children General, you know, he's not a very good spokesman
on the use of inspiring and very attractive the use of a loved one. So he becomes the promoter, because we're all you know, having to give his talk.
So, he has become the promoter, No, unfortunately,
is asking about the traveler I actually spoke about earlier yesterday, I mentioned that where he has translated the book on the Titanic, you know, the, just the text of the sharper image
wants to combine the study between the different mountains, you know, as usual, but we're,
when you go beyond that, into the appendages, which is added, which to some degree is almost the same time as the rest of the translation. So the book is like, you know, a bomb, right? Time Bomb.
If you're not aware, it's like a time bomb, because half of the book is
just bringing the potential, but then the other half, which is dependencies, huge dependencies on the passage is an open attack, you know, on the on the way of
an open attack, you know, on in an issue that are either open in an open promotion of the praying to Allah, you know, supporting the knowledge, you know, I mean, all of the various issues which we know to be out there, you know,
Which is now within the sort of raise a certain level of consciousness and they now know that these things are incorrect is bringing them back again, with all the evidence you can bring support just
like a time bomb, for instance, doesn't know what's going on, you know, taking that boat by itself without being warned or being aware that, you know, it could be a major sort of impact.
Because of the time
How about the Shiites, who have no real understanding of their unbelief? And so really have a belief that is nearly similar to Sunni
is regard really tough to give no rights to generalize them? As of those who shall all goes to hell? Yeah, this condition is clarified here is that even when again to the CIA, no one cannot make a judgement on all of them. In order to say they're all in Cooper know, you can tackle individual individuals, their positions, their arguments, bring the evidence to them, if they hold that position, the way they have given us with the law to human beings, then you say that individual even
though they are devious, so they deviated to label them all, as a believer, you know, as far as the point that would be
the one establishing the evidence has to be a person of knowledge. Where is the evidence for this? Is there not?
Any condition, not in the Quran and Sunnah is not a condition. What about the scenario, where what is being advised upon is in the arena of what is known by the people of knowledge, as known in the theme by necessity? For example, drinking alcohol is haram can a 10 year old not establishing definitive evidence? And past hucha? On a man who drinks alcohol by closing irrelevant is in the Quran?
this issue here, I mean, the Presidents that have brought it down, so I'm ready.
Obviously, what is being spoken about? Are things which are not clear. The things which are clear and obvious from the
I mean, it is president who is drinking alcohol believes that drinking alcohol is permissible? No, it is not revealed in silence is wrong how many
because this is something which is known from the dean, you know, by anybody doesn't require any special knowledge to have that clear. But what is being addressed here, as what was being addressed, here are issues that are not that clear, not that obvious, or, for example, she
may have a certain set of beliefs. Now a person who doesn't have a clear understanding of their sets of beliefs, who may try to raise issues to them in a vague way, they don't have all the evidence and so on. So that person may be unconvinced.
So the whole job we can say, has not been taken to that individual, you know, the truth of the evidence, so you can declare this person has not been taken to them, it has to be taken by somebody who is capable of conveying it, you know, and defending another person who just have a few words. And then this other person was involved in some kind of innovation may have such deep knowledge of it, that they can turn that person upside down.
So this is why he made this point that the knowledgeable have to be there to bring
10 people out and teach the dean isn't just anyone
a new energy green.
If you don't know
how this condition was played, there is a condition which is obvious from the religion.
That when you're when you're bringing the evidence to people, it has to be brought
by those who have sufficient knowledge to bring it across clearly. And not just emotional.
This question is important,
too, is a centerpiece. Anybody who says that the Muslim rulers are Cuba, and is against them?
I don't know that this needs to be my condition, please. So anybody who says that they that the Muslim rules are too far, which is what I think should be one, and as against them, like the shacks, who have been released from prison in Saudi Arabia are considered as sororities are all colonial.
If we were to define what is the center fee, we'd have to say and remember the term color comes from predecessors and this refers to pirates,
the generation of the Sahaba those who follow them and those who follow them about whom
the best of people are my generation and those who follow them. jr established an understanding of the genes
and scholars following them carried on that understanding, considered to be the way that is we understand the Quran and Sunnah not just as it hits our heads, we may interpret it, but we understand it in accordance with how those scholars come that are those regeneration understood and this is the intent of the term that is we follow the way of the predecessors, the pious predecessors those who had knowledge following the way of haba and
this is to ensure the correct interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah to establish what is the correct methodology for implementation of the deen? So, anyone who oppose that call to it, who believes in it, practices in etc, would be then term a felony? Now,
the other part of the question which goes into one within the most prudent
and is against them like shares,
suffer and others know this, of course,
is an incorrect statement. Because the man do not declare the rulers of the country to be Kufa
the issue that
brought them into a state where they were arrested and this kind of thing was an issue over advising the ruler publicly and speaking about the errors that exist in the country public, this is what brought them to jail, it wasn't that they were declaring rules to be delivered.
So, that is not
correct, of course, to call them, you know, how it is and all these other things, these are labels which people have applied, you know,
Hawaii is is definitely incorrect, you know, because who the cars were especially one cannot include them.
The terms really again is a kind of a
vague, ambiguous term, you know, depending on how you understand it, maybe you can apply it to them.
But, there is no doubt
that they are considered to be among the stellar following the way there may have been, you know, I should not have pointed out because this was mentioned in the speech here, and there may have been some error.
There were some errors and some of the positions that they took,
but that does not take them out of the circle of being felonies are those following the way
in regards to additional hands they use, can you clarify that you're not saying that knowledge cannot be learned from him? The original question
implies that it is dangerous to listen to tapes, what do you advise with regards to his talks and lectures attending these conferences?
Well, as I said, you know, one has to
listen with an open mind and with one's wide eyes wide open
a lot of the information that he deals with in terms of ideas and found solutions for the problems, very good, very good connections, etc. but one has to be careful
listening especially one has to be aware that there is this undercurrent, that is being promoted to be aware of it.
I mean, I would say that, you know, if you have a choice between
people who are
these dolls and things around them, you know, lectures are available, books are available. So better to take those and focus on those and build yourselves as much as surgeons, and then get caught up into areas that you know, are shaky and you may get, you know,
When it is clear, as black and white, even to the most ignorance of Muslims, as a policy of a Muslim ruler is against the interests of the oma, how can you speak out, speak up about it, which you are commanded to do, and yet not be called attack theory, please.
the issue of
tax year, I mean, where are you declaring people
leverage. And this is something I shared last one here to be careful
when you call somebody a disbeliever,
either that President pocket is the lever, or you become a disbeliever by calling him.
So we have to be very careful, you know, with what we say we just don't let any words come out, you know, and things you might have in your mind, whatever, just, you know, don't say it. Because once you say you can't take it back, out there, now you're held to account for what has been said,
What may come across your mind, etc, shavonne, whatever things that come to your head, you're not held to account, once you think about it,
then you're not comfortable with the warning of shipmaster here is to be very careful about declaring the be
pointing out the error,
rulers etc. There is no harm in doing so.
The point is, in my view,
what do you spend your time doing?
pointing out the errors of all the rules across the country around the world.
And in pointing out all the errors of all the rules across the world, and what
what will it do for you to change?
How it is better your situation?
Where do we put a lot of things because we can also talk about you know the many problems that are here in this country.
Talk about this are many different things you could point out and around here.
You have to decide where do we
place the focus