You are on page 1of 3

A disgusting Belief Part 2

By the Noble Sheikh Ahmad ibn 'Umar al-Haazmi May Allah preserve him

http://muwahhidmedia.wordpress.com/

The author - May Allah have mercy on him, then continued and said: "With this belief, they made an disgusting belief and this [disgusting belief] is that the evidence is not established upon this Ummah with the messenger and the Quran. We seek refugee with Allah from a bad understanding." Yes bad understanding, and maybe he [also] has [with it] a bad intention. He who has a bad understanding can be a ignorant, a blind follower, or one who follow another person. And it can be that he has bad intention in the same time. [i.e. his Hawaa; lust]. [The Author continues]: "We seek refugee with Allah from a bad understanding that made them forget the Quran and the messenger." If they were with [i.e upon] the Quran and lifetimes of the messenger, salla Allahu 'alayhi wasallam, they wouldn't have fallen in to what they are in now. This is an obligation upon them. If he says "I don't stand with this", it does not mean that it is not a obligation, rather it is a obligation for him, and he points out his weakness in what he is saying. Like it is known from the principle "Excuse of Ignorance". And the texts that are used by them as evidence, are general texts. i.e. They are not specic for people who ascribe themselves to Islam, and they say: "We don't mean those who are kufr asli [by origin]." Those who are Kufr asli are not included, they have exempt them in there own sense, and not according to the text. We say: "And never would We punish until We sent a messenger." [17:15]. What is this? This is a general [verse] and it contains a kar asli, and a murtad [apostate]. I mean the mushrik [polytheist]. They don't call him a murtad [apostate], because he says the testimony of Faith [Shahaadatayn], and shirk was hidden for him, so it's necessary to establish the evidence. We say: The text is general. So it includes the Jew if he is ignorant, so he is not judged as one who is upon disbelief [Kufr]. So he will be tested in the hereafter [Akhirah]. Every single Jew. And likewise with the Christians, the re worshipper [Majoos], and the one falls into shirk. He comes to you and say "No, no, I don't stand with this. I mean that those who makes shirk while he ascribe himself to Islam." i.e. he speaks the testimony of faith, as for the kar by origin, it's not those that I mean.

We say "The religious texts are general. And you need to stick to the distinction between one who ascribe himself to Islam from the. He says: "I don't stick to this! I don't stick to this!" We say: So the [fact] that you don't stick to this, doesn't mean that it isn't a necessary. And what does this necessary point out? It points out the weakness in your speech. Because a person who lives in a village long away {from people}, and no evidence have reached him example. If we imagine this. Then we say that he commits a major shirk. And similar can it be with a Christian or a Jew who no evidence have reached him. So you excuse one of them and say that he is tested in the hereafter [AlAkhirah], of that he is still a Muslim, but you don't excuse the other one. Why do you make a difference between these two? That one is kar and that one is a kar. One of them have committed disbelief and the other have committed disbelief. One of them is ignorant and the other is ignorant. The call have not reached him and it hasn't reached the other one either. So why are you making a difference between these two? If you excuse one of them, then you have to excuse the other one to, and if you say he isn't excused, then you have to say that the other one isn't excused either. It is the same judgment. It will not be replaced or be changed. Neither regarding a kar asli' or one who isn't a kar also, [i.e. is ascribing himself to Islam]. All and everyone who falls into major Shirk, is a mushrik.

You might also like