← Back to Videos
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah, dear brothers and sisters. This word is specifically for those who have been following what Sheikh Bassam Jarrar has been publishing recently. Initially, it was related to the topic of showing mercy to the death of disbelievers with the intention of reducing their numbers. However, the matter developed when Sheikh Bassam wanted to defend his opinion and respond to those who criticized him on the topic of showing mercy, bringing forth statements that contradict Islamic constants. Therefore, we see that highlighting the incorrectness of these statements is more important than the topic of showing mercy.
For those who have not followed what the Sheikh has said, we advise them not to continue with this segment, but not to object while they do not know the issue at hand.
Let me tell you something, dear brothers and sisters: when I respond to someone who doubts or mocks Islam, I do so with joy and enjoyment. But today, as I respond to Sheikh Bassam, I do so reluctantly, out of a duty to uphold Islamic law. I have tried to avoid this response and delayed it for a long time. I commented on one of Sheikh Bassam's videos on YouTube, asking him to discuss with me so that he could correct his mistakes. This is what we prefer; we greatly desire for the callers to Islam to be united in one rank, united upon the truth.
However, the Sheikh responded that it is the right of people to hear the evidence of both parties. This is the Sheikh's request, and we are answering it today. Many of you may remember that I previously criticized his speech on the topic of determining the date from the Quran for the disappearance of what is called the State of Israel, and that there were pleasant exchanges between us that people praised and considered an example to be followed for the etiquette of dealing among callers. I love for such beautiful memories to remain.
Furthermore, Sheikh Bassam has not personally wronged me in a direct manner, but rather made hints that we do not dwell upon. We have previously praised the Sheikh over the poor servant. And with all of this, the truth is more beloved to us than this beautiful image.
And if someone says, "Do you monopolize the truth and see yourself as possessing absolute truth?" The response is that I will present evidence, and if you see that I have deviated from the truth, then discuss with me about it. "But if you dispute concerning anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day; that is best and most suitable for final determination." (4:59)
And if you are among those who think that religion has no absolute truths, if you are among those who are indecisive in everything and weak in everything, then my discussion today is not with you. Rather, it is with those who believe that there is an absolute truth, Islamic consensus, and constants that it is not permissible to differ in, and that Allah has made them clear. I have explained this in a speech entitled "The Muslim and Consistent Positions."
We need to address the errors, brothers, from the gray thinking that fills the gap between faith and disbelief. We began with the saying of Allah: "And whoever associates others with Allah, it is as if he had fallen from the sky, and the birds snatch him away, or the wind drives him into a remote place." (22:31) This is the difference between faith and polytheism. And this difference is intended to fade in the hearts of Muslims.
A group emerges with the worship of graves, one makes an interview entitled "Atheism: A Point of View," Adnan Ibrahim polishes the disbelievers and atheists and casts doubt on all the constants of the religion, and others call for what they call the Abrahamic religion. Sheikh Bassam differs from all of them, and we do not place him in the same category as them nor do we deal with him as we deal with them. However, his last words contain great legal and methodological errors that unfortunately came in the midst of his attempt to prove the correctness of his mistake in the matter of showing mercy in any form.
These errors are feared to take some Muslims from a state of clarity in fixed doctrinal matters to a state of hesitation and confusion. This is a bridge and a state that makes them susceptible to being influenced by the thinking of people like Abdullah Ibrahim and Shahrur, whom Sheikh Bassam himself does not accept. We have noticed this confusion and this influence in the comments of some of our followers, who have begun to doubt some of the constants based on what Sheikh Bassam has said.
There is no flattery in religion, dear brothers and sisters. If you see me one day contradicting consensus or contradicting the clear Quran and the authentic Sunnah, then disregard my words. And I claim that what I am doing today is in defense of Sheikh Bassam, acting upon the saying of our Prophet, peace be upon him: "Support your brother, whether he is oppressed or oppressing." It was said, "O Messenger of Allah, this is when he is oppressed, but how do we support him when he is oppressing?" He said, "Prevent him from oppression, for that is supporting him."
We support our brother callers against their desires and their commanding selves, and we expect them to support us against our desires and our commanding selves as well. And to those who say, "You are supporting the noble Sheikh so-and-so," we say to them that if you are among those who deify people and see them as infallible, that is your affair. We, when we see that the words of Sheikh Bassam have a negative effect on the creed in some aspects, we try to treat the negative effects of his words. We support Sheikh Bassam because we help him to lighten his burden on the Day of Judgment.
And to inform you, the speech that I will mention today has been discussed, taken and returned, and ruled upon with a group of brothers whom I consider all to be zealous for their religion. Secondly: to avoid causing more division among Muslims and their callers, and to phrase the statements in a way that does not involve personal attacks, but at the same time does not involve softness that misleads the listeners into thinking that the issue is a trivial difference of opinion. They say, "Praise be to Allah, look at the callers how they discuss controversial issues," and they close the file on this that these are controversial issues, while they are not at all. We fall into the trap of flattery and consideration of feelings at the expense of the clarity of the constants of the religion, and this is a betrayal of knowledge.
And I return to say: if you see the poor servant one day touching a constant of the constants of Islam, and someone criticizes him severely, then beware of partisanship and defending a person. Wretched is this support. Rather, the support is to take you by the hand and say: Listen to the truth, O Iyad, and submit to it, for our religion is more important than you, and we fear for you on the Day of Judgment.
Our issue with Sheikh Bassam is not about a single statement, but rather a methodological problem—a methodology that the Sheikh follows and conveys to people. This methodology is not only present with Sheikh Bassam but also with others, to varying degrees. However, the danger in Sheikh Bassam's case lies in his credibility, which he has gained from some of his political stances and his concern for Muslim affairs, causing some followers to accept his views without discrimination or scrutiny, thus being influenced by his mistakes.
These methodological errors can be summarized in several points, with examples from the Sheikh's lectures:
The question that arises after all this is: Is the Sheikh intentionally striking at Islam, as others do whom we have previously refuted? God forbid that we claim that. Nevertheless, methodological flaws often lead to the same harm as intentional sabotage.
Alright, does the Sheikh not have any good points in his lessons? To be precise, I have only heard the Sheikh on topics that intersect with my interests, from which I learned that he has a different stance that people use against us, such as the topic of mercy, the topic of human evolution from lower creatures, and the prophecy of the demise of what is called the State of Israel based on numerical calculations attributed to the Quran. I can say that this methodological flaw exists to varying degrees in what I have heard from him on these three topics.
As for the rest, I hear that the Sheikh has good stances in defending the Ummah's causes and fighting the disbelievers and hypocrites with words, but I have not heard him on anything other than the mentioned topics, so I cannot praise his speech on these other topics to be flattering, nor can I criticize him to be unjust.
After this introduction, let us examine some of Sheikh Bassam's statements in the hope of erasing the effects of his mistakes from the minds of those who were confused. And let us see an example of the saying of the Commander of the Faithful, Al-Farooq Umar bin Al-Khattab, to Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari: "Reviewing the truth is better than persisting in falsehood." And also to see what happens when someone insists on opposing the consensus of the Imams of Islam throughout the ages and comes up with a special interpretation of the verses that contradicts their interpretations. Today, we will see whether this opposition is praiseworthy in its consequences and a proof of depth, intelligence, and broad perspective, or whether it is reckless actions that lead to contradiction and confusion in contrast to the certain knowledge of the Imams.
Firstly, Sheikh Bassam wanted to say that no one can use the consensus of scholars (ijma') as an argument against showing mercy to a deceased disbeliever, because scholars have not even reached a consensus on matters that are clearer than this. And when he wanted to provide an example, he came up with an astonishing one.
[Sheikh Bassam begins speaking in the audio clip] "The issues that we do not differ on and have a consensus about, to the extent that we can move past discussing them. Allah, the Most High, in more than one verse—I mean two verses—and these verses are in Surah An-Nisa'. The first verse: 'Indeed, Allah does not forgive that partners be associated with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills.' And the astonishing thing is that some people, and it is possible that they are people who say that the scholars have reached a consensus, meaning they confront me with the consensus of scholars. And this is an issue of claiming a consensus of scholars, which is not correct. For example, this verse: some scholars say that Allah does not forgive shirk (associating partners with Him), but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. Okay, what is less than that? Let's assume that it is disbelief that is not shirk, is it not less than that? He said, 'Since He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills,' then we seek forgiveness for the disbeliever who is not a mushrik (one who associates partners with Allah). The intended meaning is that you do not seek forgiveness for him in the matter of shirk. This does not mean that I agree with this statement. Those who say that the scholars have reached a consensus are not only saying that they have reached a consensus on the distinction between seeking forgiveness and showing mercy, but they also say things that we do not accept from them, from the senior scholars." [Sheikh Bassam ends his speech]
Let us stop at the Sheikh's statement: "Some scholars say that Allah does not forgive shirk, but He forgives what is less than that. Okay, what is less than that? Let's assume that it is disbelief that is not shirk, what is less than that?" Here, it is understood from the Sheikh Bassam's speech that some senior scholars said that Allah does not forgive shirk but may forgive disbelief because it is less than shirk, meaning lesser than shirk. This is while the Sheikh immediately afterwards moves on to say something else, which seems to be the forgiveness of the sins of the disbeliever in what is less than shirk. This issue I will not discuss. Rather, I will discuss the more critical and important issue, which is the possibility that Allah may forgive disbelief because it is less than shirk according to the Sheikh's statement. And the Sheikh repeats in many places this distinction between the forgiveness of disbelief and shirk.
[Sheikh Bassam begins speaking in the audio clip] "But what is the difference between your idea that you claim a disbeliever died upon disbelief and a mushrik? For the mushrik, the verse is clear: 'It is not for the Prophet and those who have believed to ask forgiveness for the polytheists.' Someone might say to you, 'Here, He did not prohibit it,' and he says that He may forgive. Okay, are we all playing around? Do not respond to him by saying: Rather, the matter is like when Allah said about the hypocrites: 'Ask forgiveness for them, or do not ask forgiveness for them. If you ask forgiveness for them seventy times, Allah will not forgive them.' This is for the hypocrites as well. And the Messenger, peace be upon him, if he knew that he would seek forgiveness more than seventy times. 'Indeed, shirk is a great injustice.'" [Sheikh Bassam ends his speech]
Notably, in all these places, the Sheikh ultimately concludes that Allah the Most High does not forgive disbelief just as He does not forgive shirk. Okay, fine, what is the problem? The problem is in the claim that the non-forgiveness of disbelief is not a consensus because some senior scholars have said otherwise, meaning they said that Allah may forgive disbelief according to the Sheikh's claim. Can you, Sheikh Bassam, tell us who these senior scholars are? This statement is false, rather it is the falsest of falsehoods, so no scholar can say it, Sheikh Bassam, because it contradicts the clear Quran.
Allah the Most High said: 'Indeed, Allah does not forgive that partners be associated with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills.' It is never correct to make the listener think that there is a statement from senior scholars that disbelief may be forgiven, and that if this statement is weak and not correct, it is still a statement from some senior scholars. One of the greatest Quranic truths becomes a matter of doubt, and this is the beginning of decline. Turning certainties into doubts, and false statements into weak opinions, then it becomes a viewpoint. Whoever denies it is described as claiming to monopolize the truth and preventing others from using reason. And in the end, there is no certainty in anything.
Just the idea that the issue of forgiveness for disbelief is a matter of difference is a matter of great danger, because it confuses Muslims' adherence to their religion, as it opens the door to salvation in the Hereafter for those who disbelieve in Allah and do not return to Islam as a condition for this salvation. If anyone says this, the original rule is not to mention it, and if it is mentioned, it should be in the context of condemning the statement, not using it as evidence for the occurrence of difference. It is absurd to think that every established consensus based on clear Quranic texts throughout the centuries from the time of the Companions and after them, a person comes and makes a contradictory statement, and the consensus is thus negated so easily, and the issue becomes a matter of difference or a mistake attributed to a scholar. This is absurdity that makes Islam without constants. The fall of a person in an issue does not mean the collapse of the consensus, but his statement is refuted and not taken into account.
After the scholar mentioned the confusing statements, he quoted a clear verse stating that disbelief alone is sufficient for the disbeliever to incur the curse of Allah. He also noted that all the ideas previously presented contradict this verse. Is the problem solved and the file closed? No, unfortunately, because the scholar will discuss the vocabulary of this verse with us and propose that the curse mentioned in the verse does not necessarily mean exclusion from the mercy of Allah, that eternity does not mean eternal eternity, that the disbelievers can not only have their punishment lessened but may also be destroyed and the punishment ended, and thus nothing remains of the meaning of the verse. And Allah is the one we seek help from.
The problem is in reaching a state of confusion, so that our subject is no longer that the claim of consensus is sometimes inaccurate, but even major issues like this have no consensus, which is incorrect and opens the door to tampering with all certainties.
Let us take another methodological pause with Sheikh Bassam's words.
[Sheikh Bassam begins speaking in the audio clip] "Who said that the disbeliever will enter Paradise? But it's possible. No one said that the disbeliever, the polytheist, will exit Paradise, but the disbeliever may enter Paradise, he may exit from Hellfire to Paradise. But now we will surprise them, it is also possible that he is destroyed and thus shown mercy. He may be destroyed." [Sheikh Bassam ends his speech]
This statement is invalid and incorrect, as it contradicts clear verses such as Allah's saying: "And for those who disbelieved is the Fire of Hell; they will not be given respite from it so they die, nor will the punishment thereof be lightened for them. Thus do We recompense every ungrateful." Note: "They will not be given respite from it so they die." How can the disbeliever be destroyed, O Sheikh Bassam, when Allah the Exalted has said: "They will not be given respite from it so they die"? How can the disbelievers be destroyed when our Prophet, peace be upon him, has clarified in the hadith narrated by Bukhari and Muslim that death will come on the Day of Judgment in the form of a sacrificed, salted ram, and it will be said: "O people of Paradise, eternity with no death, and O people of Hellfire, eternity with no death."
Look here at the difference between following the scholars of the Ummah over fourteen centuries who understood the Quran with a consistent, firmly rooted understanding, and whenever they faced a difficulty, they referred the ambiguous verses to the clear ones and discussed the issues in a give-and-take manner until they reached mature statements that have passed through centuries without any objection because they are based on the clear revelation and the authentic Sunnah. On the other hand, the one who comes with a statement that he thinks surpasses the understanding and precision of the scholars of the Ummah throughout the centuries, what actually happens is that he falls into contradiction and causes those who listen to him to fall into contradiction and confusion.
[Sheikh Bassam begins speaking in the audio clip] "Where are we? We now have their sciences and we are reviewing the details. As for what they say, they say funny things and long details." [Sheikh Bassam ends his speech]
By the way, brothers, someone may say that Sheikh Bassam did not contradict the consensus by claiming that the disbeliever may be destroyed in Hellfire, and that Ibn al-Qayyim preceded him in that. We say: No, Sheikh Bassam emphasized that his statement is different from the statement of the annihilation of Hellfire.
[Sheikh Bassam begins speaking in the audio clip] "It is not the annihilation of Hellfire, it is not a hadith of annihilation, it is not a speech about the annihilation of Hellfire." [Sheikh Bassam ends his speech]
Know that even the statement of the annihilation of Hellfire was doubted by Ibn al-Qayyim, and it is a statement that contradicts the consensus, so it is not taken from Ibn al-Qayyim nor from anyone else. Nevertheless, the statement of the destruction of some of the people of Hellfire while the Hellfire remains was not said by Ibn al-Qayyim nor by any of the trustworthy scholars of the Muslims. Rather, when Ibn al-Qayyim conducted a hypothetical debate between those who say that Hellfire is eternal and those who say that it will be annihilated in his book "Hadi al-Arwah," he mentioned that Ibn al-Qayyim included in the responses of those who say that it will be annihilated what clarifies their disavowal of the claim of the death or destruction of the disbelievers in Hellfire. Ibn al-Qayyim said on their behalf: "As for the disbelievers not exiting from it and not being relieved from its punishment and not being given respite so they die and not entering Paradise until the camel passes through the eye of the needle, there was no difference among the Companions, the Followers, nor the people of the Sunnah regarding that. Rather, those who differed from that were the Jews, the Unitarians, and some of the people of innovation. These texts and similar ones necessitate their eternal abode in the abode of punishment as long as it remains, and they do not exit from it as long as it remains, just as the people of Tawheed exit from it while it remains." The relevant part: "And not being given respite so they die." Meaning, even when Ibn al-Qayyim presents what he sees as evidence for the annihilation of Hellfire, he negates the statement of the death or destruction of those within it while it remains.
Someone may say: Okay, whether the Hellfire is annihilated as Ibn al-Qayyim inclined towards in one place, or some of those within it are destroyed as Sheikh Bassam says, the result is the same: the end of the punishment of the disbelievers. This statement is not an argument against us, as they are two deviant statements with the same result, opposing the clear verses. And if a scholar deviates, this does not justify another to deviate with a new statement on the pretext that the result of his statement is like the result of the other deviant statement.
Sheikh Bassam defends this new deviant statement and strongly denies those who disagree with him, considering the statement contrary to his as opposing the mercy and justice of Allah.
[Sheikh Bassam begins speaking in the audio clip] "What is the statement of the eternity of Hellfire? Is this the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate? Do you understand? Do you understand Allah as He should be understood? Have you understood His right?" [Sheikh Bassam ends his speech]
The statement of the eternity of Hellfire contradicts the mercy and compassion of Allah according to Sheikh Bassam. Therefore, some may say: O brother, why do you deny the statement of the Sheikh regarding the possibility of showing mercy or the destruction of the disbelievers, for example, when the great scholar so-and-so said something similar to his statement? The answer is that many of the statements we reject from the Sheikh are new mistakes, not the ones made by those before him. Additionally, these scholars generally had a consistent scientific methodology. They approached their positions by presenting all the evidence without prior rulings or being influenced by dominant cultures. They did not gather deviant statements, nor did they belittle the scholars of the Ummah as the Sheikh does. And with all of this, the mistake remains a mistake that we deny even from our great scholars who contradicted the consensus before, and it is not valid to follow the mistakes and false deviant opinions on the pretext that a famous scholar preceded this deviant opinion or something similar to it.
What is your evidence, O Sheikh Bassam, that the disbelievers may be destroyed?
[Sheikh Bassam begins speaking in the audio clip] "They may be destroyed. Your evidence, O Sheikh: "And the Day He will gather them all: 'O company of jinn, you have consumed much of mankind.' And their allies from among mankind will say, 'Our Lord, we enjoyed one another, and we have reached the term which You appointed for us.' He will say, 'The Fire will be your abode, wherein you will abide eternally, except as Allah wills.'" He opens the door, glorified and exalted be He. Therefore, we can say, 'We may seek forgiveness,' we can say, 'It is possible to show mercy even after punishment.' Why do we not show mercy to them? And He says, glorified and exalted be He: 'Except as Allah wills.'" [Sheikh Bassam ends his speech]
Sheikh Bassam said to you that it is possible for a disbeliever to be annihilated, citing the verse: "Dwelling therein forever, except as Allah wills." The methodology of the scholars is to interpret this verse in light of the clear verses. The verses we mentioned, which state that disbelievers do not die, are clear and cannot bear more than one meaning, as well as many other verses. While the verse "except as Allah wills" is a similar verse with many possible interpretations, and we will provide you with seven interpretations from "Zad al-Masir" by Ibn al-Jawzi in the comments, all of which are consistent with what the clear verses indicate, and none of them suggest that the disbeliever is annihilated. Ibn al-Jawzi and the scholars before and after him do not contradict the explicit Quran, but rather they warn against falling into the verse: "But those in whose hearts is a disease follow that which is similar of it, seeking discord and seeking its interpretation."
Sheikh Bassam left out the clear verses that indicate that the punishment does not stop, and he left out the seven interpretations mentioned by Ibn al-Jawzi, and he interpreted "except as Allah wills" with an interpretation that contradicts the indication of the clear verses that the disbeliever is not annihilated in the fire. In the context of his interpretation of the verse "except as Allah wills," Sheikh Bassam committed a linguistic fallacy and a mutilation of the meaning from the words of the interpreters.
As for the linguistic fallacy: Sheikh Bassam objects to the saying of those who say that "ma" in the verse may mean "man," and that "except as Allah wills" may mean "except whom Allah wills," like the sinners of the monotheists, for they do not abide in Hell.
[Sheikh Bassam begins speaking in the audio clip] "Some of them tried to say: 'ma' is the meaning of 'man.' What is 'ma' the meaning of 'man'? And 'man' is for the rational being, and this is about the duration of speech." [Sheikh Bassam ends his speech]
Sheikh Bassam sees this as directly rejected because "ma" in the Arabic language is not used for the rational being according to his speech. Well, where do you go, O Sheikh Bassam, from the saying of Allah the Almighty: "He said, 'O Iblees, what prevented you from prostrating to what I created with My hands?'" And is Adam, peace be upon him, whom Allah created with His hands, rational or not? The fact that "ma" is used for the rational and the non-rational is a matter that the language dictionaries have stated, including "Lisan al-Arab" by Ibn Manzur, which you relied upon, O Sheikh Bassam, and the interpretations, including the interpretation of Ibn Ashur, which you relied upon, O Sheikh Bassam, with the reminder that the interpretation of "ma" with "man" is one of the seven possible interpretations of the verse.
As for the mutilation: Brother Hussam Abdul Aziz clarified how Sheikh Bassam cut the speech of Abu Zuhrah and Ibn Ashur in a way that completely contradicts the accuracy of the transmission, and that both interpreters stated in the same place that Sheikh Bassam cut off that the punishment does not stop. And although Sheikh Bassam tried to deny the occurrence of this mutilation of meaning in his last word, it is not hidden from those who will take the time to verify. And the fact that he responded to what was attributed to him means that his response was correct and convincing.
In truth: He relies on a similar verse, and in that, he comes with a linguistic fallacy, and mutilations that violate the meaning, to say a false saying that has not been preceded by the people of the Sunnah. What we need to understand, brothers, is that the consensus is a vessel that Allah preserves His religion from such confusion. The consensus is a fortress that prevents the state of escape, confusion, and chaos. The infallibility in the consensus is not for individuals but for the agreement on a certain ruling. If the consensus is wrong, that means that the scholars of the Muslims agreed to attribute something to the Shariah that is not from it, and the nation falls into misguidance, especially in matters of belief.
Allah the Almighty said: "And whoever opposes the Messenger after what has become clear to him of guidance and follows other than the way of the believers - We will give him what he has taken and throw him into Hell, and evil it is as a destination." And this verse was relied upon by Ash-Shafi'i, may Allah have mercy on him, on the binding nature of consensus. The consensus is a protection for the general people from the adventures of the adventurers. What do the general people know about the problems that Sheikh Bassam Jarar is doing? Do they know the language and its rules that the Sheikh contradicts? Do they know how to refer the similar to the clear? Do they know the mutilation from the speech of the scholars? They hear from him speech that seems convincing to them and they are deceived by it. Therefore, we say to every Muslim: follow the consensus and beware of those who contradict it, for he will misguide you. And it is never enough that someone comes to you with a verse and makes you think that it is evidence for what he says if you know that the scholars have agreed on the opposite.
Why does Sheikh Bassam do this? Is it because he intentionally violates the tenets of Islam? Once again, we say, God forbid that we claim this. However, what happens with many Muslims is that they come to a matter that does not agree with their minds and way of thinking, so they try to convince themselves and others that this matter is not from Islam. Therefore, you see Sheikh Bassam asking in disbelief about the eternity of the punishment of the disbelievers.
[Sheikh Bassam begins speaking in the audio clip] "What? This is the Most Merciful, the Merciful? Do you understand? Do you understand in this way? Have you truly appreciated Allah as He deserves? Have you truly appreciated Him as He deserves?" [Sheikh Bassam ends his speech]
Note that this statement about the eternal punishment of the disbelievers is the statement of Muslims and their scholars based on the Book and the Sunnah for fourteen centuries, except for a few individuals who deviated. Yet, Sheikh Bassam sees that this statement contradicts the belief that Allah, glorified and exalted, is the Most Merciful, the Merciful, and sees that they have not appreciated Allah as He deserves. Does this mean that the nation for fourteen centuries has been in error and has not appreciated Allah as He deserves? Is this renewal and conquest, or is it chaos and destruction of the goodness of the nation over the centuries, claiming that it has gone astray, and nullifying the feeling of the Muslim that he has roots to rely on?
The Sheikh argues with us using Surah Al-Fatihah, which we recite in every prayer, and in which we describe Allah as the Most Merciful, the Merciful. Okay, follow up, Sheikh Bassam, in Al-Fatihah itself: "Guide us to the straight path, the path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor." Who are those upon whom Allah has bestowed favor? Are they not the prophets, the truthful, the martyrs, the scholars, and the righteous throughout the centuries from our brothers who preceded us in faith? When we understand the Quran and the Sunnah in the understanding of our scholars throughout the centuries, we are thereby seeking the path of those upon whom Allah has bestowed favor.
Sheikh Bassam considers that when he does what he does to deny the eternity of the punishment of the disbeliever, he thereby prevents the temptation and apostasy of people.
[Sheikh Bassam begins speaking in the audio clip] "The thing I want people to hear is that those who are sitting and talking to people differently and tempting people, and perhaps people may apostatize because of them. What are they saying? They are saying that the disbeliever who died upon disbelief, imagine you put in your mind many who died upon disbelief in different forms and colors, some of them are very harsh, and some of them have tender hearts, and some of them helped people, and some of them, and some of them, and some of them, and some of them, Abu Talib who benefited Islam by his tribal loyalty, and the people who benefit you for a principle, is this the woman who came from the West and stood in front of the Israeli bulldozer. Here they say that the disbeliever, just because he died upon disbelief, regardless of his crimes, ah, I tell you no, who told you that the degrees in the Fire vary, the important thing is that he remains in the Fire to no end." [Sheikh Bassam ends his speech]
Therefore, according to Sheikh Bassam, it is not reasonable that the disbeliever whose heart is tender and helps people, just because he died upon disbelief only, it is not reasonable that he remains in the Fire to no end. This is what we have indicated, that the Sheikh is influenced by the prevailing culture and the tendency that does not see disbelief and polytheism as hard hearts and rigid understandings. Our question to you, Sheikh Bassam: Why did the Companions not object to the eternity of the punishment of Abu Talib as you have objected? Or even the eternity of the punishment of those who insisted on disbelief from their fathers and mothers. Or is it that the Companions also did not appreciate Allah as He deserves and did not understand the meaning that He is the Most Merciful, the Merciful? Is it not possible, Sheikh Bassam, that the problem is not in what the nation has agreed upon, but in the weakness of some people's feeling of the gravity of the crime of disbelief in Allah?
And if you say all these words of yours, Sheikh Bassam, so that people do not apostatize and are tempted, will they, perhaps, believe and submit if you tell them that the gentle disbeliever with a tender heart, as you say, will be tormented for billions of years as you have suggested yourself? Or if you tell them that their scholars throughout the centuries have agreed upon error? Will the people who try to bring a statement that they accept about the magnitude of the punishment of the disbeliever in the Hereafter feel that the ratio of the creation to Allah is indeed as Allah has described: "A word by which the heavens are about to burst and the earth splits open and the mountains crumble into dust"?
If we make the desires of people and their feelings that belittle the crime of disbelief the criterion, will they accept if it is said to them that the gentle disbeliever with a tender heart who helps people, as you say, and his only problem is that he disbelieved or associated partners, will they accept if it is said to them that he will indeed be tormented in the Hellfire? Do you not see, Sheikh Bassam, that your statement is close to what Allah has narrated about the Children of Israel? "And they say, 'The Fire will not touch us except for a number of days.'" What was Allah's response to them? Did He say that they will be tormented for millions or billions of years? No, rather He said in response to them: "Say, 'Have you taken with Allah a covenant that He will not break His covenant, or do you say about Allah what you do not know? Rather, those who earn bad deeds and their sins have encompassed them, those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein. And those who have believed and done righteous deeds, those are the companions of Paradise; they will abide therein.'"
Just as there is eternity in the Fire for those who disbelieve, there is eternity in Paradise for those who believe. And the mercy of the Most Merciful, the Merciful, in all of this, is established by the fact that He has instilled the innate disposition, granted the intellect, sent the messengers, revealed the books, and given opportunities. So whoever disbelieves after that has only himself to blame: "And We did not wrong them, but they were the wrongdoers." "And they will call, 'O Malik, let your Lord bring an end to us!' He will say, 'Indeed, you are to remain.' We have certainly brought you the truth, but most of you, to the truth, are averse."
I am not here, my brothers, to prove the justice of the eternity of the disbelievers in the Fire, for this is a separate discussion, but I am here to prove that this eternal permanence is what the Book and the Sunnah have indeed stated, and that it is the consensus of Muslims throughout the ages, and that Sheikh Bassam says what contradicts the consensus, and that instead of being preoccupied with reducing the horror of the fate of the disbelievers in the Hereafter, we should strive to ensure that they do not reach this fate by calling them to Islam so that they may be saved from the Fire.
And here is a very important point, my brothers, a very important point: We do not warn against the statement of the cessation of the punishment of the disbelievers in the Fire because we are eager for their punishment and happy with it, but because the methodology of Sheikh Bassam in opposing this fixed matter from the revelation and applying this methodology in general with the fixed principles of Islam leads in the end to the demolition of the fixed principles of Islam in general, and taking the Muslims out of the state of submission and compliance with the ruling of the Lord of the Worlds to a state of selectivity and making the revelation subject to desires rather than being followed.
This approach, along with opposing the decisive verses of the Quran and the consensus of scholars, shows an influence from the dominant culture. This is also evident in Sheikh Bassam's discussion about the superstition known as the theory of evolution. The Sheikh struggles and delves into the Quran to prove that Adam, peace be upon him, had a mother who could be a Neanderthal, as discussed by fossil scientists, who are said to be less intelligent than the human race. The Sheikh believes that this also prevents Muslims from falling into atheism, as if they go to traditional scholars and these scholars tell them that this is false, they will see that Islam contradicts science.
[Sheikh Bassam begins speaking in the audio clip] "Yes, I can speak. What do you mean, I can? Because those who claim in the name of the Quran and in the name of Islam, that it is directly from the ancestors. What is what? I will show you from the Quran and from established Sunnah, and the Sunnah will be clear and explicit on the matter so that we can sit because this, by the way, this can lead to some Muslims being misled when they see us sometimes like this, rejecting and accepting from us, even though the religion is originally above science." [Sheikh Bassam ends his speech]
The same logic and the same false solution of stumbling in the interpretation of the verses to adapt them to false ideas. We have explained in detail in the series "Journey of Certainty" that what is called the theory of evolution is just a superstition, and that the Neanderthal man is not less than the human we know today according to modern research. When we strive not to mislead Muslims, O Sheikh Bassam, the solution is not to violate the consensus and gamble in the interpretation of the decisive verses and lead Muslims into a state of chaos and absurdity that people like Adnan Ibrahim and Muhammad Shahrur exploit, but the solution is to make Muslims understand the horror of death in disbelief so that they know that Allah does not wrong in His judgment, He does not wrong in His judgment, and urge them to call the nations. The solution is to fortify people against the superstitions of false science so that they do not oppose the Quran with it. Here is the real renewal in reviving the meanings of the religion in the face of the destructive current that undermines its constants, and we follow the path of those whom Allah has blessed without violating the fence of the Sharia.
Another example of linguistic fallacies is when we told Sheikh Bassam: Allah the Almighty said: "They have despaired of My mercy." Sheikh Bassam acknowledged that the past tense can be used for the future to indicate certainty, but he leaned towards the despair mentioned being in this world. Why? Because it is in the past tense.
[Sheikh Bassam begins speaking in the audio clip] "This meaning, by the way, why must it appear? Because is it despair in the past or what? Will they despair or will they not despair?" [Sheikh Bassam ends his speech]
The correct view is that there is no basis for Sheikh Bassam to lean towards despair being in the past because it is in the past tense. Allah the Almighty said: "And admit those who believed and did righteous deeds into gardens beneath which rivers flow, abiding eternally therein by permission of their Lord." Did they enter it in this world? Or will that be on the Day of Judgment? Moreover, the Sheikh himself mentioned after this place the saying of Allah the Almighty: "And the criminals saw the Fire and thought that they would incur it." And there are many such instances in the Quran. The past tense is often used in the Quran to speak of future matters as a matter of certainty. Sheikh Bassam's methodology is disturbed; he argues with the dictionary meanings of words that have legal connotations, and yet he chooses and leans without evidence in other places to prove his point.
And according to the nature of language, we sometimes simplify the words to make them easier on the ears of the people, meaning you might hear me say, "See Sheikh Bassam" while the original is "See Sheikh Bassam," or I say, "You find someone saying that" while the original is "You find someone saying that." I know this, but I avoid heavy words on the ears.
What about the topic of the extinction of fire, which is again different from Sheikh Bassam's suggestion that the disbeliever may be annihilated in the fire? Ibn Al-Qayyim indeed showed a tendency towards the view of the extinction of fire in one place in his books without explicitly stating this view, while in another place he stopped and agreed with the consensus of the nation in stating the eternity of fire in a third place. Which of these positions is the settled view of Ibn Al-Qayyim does not concern us, because the view of the eternity of fire is one that the consensus of the nation has agreed upon, and this consensus was reported by Ibn Hazm and others. Consensus does not mean that all the scholars of the nation throughout the ages agree on the matter, but if the early generations agreed on a saying, that is sufficient for consensus.
As for the reports mentioned by Ibn Al-Qayyim from some of the Companions, which he tried to use to refute the consensus, these reports are not authentic in terms of their chain of transmission, as many scholars of Hadith such as Muhammad bin Ismail Al-Sanani and Al-Albani have shown, and we will provide you with the names of their researches in the comments. And if something is authentic from the reports, it will be interpreted based on the decisive verses that clarify the eternity of the fire. We will provide you in the comments with a firm explanation by Al-Shinqiti, may Allah have mercy on him, in his book "Daf' Ihama Al-Ihtilal," in which he explains that the eternity of the fire is the view that harmonizes the verses. So even if Ibn Al-Qayyim says the fire is extinguished, we correct him and do not follow him with our love and respect for him, and we have quoted much from him.
The problem is that Sheikh Bassam falls into all these fallacies with high confidence and ridicules those who disagree with him, convincing his listeners that he is on the clear truth.
Those who use this hadith as evidence for the prohibition of showing mercy to the deceased disbelievers refer to the hadith of Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari, may Allah be pleased with him, who said: "The Jews would sneeze in the presence of the Prophet, peace be upon him, hoping that he would say to them, 'May Allah have mercy on you,' but he would say, 'May Allah guide you and rectify your affairs.'" What does Sheikh Bassam say about those who use this hadith as evidence for the prohibition of showing mercy to the deceased disbelievers?
[Sheikh Bassam begins speaking in the audio clip] "These people, these people, first of all, we take from them as well. I want to tell the people who say, 'We are truly scholars of the law, and we take from those who write to us, those whom we see that they are scholars from all of them.' If they bring this hadith, they understand that they either do not understand or do they understand, my brothers?" [Sheikh Bassam ends his speech]
And Sheikh Bassam repeats his accusation: "These people who use this hadith as evidence, these people are not to be taken as scholars or traitors." Why? Yes, why, Sheikh Bassam? "Because first of all, they mock the living, and our subject is not about the living. Our subject is about those who died in disbelief, who died in polytheism." [Sheikh Bassam ends his speech]
Those who used the hadith of the Jews' sneezing as evidence are not mistaken at all, but this is called the primary case. If the Prophet, peace be upon him, does not show mercy to the living disbeliever, then it is even more appropriate that he does not show mercy to the deceased disbeliever, because the living disbeliever may be guided by Allah, so the one who says to them, 'May Allah have mercy on you,' may mean that Allah guides him to Islam, so he becomes one of the people of mercy in this world and the hereafter. If the Prophet, peace be upon him, did not say this to them while they were alive and their guidance was hoped for, how can he say it to a disbeliever after he has died?
But if you want to see the confusion in action, listen to how Sheikh Bassam uses evidence.
[Sheikh Bassam begins speaking in the audio clip] "Bring me evidence that when people show mercy to a disbeliever, they show mercy to him in the sense of asking for leniency for him, ah, before the judgment is passed. You bring me verses after he is already in the fire, saying to me: 'But the intercession of the intercessors will not benefit them.' What did we say? We said in this world, they are saying they show mercy. And on the Day of Judgment, it comes in his scale. This mercy. Prove to me that it comes in his scale. And this is not his deed. This is not his deed. This is the deed of others now. Because they know what you are saying? Is it not that Allah, glorified and exalted be He, nullifies all their deeds. No, my brother, these are our deeds. These are our deeds. Showing mercy to him. Okay. Then how does a great sheikh fall into this, and the Messenger intercedes for his uncle." [Sheikh Bassam ends his speech]
And we ask the sheikh: What is the connection between the Prophet's intercession for his uncle on the Day of Judgment and the Muslims showing mercy to the deceased disbelievers in this world? Of course, Sheikh Bassam tried to prove that the Prophet's intercession for Abu Talib will be before Abu Talib enters the fire. This contradicts the narration of Muslim from Al-Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, who said: "I said, 'O Messenger of Allah, Abu Talib used to protect you and support you. Did that benefit him?' The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: 'Yes, I found him in the depths of the fire, so I took him out to its outskirts.'" And the past tense, as we mentioned, is used for certainty, otherwise Abu Talib has not yet entered the depths of the fire or its outskirts. The apparent meaning of the hadith is that Abu Talib will enter the depths of the fire, then after that, he will be taken out to its outskirts by the intercession of the Prophet, peace be upon him. And even if you do not accept, Sheikh Bassam, that this intercession will be after Abu Talib enters the fire, does it contradict that it will be on the Day of Judgment? As appears from the hadith of Bukhari and Muslim: "Perhaps his intercession will benefit him on the Day of Judgment?" And if you contradict and say that the Prophet interceded in this world, what is your evidence? We will put their texts that it is a special privilege of the Messenger for you in the comments.
Sheikh Bassam sees this claim of special privilege as laughable.
[Sheikh Bassam begins speaking in the audio clip] "Okay, some of them, what do they say on this matter? He said this is a special privilege of the Messenger. And this is the logic of the sheikh in denying that it is a special privilege of the Messenger. Where is the evidence for the special privilege of a messenger? And they forgot the verse I mentioned to you: 'It is not for the Prophet' we concluded 'It is not for the Prophet' what special privilege? Where is the special privilege?" [Sheikh Bassam ends his speech]
Sheikh Bassam believes that since Allah, the Exalted, prohibited the Prophet and those who believe from asking forgiveness for the polytheists, this means that it is not possible for the Prophet to have special intercession for Abu Talib. If Allah prohibited the Prophet and those who believe from asking forgiveness for the polytheists in this world, then allowed the Prophet to intercede for his uncle on the Day of Judgment, then it is necessary to allow those who believe to intercede for the deceased disbelievers in this world. What is the connection between this and that, Sheikh Bassam?
What is your evidence, Sheikh Bassam, that those who use the hadith as evidence are not to be taken or are traitors?
[Sheikh Bassam begins speaking in the audio clip] "Then how did you know that the Messenger used to say to them, 'May Allah have mercy on you?' How did you know, meaning? Well, we saw the answer that the Messenger responds to is greater, it is greater than the mercy of guidance and rectifying the heart, what do the people want?" [Sheikh Bassam ends his speech]
Meaning, the Prophet, peace be upon him, did not intend to say to the Jews, 'May Allah have mercy on you,' but he prayed for them with the greatest forms of mercy. And the one who thinks that the Prophet avoided the word mercy itself are, according to your description, "traitors who do not understand or are not to be taken as scholars." Come, let's see who was the first to understand that the Prophet intentionally avoided the word mercy? Do you think it was Sheikh Al-Dado or Iyad or the Salafis? Let's read the text of the hadith: Abu Dawud, Al-Tirmidhi, and Imam Ahmad narrated from Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari, may Allah be pleased with him, from whom? From Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari, may Allah be pleased with him, who said: "The Jews used to sneeze in the presence of the Prophet, peace be upon him, hoping that he would say to them, 'May Allah have mercy on you,' but he would say, 'May Allah guide you and rectify your affairs.'" So the one who noticed this observation was the companion Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari, may Allah be pleased with him, who understood that the Prophet intentionally avoided the word mercy, not ignorant people who do not understand, but a great companion.
Do you not realize, Sheikh Bassam, that every time you want to defend your mistake, you violate great sanctities and you do not feel it? We remind you, Sheikh Bassam, of the advice of Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, to Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari, whom he spoke about. When he wrote to him, Umar said: "And do not prevent you from judging your case today, reviewing your opinion and guiding you to righteousness, that you review the truth. Verily, the truth is ancient and nothing nullifies the truth. And reviewing the truth is better than..." [Sheikh Bassam ends his speech]
And he violates more sanctities. You ask, Sheikh Bassam: Is there anything greater than guidance and rectifying the heart? And we ask you: Does this escape Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari, may Allah be pleased with him, and those who narrated the hadith to this day? It is as if you are telling him, Abu Musa, your observation is not in the right place. What does it mean if the Messenger did not say to them, 'May Allah have mercy on you?' Guidance and rectifying the heart are mercy, rather the greatest mercy, which means that he prayed for them with mercy.
Sheikh Bassam himself in his second lecture interpreted the hadith differently and said:
[Sheikh Bassam begins speaking in the audio clip] "There is evidence for them that the Jews used to sneeze and then say, 'Praise be to Allah.' No, they did not say it. There is nothing in the hadith that they sneezed so that he would say to them, 'May Allah have mercy on you.' He did not say to them what I said to you why he did not say to them, 'Praise be to Allah.'" [Sheikh Bassam ends his speech]
So the issue is not that the Prophet (peace be upon him) intentionally did not pray for their mercy because they were disbelievers, but only because they did not say "praise be to Allah." It was as if the Jews saw the Muslims sneezing and praising Allah, and they were told "may Allah have mercy on you," so they sneezed in front of the Prophet and forgot to say "praise be to Allah." The Prophet only expected them to say "praise be to Allah" so that he could pray for their mercy. He (peace be upon him) had no objection to saying "may Allah have mercy on you" to them. Instead of teaching them to say "praise be to Allah" so that he could pray for their mercy, he said to them "may Allah guide you and rectify your condition." And it did not occur to the Jews to rectify the situation and say "praise be to Allah" so that the Prophet would say to them "may Allah have mercy on you."
Why are you, O Sheikh, so keen on distinguishing between the terms mercy and forgiveness so that we do not infer from the prohibitive texts about seeking forgiveness the prohibition of showing mercy, then we find you removing the barriers between mercy and seeking guidance and making them one and the same, and removing the barriers between the Muslims showing mercy to the disbelievers in this world and the Prophet's (peace be upon him) intercession for Abu Talib in the Hereafter? Which of your interpretations should we take, O Sheikh Bsam? The understanding you mentioned in the second episode that the Prophet did not say to them "may Allah have mercy on you" because they might not have said "praise be to Allah"? Or the first understanding in the first episode that his prayer for their guidance and rectification of their condition is the same as praying for their mercy? And which of the two understandings do you consider those who oppose you not understanding?
Those who said that this hadith indicates the prohibition of blessing the Jews with "may Allah have mercy on you" are eminent scholars such as Ibn Rushd the Elder in his book "Al-Muqaddimat Al-Mumahhat," Ibn Hajar in "Fath Al-Bari," and Ibn Ruzlan in "Sharh Sunan Abi Dawud." This hadith indicates that Islam came with the regulation of speech to preserve concepts and creeds and prevent confusion, especially in sensitive issues such as the fate of disbelievers and believers. This is what we are trying to convince you of, O Sheikh Bsam.
If the Prophet had prayed for the Jews' mercy in that situation with the intention that they be guided and shown mercy, with the intention that they be guided and shown mercy, the Jews would have flown with it and said: Do you see? They are hoping for mercy for us. Do not come. The Prophet did not intend that they be shown mercy in the Hereafter if they remained upon their disbelief. Islam is a condition for the mercy of the Hereafter, and we will enter into a debate thereafter. The boundaries of Islam are preserved by wide safety zones and precise legal terms so that there is no confusion. "May Allah have mercy on you" in this general sense, which includes both this world and the Hereafter, you want it to have no way except Islam without any deviation. And this is despite the presence of the Prophet (peace be upon him), it was difficult for them at that time to mislead the people due to the clarity of the boundaries of Islam in a strict manner and the necessity that there is no salvation except through Islam and the revelation descends upon the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Muslims.
What about these days? Our days, when the media works to blur the issue of monotheism and to fight the principle that there is no salvation except through Islam and to oppose Allah the Exalted in His saying: "And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him, and he will be among the losers in the Hereafter." And when the forces of disbelief and hypocrisy work to introduce any alternative concept to the fact that there is no salvation except through Islam, sometimes with humanism, sometimes with citizenship, and sometimes with what is called the Abrahamic religion. And they teach the children in schools in the national education curricula that there is no difference between citizens on the basis of religion, but rather the Islamic education curricula are infiltrated with this concept, and they teach the children that religion is something marginal, so there is no difference between you and the disbeliever, but you will not even say about him that he is a disbeliever, and you as a Muslim do not have the absolute right. And if any teacher in a school contradicts this blurring and mentions to his students that there is no salvation except through Islam or any preacher or orator mentions this, then the laws of inciting sectarian sedition await him.
Thus, we have generations that see religion as accessories, secondary things. You are a Muslim like you prefer a football team or a certain color or a meal. And all religions and factions and types of meals are good and blessed, O generation. And there are generations that are shocked by a severe shock and stagger and slap their cheeks and tear their clothes if you tell them that it is not permissible to pray for the deceased disbeliever to enter paradise. Come on, O Sheikh Bsam. You cut off the words of the scholars. You pretend and contradict and oppose the verses and the consensus. All of this why? So that you can prove that it is permissible to say about the deceased disbeliever "may Allah have mercy on him." In this general sense. And you conceal in your heart the meaning of reducing the torment. The weeks and months pass. And it remains in the memory that there are scholars who have permitted showing mercy to the deceased Christians and non-Muslims in general. And this intention of reducing the torment is on the road. You forget and erase.
There are a thousand opportunists who want to exploit your words, O Sheikh Bsam, and the words of those who follow you, to increase the blurring of religion in the minds of the generations. Imagine when it is written in the curricula of our children in a day that may not be far off: "Some extremists have prohibited showing mercy to those who die from our fellow citizens, the Christians or Jews or Buddhists or Hindus or atheists, and this is an extremist terrorist position that contradicts the tolerance of the religion, while the moderate scholars have permitted this mercy, including Sheikh Bsam Jarar and the General Secretary of the World Union of Muslim Scholars and so and so."
It would have been better for you, O Sheikh Bsam, to save the descriptions of "those who do not understand" and "ignorant" for those who described the disbeliever with testimony and prayed for him with all kinds of supplications and asked Allah to admit him to the spacious gardens with the prophets, the truthful, the martyrs, and the righteous, and even performed the funeral prayer for him.
I had hoped that Sheikh Bassam would accept the dialogue between us and listen to the words I mentioned today, that he would hear them from me alone and then go out to the people to correct, but he refused, unfortunately. Our problem with Sheikh Bassam is not in a matter of disagreement, but in making some constants controversial and arguing with what is not evidence and without scientific methodology. And all of this in a word he entitled "Methodological Issues in Addressing the Concept of Mercy and Forgiveness." This was his first word from his words. Therefore, it is not appropriate for the categorical issues to become controversial based on what Sheikh Bassam said. There is no ijtihad in the matter of the text, no ijtihad in the matter of the text.
And I ask Allah to guide him and us to the right path, to rectify our intentions and purify our hearts, and to guide His servant Bassam Jarar to return to the truth and guide his followers to him. And I say in conclusion, I absolve Sheikh Bassam from my personal right in whatever may have come from him towards me in the past or will come in the future, forgiving in this world and the hereafter. As for the statement of the matter of religion, there is no flattery in it. And I call upon the brothers who were convinced by our words today not to exceed what we mentioned about the Sheikh and not to harm him, for harm causes enmity and deprives people of calm thinking and hides them from following the truth.
O Allah, Lord of Jibreel, Mikaeel, and Israfil, Creator of the heavens and the earth, Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, You judge between Your servants in what they differ in. Guide us to the truth of what differs from it with Your permission. Verily, You guide whom You will to a straight path. Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.