And in the first volume it has preceded, also from the speech of Shaykh-Ul-Islaam, his clarification the despicability of Shirk is known in the natural predisposition and intellect before the coming of the Messengers and the establishment of the evidences, but the punishment is pending upon its establishment (1), based upon the statement of Allah the most high:
(وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّىٰ نَبْعَثَ رَسُولًا) "And never would We punish until We sent a messenger." [Al-Isra':15].
____ 1) Whereby Shaykh-Ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, and other Imams established that actions are bad and blameworthy before the sending of the Messengers, similar the title Mushrik and Jaahili and oppressor, and other names which carry blame, because this is affirmed before the coming of the Message and the establishment of the evidences, and they put forth evidences which clarify that the title of Shirk is pending upon perpetration of the actions of the Mushriks which are major Shirk, and it is not pending to the establishment of the evidences, as there is no connection here with the excuse of ignorance, but they don't deserve the punishment except after the Messenger coming to them, based upon His statement:
(وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّىٰ نَبْعَثَ رَسُولًا) "And never would We punish until We sent a messenger." [Al-Isra':15].
As mentioned in <Majmuu' Al-Fataawa> (20/37-38), and elsewhere.
▪️ Shaykh-Ul-Islaam, Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy upon him, clarified this topic, and the approach of the opposers -i.e the Mu'tazilah and the Ashaa'irah- of the Salaf in this, and that they based this upon the subject matter of the Rhetoric based ˹At-Tahseen˺ and ˹At-Taqbeeh˺, and he clarified that the people differed [regarding Shirk, oppression, lying, immorality, and the likes to three positions:
1. It's said: that the despicability of this is known through the intellect, and that they deserve punishment for this in the hereafter, even if no Messenger comes to them, as the Mu'tazilah say, and many of the companions of Abu Hanifah, and they relayed this from Abu Hanifah himself, and this is a position of Abul-Khattaab and others.
2. It's said: There's is nothing bad nor good nor evil, except after the mention of this has come, what's bad is only that what has been about it "don't do it", and what's good is what's said been about it "do it" or was given permission to be performed, as is said by the Ashaa'irah, and those who agreed with them of the three groups.
3. And it was said: that it was bad evil and despicable before the coming of the Messenger, but the punishment only becomes deserving after the coming of the Messenger, and upon this are the majority of the Salaf, and the majority of the Muslims, and it is what the Book and the Sunnah points to. Because the two contain a clarification that what the disbelievers are upon is evil and despicable and bad, before the coming of the Messengers, even if they didn't deserve punishment except after the Messengers came to them, and in the "Sahih" is that Hudhayfah said: "O Messenger of Allah, we used to be in Jaahiliyyah and in bad, then Allah came to us with this good, is there after this good any bad? He said: "Yes, there will be callers to the doors of the Fire, whoever response to them by going towards it will be thrown in it".] End of speech look in <Majmuu' Al-Fataawa 11/677 and what comes after it>.
A clarification has preceded on some of the people of knowledge opposing regarding the topic of the people of the Al-Fatrah entering into the fire eternally, and that the basis of their approach is upon text based, contrary to the approach by the Mu'tazilah in this.
And that they are countered by the clear evidence of the people of Al-Fatrah, and those from the ignorant of Tawheed that take their ruling in the hereafter, being tested, and this is what Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn-Ul-Qayyim relayed from the majority of the Salaf, but they are in agreement to consensus of the Salaf in the ruling upon the ignorant of Tawheed in the dunya in accordance to the outward of their actions.
And in the first volume it has preceded, also from the speech of Shaykh-Ul-Islaam, his clarification the despicability of Shirk is known in the natural predisposition and intellect before the coming of the Messengers and the establishment of the evidences, but the punishment is pending upon its establishment (1), based upon the statement of Allah the most high:
(وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّىٰ نَبْعَثَ رَسُولًا) "And never would We punish until We sent a messenger." [Al-Isra':15].
____ 1) Whereby Shaykh-Ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, and other Imams established that actions are bad and blameworthy before the sending of the Messengers, similar the title Mushrik and Jaahili and oppressor, and other names which carry blame, because this is affirmed before the coming of the Message and the establishment of the evidences, and they put forth evidences which clarify that the title of Shirk is pending upon perpetration of the actions of the Mushriks which are major Shirk, and it is not pending to the establishment of the evidences, as there is no connection here with the excuse of ignorance, but they don't deserve the punishment except after the Messenger coming to them, based upon His statement:
(وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّىٰ نَبْعَثَ رَسُولًا) "And never would We punish until We sent a messenger." [Al-Isra':15].
As mentioned in <Majmuu' Al-Fataawa> (20/37-38), and elsewhere.
▪️ Shaykh-Ul-Islaam, Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy upon him, clarified this topic, and the approach of the opposers -i.e the Mu'tazilah and the Ashaa'irah- of the Salaf in this, and that they based this upon the subject matter of the Rhetoric based ˹At-Tahseen˺ and ˹At-Taqbeeh˺, and he clarified that the people differed [regarding Shirk, oppression, lying, immorality, and the likes to three positions:
1. It's said: that the despicability of this is known through the intellect, and that they deserve punishment for this in the hereafter, even if no Messenger comes to them, as the Mu'tazilah say, and many of the companions of Abu Hanifah, and they relayed this from Abu Hanifah himself, and this is a position of Abul-Khattaab and others.
2. It's said: There's is nothing bad nor good nor evil, except after the mention of this has come, what's bad is only that what has been about it "don't do it", and what's good is what's said been about it "do it" or was given permission to be performed, as is said by the Ashaa'irah, and those who agreed with them of the three groups.
3. And it was said: that it was bad evil and despicable before the coming of the Messenger, but the punishment only becomes deserving after the coming of the Messenger, and upon this are the majority of the Salaf, and the majority of the Muslims, and it is what the Book and the Sunnah points to. Because the two contain a clarification that what the disbelievers are upon is evil and despicable and bad, before the coming of the Messengers, even if they didn't deserve punishment except after the Messengers came to them, and in the "Sahih" is that Hudhayfah said: "O Messenger of Allah, we used to be in Jaahiliyyah and in bad, then Allah came to us with this good, is there after this good any bad? He said: "Yes, there will be callers to the doors of the Fire, whoever response to them by going towards it will be thrown in it".] End of speech look in <Majmuu' Al-Fataawa 11/677 and what comes after it>.
A clarification has preceded on some of the people of knowledge opposing regarding the topic of the people of the Al-Fatrah entering into the fire eternally, and that the basis of their approach is upon text based, contrary to the approach by the Mu'tazilah in this.
And that they are countered by the clear evidence of the people of Al-Fatrah, and those from the ignorant of Tawheed that take their ruling in the hereafter, being tested, and this is what Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn-Ul-Qayyim relayed from the majority of the Salaf, but they are in agreement to consensus of the Salaf in the ruling upon the ignorant of Tawheed in the dunya in accordance to the outward of their actions.
BY The Official English Channel of Shaykh Abu Hatim Yusuf Al-'Inaabi Al-Jazaa'iree
The group’s featured image is of a Pepe frog yelling, often referred to as the “REEEEEEE” meme. Pepe the Frog was created back in 2005 by Matt Furie and has since become an internet symbol for meme culture and “degen” culture. Hui said the messages, which included urging the disruption of airport operations, were attempts to incite followers to make use of poisonous, corrosive or flammable substances to vandalize police vehicles, and also called on others to make weapons to harm police. To view your bio, click the Menu icon and select “View channel info.” ‘Ban’ on Telegram Today, we will address Telegram channels and how to use them for maximum benefit.
from us
