Kind: captions
Language: en
الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ عَلَى إِحْسَانِهِ، وَالشُّكْرُ لَهُ عَلَى تَوْفِيقِهِ وَامْتِنَانِه
وَأَشْهَدُ أَن لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا الله وَحْدَهُ لَا شَرِيكَ لَهُ تَعْظِيمًا لِشَأْنِهِ
وَأَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا عَبْدُهُ وَرَسُولُهُ الدَّاعِي إِلَى رِضْوَانِهِ،
أَللَّهُمَّ صَلِى عَلَيهِ وعَلَ أَلِهِ وَأَصْحَابِهِ وَإِخْوَانِهِ
Ladies and gentlemen who are blessed by Allah SWT,
We pray to Allah SWT for His praise and gratitude who continues giving us endless gifts,
thus, we can gather to discuss a matter that most people talk about
namely the lawfulness of adultery,
May our meeting be blessed by Allah SWT
Shalawat and greetings are always poured out to our Prophet Muhammad ﷺ,
and also to his family, and all his companions without exception.
It is true what Prophet ﷺ said in Sahih Al-Bukhari,
لَيَكُونَنَّ مِنْ أُمَّتِي أَقْوَامٌ يَسْتَحِلُّونَ الْحِرَ وَالْحَرِيرَ وَالْخَمْرَ وَالْمَعَازِفَ
From among my followers there will be some people who will consider illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk (for men), khamr (alcoholic drinks) and the use of musical instruments, as lawful.
We have heard that there are some people who make silk cloth lawful for men.
with their various arguments, and some Muslims make it lawful, even though it is clear that the law is haraam
We have also heard that some people are desperate to justify khamr
by calling it as a spiritual drink or something else, for treatment, or things that they make it as postulate
We have also heard that there are some people who justify musical instruments with various excuses that they express,
even though the prohibition of music is already a matter of ijma' in all madhhab
However, it did not occur to me that anyone would dare to justify adultery, because this is a very heinous matter. Allah SWT said,
إِنَّهُۥ كَانَ فَٰحِشَةً وَسَآءَ سَبِيلً Indeed, adultery is an abominable thing, and an odious way
it's denied by human nature, which greatly damaging the society
Therefore, all people know that adultery is forbidden
Let alone scholars, commoners, fathers and mothers know that adultery is forbidden
Even the people committing adultery know that adultery is haram
There is no adulterer who is still a Muslim and says "adultery is lawful, it's okay", no
they commit adultery and they know it's haraam
That's why it didn't occur to me, how did they justify the adultery
But it turns out that in our time, there are even doctors specialized in religion studies, who teach at Islamic universities
daring to justify adultery with the pretext that he mentioned
and it turns out that he is taqlid to a civil engineering engineer whose name is Muhammad Syahrul from Syria
who is also desperate to say adultery is lawful
Among his words, "As long as a person who is having sex with a woman under a commitment"
"in a closed place, then that's okay"
It shows that cohabitation is permissible according to him.
as long as there is commitment during the cohabitation, and in a closed place.
And we know that adultery is, on average, 99% of it committed in closed places,
even in foreign countries that are very damaging, the cohabitation is done in a closed place
In fact, as I look into the internet, some were so damaged that people in those countries provide empty rooms on the side of the road,
you can commit adultery, but you do it in the room
If this is possible, then which one is haraam?
99% of all adultery is done in the room, so which one is haraam?
That's why these words are very dangerous and strange
However, some may wonder, "How can he dare to say that?"
"What is their reason to say that? How come his mind dares to say that adultery is lawful?"
However, for those who have studied their thinking, it just so happens that my doctoral dissertation studying Liberal thoughts,
and I read their dissertations, their theses,
What they are saying now is one of their weird products
They have so many weird products. All of which occur because of a thinking method
Well, on this occasion, I will explain their thinking method,
that produce weird products
We've heard before that being gay is halal, and that's no less great than lawful adultery
If adultery is lawful, then there was a more terrible one that is being gay is lawful
which is no less terrible, we hear that all religions go to heaven
These are products of Liberal thinking which I will summarize tonight
so that you know their thinking method. How they can come up with a lot of strange products which can get people out of Islam
Well, please pay close attention
First, I will discuss the thinking method of the Liberals
What is their attitude towards God, towards Allah SWT, and their opinion toward Sharia?
Sharia, in this case is the Qur'an and hadith are the sources of Islamic law
Liberals, when they talk about God,
they said, "Allah Almighty created His creatures, and Allah does not interfere in the privacy affairs of the humans He created"
"even in a crucial matter of faith, Allah frees His servants to believe any faith"
They postulated with verses. For example word Allah SWT said,
فَمَنْ شَاءَ فَلْيُؤْمِنْ وَمَنْ شَاءَ فَلْيَكْفُرْ
Another example, said Allah SWT,
ٱعْمَلُوا۟ مَا شِئْتُمْ
Allah also said,
فَاعْبُدُوا مَا شِئْتُمْ
meaning, "Whoever decides, let him believe, and whoever decides, then let him disbelieve"
in another verse, "Do what you decide"
in another verse, "Worship as you wish"
That means creatures have freedom
They have a logic saying if it's a matter of faith, Allah gives freedom, let alone sex. This is a trivial matter
They said, "Why does Allah interfere in sexual matters?"
"You may believe any faith. You can worship anything"
"The postulate is there, so why bother with people's beliefs. God doesn't interfere in my affairs"
"God doesn't interfere in faith, let alone sexual matter which is a trivial matter"
That's how they think about God
so words like this one appear, "God-Free Area"
During a school orientation, they made a banner with the words "God-Free Area"
They have the nerve in expressing their disbelief
Well,
In surah al-Kahf verse-29, Allah SWT said,
فَمَنْ شَاءَ فَلْيُؤْمِنْ وَمَنْ شَاءَ فَلْيَكْفُرْ
Whoever decides, let him believe, and whoever decides, then let him disbelieve
It doesn't stop here. We say, "O Liberals, continue the verse"
So, these Liberals often lie. They claim they are academics, and I have read their dissertations, they are liars
I dare say this, and I have said this many times, that they are liars
They quoted the verse in half. They cut it into pieces
If they dare to cut Allah's verse into pieces, let alone the words of the scholars
They implied that Ibn Kathir said all religions go to heaven
They implied at-Thabari and scholars, saying all religions go to heaven
it's because they cut the verses and assembled it in their way
If we go back to the books of the scholars, all of that is just a lie
Well, take this for example,
فَمَنْ شَاءَ فَلْيُؤْمِنْ وَمَنْ شَاءَ فَلْيَكْفُرْ
Whoever decides, let him believe, and whoever decides, then let him disbelieve
Then, continue the verse...
Allah said,
إِنَّا أَعْتَدْنَا لِلظَّالِمِينَ نَارًا أَحَاطَ بِهِمْ سُرَادِقُهَا
We have readied for the unjust a Fire whose canopy encompasses them
Well, that means being told to choose or a threat?
For example, we say "Please do your thesis, if not that's okay too, here is a club"
We don't have any choice, right?
No, it's ta'bir from Allah. For those who want to go to hell, being disbelieve, please do so. there is a threat for them.
"Indeed, We have readied for the unjust a Fire whose canopy encompasses them."
Allah said in this verse
اعْمَلُوا مَا شِئْتُمْ
Do what you decide
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُلْحِدُونَ فِي آيَاتِنَا لَا يَخْفَوْنَ عَلَيْنَا أَفَمَنْ يُلْقَى فِي النَّارِ خَيْرٌ أَمْ مَنْ يَأْتِي آمِنًا يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ اعْمَلُوا مَا شِئْتُمْ إِنَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرٌ
Look at the previous verse, what did Allah say?
Is he who will be cast into the Fire more charitable, (i.e., better) or he who (really) comes up secure on the Day of the Resurrection?
Do whatever you decide
Just choose. Do you want go to heaven or hell?
Does this mean being free? No, it is a threat.
You choose being disbeliever, you go to hell
As in Surah Az-Zumar,
فَاعْبُدُوا مَا شِئْتُمْ
Worship as you wish
If it's just here, it's as if Allah gave freedom in choosing any faith,
It doesn't. There's a continuance in the verse
فَاعْبُدُوا مَا شِئْتُمْ مِنْ دُونِهِ
Worship other than Allah as you wish
قُلْ إِنَّ الْخَاسِرِينَ الَّذِينَ خَسِرُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ وَأَهْلِيهِمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ أَلَا ذَلِكَ هُوَ الْخُسْرَانُ الْمُبِينُ
لَهُمْ مِنْ فَوْقِهِمْ ظُلَلٌ مِنَ النَّارِ وَمِنْ تَحْتِهِمْ ظُلَلٌ
ذَلِكَ يُخَوِّفُ اللَّهُ بِهِ عِبَادَهُ يَاعِبَادِ فَاتَّقُونِ
Read the next verse, Allah says,
"Worship whatever you decide on, apart from Allah"
"Surely the losers are they who lose their (own) selves and their own families on the Day of the Resurrection."
"They will have above them overshadowings of the Fire, and from beneath them over-shadowings"
Does that mean being asked to choose?
So, that is an example of their mindset
They often say, "Allah frees us to choose any faith, which is a very private matter"
"Then, why does Allah interfere in sexual matters? This trivial problem is not Allah SWT's business"
This is an example of their attitude towards Allah SWT
Now, we will discuss how their attitude towards the Sharia
Their attitude towards the Qur'an Al-Karim
Pay attention. It requires a very long logic. You have to pay attention here
Now, their logic about the Qur'an
First, Allah does not speak. He has no language
Second, if Allah does not speak and has no language, while the Qur'an is in Arabic, it means that the Qur'an is not the language of Allah.
So if it's not Allah's language, what is it?
(they say) The Qur'an is the language of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ
Alright, we stop here. We'll continue it later.
So, Liberals are influenced by the faith of some groups that deviate in this matter
such as Aya'irah and Kullabiyah who say that Allah cannot speak with a voice
If Allah doesn't speak with a voice, there won't be any letters. There won't be any language
So, they made a condition. God should not speak with a voice, and this contradicts the faith of ahlussunnah wal jama'ah.
We are in Indonesia, when we read the Qur'an, we say we read the word of Allah, yes or no?
Do we read Allah's words or Muhammad's translation?
We read Allah's words
"Listen to the recitations of Allah's words"
Common people know about it
Common people know that the Qur'an is kalamullah, the word of Allah SWT
Moreover, when Allah SWT spoke to Prophet Moses, Allah said,
فَاسْتَمِعْ لِمَا يُوحَى
Listen, O Moses, what will be revealed to you
Allah speaks with His voice
It is up to Allah to speak with the prophet Moses, the prophet Muhammad ﷺ, with a voice that is heard. It's up to Allah SWT
Precisely among the perfections of God, God can speak
That's why Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) denied those who worshiped idols, Prophet Musa said, "These idols don't speak"
Ladies and gentlemen who are blessed by Allah SWT
ahlussunnah faith is easy, "Allah speaks with the language that He wants"
That's why there are scholars who wrote a special book about this, to refute the thoughts of ahlul bid'ah, as written by As-Sijzi
As-Sijzi has a book entitled
رسالة السجزي إلى أهل زبيد في الرد على من أنكر الحرف والصوت
As-Sijzi wrote to the people of Zabit to refute those who deny Allah speaking with His voice and letters
Likewise, Ibn Qudamah has a book on this issue
Likewise Imam Al-Bukhari in his book "خلق ال العباد", he also alludes to this issue
He said, "Allah speaks with a voice, whose voice is not the same as a creature"
there will be a long discussion
But the point is it should be easy for us. From whom the Quran is recited? Muhammad or Allah?
From Allah, it's over.
That's why He (Allah) is holy
That's why Allah challenges,
قُلْ لَئِنِ اجْتَمَعَتِ الْإِنْسُ وَالْجِنُّ عَلَى أَنْ يَأْتُوا بِمِثْلِ هَذَا الْقُرْآنِ لَا يَأْتُونَ بِمِثْلِهِ وَلَوْ كَانَ بَعْضُهُمْ لِبَعْضٍ ظَهِيرًا
Say, in case humankind and the jinn gathered together to come up with the like of this Qur'an, they would not come up with its like
If this is Muhammad's creation, then Abu Jahal can also make it,
Abu Lahab can also imitate if this Qur'an is indeed Muhammad's composition
Now, Liberals take the faith from Asya'irah and Kullabiyah
But remember, the Asya'irah and Kullabiyah people glorify the Qur'an
they just stop there
But Liberals, they continue the heresy
so they prolong the heresy
They said, "Then Allah has no language"
This was clearly stated by Komaruddin Hidayat, a doctor
Then Ulil Abshar said that Allah speaks without language
Okay, if Allah speaks without language, then what is the Qur'an?
What language is the Qur'an?
Arabic
They say Qur'an is the Prophet's language
which means the Prophet is conveying the Allah's concept or Allah's main idea into Arabic
They say, Allah has a main idea, which was translated by Muhammad, revealed into the Qur'an
They play on this matter
Al-Qur'an.....
Asya'irah also made a mistake in deciding whose language Qur'an is.
Some say Muhammad's language. Some say Jibril's language. Some say Allah created it
There are disagreements between them, between Al-Baqillani, Ar-Razi, Al-Bajuri. They are in disagreement.
But the point is, Liberals chose the Qur'an as Muhammad's language
Ok, if this Qur'an is Muhammad's translation, then the translation is problematic,
so they say that the Qur'an is a cultural product, because it is not holy from God
because God has no language. He does not speak a certain language and has no voice
Well, this Qur'an is a product of Muhammad (they say)
Muhammad ﷺ while he was going through the process of expressing the idea of ​​Allah in the Qur'an,
He definitely experienced a lot of things that raise a lot of questions
The first doubt, the loss of holiness
They say, translators may not necessarily be able to express the author's wishes for 100%, especially in a different language
When someone writes a book, then it is
translated by someone else,
He can't necessarily translate it perfectly. There must be distortion,
especially if it is translated into a different language
Let alone a book, an author, for example me,
I can't necessarily express all the main ideas in an article
It turns out that my writing ability is no greater than what I had in mind
Even more so the one who translates. He doesn't necessarily know what is churning in my mind. So there will be distortions.
especially in a different language.
Then, the translation may be affected by the translator's mental condition,
with his sociological condition at that time, which was
1,400 years ago, the condition of society at that time
Remember, this is all syubhat!
Have you been caught in syubhat yet?
-the crowd laughs-
Have you understood the syubhat?
This doubt must be understood, so we can refute it
so that you know why they can talk as they please, understand?
So, they say, this is the reality that makes the Qur'an not 100% holy
Why? Because the Qur'an is not Allah's language. It's only a translation, Muhammad's expression
Meanwhile, Muhammad ﷺ's expression when he
translated the main idea of ​​Allah SWT, he is a human being
Human language cannot represent the language of Allah SWT
Second, Muhammad has insignificant knowledge. He cannot represent Allah SWT's knowledge
Then the language process when it changes, of course it experiences distortion
It also can be affected by his mental state when translating it, it's constantly changing
It can also be influenced by the sociological conditions from 1,400 years ago against the Arabs at that time
So, you don't read the Qur'an with a textual interpretation. Don't do it
because the textual only fits at Muhammad's time which is 1,400 years ago
Understand? Have you been caught in syubhat?
-The crowd laughed-
How's the rebuttal? Easy
We say, this Qur'an is not Muhammad's work
When the Qur'an was revealed, Prophet Muhammad ﷺ wanted to memorize it. What did Allah say?
لَا لِسَانَكَ لِتَعْجَلَلَا تُحَرِّكْ بِهِ لِسَانَكَ لِتَعْجَلَ بِهِ
O Muhammad, Do not move your tongue with it (The Qur'an) to memorize
When Gabriel gave the revelation, Rasulullah joined in so that it would be easy to memorize, Allah rebuked him "Don't do it"
لإِنَّ عَلَيْنَا جَمْعَهُ وَقُرْآنَهُ
We will make you memorize it
Does that mean the pronunciation is from Muhammad or Allah?
It's from Allah SWT. Easy to rebut them.
If this is from Muhammad, it is not a miracle. Then Abu Jahal can imitate it,
Why did Allah challenge the Arabs to come up with a surah like the Qur'an, while they couldn't?
If it's Muhammad's writing, then Abu Jahal can imitate it. Just call
10 poets, then compose something as the Qur'an. Of course you can't.
Second, this is their syubhat
We say, "Who said Muhammad was representing Allah's knowledge?"
The Qur'an is only a part of Allah's vast and unlimited knowledge
Allah is not pouring all of His knowledge into the Qur'an, understand?
The Qur'an is only part of the kalamullah. Allah only revealed a part of His knowledge into the Qur'an
When Allah explained to Muhammad, Allah is the Almighty
Was Allah able to make Muhammad understand or not? He could!
Was Allah able to make Muhammad convey to his people well? He could. Allah is the Almighty
While they (Liberals) want to analogize the Qur'an like other writings
and they analogized Muhammad as other translators
They say, a writer is not necessarily able to express in words well,
the translator can't necessarily understand the context
O brother, who are you talking about?
You talk about Allah SWT, the Almighty,
The one who made Muhammad, His servant, understood what He meant, who can explain to His people well
understand?
So this is their framework of thinking, as stated by Komaruddin Hidayat in his book "Understanding the Language of Religion"
Well, they say...
Pay attention here!
What is the main idea of ​​Allah that Muhammad is translating?
It was said that the Qur'an is the main idea of Allah which was translated by Muhammad
What do they say?
"After we examine the contents of the Qur'an and compare it with the Bible, Torah and others..."
"It turns out that the Sharia of Allah returns to several main points"
"The first is freedom..."
"the second is the equality..."
"The third is justice..."
"The fourth, for example, is humanity..."
and others, got it?
this is what they say
They say, the essence of the Sharia is this one
We say "How do you know Allah's main idea? Have you ever asked Allah?"
They say the core of the Sharia is this one. Prophet Muhammad translated the essence of this Sharia into what is called the Qur'an
and Muhammad's translation is only suitable 1,400 years ago,
with the sociological conditions of Arab society at that time
(they say) "Don't be too textual..."
"For today, don't be textual anymore. The important thing is to understand the main idea"
namely freedom, equality, justice, humanity
-Remember, this is their version-
They said, "If you want to interpret the Qur'an, don't be too textual..."
"If we do so, we return to the ancient Islam..."
"We must have a progressive Islam..."
"evolved with the changing times and followers..."
"It's Islam that is timeless" That's what they say
What is the postulate? They say...
Prophet Musa's sharia was limited to a certain time. Prophet Isa's sharia was limited to a certain time,
Likewise Prophet Muhammad's shari'a was limited to a certain time -as they said-
We say that it is not true. Because Prophet Muhammad ﷺ
is the last messenger of Allah
There is no prophet after him. So his sharia has no limits.
His sharia will be valid until the Day of Resurrection
In fact, when Prophet Isa 'alaihissalam descends on the Day of Judgment, he will carry out Muhammad ﷺ's sharia.
Understood?
Well, they say there is a progressive Islam
Their method of interpreting the Qur'an, which they call progressive Islam, was originally a hermeneutical interpretation method
Hermeneutics
What is hermeneutics?
This is a term from the Greek
Some say hermeneum
which means interpretation,
some say from the god Hermes or a hermes,
...one who conveys, translates the will of a god to humans
In essence, this is the belief of the Greeks
In today's word, it means an interpretation or method of interpretation
Hermeneutics never existed in Islam
This appears among the Christians, the People of the Book,
and they really need this hermeneutics
Why do they need this hermeneutics?
Previously, this method appeared among the People of the Book
Why? Because they found their scriptures contradict each other
For example,
...in certain gospels, the gospel of Matthew, the gospel of Marcus, the gospel of Lucas, the gospel of John, they talk about the Prophet Isa
Isa's lineage is different from one gospel to another
When he refers to his father, it was different. the "bin" was different
It's easy for us. Prophet Isa bin Maryam. That's it.
They described Prophet Isa's lineage until Prophet David alaihissalam
Prophet Isa bin Yusuf bin so and so
Apparently, there are 20 grandfathers. In another gospel, there are 40 grandfathers
This is a very significant difference
There also many things that contradict each other
...how do they deal with this contradiction?
Secondly, it turns out that if they apply their scriptures textually, it is irrelevant for their time
For example, in this "modern" time
With these two problems, they need a way of interpretation that can compromise these contradictions
...and can interpret their scriptures with interpretations that they think are relevant to the times they are facing
So, they need a hermeneutic method which, if
we talk about it in a simple way, is a contextual interpretation
that is an interpretation that is not fixating on the text and on dzahir
Muslims do not need this. Muslims do not need this interpretation
If you open any interpretation book, everything has its rules such as in its language, hadith, and interpretation
Islam has a standard knowledge. There are rules, not arbitrarily
...Thus, there is no arbitrary interpretation
Whether we want to talk Ath-Tabari, or Ibn Kathir. Anyone who is a well-known interpreter. They use these rules
...and they don't need hermeneutic interpretation
Why do we need hermeneutic interpretation? We have implemented Islam and it fits into any era
Is there anything that doesn't fit the times? Alhamdulillah, everything fits. We don't need a hermeneutic interpretation
It's just that they (Liberals) are trying to legalize hermeneutics
..they say, "We need hermeneutics"
Why? They say that there are Muslims who already apply this method
We say, "Which Muslim has ever interpreted Quran with hermeneutics?"
"They exist" said them. Nurcholis Majid said this in the preamble to Komaruddin Hidayat's books.
Nurcholis Majid said, "Isn't there firqah batiniyah in the old times, is it?"
"...batiniyah means interpreting non-textually"
For example, Qaramithah interpreted fasting...
As Muslims, fasting, linguistically, means to refrain
What do we refrain to? That is to refrain from eating, drinking, and lust from sunrise to sunset
For the people of Qaramithah, they said that what is meant by refraining is to refrain a secret
For example, hajj. Hajj means Al-Qash, meaning going to,
...if we call it Hajj, that is going to the Kaaba
They say (Qaramithah), Hajj means pilgrimage to the teachers
These are non-textual examples. According to Nurcholis Majid, this is the proof that hermeneutics has been practiced by Muslims.
We say, "It is practiced by deviant Muslims"
How could they postulate that?
Then they postulated with philosophers, people of falasifah
These are all the arguments of Nurcholis Majid to justify the interpretation of hermeneutics
(Rebuttal) "Do the philosophers deny the existence of heaven and hell, don't they?"
"When they (philosophers) find texts in the Qur'an where the Prophets remind their people of heaven and hell,"
"...they say that the Prophets actually knew there was no heaven and hell"
"...it's just that they (the prophets) have to convey as if there is heaven and hell to the people so that they obey and submit"
"...because the common people can not submit except lured them by heaven and be frightened by hell"
"Even though the prophets knew there was no heaven and hell, the prophets lied for good at that time"
This is called non-textual, understand?
an interpretation of mysticism, outside of the texts
the text said heaven exists. But they said heaven doesn't exist. Thenm why did the Prophet say that?
They say, "The Prophet is lying for good"
Nurcholis Majid said that this is the argument saying hermeneutics is permitted
O, brother, Subhanallah...
Would you like to argue with deviates?
For example, Shi'ites interpreted Pharaoh's wife prayer
رَبِّ ابْنِ لِي عِنْدَكَ بَيْتًا فِي الْجَنَّةِ
وَضَرَبَ اللَّهُ مَثَلًا لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا امْرَأَتَ فِرْعَوْنَ
Allah gives believers an example of Pharaoh's wife
The Shi'ites say in some of their interpretations, what is
meant by Pharaoh's wife is Ruqayyah, and Pharaoh means Uthman
This is different from the text
They postulate with it that hermeneutics was carried out by the first Muslims
We said, that's where it went wrong
How can you postulate with the understanding of deviates?
The thing is Muslims do not need hermeneutics!
Well, what is hermeneutics?
In simple terms, it is contextual interpretation
But they say, Hermeneutics is trying to look at the verse with suspicion...
...why can this verse be like this. It could be that the conditions at that time were not the same as today...
...it could be that the situation is like this. It could be that the Prophet is in certain situation. It could be that the person being spoken to is in certain condition
The point is, (hermeneutics) is seeing something suspiciously
If the text do not align with today's era, it should not be interpreted textually because the conditions have changed.
Therefore, Ulil Abshar said,
"We can't understand Allah's sharia in an exegesis/tafsiriyah (in details)..."
"...the shari'ah of Allah is ijmaliyah (globally)"
What is Allah's sharia according to them? They are...
...freedom, equality, justice, and humanity
(they said) Therefore, tafsiliyah was Muhammad's sharia...
...which He translated the global (mujmal) shari'ah of Allah in details, and the details were only suitable in Muhammad's era
So, if you talk to Liberals and then you say
"The Messenger of Allah said", they just laugh,
...because it's all expired (according to them)
Arguing with Liberals is meaningless
Every time you talk about an interpretation, they believe that it's expired (they don't accept it)
Ulil Abshar said,
"We have to do an ijtihad now..."
"...understanding these verses with the interpretations that are relevant to today's times"
He said to leave behind Prophet Muhammad's interpretation, and to make our own ijtihad. Making an interpretation that is suitable for our time, understand?
This is kufr!!
(If) we follow the Ulil Abshar method, we get rid of hadiths and all interpretations. Only the Qur'an left,
...who will interpret it? Is it them or me?
If they want to interpret, are they smarter than me? Not a chance.
Or if they interpreted the Quran together, what if there's a mistake?
What if the Bintaro people interpret it?
The interpretation may suit them, but it doesn't suit the other conditions. It's bothersome
Al-Qur'an can not be a benchmark anymore
The Qur'an is useless, because it is just a translation of the main idea
Do you understand (their doubt) so far?
Have you understood it?
Now let's see Liberals's products...
For example, we want to apply hermeneutics to certain verses
For example, Allah says don't be a gay
As in the Qur'an, the Prophet Lut said (to his people),
إِنَّكُمْ لَتَأْتُونَ الرِّجَالَ شَهْوَةً مِنْ دُونِ النِّسَاءِ بَلْ أَنْتُمْ قَوْمٌ مُسْرِفُونَ
O my people, surely you indeed come up with lust to men, instead of women; no indeed, you are an extravagant people.
Then, the Prophet Luth offered that if they wanted to have sex,
هَؤُلَاءِ بَنَاتِي إِنْ كُنْتُمْ فَاعِلِينَ
If you want to have sex, marry my daughters
So, Is homosexuality haraam or not?
It's obviously haraam!
They wanted to apply hermeneutics,
...Prof. Dr. Musdah Mulia said
"Wait a minute"
"...what is prohibited is not homosexuality because it is a given"
"... homosexuality is sunnatullah"
So what does Allah forbid?
He said, "We have to interpret it using hermeneutics, meaning that how to do homosexuality is wrong..."
-I don't understand in what way is wrong-
Imagine (his words earlier)...
...It is clear that Allah forbids homosexuality. Not how to do it
That's why Prophet Lut offered his daughters
If it turns out that doing homosexuality causes bleeding, why did Prophet Lut offer his daughter?
It's possible that those people will beat his daughter
It is unmistakable that homosexuality is forbidden, and everyone knows homosexuality is haraam
However, it can be changed by using hermeneutics. Make something haraam to halal
This is one of their products, which is the lawfulness of homosexuality
From being haraam to halal
Isn't that great?
Another example...
...Prophet ﷺ said
لَا يَرِثُ اَلْمُسْلِمُ اَلْكَافِرَ, وَلَا يَرِثُ اَلْكَافِرُ اَلْمُسْلِمَ
There is no inheritance between a disbeliever and a believer
So, if a mu'min dies, the disbeliever can't receive mu'min's inheritance. If the disbeliever dies, a mu'min can't receive disbeliver's inheritance
They (the Liberals) say that this only applies in those times...
...when there was a war, when this and that happens
They said, "We have to look at the context in which the Prophet spoke about it regarding that era..."
"...because the conditions have changed now. So, the law is both mu'min and disbeliever can inherit each other"
Another example, aren't there many verses that say Jews and Christians will be in hell?
They said, "Jews and Christians who are in hell are the Jews and Christians who believe that Allah has a biological child"
Are there Jews and Christians who believe that?
No, but they make up their own imagination...
...that Allah was talking about Christians who believed that Allah had a biological child
They also said, "Indeed, the most important thing in the Shari'ah is morality..."
"... if one's morals is good, it will lead to him to heaven..."
"...because the main task that Allah wants His servants to do is having a noble character"
"When they practive noble character in any way, they will reach heaven..."
"...and one can have a noble character by being a Jew or a Christian..."
"... people can have noble character by being Hindu, Buddhist, Communist, Atheist. All people can have noble character"
Thus, they (Liberals) conclude that
good Jews and Christians will go to heaven
a good mushrik will also go to heaven. A good atheists will also go to heaven.
This is all ridiculous!!
Allah has sent down a verse that explains the main purpose of the humans creation,
وَمَا خَلَقْتُ الْجِنَّ وَالْإِنْسَ إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُونِ
And in no way did I (Allah) create the jinn and humankind except to worship Me
That is proof that you are a servant, that is proof that you worship God
He said, "It's okay not to worship God either"
Thus, they conclude that Jews and Christians will be in heaven
Subhanallah, in heaven?
How about an Atheist? They say, if the Atheists are good even though they do not believe in God, they still go to heaven
If Atheists don't believe in heaven, why do they say they will go to heaven?
Understand?
Another example, when they talk about hijab
There are rules for wearing Hijab in Islam. Such as not showing the intimate parts (aurat)
And the intimate parts have been explained by the fuqaha
They (Liberals) interpret it with hermeneutics,
"Hijab means modesty clothing"
They said, the revelation of the verse was related to the condition of the Arabs at that time
Thus, hijab was their only traditional dress to express modesty which covered their intimate parts
The Liberals said that wearing a kebaya is a hijab in Indonesia
Even if the (women's) hair and the part below the knee is visible. Or, the thighs are slightly visible. That's hijab based on modesty clothing in today's era (as they say)
Isn't that a terrifying (assumption)?
Indonesia may still be like that. If we go to Europe, the women wears clothes showing half of their breasts...
...is that hijab?
Thus, that will be the European version of hijab, right? That is modest to them
the thighs are visible. Is that hijab?
For them, it's not a problem
So if the standard is politeness, politeness varies from one nation to another
When you go to the beach, people wear bikinis.
Is that called a proper hijab?
That's the results of using hermeneutics.
At the end, they (Liberals) think like that
Another example of their product. It is allowable to pray together with the same God
That's why they have a book called, "One God, many religions"
They said, "All these people who are worshiping refers to the same God..."
"...so that we can make a series of prayers together"
An example of their prayer,
"O God, even though we have different religions, we have the same God..."
Try praying like that!
They use hermenutics again
For example, in Islam, it is forbidden for Muslim women to marry non-believers
The verses are many, such as,
ولا تنكحوا المشركين حتى يؤمنوا
Do not marry a mushrik man with a believing woman
فَإِنْ عَلِمْتُمُوهُنَّ مُؤْمِنَاتٍ فَلَا تَرْجِعُوهُنَّ إِلَى الْكُفَّارِ لَا هُنَّ حِلٌّ لَهُمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحِلُّونَ لَهُنَّ
If you know that women emigrated to become believers, then don't return them to their husbands...
"...they are not lawful to their disbeliever husbands and their disbeliever husbands are not lawful to them"
The verse is clear. They acknowledge the verse
So there is hermeneutics, they say the verse is related to the conditions of war...
...If in non-war conditions it is okay (they say)
(see how) everything was changed so easily by them
Another example is a divorce
Is it a man or a woman who is granted a permission to divorce?
Men. that's why the Prophet ﷺ said,
الطلاق لمن أخذ بالساق
Indeed, divorce belongs to the men
But they said, "No, that's not fair. It goes against the main idea of ​​equality..."
"...it was only suitable in ancient times for the Arabs. 1,400 years ago. Now women are also allowed to divorce"
It's dangerous for men
If a woman is allowed to divorce, it is possible for a husband to be divorced by his wife three times a day. That is dangerous!
They say (because of) gender equality, so women can get divorced too
O brother, subhanallah...
They also said that it was not only men who paid the dowry, women can also pay the dowry too.
...women may come to men and say, "I want to marry you"
Women can do qabul by saying
"Qobiltu" or "I accept so and so"
They (Liberals) say it's allowed
This is certainly severe. A blasphemy!
Then, they say men must also have iddah like women,
that is 130 days of iddah. That is outrageous!
O brother, women's iddah is only 3 months, about 90 days.
But they say men's iddah is 130 days
What is iddah for men? What are they (men) waiting for?
It is clear for women. They have uterus. Mixed with semen. She has to wait for it to be clean and so on
If it's men, what are they waiting for?
-The crowd laughed-
Their proposition is only hermeneutics, and that's how they speak
Allah said,
لِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الْأُنْثَيَيْنِ
the male is the like of the portion of two females
In the case of inheritance, under certain conditions,
Because man will bear his wife, prepare a house for his wife,
Thus, he has the right to inherit twice as much as his sister for example
They say (Liberals) it's no longer valid. It was only in the past. It changes now
If it's like that don't ever say the manhaj of salaf. That is an ancient manhaj that you bring to this day
If you say the manhaj of salaf, they will laugh,
"These people are foolish"
Why? Because they consider us not knowing hermeneutics. They assume us not knowing how progressive Islam is
Understand?
Have you understood all of this?
We will discuss the last one now!
Among their products is milkul yamin
Well, those who want to take photos please do so. I want to erase it
If you have done taking photos, please erase it!
Wait, you can stand up. So people will take photos of you
-The crowd laughs-
Well, have you took a photograph, brother?
Have you took a photograph?
OK, please erase it!
You see, if they dare to act against the Qur'an like this, it will be more daring towards the hadith of the Prophet ﷺ, (certainly they are more daring to do it)
Sometimes they shyly say the Prophet's hadiths that are acceptable are mutawatir,
Meanwhile, there are only a few hadiths which are mutawatir, maybe only 5% of all existing hadiths
Then, they say the mutawatir ones must be appropriate and relevant to today's times
That is troublesome!
They are toying with the Qur'an. Thus, they will do it so with Prophet ﷺ's hadiths
Imagine. These people are giving lectures in Islamic universities,
whose students will later become religious teachers for our children
Imagine....!
That is terrifying...!
Well, one of their products is lawful adultery
They say it's not adultery,
it's called "cohabitation"
the important thing is commitment
Cohabitation is (permissible), the important thing is commitment (as they say)
or the same as adultery
In Islam, adultery is clearly haraam, and adultery is a great sin
In fact, Allah compares it to the greatest sins, namely shirk and committing murder. Allah said,
وَالَّذِينَ لَا يَدْعُونَ مَعَ اللَّهِ إِلَهًا آخَرَ وَلَا يَقْتُلُونَ النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ وَلَا يَزْنُونَ وَمَنْ يَفْعَلْ ذَلِكَ يَلْقَ أَثَامًا
يُضَاعَفْ لَهُ الْعَذَابُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَيَخْلُدْ فِيهِ مُهَانًا
And the ones who do not invoke another god (along) with Allah, nor kill the self that Allah has prohibited except with the truth nor commit adultery...
...and whoever performs that will meet the penalty for vice, Doubled will be the torment for him on the Day of the Resurrection
إِلَّا مَنْ تَابَ وَآمَنَ وَعَمِلَ عَمَلًا صَالِحًا
Except those who repent, believe and do righteous deeds
This is not an arbitrary sin. Adultery is one of the greatest sins, it is mentioned after shirk and committing murder
Therefore, when Allah forbids adultery, Allah says,
وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا
Allah did not say,
وَلَا تَزْنُوا
Don't commit adultery
But Allah said, "Don't approach adultery"
This is a stricter prohibition
It's different if I say "don't enter the room"
It means that there is no problem if you stand in front of the room
But if I say "don't come near my room"
it means that you can't even come closer!
That's why in Islam, everything that leads to
adultery is prohibited. For example, the Prophet ﷺ said,
لا يخلون رجل بامرأة إلا كان الشيطان ثالثهما
Whenever a man is alone with a woman the devil makes a third
It's illegal to be alone together, even though they haven't touched each other.
Haven't poked around yet, but being together alone is already forbidden in Islam
Why is it forbidden? Because this will lead to adultery
Another example, the Prophet ﷺ said ,
أيما امرأة استعطرت ثم خرجت فمتر على قوم ليجدوا ريحها فهي زانية
Any woman who puts on perfume then passes by people so that they can smell her fragrance...
... then she is an adulteress
That's what the Prophet ﷺ said
Why? Because she can lead to adultery,
because the perfume she wears will stir the men's lust. So it is
forbidden because it leads to adultery
Allah SWT has said, hasn't it?
قُلْ لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ يَغُضُّوا مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِمْ
Say to the (male) believers, that they cast down their eyes
I asked you. Why should you lower your eyes?
So as not to lead to adultery
the Prophet ﷺ said,
فالعينان تزنيان
Two eyes commit adultery
Why? Because a forbidden gazing leads to adultery
There are many things that Allah forbids because they can lead to adultery
and in the time of the Prophet ﷺ, if a person commits adultery in a hidden place and confesses, he will get stoning (rajm)
For example, Ma'iz al-Aslami. He committed adultery secretly
After that he felt guilty, he came to the Prophet and
reported, "O Messenger of Allah, I have committed adultery"
The Messenger of Allah said, "Maybe you just kissed her, maybe you just touched her"
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ rejected him
He came again up to four times, he said "O
Messenger of Allah, I have committed adultery"
the Prophet ﷺ said,
هَل غاب ذلك منك في ذلك منها؟
Does the bucket enter the well?
He said,
"Yes, O Messenger of Allah"
The Prophet ﷺ did not ask whether he did it openly or secretly.
after that the Prophet ﷺ immediately enforced the law of stoning
Adultery is different from stoning law enforcement
The law of stoning can be enforced for adulterers in two ways:
First, caught on sight. Seen by four people
Second, confession
If there is no confession, no one will see, it is still adultery. Understand?
For example, stealing. When do people who commit stealing get their hands cut off? If it is found out that they were stealing
If not, will their hand be cut off? No.
But, what is his status on Allah's side? They are still thieves
Ma'iz. Had he not confessed to the Prophet, he would not have
received stoning. Because he confessed, he ended up receiving stoning law
Likewise the woman Ghamidiyah who commits adultery, and she reports herself. Then she receive stoning, even though she committed adultery secretly
So, all adultery happen in secret, not shown to others
So, there is difference between adultery and enforcing the law of hadd. There are specific conditions
If you commit adultery, Allah still regards it as adultery
Now...
Is that adhan?
We'll stop here.
Well,
How does Muhammad Syahrur or one of doctors in Indonesia to justify cohabitation?
This is the way. He said, there are two ways to have lawful sex:
First, by marriage. what is called marital sex,
Second, non marriage. Premarital sex
Well, marriage is obvious. Just as society does
As for non marriage, it's called mulkul yamin in Islam
or in other words is a slave
Allah SWT said,
وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ
إِلَّا عَلَى أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ
فَمَنِ ابْتَغَى وَرَاءَ ذَلِكَ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْعَادُونَ
Allah said the characteristics of the inhabitants of Firdaus paradise are: "The ones who are preservers of their private parts..."
"...except for two things, their spouses and what their right hands possess..."
"...whoever inequitably seeks beyond that, then those are the aggressors themselves"
Well,
milkul yamin is a slave
Slavery was not created by Islam, no!
When Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was sent to his people, slavery already existed and it was a state rule
and the consequences of war
If a person is fighting in a war, then he is defeated, he must choose. Whether he wanted to be killed or being a slave
And it worked, either in Rome, Persia, Africa, and in various countries
It's the consequences of war, if not killed then enslaved
Islam came in the midst of such conditions
And among its wisdom, Islam did not immediately change it completely,
but regulated what had happened, which was recognized by existing countries
Like I said earlier that's a consequence. Slavery is a consequence of war
That's why if there's a good cause, the Prophet ﷺ tend to fix it. It applies in various ways
and the Prophet has modified a good thing for the better. As the Prophet ﷺ said,
إِنَّمَا بُعِثْتُ ِلأُتَمِّمَ مَكَارِمَ اْلأَخْلَاق
"I was sent to perfect good character.
Another example, the Prophet ﷺ saying about hilful fudhul
namely discussion, which was carried out by the mushriks in ancient times to help the wrongdoers
The Prophet ﷺ was not a prophet at that time, the Prophet was invited. The Prophet ﷺ said,
لو دعيت به في الإسلام لأجبت
If I was invited to a discussion when I have became a prophet, I would fulfill it
So, the Prophet did not change it completely. The Prophet regulated slavery which was recognized by the countries at that time
And there is no one denying the Prophet, because it is a recognized matter
But then the Prophet ﷺ regulated it. Among them, there were many suggestions for freeing slaves in Islam sharia
Freeing slaves has a great reward, whoever frees slaves will be freed from hell
This is a motivation to free slaves
Then pay a lot of kaffarah
Kafarah zihar. or having sex with your wife during the day of
Ramadan, then the kafarah is to free slaves
In fact, before Prophet ﷺ died, among the Prophet's wills is
الصلاة الصلاة وما ملكت أيمانكم
Keep your prayer. Take care your slaves
So, Islam pays attention and reduces the means for slavery. Islam regulates this issue
Among them is a person who has mulkul yamin, namely a female slave. Thus, the owner can have coitus with her
What's the deal? The deal is not a commitment
Because he has a slave, he has the right to have a coitus with her. He has the right to order her around, because she is his slave
If we interpret mulkul yamin as only slaves, this is not appropriate according to Muhammad Syahrur
So, he used hermeneutics to tinker with the meaning of mulkul yamin...,
...as he had been messing with the others
Yamin means right hand, mulk means possession
(they said) mulkul yamin should not be interpreted as only limited to slaves, what's more, slaves don't exist now, while the verses are still valid.
Then how? He said that mulkul yamin meant something that was under your control,
with your hands you can move something, you can command someone, so that's mulkul yamin (as they say)
For example, maid. Because you have paid her, so she is under your control
For example, (they say) secretary
(Isn't that amazing if they have more than one secretary)
They are mulkul yamin. The important thing is that she doesn't have a husband. So, it is allowable to have coitus with her (as they say)
Among them too is girlfriend
girlfriend in this term is cohabitaon partner (cohabitation)
(He said) if they like each other, it means one has mastered another
Though, there is no power there
But (he said) if his girlfriend likes him, it means she is already under your control, you can mess with her, and all the laws are lawful
So which one is forbidden?
According to him, there are six forbidden sexual relations in the Qur'an:
First, marrying your father's wife,
وَلَا تَنْكِحُوا مَا نَكَحَ آبَاؤُكُمْ
(it is forbidden to marry) your father's wife,
then being homosexual
-in this matter he differs from Musdah Mulia. Musdah Mulia thinks that is okay-
-maybe his hermeneutics is different-
According to him, homosexual is forbidden
Third, someone's wife
Fourth, marrying another mahram. it's not allowed to do so.
حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمْ أُمَّهَاتُكُمْ وَبَنَاتُكُمْ وَأَخَوَاتُكُمْ...
and so on. In the Qur'an, it is not allowed to perform mahram marriage
Fifth, group sex. He said it's forbidden
such as one man with two women, or one woman with two men
Sixth...
I forgot
...........
In essence, he said there are six forbidden sexual relations
The sixth is doing coitus openly
Masha Allah
The sixth is having sex in public
This is the most important thing. He said those are forbidden
Okay, now, is it allowed to have sex with a maid? He said, we need to distinguish her firstly. She is not someone father's wife, not homosexual, and not someone else's wife,
She doesn't do mahram marriage, not participating in group sex, not doing sex openly. That means it's okay (as he said)
That means the secretary has to be virgin woman...
... to be having sex with, isn't it?
How about girlfriends? Try to match it here. If she's not father's wife, not homosexual, not someone else's wife, then it's okay
They use hermeneutics here, by fiddling with the meaning of mulkul yamin
Apparently, you can do anything with hermeneutics because this is a way of interpretation without rules
For Islam, there must be rules. Islam is standards.
Musthallah hadith has its rules. Interpretation has its rules. Even tajwid has its rules
Everything has its rules in Islam. There are laws and rules
They say, "God gave sharia with rules, but this one is without rules"
Alright, let's add something now
We will highlight this with red
Next, bestiality
Let's test it. Is it father's wife? No
Homosexual? No, the important thing is different gender
It's also not someone's wife
Mahram marriage? No. Group sex? No. Thus, it's allowed, right?
The important thing is that the goat is committed to do so
Then, do it in a cage, do not do it openly. Do you understand how awful (their thinking)?
The Europeans and the westerners. They have sexual disorders. They can't be satisfied by having sex with humans,
so they have sex with dogs, with horses. Some even have sex with geese
It's because Allah took away their happiness for doing what is forbidden, understand?
So, does he consider this okay or not? It should be allowed because there is no prohibition here
It's not father's wife, is it?
For example, having sex with a corpse. As long as the corpse is not father's wife and so on, it should be okay, right? Subhanallah
Hermeneutics is atrocious. They use it to justify adultery
Now, you don't have to be surprised. If they want to legalize anything, it will be very easy for them
The lawfulness of adultery is only one of their products,
With the method of their interpretation, with the doubts of the piled-up thought patterns that we have explained earlier
Well, the lawful adultery is the faith of the ignorant people
Therefore, Aisyah radiallahu 'anha mentioned in Sahih Bukhari that the marriage of people in the old times...
...among them there is Al-Baghayah. "the adulterers"
They put up or erected flags in front of their houses,
If every house has a flag, it means that passers-by know that they can have sex with the occupants.
that's what the ignorant people did in the past
So what the Doctor really meant that he said,
"I actually justify cohabitation or adultery to refuse harm"
Why? He said,
"I see people being wronged"
"In Aceh, there are people who commit adultery, and the law of hadd is enforced. In Ambon, there are those who commit adultery, and the law of hadd is enforced"
"In Pakistan, there are people who commit adultery. The
law of hadd is enforced. This is injustice" said the Doctor
He said, "The way to get rid of this injustice is to make it lawful, not regard it as forbidden"
Subhanallah...
Well, if you make this legal, what kind of chaos will happening in society? What if the maid becomes pregnant suddenly?
Suddenly, all the secretaries are pregnant?
Suddenly, the goat is pregnant?
Oh brother, Subhanallah, this thought is corrupted
Who has the heart to have their daughters change partners?
Tomorrow, she has sex with this man. In another day, she did with that man. She has the commitment but she changes sex partners
Today, she is committed to A. The second day, she is comitted to B. The third day, one is a commitment to one's daughter, and so on
How can the social order not be damaged? It's terrifying!
How did AIDS and other diseases not appear, and people's shame is disappeared (if that was the case)
Eventually, the household will fall apart
When a person doesn't want to be with his wife, then he can choose another woman out there
a lot of "girls" I can have sex with. That's blasphemy!
Therefore, what is the law on people who declare adultery is lawful?
Pay attention here!
This is the opinion of the scholars from Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyah of Hambali madhhab, and Al-Qarrafi of Maliki madhhab,
and Imam Nawawi of Shafi'i madhhab. They explain that there are still ambiguous things that people may not know
such as kufr, but people don't know the law. If he does it, we can't draw a conclusion saying he is infidel immediately
we must enforce the proof, we try to eliminate doubts,
This is called iqomatul hujjah wa izalatussyubhah, and this is often conveyed by Ibn Taymiyah rahimahullahu ta'ala despite it's shirk
I will read the words of Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyah rahimahullah ta'ala in about the great shirk
He said,
نعلم بالضرورة أنه لم يشرع لأمته أن تدعو أحداً من الأموات
It is known in an emergency, everyone knows that the Prophet never told his people to pray to the corpse
No. This is a great shirk
لا الأنبياء
it is not allowed to pray to the prophets
ولا الصالحين ولا غيرهم
It is not allowed to ask prayer to the pious or other than them
لا بلفظ الاستغاثة
Not by pronouncing istighatsah
Such as, "O Prophet, I pray to you", "O Abdul Qadir jailani" this is obviously a shirk
لبل نعلم أنه نهى عن كل هذه الأمور
And we know that the Prophet forbade this completely
و إن ذلك من الشرك الذي حرمه الله تعالى ورسوله
And this includes shirk which Allah and His Messenger have forbidden
لكن لغلبة الجهل وقلة العلم بآثار الرسالة في كثير من المتأخرين لم يمكن تكفيرهم بذلك
However, because of the spread of ignorance that befell people today and the loss of the teachings of the treatise...
...then it is impossible for us to decide them as infidels directly
حتى يتبين لهم ما جاء به الرسول
Until we uphold the proof
It means they have to understand it first before we consider them as infidels
It turns out that people who fall into a great shirk should not immediately consider as infidels
Why? Because they don't know that this is shirk, what's more, some of the preachers say so,
so they think this is monotheism (tawhid). It turns out that they fall into shirk
So people who pray to corpses cannot be considered as infidels immediately, understand?
Maybe they don't know the law
In contrast to things that are already clear,
that everyone knows, as Shaykhul Islam said
ومن جاهد وجوب بعض الوجبات لظَّاهرةِ المتواترةِ؛ كالصَّلَواتِ الخَمسِ، وصيامِ شَهرِ رَمَضانَ، وحَجِّ البيتِ العَتيقِ
وجهد تحريم بعضِ المحرَّماتِ الظَّاهرةِ المتواترةِ؛ كالفواحِشِ والظُّلمِ، والخَمرِ والميسِرِ، والزِّنا وغيرِ ذلك
In contrast to people who reject the obligation of things that are clear and everyone already knows it...
Such as the five daily prayers. Is there a Muslim who does not know that the five daily prayers are obligatory? All Muslims know that the five daily prayers are obligatory
All Muslims know that fasting in Ramadan is obligatory
If then someone says it is not obligatory to do five daily prayers,
if he has just converted to Islam, it's understandable
But if he has been converted to Islam for a long time, let alone a doctorate in the field of religion, then he refuses to pray, he is an infidel!
Because there is no possibility that he does not know the obligation of praying five times a day
He already knows it and he's trying to change that
Syaikhul Islam Ibn Taymiyah said, "Likewise they reject
the prohibition of some things that are haraam..."
"...the zahir, which people know are mutawatir, the law is haraam..."
"... just as he has justified alcohol, allowed gambling, allowed adultery, then anyone who dares to justify all of this, immediately consider them as infidels"
Because he permitted something that everyone already knows is haraam, understand?
That's the difference
It's not a big or small problem, but the problem is he doesn't know it or it's impossible he doesn't know it
But everyone knows about adultery, unless he just converted to Islam
So when it comes to doctors, he must know that adultery is haraam. Then, he wrote a dissertation to justify adultery.
So this person doesn't need iqomatul hujjah. Furthermore, the doubts are like this
Understand?
If we want to uphold the hujjah, then there is no need. Because this is a case that even adulterers know that the law is haraam.
So, everyone who believes that adultery is lawful, then he immediately becomes infidels!
If he wants to repent, it's his business with Allah SWT,
People who support the dissertation and the decision, will be also considered leaving Islam
Those who judge this dissertation a TOP path to damage Muslims, they are out of Islam!
Why? Because this is against a case that is known by all people that the law is haraam...
...then he justifies it
It's different to some cases. There are many things that people don't know, or maybe he just converted to Islam, so we give him an excuse
There is a person who converted to Islam, then he drank khamr, because he did not know that khamr is haraam.
When he was embracing other religions, khamr was halal. Why is it haraam? He does not know.
It's natural, because he is new to Islam
But this one, if he has a doctorate in religion, he gets drunk, playing with women in a hotel, then he says those are halal...
...there is no excuse for him. If he wants to repent, he can do it by changing his aqidah
This is what I can convey on this occasion to you, people who are blessed by Allah SWT,
I think there's no need for questioning session
This is the end of our study. Everything is clear now!
This is the end.
We will end this gathering with a prayer,
سبحانك اللهم وبحمدك أشهد أن لا إله إلا أنت أستغفرك وأتوب إليك
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته