The Book of Mosques and Places of Prayer-07a
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reciter: Isma'il ibn Ibrahim narrated to us, Jarrir narrated to us from Mansur from al-Musayyib ibn Rafi' from Warad, the freed slave of al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah, who said: Sunan an-Nasa'i 1341.
The Shaykh : When he finished the prayer and said the salam, the apparent meaning is that he says this dhikr immediately after the salam. However, it was previously mentioned in the hadith of Thawban and A'ishah that when he finished his prayer, he would say: "I seek forgiveness from Allah." Therefore, beginning with seeking forgiveness and "O Allah, You are Peace" is more appropriate, because it is closer to the prayer than this dhikr.
And his saying: لا إله إلا الله وحده لا شريك له: إله بمعنى المألوه، والمألوه هو المعبود محبّة وتعظيماً، فعبادة الله مبنية على المحبة والتعظيم، فبالمحبة تفعل الأوامر، وبالتعظيم تُترك النواهي، وهي أيضاً -أعني هذه الجملة العظيمة - مكونة من نفي وإثبات، وهما ركنا الإخلاص والتوحيد، هما الضمير يعود على أيش؟ على النفي والإثبات، الإخلص والتوحيد، إذ لا يمكن ذلك -أعني التوحيد والإخلاص- إلا بكلمة التوحيد، لم؟ لأن النفي نفي عدم، والإثبات بدون نفي لا يمنع المشاركة، فإذا قلت مثلاً : ليس في البيت أحدٌ قائم، هذا أيش؟ نفي محض، إذن لا قيام، وإذا قلت : فلان قائم في البيت، هذا إثبات قيام زيد، لكن هل يمنع أن يكون غيره قائم غير زيد؟
لا، وإذا قلت : ليس في البيت قائم إلا زيد، فهذا نفي وإثبات، يمنع أن يُشارك أحد زيداً في البيت، ولهذا لا يتم التوحيد إلا بنفي وإثبات، أي بحصر سواء بنفي وإثبات أو بإنما أو بتقديم المعمول، وما أشبه ذلك،
وقوله : إلا الله الإعراب : لا نافية للجنس، وإله : اسمها، مركّب معها مبني على الفتح، وإلا أداة حصر ولا أداة استثناء؟ إذا قت أنها أداة حصر لزم أن تكون " الله " خبر لا، وهذا لا يستقيم، لا يستقيم لفظاً، ولا يستقيم معنىً، أما عدم استقامته لفظاً فلأن " لا " لا تعمل إلا في النكرات، ولفظ الجلالة أعرف المعارف، وأما معنى فلأنك إذا قلت لا إله إلا الله لا معبود إلا الله، أوهم ذلك أن تكون جميع المعبودات هي الله، لا معبود إلا الله ليس هناك شيء يُعبد إلا الله، فيلزم أو يوهم أن تكون المعبودات هي الله، وهذا لا شك أنه معنى فاسد.
قلنا لا يصلح أن يكون لفظ الجلالة خبر لا، من حيث اللفظ، والمعنى أيضاً : أما اللفظ فلأن " لا " لا تعمل إلا في النكرات، وأما من حيث المعنى فلأنه يوهم أن يكون جميع المعبودات هي الله وهذا معنى فاسد.
إذن : فخبر " لا " محذوف والتقدير : لا إله حقٌ إلا الله ، لا إله حقٌّ إلا الله، ويدل لذلك قول الله : ذلك بأن الله هو الحق وأنما يدعون من دونه هو الباطل وأن الله هو العلي القدير ، فلا بد من هذا التقدير، ومن قدّره من النحاة بكلمة "موجود" فقوله خطأ، لا إله موجود إلا الله، لأن هناك آلهة سوى الله عز وجل، قال الله تعالى : فما أغنت عنهم آلهتهم التي يدعون من دون الله من شيء ، وإن كانت هذه الآلهة ليست آلهة حقاً، إن هي إلا أسماء سميتموها أنتم وآباؤكم ما أنزل الله بها من سلطان، لكن تنزّلاً مع هؤلاء العابدين نقول : هي آلهة.
فإن قال قائل : هل يُجزئ أن يقول الإنسان لا إله إلا الله دون أن يقدِّر حق؟ قلنا : نعم يجزئ، ومن قال لا يُجزئ فقد خالف القرآن والسنة وعمل المسلمين، كل المسلمين يقولون لا إله إلا الله ويكتفون، لكن لو سألتهم فقلت : هذه الأصنام تُعبد؟ يقول : هذه ليست آلهة، هذه باطل، فتقدير " حق " ليس بواجب، لكن لما نشرح الكلمة للناس تقول هذا.
وقوله : وحده لا شريك له هذا تأكيد للتوحيد.
وقوله : له الملك وله الحمد : جملة خبرية قدِّم فيها الخبر للحصر، له وحده الملك، ملك الأعيان، والأفعال، فالله تعالى هو الذي له الملك، يملك كل ما في السماوات والأرض، ويملك كل تصرف فيها وكل فعل.
وله الحمد : يقال فيها ما قيل في " له الملك ". في أنها تفيد الحصر، والحمد وصف المحمود بالكمال محبّة وتعظيماً، وذكرت بعد إثبات خصزصية الملك ليتبين أن جميع ما يفعله في ملكه فهو مستحق للحمد عليه، وأن ملكه مبني على الحمد، ولهذا قال : الحمد لله الذي خلق السموات والأرض وجع الظلمات والنور ، وما أشبه ذلك مما يدل على أن ملك الله وخلق الله وأفعاله كلها مبنية على الحمد، فهو الذي يُحمد على كل حال.
وهو على كل شيء قدير : وهذه أيضاً جملة خبرية فيها الثناء على الله عز وجل بعموم القدرة، وهو على كل شيء قدير، وهذه الجملة تطلق كما جاءت، ولا يصح أن يُقال : وهو على ما شاء قدير ، لأنك إذا قلت على ما شاء : أوهم أن مفهومها أن ما لا يشاؤه لا يقدر عليه، وهو قادر على ما شاء وما لا يشاء، لكن ما شاء كان وما لم يشأ لم يكن.
ثم يوهم أيضاً أنه لا قدرة له على أعمال العباد على رأي المعتزلة الذين يقولون : إنها لا تقع بمشيئته فإذا لم تكن بمشيئة صار غير قادر عليه، ولهذا يُنهى أن يقول القائل : إنه على ما يشاء قدير، وأما قوله تبارك وتعالى : وهو على جمعهم إذا يشاء قدير فهذه متعلقة بالجمع، يعني : إذا شاء جمعهم لا يعجز عنه، وكذلك في قصة الرجل الذي يدخل الجنة آخر من يدخل يقول الله تعالى : إني على ما أشاء قادر، أن هذا مخصوص لفعل معيّن، يعني أنا قادر على أن أدخلك الجنة ولو كنت مسرفاً على نفسك، فلا تتوهم.
فيه عبارة للجلالين يقول : خص العقل ذاته فليس عليها بقادر، يعني على رأيه نقول : هو على كل شيء قدير إلا على ذاته، وهذا لا شك أنه غلط، لأنه تقييد لما أطلقه الله، ولأنه يحمل معنى فاسداً، لأننا نقول : ماذا تريد بكلمة خص العقل ذاته؟ هل تريد أنه لا يقدر أن يفعل؟ لا يقدر أن يستوي أو ينزل إلى السماء الدنيا أو ما أشبه ذلك؟ أو تريد أن يُهلك نفسه سبحانه وتعالى ؟ إن أردت الأول فهو باطل لأنه قادر أن يستوي على العرش وينزل متى شاء، وإذا أردت الثاني فهذا شيء مستحيل لا تتعلق به القدرة، ولهذا قال السفاريني في عقيدته : واقتدر ذي بقدرة تعلقت بممكن، لأن غير الممكن عدم، هو لا يمكن على اسمه. فالواجب أن نطلق كما أطلقه الله نقول : هو على كل شيء قدير. "There is no god but Allah alone, with no partner": The word "ilah" (god) means the one who is worshipped, and the one who is worshipped is the one worshipped out of love and reverence. Thus, the worship of Allah is based on love and reverence. Through love, one performs the commands, and through reverence, one leaves off the prohibitions. This great phrase is also composed of negation and affirmation, which are the two pillars of sincerity and the oneness of Allah. The pronoun refers to what? It refers to the negation and affirmation, sincerity and the oneness of Allah. For it is not possible—meaning the oneness of Allah and sincerity—except with the word of the oneness of Allah. Why? Because negation is the negation of non-existence, and affirmation without negation does not prevent association. If you say, for example, "There is no one standing in the house," what is this? It is pure negation, so there is no standing. If you say, "So-and-so is standing in the house," this is an affirmation of Zayd's standing, but does it prevent someone other than Zayd from being standing? No. If you say, "There is no one standing in the house except Zayd," this is negation and affirmation, preventing anyone from sharing the house with Zayd. For this reason, the oneness of Allah is not completed except with negation and affirmation, meaning restriction, whether by negation and affirmation, or by "inna" (only), or by fronting the object, or the like. And his saying "except Allah": The grammatical analysis is that "la" is a negator of the genus, and "ilah" is its subject. It is compounded with it and built on the open case. Is "illa" a tool of restriction or a tool of exception? If you say it is a tool of restriction, it necessitates that "Allah" be the predicate of "la," and this does not hold. It does not hold linguistically, nor does it hold in meaning. As for its not holding linguistically, it is because "la" does not operate except on indefinite nouns, and the Name of Allah is the most definite of definite nouns. As for the meaning, if you say "There is no god except Allah," meaning "there is no worshipped one except Allah," it suggests that all worshipped things are Allah. "There is no worshipped one except Allah" means there is nothing worshipped except Allah, which necessitates or suggests that the worshipped things are Allah, and this is undoubtedly a defective meaning. We said that it is not appropriate for the Name of Allah to be the predicate of "la," in terms of the wording, and also in terms of the meaning. As for the wording, it is because "la" does not operate except on indefinite nouns. As for the meaning, it is because it suggests that all worshipped things are Allah, and this is a defective meaning. Therefore, the predicate of "la" is omitted, and the implied meaning is: "There is no true god except Allah," "There is no true god except Allah." This is indicated by the saying of Allah: "That is because Allah is the Truth, and what they call upon other than Him is falsehood, and Allah is the Most High, the Most Competent." So this implied meaning is necessary. Whoever among the grammarians implied it with the word "existing" is wrong, "There is no existing god except Allah," because there are gods other than Allah (Mighty and Majestic). Allah the Exalted said: "So their gods whom they called upon other than Allah did not avail them at all." And even if these gods are not true gods, they are only names that you and your fathers have named, for which Allah has sent down no authority. But as a concession to these worshippers, we say: they are gods. If someone asks: Is it sufficient for a person to say "There is no god but Allah" without implying "true"? We say: Yes, it is sufficient. And whoever says it is not sufficient has contradicted the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and the practice of the Muslims. All Muslims say "There is no god but Allah" and are content with it. But if you asked them and said: Are these idols worshipped? He would say: These are not gods, these are falsehood. So implying "true" is not obligatory, but when we explain the word to people, we say this. And his saying "alone, with no partner" is an affirmation of the oneness of Allah. And his saying "His is the dominion and His is the praise": This is a declarative sentence in which the predicate is fronted for restriction. "His alone is the dominion," the dominion of entities and actions. So Allah the Exalted is the One to whom the dominion belongs. He owns everything in the heavens and the earth, and He owns every action and every deed therein. "And His is the praise": What was said regarding "His is the dominion" is said regarding this, in that it conveys restriction. Praise is describing the praised one with perfection, out of love and reverence. It was mentioned after affirming the attribute of dominion to make it clear that everything He does in His dominion is deserving of praise for it, and that His dominion is based on praise. For this reason He said: "Praise be to Allah, who created the heavens and the earth, and made the darkness and the light," and the like of what indicates that the dominion of Allah, the creation of Allah, and His actions are all based on praise, so He is the One who is praised in every state. "And He is over all things competent": This is also a declarative sentence containing praise of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) for the comprehensiveness of His power. He is over all things competent. This sentence is stated as it came, and it is not correct to say: "And He is over what He wills competent." Because if you say "over what He wills," it suggests that the implication is that what He does not will, He is not competent over. He is competent over what He wills and what He does not will, but what He wills happens and what He does not will does not happen. It also suggests that He has no power over the actions of the servants, according to the view of the Mu'tazilah who say that they do not occur by His will, so if they are not by His will, He is not competent over them. For this reason, it is forbidden to say: He is over what He wills competent. As for His saying (Blessed and Exalted is He): "And He is over gathering them competent if He wills," this is related to the gathering, meaning: if He wills to gather them, He is not unable to do so. And likewise in the story of the man who enters Paradise as the last to enter, Allah the Exalted says: "Indeed, I am over what I will competent." This is specific to a certain action, meaning I am competent to make you enter Paradise even if you were extravagant with yourself, so do not assume otherwise. There is a phrase by al-Jalalayn that says: "He restricted His own essence, so He is not competent over it." Meaning, according to his view, we say: He is over all things competent except over His own essence. And this is undoubtedly an error, because it restricts what Allah made absolute, and because it carries a defective meaning. Because we say: What do you mean by "He restricted His own essence"? Do you mean that He is not able to act? He is not able to rise or descend to the lowest heaven or the like? Or do you mean that He would destroy Himself (Glorified and Exalted is He)? If you mean the first, it is false, because He is able to rise above the Throne and descend whenever He wills. And if you mean the second, this is an impossible thing that power does not relate to. For this reason, al-Safarini said in his creed: "And He became competent with a power that related to the possible, because the non-possible is non-existence, and it is not possible according to its name." So it is obligatory that we state it as Allah stated it, we say: He is over all things competent.
Muawiyah wrote to Al-Mughirah bin Shu'bah saying: "Tell me of something that you heard from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)." He said: "When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) finished praying, he would say: La Ilaha Illallah wahdahu la sharika lah, lahul-mulk wa lahul-hamd wa huwa 'ala kulli shay'in qadir. Allahumma la mani' lima a'taita wa la mu'tia lima mana'ta wa la yanfa'u dhal-jaddi minka al-jadd. (There is none worthy of worship except Allah (ﷺ) alone with no partner or associate. He is the Dominion and to Him be all praise, and He is able to do all things. O Allah, one can withhold what You have given and none can give what You have withheld, and no wealth or fortune can benefit anyone for from You comes all wealth and fortune.)'"
كتب المغيرة بن شعبة إلى معاوية أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان إذا فرغ من الصلاة وسلم قال : لا إله إلا الله وحده لا شريك له له الملك وله الحمد وهو على كل شيء قدير اللهم لا مانع لما أعطيت ولا معطي لما منعت ولا ينفع ذا الجد منك الجدThe Shaykh : When he finished the prayer and said the salam, the apparent meaning is that he says this dhikr immediately after the salam. However, it was previously mentioned in the hadith of Thawban and A'ishah that when he finished his prayer, he would say: "I seek forgiveness from Allah." Therefore, beginning with seeking forgiveness and "O Allah, You are Peace" is more appropriate, because it is closer to the prayer than this dhikr.
And his saying: لا إله إلا الله وحده لا شريك له: إله بمعنى المألوه، والمألوه هو المعبود محبّة وتعظيماً، فعبادة الله مبنية على المحبة والتعظيم، فبالمحبة تفعل الأوامر، وبالتعظيم تُترك النواهي، وهي أيضاً -أعني هذه الجملة العظيمة - مكونة من نفي وإثبات، وهما ركنا الإخلاص والتوحيد، هما الضمير يعود على أيش؟ على النفي والإثبات، الإخلص والتوحيد، إذ لا يمكن ذلك -أعني التوحيد والإخلاص- إلا بكلمة التوحيد، لم؟ لأن النفي نفي عدم، والإثبات بدون نفي لا يمنع المشاركة، فإذا قلت مثلاً : ليس في البيت أحدٌ قائم، هذا أيش؟ نفي محض، إذن لا قيام، وإذا قلت : فلان قائم في البيت، هذا إثبات قيام زيد، لكن هل يمنع أن يكون غيره قائم غير زيد؟
لا، وإذا قلت : ليس في البيت قائم إلا زيد، فهذا نفي وإثبات، يمنع أن يُشارك أحد زيداً في البيت، ولهذا لا يتم التوحيد إلا بنفي وإثبات، أي بحصر سواء بنفي وإثبات أو بإنما أو بتقديم المعمول، وما أشبه ذلك،
وقوله : إلا الله الإعراب : لا نافية للجنس، وإله : اسمها، مركّب معها مبني على الفتح، وإلا أداة حصر ولا أداة استثناء؟ إذا قت أنها أداة حصر لزم أن تكون " الله " خبر لا، وهذا لا يستقيم، لا يستقيم لفظاً، ولا يستقيم معنىً، أما عدم استقامته لفظاً فلأن " لا " لا تعمل إلا في النكرات، ولفظ الجلالة أعرف المعارف، وأما معنى فلأنك إذا قلت لا إله إلا الله لا معبود إلا الله، أوهم ذلك أن تكون جميع المعبودات هي الله، لا معبود إلا الله ليس هناك شيء يُعبد إلا الله، فيلزم أو يوهم أن تكون المعبودات هي الله، وهذا لا شك أنه معنى فاسد.
قلنا لا يصلح أن يكون لفظ الجلالة خبر لا، من حيث اللفظ، والمعنى أيضاً : أما اللفظ فلأن " لا " لا تعمل إلا في النكرات، وأما من حيث المعنى فلأنه يوهم أن يكون جميع المعبودات هي الله وهذا معنى فاسد.
إذن : فخبر " لا " محذوف والتقدير : لا إله حقٌ إلا الله ، لا إله حقٌّ إلا الله، ويدل لذلك قول الله : ذلك بأن الله هو الحق وأنما يدعون من دونه هو الباطل وأن الله هو العلي القدير ، فلا بد من هذا التقدير، ومن قدّره من النحاة بكلمة "موجود" فقوله خطأ، لا إله موجود إلا الله، لأن هناك آلهة سوى الله عز وجل، قال الله تعالى : فما أغنت عنهم آلهتهم التي يدعون من دون الله من شيء ، وإن كانت هذه الآلهة ليست آلهة حقاً، إن هي إلا أسماء سميتموها أنتم وآباؤكم ما أنزل الله بها من سلطان، لكن تنزّلاً مع هؤلاء العابدين نقول : هي آلهة.
فإن قال قائل : هل يُجزئ أن يقول الإنسان لا إله إلا الله دون أن يقدِّر حق؟ قلنا : نعم يجزئ، ومن قال لا يُجزئ فقد خالف القرآن والسنة وعمل المسلمين، كل المسلمين يقولون لا إله إلا الله ويكتفون، لكن لو سألتهم فقلت : هذه الأصنام تُعبد؟ يقول : هذه ليست آلهة، هذه باطل، فتقدير " حق " ليس بواجب، لكن لما نشرح الكلمة للناس تقول هذا.
وقوله : وحده لا شريك له هذا تأكيد للتوحيد.
وقوله : له الملك وله الحمد : جملة خبرية قدِّم فيها الخبر للحصر، له وحده الملك، ملك الأعيان، والأفعال، فالله تعالى هو الذي له الملك، يملك كل ما في السماوات والأرض، ويملك كل تصرف فيها وكل فعل.
وله الحمد : يقال فيها ما قيل في " له الملك ". في أنها تفيد الحصر، والحمد وصف المحمود بالكمال محبّة وتعظيماً، وذكرت بعد إثبات خصزصية الملك ليتبين أن جميع ما يفعله في ملكه فهو مستحق للحمد عليه، وأن ملكه مبني على الحمد، ولهذا قال : الحمد لله الذي خلق السموات والأرض وجع الظلمات والنور ، وما أشبه ذلك مما يدل على أن ملك الله وخلق الله وأفعاله كلها مبنية على الحمد، فهو الذي يُحمد على كل حال.
وهو على كل شيء قدير : وهذه أيضاً جملة خبرية فيها الثناء على الله عز وجل بعموم القدرة، وهو على كل شيء قدير، وهذه الجملة تطلق كما جاءت، ولا يصح أن يُقال : وهو على ما شاء قدير ، لأنك إذا قلت على ما شاء : أوهم أن مفهومها أن ما لا يشاؤه لا يقدر عليه، وهو قادر على ما شاء وما لا يشاء، لكن ما شاء كان وما لم يشأ لم يكن.
ثم يوهم أيضاً أنه لا قدرة له على أعمال العباد على رأي المعتزلة الذين يقولون : إنها لا تقع بمشيئته فإذا لم تكن بمشيئة صار غير قادر عليه، ولهذا يُنهى أن يقول القائل : إنه على ما يشاء قدير، وأما قوله تبارك وتعالى : وهو على جمعهم إذا يشاء قدير فهذه متعلقة بالجمع، يعني : إذا شاء جمعهم لا يعجز عنه، وكذلك في قصة الرجل الذي يدخل الجنة آخر من يدخل يقول الله تعالى : إني على ما أشاء قادر، أن هذا مخصوص لفعل معيّن، يعني أنا قادر على أن أدخلك الجنة ولو كنت مسرفاً على نفسك، فلا تتوهم.
فيه عبارة للجلالين يقول : خص العقل ذاته فليس عليها بقادر، يعني على رأيه نقول : هو على كل شيء قدير إلا على ذاته، وهذا لا شك أنه غلط، لأنه تقييد لما أطلقه الله، ولأنه يحمل معنى فاسداً، لأننا نقول : ماذا تريد بكلمة خص العقل ذاته؟ هل تريد أنه لا يقدر أن يفعل؟ لا يقدر أن يستوي أو ينزل إلى السماء الدنيا أو ما أشبه ذلك؟ أو تريد أن يُهلك نفسه سبحانه وتعالى ؟ إن أردت الأول فهو باطل لأنه قادر أن يستوي على العرش وينزل متى شاء، وإذا أردت الثاني فهذا شيء مستحيل لا تتعلق به القدرة، ولهذا قال السفاريني في عقيدته : واقتدر ذي بقدرة تعلقت بممكن، لأن غير الممكن عدم، هو لا يمكن على اسمه. فالواجب أن نطلق كما أطلقه الله نقول : هو على كل شيء قدير. "There is no god but Allah alone, with no partner": The word "ilah" (god) means the one who is worshipped, and the one who is worshipped is the one worshipped out of love and reverence. Thus, the worship of Allah is based on love and reverence. Through love, one performs the commands, and through reverence, one leaves off the prohibitions. This great phrase is also composed of negation and affirmation, which are the two pillars of sincerity and the oneness of Allah. The pronoun refers to what? It refers to the negation and affirmation, sincerity and the oneness of Allah. For it is not possible—meaning the oneness of Allah and sincerity—except with the word of the oneness of Allah. Why? Because negation is the negation of non-existence, and affirmation without negation does not prevent association. If you say, for example, "There is no one standing in the house," what is this? It is pure negation, so there is no standing. If you say, "So-and-so is standing in the house," this is an affirmation of Zayd's standing, but does it prevent someone other than Zayd from being standing? No. If you say, "There is no one standing in the house except Zayd," this is negation and affirmation, preventing anyone from sharing the house with Zayd. For this reason, the oneness of Allah is not completed except with negation and affirmation, meaning restriction, whether by negation and affirmation, or by "inna" (only), or by fronting the object, or the like. And his saying "except Allah": The grammatical analysis is that "la" is a negator of the genus, and "ilah" is its subject. It is compounded with it and built on the open case. Is "illa" a tool of restriction or a tool of exception? If you say it is a tool of restriction, it necessitates that "Allah" be the predicate of "la," and this does not hold. It does not hold linguistically, nor does it hold in meaning. As for its not holding linguistically, it is because "la" does not operate except on indefinite nouns, and the Name of Allah is the most definite of definite nouns. As for the meaning, if you say "There is no god except Allah," meaning "there is no worshipped one except Allah," it suggests that all worshipped things are Allah. "There is no worshipped one except Allah" means there is nothing worshipped except Allah, which necessitates or suggests that the worshipped things are Allah, and this is undoubtedly a defective meaning. We said that it is not appropriate for the Name of Allah to be the predicate of "la," in terms of the wording, and also in terms of the meaning. As for the wording, it is because "la" does not operate except on indefinite nouns. As for the meaning, it is because it suggests that all worshipped things are Allah, and this is a defective meaning. Therefore, the predicate of "la" is omitted, and the implied meaning is: "There is no true god except Allah," "There is no true god except Allah." This is indicated by the saying of Allah: "That is because Allah is the Truth, and what they call upon other than Him is falsehood, and Allah is the Most High, the Most Competent." So this implied meaning is necessary. Whoever among the grammarians implied it with the word "existing" is wrong, "There is no existing god except Allah," because there are gods other than Allah (Mighty and Majestic). Allah the Exalted said: "So their gods whom they called upon other than Allah did not avail them at all." And even if these gods are not true gods, they are only names that you and your fathers have named, for which Allah has sent down no authority. But as a concession to these worshippers, we say: they are gods. If someone asks: Is it sufficient for a person to say "There is no god but Allah" without implying "true"? We say: Yes, it is sufficient. And whoever says it is not sufficient has contradicted the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and the practice of the Muslims. All Muslims say "There is no god but Allah" and are content with it. But if you asked them and said: Are these idols worshipped? He would say: These are not gods, these are falsehood. So implying "true" is not obligatory, but when we explain the word to people, we say this. And his saying "alone, with no partner" is an affirmation of the oneness of Allah. And his saying "His is the dominion and His is the praise": This is a declarative sentence in which the predicate is fronted for restriction. "His alone is the dominion," the dominion of entities and actions. So Allah the Exalted is the One to whom the dominion belongs. He owns everything in the heavens and the earth, and He owns every action and every deed therein. "And His is the praise": What was said regarding "His is the dominion" is said regarding this, in that it conveys restriction. Praise is describing the praised one with perfection, out of love and reverence. It was mentioned after affirming the attribute of dominion to make it clear that everything He does in His dominion is deserving of praise for it, and that His dominion is based on praise. For this reason He said: "Praise be to Allah, who created the heavens and the earth, and made the darkness and the light," and the like of what indicates that the dominion of Allah, the creation of Allah, and His actions are all based on praise, so He is the One who is praised in every state. "And He is over all things competent": This is also a declarative sentence containing praise of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) for the comprehensiveness of His power. He is over all things competent. This sentence is stated as it came, and it is not correct to say: "And He is over what He wills competent." Because if you say "over what He wills," it suggests that the implication is that what He does not will, He is not competent over. He is competent over what He wills and what He does not will, but what He wills happens and what He does not will does not happen. It also suggests that He has no power over the actions of the servants, according to the view of the Mu'tazilah who say that they do not occur by His will, so if they are not by His will, He is not competent over them. For this reason, it is forbidden to say: He is over what He wills competent. As for His saying (Blessed and Exalted is He): "And He is over gathering them competent if He wills," this is related to the gathering, meaning: if He wills to gather them, He is not unable to do so. And likewise in the story of the man who enters Paradise as the last to enter, Allah the Exalted says: "Indeed, I am over what I will competent." This is specific to a certain action, meaning I am competent to make you enter Paradise even if you were extravagant with yourself, so do not assume otherwise. There is a phrase by al-Jalalayn that says: "He restricted His own essence, so He is not competent over it." Meaning, according to his view, we say: He is over all things competent except over His own essence. And this is undoubtedly an error, because it restricts what Allah made absolute, and because it carries a defective meaning. Because we say: What do you mean by "He restricted His own essence"? Do you mean that He is not able to act? He is not able to rise or descend to the lowest heaven or the like? Or do you mean that He would destroy Himself (Glorified and Exalted is He)? If you mean the first, it is false, because He is able to rise above the Throne and descend whenever He wills. And if you mean the second, this is an impossible thing that power does not relate to. For this reason, al-Safarini said in his creed: "And He became competent with a power that related to the possible, because the non-possible is non-existence, and it is not possible according to its name." So it is obligatory that we state it as Allah stated it, we say: He is over all things competent.