Explanation of the Book of the Hearts-04b

The reciter: Al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Chapter on what is disliked of idle talk" Ali ibn Muslim narrated to us, saying: Hisham narrated to us, saying: More than one of them, including al-Mughirah, so-and-so, and a third man, informed us from al-Sha'bi from Warad, the scribe of al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah, that Mu'awiyah wrote to al-Mughirah saying, "Write to me a hadith you heard from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)." Al-Mughirah wrote back to him, "I heard him say upon leaving the prayer: .
And from Hisham, 'Abd al-Malik ibn 'Umar informed us, saying: I heard Warad narrating this hadith from al-Mughirah from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).

The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
This chapter is about what is disliked of idle talk, and what is meant by that is transmitting hadith without verification. This is why it is said, "It was said" or "So-and-so said," without verifying it. If this is the case, it is among what is prohibited, because a person is not free from slips. And if he slips, little trust remains in what he narrates. This undoubtedly affects a person, especially if he is an imam in knowledge or in worldly affairs, in matters of religion or the world. This includes that it is obligatory to verify what a person transmits. This is one point. Second, "idle talk" may be an allusion to excessive speech, and a person speaking a lot, because whoever speaks a lot, his slips increase. For this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: So silence is better than speech, unless the scale of speech tips in favor: As for the hadith, Mu'awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) wrote to al-Mughirah asking him about a hadith from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). It appears he asked him about a hadith related to the dhikr of prayer, because al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated many hadiths from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) on various topics, but the context indicates that he only asked him about something related to prayer. He heard him say during prayer: These phrases are known to most students. As for the first phrase, it is the word of tawhid (the oneness of Allah), which is the key to Paradise, and indeed the key to Islam as well. For whoever says "La ilaha illa Allah" (There is no god but Allah), his blood is protected, as indicated by the hadith of Usamah ibn Zayd: in the story of the polytheist man whom Usamah caught. When he caught him, he said, "La ilaha illa Allah." Usamah thought he was only using it as a refuge from being killed, so he killed him. Then he informed the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) of that, and he said to him: He said: "O Messenger of Allah, he only said it as a refuge." He said to him: He said: "O Messenger of Allah, he only said it as a refuge." He said: He said: "He only said it as a refuge," until he said to him: Until he (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "I wish I had not become a Muslim." Meaning, so that this sin would occur in a state of disbelief. And if it occurs in a state of disbelief and then one becomes a Muslim, Allah forgives it: Does this phrase "La ilaha illa Allah" mean there is no god but Allah? Or is the meaning there is no true god but Allah?
The reciter: The second one.

The Shaykh : The second one is the correct one, because there are gods worshipped besides Allah. Allah the Exalted said: And Allah the Exalted said: But this divinity is merely a name: As for reality, no. And on this basis, the predicate is omitted, its estimation being "true," i.e., "There is no true god but Allah," just as you say, "No one is standing except so-and-so." And what is intended by the judgment? Is it omitted? Or is it present? We say that in such a construction, what comes after "illa" (except) is a substitute for what comes before it, a substitute for what comes before it. And the substitute, as Ibn Malik said: "is the dependent intended by the judgment without an intermediary" And the verse: "The dependent intended by the judgment without an intermediary is called a substitute" And on this basis, we say Allah is a substitute for "true," which is the predicate, and it is the intended by the judgment, i.e., there is no god but Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), and everything other than Him among the gods is false. And as for his saying: These are two confirming phrases. Indeed, "alone" confirms what? The affirmation or the negation?
The reciter: The affirmation.

The Shaykh : The affirmation. "No partner for Him"?
The reciter: The negation.

The Shaykh : The negation. His is all the dominion, the dominion of the heavens and the earth. The phrase contains restriction, which is the advance of the predicate. And "His is the praise" likewise. He coupled praise with dominion, because Allah the Exalted is praised for everything He does in His dominion, even matters of evil that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) does and decrees, He is praised for them, because the matters of evil that Allah decrees contain good, they contain great good, so they are part of the completion of His wisdom. For this reason, we say He coupled praise with dominion, because all of His dominion includes the praise for which He is praised, for which He is praised. And his saying: "Every thing" is general, is this general, O Khalid?
The reciter: General.

The Shaykh : General, and what is the form of generality in it?
The reciter: That it is indefinite.

The Shaykh : No, the form of generality.
The reciter: "Thing."

The Shaykh : "Thing" is indefinite? I mean, is "thing" general?
The reciter: "Kull" (every) indicates generality.

The Shaykh : "Kull" (every) indicates generality. "Over every thing competent" from the existing and the non-existing. So the connection of power to the existing is to annihilate them or change them, and to the non-existing is to bring them into existence. So there is nothing but Allah is competent over it.
The reciter: We have it three times.

The Shaykh : Yes
The reciter: We have it three times after "over every thing competent."

The Shaykh : I have it three times, but it is written on it, it does not exist in some copies, it does not exist in some copies. He said: , this is the evidence. And "excessive questioning," excessive questioning, is the question that is inquiry, or the question that is begging?
The reciter: The second one.

The Shaykh : Good, let's see. Begging is prohibited whether it is much or little, as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: And he informed that asking is a hardship by which a man's face is worn out, and he informed that a person keeps asking until he comes on the Day of Resurrection and there is not a piece of flesh on his face. So it appears that what is intended by that is excessive questioning about knowledge, by the evidence of his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): Excessive questioning in knowledge is divided into two categories: a category where one asks about what does not occur and is not expected, meaning one asks about what has not occurred and is not expected. And the second is asking about what is not expected, which is more severe than the first, because it is from the category of being overly strict in knowledge. So things are three: something that has occurred, something that has not occurred but is expected, and something that has not occurred and is not expected. Asking about what has occurred is not blameworthy, and what has not occurred but is expected to occur, this is permissible, as preparation for it. And what has not occurred and is not expected, this is disliked, because it is from the category of being overly strict and wasting time in it, wasting it without benefit.
As for the second category of excessive questioning, which involves stubbornness and argumentation by raising logical possibilities against the apparent meanings of texts, this is a form of stubbornness. For example, a hadith comes with an apparent meaning, and a person says, "Is it not possible that it means such-and-such?" This is a form of stubbornness. The scholars have stated that if we were to introduce logical possibilities into the linguistic implications, no text would remain that does not have a logical meaning other than its apparent one. In that case, people would be lost, and all their knowledge would remain mere possibilities. Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) praised the Companions by saying that they were the deepest in knowledge and the least in contrivance. Their knowledge was deep, like a sea with no bottom, and they were the least in contrivance. Therefore, contrivance, excessive questioning, and raising possibilities against the texts are undoubtedly contrary to the path of the Salaf. The Salaf took matters as they were and did not contrive questions. For this reason, Malik said to the one who asked about "The Most Merciful rose above the Throne" "How did He rise? What should he say to him?" He said, "Asking about it is an innovation, because it is a form of contrivance. Leave matters as they appear and do not delve too deep. Do not raise possibilities. Also, there are people now who raise such possibilities regarding the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): This person who raises the objection says that the last third of the night still exists on the earth; if it moves to one direction, it settles in another, so Allah is always
The reader: descending

The Shaykh : descending. Well, the one who raised this objection, follow the text: He descends in the last third of the night until the dawn breaks. After that, there is no descent regarding that direction where the dawn has broken. The Lord (Mighty and Majestic) is not like anything else, so He is not measured by His creation.