What is the ruling on using the word "lawla" (if it had not been for) given that some texts indicate its permissibility, and what is the ruling on saying "if it had not been for such and such, the thieves would have come to us"?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Yes
The questioner : May Allah reward you, O honorable Shaykh. Is the word or term "lawla" permissible in all cases, or is it prohibited in all cases, or is there a detailed distinction? Especially since it has been mentioned...
The Shaykh : Yes
The questioner : Especially since some phrases from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) indicate its permissibility, while some reports indicate the opposite.
The Shaykh : The use of "law" (if) or "lawla" (if it had not been for) falls into categories:
The first category is when it is used for mere information. In this case, there is no harm or blame in it. For example, if you say, "If it had not been that I am busy, I would have visited you," there is nothing wrong with this. Or if you say, "If you had finished your work, I would have visited you," there is absolutely nothing wrong with this, because it is merely information. However, if it is true, it is truth and righteousness; and if it is false, it carries the rulings of lying. The second category is when it is used in wishing for good, or if you prefer, you can say the second category is when it is used in wishing. In this case, it depends on what the person wishes for. If he wishes for good, it is good; and if he wishes for evil, it is evil. For this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) informed about the poor man who said, "If I had the wealth of so-and-so, I would do with it what so-and-so does," and so-and-so used his wealth for good. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:Sunan Ibn Majah 4228Sahih, Sahih (Darussalam).
And the second man said, "If I had the wealth of so-and-so, I would do with it what so-and-so does," and so-and-so used his wealth for evil. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:Sunan Ibn Majah 4228Sahih, Sahih (Darussalam).
The third category is when it is used for regret over what has passed and lamentation. This is prohibited, due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):Sahih Muslim 2664. So these are the three categories of "law" as you have seen. Yes.
The questioner : ... from some of the Companions: "If it had not been for the protection of the house, the thieves would have come to us."
The Shaykh : The question for another person is to apply it to yourself.
The questioner : O honorable Shaykh, what is the degree of authenticity of attributing the book *The Soul* to Imam Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him)?
The Shaykh : Regarding the brother's question, even though it is not allowed according to the system we agreed upon, but for its benefit, I may speak about it. Attributing a thing to its cause is divided into categories:
One category is major shirk (associating partners with Allah), such as saying, "If it had not been for the wali (close friend of Allah) so-and-so, I would have perished," where this wali is buried and buried, and he does not benefit anyone in any way. This statement does not come from a person except one who believes that this buried wali has control over the universe, and thus it is major shirk that takes one out of the religion.
The second category is permissible, which is attributing a thing to its known cause, whether known by the Shari'ah or by sensory perception. This is permissible and there is no harm in it. For example, if you say, "If so-and-so had not performed wudu' (the ablution for prayer), his prayer would not have been valid," this is a factual reality. If he had not performed wudu', his prayer would not have been valid. This is a legal cause.
A sensory cause is when a person falls into a well and another man pulls him out, and he says, "If it had not been for so-and-so who pulled me out, I would have perished." This is also correct, but one should not believe that so-and-so acted independently; rather, Allah facilitated it for him and saved him. Among this is the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding his uncle Abu Talib, where he informed that his uncle Abu Talib is in shallow fire, and he has two sandals from which his brain boils. He said:Sahih al-Bukhari 3883. This is permissible because it came from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and it is common in the words of scholars to attribute a thing to its cause known by sensory perception or by the Shari'ah.
The third category is attributing it to the cause along with Allah, connected by the conjunction "and." This is not permissible; rather, it is shirk, but it is minor shirk, unless one believes that the second one, who is with Allah, has control like Allah's control, in which case it becomes major shirk. For example, saying, "If it had not been for Allah and so-and-so, such and such would have happened." This is not permissible, even if one believes that Allah is above everything. It is not permissible; rather, one should say, "If it had not been for Allah, then so-and-so."
As for believing that Allah and so-and-so are equal in effect, this is major shirk. And in this three-part division, the most important thing is that if a person says, "If it had not been for such and such, such and such would have happened," and it is information, then there is no harm in it. Or if it is based on a valid cause, then there is no harm in it either. Yes, the one after it.
The questioner : May Allah reward you, O honorable Shaykh. Is the word or term "lawla" permissible in all cases, or is it prohibited in all cases, or is there a detailed distinction? Especially since it has been mentioned...
The Shaykh : Yes
The questioner : Especially since some phrases from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) indicate its permissibility, while some reports indicate the opposite.
The Shaykh : The use of "law" (if) or "lawla" (if it had not been for) falls into categories:
The first category is when it is used for mere information. In this case, there is no harm or blame in it. For example, if you say, "If it had not been that I am busy, I would have visited you," there is nothing wrong with this. Or if you say, "If you had finished your work, I would have visited you," there is absolutely nothing wrong with this, because it is merely information. However, if it is true, it is truth and righteousness; and if it is false, it carries the rulings of lying. The second category is when it is used in wishing for good, or if you prefer, you can say the second category is when it is used in wishing. In this case, it depends on what the person wishes for. If he wishes for good, it is good; and if he wishes for evil, it is evil. For this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) informed about the poor man who said, "If I had the wealth of so-and-so, I would do with it what so-and-so does," and so-and-so used his wealth for good. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
They will be equal in reward
فهو بنيته فهما في الأجر سواءAnd the second man said, "If I had the wealth of so-and-so, I would do with it what so-and-so does," and so-and-so used his wealth for evil. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
They are equal in their burden (of sin).
فهو بنيته فهما في الوزر سواءThe third category is when it is used for regret over what has passed and lamentation. This is prohibited, due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):
A strong believer is better and is more lovable to Allah than a weak believer, and there is good in everyone, (but) cherish that which gives you benefit (in the Hereafter) and seek help from Allah and do not lose heart, and if anything (in the form of trouble) comes to you, don't say: If I had not done that, it would not have happened so and so, but say: Allah did that what He had ordained to do and your" if" opens the (gate) for the Satan.
المؤمن القوي خير وأحب إلى الله من المؤمن الضعيف وفي كل خير احرص على ما ينفعك واستعن بالله ولا تعجز وإن أصابك شيء فلا تقل لو أني فعلت كذا لكان كذا وكذا فإن لو تفتح عمل الشيطانThe questioner : ... from some of the Companions: "If it had not been for the protection of the house, the thieves would have come to us."
The Shaykh : The question for another person is to apply it to yourself.
The questioner : O honorable Shaykh, what is the degree of authenticity of attributing the book *The Soul* to Imam Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him)?
The Shaykh : Regarding the brother's question, even though it is not allowed according to the system we agreed upon, but for its benefit, I may speak about it. Attributing a thing to its cause is divided into categories:
One category is major shirk (associating partners with Allah), such as saying, "If it had not been for the wali (close friend of Allah) so-and-so, I would have perished," where this wali is buried and buried, and he does not benefit anyone in any way. This statement does not come from a person except one who believes that this buried wali has control over the universe, and thus it is major shirk that takes one out of the religion.
The second category is permissible, which is attributing a thing to its known cause, whether known by the Shari'ah or by sensory perception. This is permissible and there is no harm in it. For example, if you say, "If so-and-so had not performed wudu' (the ablution for prayer), his prayer would not have been valid," this is a factual reality. If he had not performed wudu', his prayer would not have been valid. This is a legal cause.
A sensory cause is when a person falls into a well and another man pulls him out, and he says, "If it had not been for so-and-so who pulled me out, I would have perished." This is also correct, but one should not believe that so-and-so acted independently; rather, Allah facilitated it for him and saved him. Among this is the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding his uncle Abu Talib, where he informed that his uncle Abu Talib is in shallow fire, and he has two sandals from which his brain boils. He said:
had It not been for me, he would have been in the bottom of the (Hell) Fire.
ولولا أنا لكان في الدرك الأسفل من النارThe third category is attributing it to the cause along with Allah, connected by the conjunction "and." This is not permissible; rather, it is shirk, but it is minor shirk, unless one believes that the second one, who is with Allah, has control like Allah's control, in which case it becomes major shirk. For example, saying, "If it had not been for Allah and so-and-so, such and such would have happened." This is not permissible, even if one believes that Allah is above everything. It is not permissible; rather, one should say, "If it had not been for Allah, then so-and-so."
As for believing that Allah and so-and-so are equal in effect, this is major shirk. And in this three-part division, the most important thing is that if a person says, "If it had not been for such and such, such and such would have happened," and it is information, then there is no harm in it. Or if it is based on a valid cause, then there is no harm in it either. Yes, the one after it.