Continuation of the benefits of His saying, the Exalted: << ولما جآءت رسلنآ إبراهيم بالبشرى قالوا إنا مهلكوا أهل هذ القرية إن أهلها كانوا ظالمين >

Now, the evidence for the first point... The first point is that attributing a thing to its known cause, whether perceptible or by divine law, is permissible. In this verse and in many other verses and hadiths, things are attributed to their causes. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) even said about his uncle Abu Talib: . Now, if a thing is attributed to its known cause, whether perceptible or by divine law, but with Allah using a conjunction that implies equality, that is shirk (associating partners with Allah), either minor or major. It may reach the level of major shirk if one believes that it has an effect like the effect of Allah (Mighty and Majestic). If it is attributed to Allah and to another using a conjunction that implies sequence, then if it is , it is permissible, based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)—when a man said to him, "What Allah wills and what you will"—he said: . And if it is combined with a conjunction that implies sequence and succession, like the fa, for example, "If not for Allah, then so-and-so," what is your opinion? We have three particles: the waw is clearly haram (forbidden) shirk, and is permissible, and the fa? In reality, the fa is contested by two matters. If we see that sequence exists in it, we say it is permissible. If we see that the difference between it and , which the texts indicate is permissible, is that indicates delay and time, and the distance of the second from the first, we say that it should not be permitted. There is no doubt that caution and scrupulousness in avoiding it is better, even though it undoubtedly implies sequence, but there is a difference between it and .