Allah the Exalted said: << إنا منزلون على أهل هذه القرية رجزا من السمآء بما كانوا يفسقون >

with lightening and intensification and a punishment "His statement:

a punishment

رجزًا

The author said: a punishment" Rajaz is not rijis. Rajaz is punishment, while rijis is impurity. As for rajaz with a zay, it is punishment. And his statement: Is the intended meaning of the sky the preserved ceiling or the height?
The student: The first.

The Shaykh : What is the evidence? Most usages indicate that the sky refers to the preserved ceiling.
The student: The height.

The Shaykh : The height is frequent, and the sky is also frequent. In any case, whether we say it is the preserved ceiling and this punishment came down from the lower sky, or we say the intended meaning is the height, in any case it came to them from above. And its coming from above is more severe and more comprehensive, refuge with Allah, unlike what comes from below, for that would not be the case. He said: by the act by which meaning by the cause of their open sinfulness "The author's wording is strange, containing some contradiction. The ba in his statement:

what

بما

is for causality, without doubt. And he parsed

not

ما

as a relative pronoun, then estimated it as a verbal noun, which indicates that he made it a verbal noun. These are the strange points. Let us see now if we parse it according to the first estimation.

what

بما

He said: by the act which, so

not

ما

becomes a relative pronoun describing a described noun that is omitted, estimated as 'by the act.' The relative pronoun, as you know, requires a clause to be its relative clause and requires a resumptive pronoun to link the clause to it. The relative clause is his statement:

they used to commit open sinfulness

كانوا يفسقون

and the resumptive pronoun he estimated by saying:

with it

به

" by what they used to commit open sinfulness with " This is contrary to the famous view among grammarians that if the resumptive pronoun is in the genitive case, it must be from 'an' (that) agreeing with the relative pronoun in the type of the governing word and in the type of the preposition. Yes, what is the proof from Ibn Malik's words regarding the condition of this matter?
The student: The proof:

The Shaykh : Do you know the origin of the issue?
The student: .... Like the one that was genitive by what the relative pronoun was genitive, like 'marra' (passed) by the one I passed by, so he is a man.

The Shaykh : Yes, " Like the one that was genitive by what the relative pronoun was genitive, like 'marra' (passed) by the one I passed by
And here the governing word differed. The correct view is that here is a verbal noun particle, meaning: by their being open sinners or by their committing open sinfulness. So it is a verbal noun particle and not a relative pronoun. And his statement: Open sinfulness originally means exiting from obedience. From this comes their saying: the fruit committed open sinfulness when it came out of its skin. And open sinfulness is divided into two categories: major open sinfulness that expels one from the religion, and minor open sinfulness that does not expel one from the religion. The term used by the scholars, when they use the word open sinfulness without qualification, refers to what does not expel one from the religion. But in the Qur'an, it is divided into these two categories, meaning that open sinfulness can be major open sinfulness that expels one from the religion, and it can be open sinfulness less than that, minor, that does not expel one from the religion. But with both categories, it expels one from justice. The open sinner is not just. What is the proof from the Qur'an for open sinfulness that expels one from the religion?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Here it is expelling from the religion without doubt.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : And likewise in His statement, the Exalted: in contrast to . As for open sinfulness that does not expel one from the religion, it is in the like of His statement, the Exalted: . As for the cause of open sinfulness, which is exiting from obedience, it may be that its cause is leaving an obligatory act, or it may be that its cause is committing a forbidden act. It may be that its cause is leaving one thing, as if a person leaves the congregational prayer, then he is an open sinner, because the congregation is obligatory. And it may be that its cause is committing a forbidden act, as if a person shaves his beard, for shaving the beard is forbidden. However, the scholars say regarding the forbidden act: if it is a major sin, he becomes an open sinner by merely committing it, if he does not repent from it, by the mere act. And if it is a minor sin, he does not become an open sinner except by persisting in it. So, does shaving the beard make one an open sinner if he does it once?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : No, but if he persists and every time it grows he shaves it, he becomes an open sinner.
The student: The one who takes half of it ...

The Shaykh : He shaves the chin and leaves the sideburns.
The student: ..

The Shaykh : No, there is a text. I saw a person shaving the chin and leaving the sideburns, it exists. Yes, ... In any case, this is forbidden, whether he shaves the sideburns and leaves the chin, or shaves the chin and leaves the sideburns. Because many people think that the beard is the chin. The chin is not the beard. The chin is the junction of the two beards, because the beard is the growth of the teeth. And it was mentioned in the Qamus also that all the hair of the face is the beard. Meaning, cutting the hair of the cheeks is from the beard. Cutting it means he cuts it. In any case, it is not like shaving, but it is a sin, because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: The summary of the matter is obligation. So if he persists in it, he becomes an open sinner.
The student: ....

The Shaykh : No, it is not correct. It is not correct. The correct view is that it is the same punishment that came down from the sky, as in the other verse: