What is the explanation of the saying, "Whoever leaves what benefits him is afflicted with what harms him"?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The student: O Shaykh! Some scholars say regarding the decrease and increase of faith: that whoever leaves what benefits him must be afflicted with what harms him, and this is among the sensory obstacles. So where... this statement, some of the exegetes... say: always, when a person leaves anything that benefits him, Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) must afflict him with what harms him... another aspect
The Shaykh : What is its aspect? Whoever leaves what benefits him is afflicted with what harms him. What is the aspect of that, O our brothers?
The student: As a punishment, because Allah the Exalted says: [Al-Inshiqaq: 6] A person must do something.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is its aspect. A person must be a tiller of the soil and a person of high ambition. Every person must have ambition and action. If this action is not in what benefits, it must be in what harms. So if someone says: this statement necessitates the invalidation of the category of the permissible in the chapter of legal obligation, as is mentioned from one of the Mu'tazilah, I think it is al-Ka'bi, he is called al-Ka'bi, and I think he is from the Mu'tazilah, who says: there is no category of the permissible in the Shari'ah. Yes, because it is necessary that this permissible thing you occupy yourself with would suffice you from the forbidden, and thus it would be obligatory. So things are either obligatory or forbidden. But the scholars of knowledge refuted him with evidence from reason and revelation, and they said: this is not correct. For the harm of doing the permissible, if it entails leaving the obligatory, is not because it is permissible, but because of leaving the obligatory. If one did the permissible without it entailing leaving an obligatory act and doing a forbidden act, no sin would be upon him. So the important point is that we say: the aspect of the statement of our brother Abdul Aziz is that a person must be an actor, either in what benefits him or in what harms him. Okay? {I seek forgiveness from Allah} Yes?
The student: ... it relates to the topic of the names and attributes and their explanation...
The Shaykh : I have not seen anything but the explanation of al-Muqaddim of the "Nuniyyah," and Shaykh Abd al-Rahman al-Sa'di explained it in "Tawdih Tawhid al-Anbiya," and also there is a book explaining the names of Allah by one of the scholars of language.
The student: al-Zajjaj
The Shaykh : Is it al-Zajjaj?
The student: Tafsir al-Asma'
The Shaykh : It is his explanation, but I just no longer know about my confidence in this man.
The benefits in this verse: striking examples for people, or do we leave it from the verse that follows?[Al-'Ankabut 29:43] The apparent is that... the verse that follows is clearer. Okay
The Shaykh : What is its aspect? Whoever leaves what benefits him is afflicted with what harms him. What is the aspect of that, O our brothers?
The student: As a punishment, because Allah the Exalted says:
O mankind, indeed you are laboring toward your Lord with [great] exertion and will meet it.
يَا أَيُّهَا الإِنسَانُ إِنَّكَ كَادِحٌ إِلَى رَبِّكَ كَدْحًا فَمُلاقِيهِThe Shaykh : Yes, that is its aspect. A person must be a tiller of the soil and a person of high ambition. Every person must have ambition and action. If this action is not in what benefits, it must be in what harms. So if someone says: this statement necessitates the invalidation of the category of the permissible in the chapter of legal obligation, as is mentioned from one of the Mu'tazilah, I think it is al-Ka'bi, he is called al-Ka'bi, and I think he is from the Mu'tazilah, who says: there is no category of the permissible in the Shari'ah. Yes, because it is necessary that this permissible thing you occupy yourself with would suffice you from the forbidden, and thus it would be obligatory. So things are either obligatory or forbidden. But the scholars of knowledge refuted him with evidence from reason and revelation, and they said: this is not correct. For the harm of doing the permissible, if it entails leaving the obligatory, is not because it is permissible, but because of leaving the obligatory. If one did the permissible without it entailing leaving an obligatory act and doing a forbidden act, no sin would be upon him. So the important point is that we say: the aspect of the statement of our brother Abdul Aziz is that a person must be an actor, either in what benefits him or in what harms him. Okay? {I seek forgiveness from Allah} Yes?
The student: ... it relates to the topic of the names and attributes and their explanation...
The Shaykh : I have not seen anything but the explanation of al-Muqaddim of the "Nuniyyah," and Shaykh Abd al-Rahman al-Sa'di explained it in "Tawdih Tawhid al-Anbiya," and also there is a book explaining the names of Allah by one of the scholars of language.
The student: al-Zajjaj
The Shaykh : Is it al-Zajjaj?
The student: Tafsir al-Asma'
The Shaykh : It is his explanation, but I just no longer know about my confidence in this man.
The benefits in this verse: striking examples for people, or do we leave it from the verse that follows?