Commentary on Tafsir al-Jalalayn: “Is not Allah sufficient for His servant?” Does this mean the Prophet?

Then Allah, Mighty and Majestic, said in today’s lesson: The interrogative here is for affirmation, based on the rule we mentioned before, which is that when the interrogative hamzah enters a phrase that implies negation, it conveys affirmation. This means here it was, and here, and here, and so on. This means Allah has been sufficient for His servant. And his saying: The one who put “His servant” in the accusative case is his saying: Because “Kaf” is an active participle, its subject is hidden, and is the object. And his saying: “Abd” (servant): is a singular noun with a possessive suffix, so it is general for everyone who possesses this description. So whoever is truly a servant of Allah, then Allah is sufficient for him. And similar to this is His saying, the Exalted: And similar to it is His saying, the Exalted: So “servant” here is a comprehensive description that does not exclude one person from another. So whoever the description of servitude truly applies to, then Allah, the Exalted, is sufficient for him. And the answer to this sentence is to say?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes. Then he said: Here the address is to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). And “wa” (and) connecting the specific matter pertaining to the Messenger does not necessitate restricting the general term before it. We have passed through such examples many times: a general term is mentioned, then a ruling is mentioned that pertains to some of its individuals. We said that this does not necessitate
The student: The specification

The Shaykh : restriction. What is the closest example that passed through us in this regard? What is the closest example that passed through us?
The student: The one who came with the truth.

The Shaykh : No, that is general. We passed through in the hadith how quickly we forget these rules. It should not be forgotten, O people. It should not be forgotten, because if, for example, you memorized the rule now, you memorized this rule: when a general term comes, then a ruling follows that pertains to some of its individuals, then this does not necessitate restriction. This rule is clear. But if someone says to you, “Give me an example that applies to this,” if you forget the example, its meaning is... he says to you, “This rule is not acceptable. In fact, I say that when a ruling pertains to some individuals, it indicates that the intended meaning of the first general term is the specific, and it turns the rule back on you.”
And the student of knowledge should fix the pearls, the rare benefits, the benefits that slip from the mind. It is necessary for the student of knowledge to pay attention to them and fix them, otherwise they will be lost to him. No, O brother Khalid.
The student: ... came with it ...

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: That ... and between the Prophet

The Shaykh : No, no, these are two separate texts. We want them in one context. We passed through an example in the Qur'an and we passed through an example in the Sunnah. Which is closer to what passed through us in the Qur'an? Or did all of them pass through us? Yes.
The student: The hadith of Ibn Abbas.

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: He said ...

The Shaykh : No, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) judged: Is this general or not?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Answer, O people. Everything that was not divided is general. This is a ruling that pertains to some individuals of the general. What does it pertain to?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : To real estate, to lands. So do we say that the first general term is intended to be specific?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : Or do we say that the first is general, and some individuals of the general were mentioned, or a ruling that pertains to some individuals of the general was mentioned, and this does not necessitate restriction? This is the second one. And in the Qur'an: Until he said: The divorced women are general — may Allah have mercy on you — the divorced women are general, and “their husbands” is a ruling that pertains to some individuals of this general. What is the individual to which it pertains? Those in the waiting period (raj'i). So do we say that his saying: This is specific to those in the waiting period? Or do we say it is general?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : It is known among the scholars of knowledge that it is general. It is general for the divorced women who were divorced with a final divorce or a revocable divorce. Now, have you taken two examples? Good. Here, this is an example of a meaning in the Qur'an. Does it apply to it or not?
The student: ... it applies to it.

The Shaykh : It applies to the first. Is general. He did not say: “Is not Allah sufficient for you?” “And they threaten you” is general. This is specific to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Although one of you may say to me, “Why is it not correct that the address be directed to everyone to whom address is appropriate? That is, ‘they threaten you, O addressed one.’” One of you may say to me like this, as is customary in many texts. The answer to this is that we say it is not correct that it be directed to every addressed person, because for every addressed person, this description does not come to pass, it is not possible for him. Is every addressed person threatened with those other than Allah? No. The one who was threatened with those other than Allah is the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). The one who was threatened with those other than Allah is the Prophet, because they threaten him with their idols in any case. This example applies to the rule we mentioned: when a general term is mentioned, then a ruling that pertains to some of its individuals is mentioned after it. Here?
The student: No...

The Shaykh : Then that does not necessitate
The student: restriction.
The Shaykh: restriction. Rather, the general remains in its generality, and the ruling is established for this individual. He said: “And they threaten you, the address is to him” meaning to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). “With those other than Him, meaning the idols, meaning they will kill you or maim you.” And this is like His saying, the Exalted: They threaten the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) with those other than Allah. And the specification of this with the idols, as the author specified it, is questionable. Rather, they threaten him with those other than Allah, from the idols and other than the idols, even from those with authority. For example, he says, “So-and-so will do this to you,” or “the jinn will do this to you,” or “so-and-so will do such and such.” It is necessary that we take “those other than Him” to mean what? Generality, not the specificity of the idols, because threatening is broader than that. Now, for example, in our time, if someone says to a person, “If you forbid this evil, I will report you to so-and-so, whose evil is feared,” is this person threatened with those other than Allah?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes, this is threatened with those other than Allah. So the verse is general, and it should not be restricted as the author, may Allah have mercy on him, went. Good.