Allah the Exalted said: << وهو الله لآإله إلا هو له الحمد في الأولى والأخرة وله الحكم وإليه ترجعون >

Then he said:[The Stories:70] The pronoun refers to [the Lord], meaning that is the Lord who creates and who knows, and He is Allah. Its original form is *al-Ilah*, but the hamzah was dropped for ease of pronunciation due to frequent usage, just as in [other words]. In such cases, the hamzah is dropped for lightness, so the meaning of Allah the Exalted is originally [al-Ilah], then the hamzah was dropped for lightness and it became [Allah]. So what is the meaning of *al-Ilah*? It means the one who is worshipped, not the meaning of [the one who is relied upon]. It means the one who is worshipped, like [other examples]. It means the one who is planted, [it means] the one who is built, [it means] the one who is spread out, and there are many examples of this. So [it] means the one who is worshipped, i.e., the one who is worshipped. The one who is worshipped is called *ma'luh* because the heart *ya'luhu*, meaning it inclines toward him. You will find that [this] agrees with the minor derivation of the people of *wala* [loyalty], right? It agrees with the minor derivation of *wala*, since the hamzah, ha, and lam are in *uluhiyyah* (divinity), which is worship. There is a type of *ta'ahhal* (inclination) and tranquility in it, because the *alilah* (reliance) for a thing is one who is tranquil toward it. So *al-Ilah* means the one who is worshipped, because the worshipper *ya'luhu*, meaning he inclines toward him and is tranquil toward him. *Al-Ilah* does not mean *al-Ilah* [the one who is relied upon] as the theologians said: that *al-Ilah* means *al-Ilah* [the one who is relied upon], i.e., the one capable of creation, meaning the one capable of creating. But for them, these are philosophical expressions: the one capable of creation. If we interpreted *al-Ilah* as the one capable of creation, would the polytheists whom the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) fought be monotheists or not? Because they say: there is no creator and no one capable of creation except Allah. And there is no doubt that this leads to the invalidation of the message and tawhid (the oneness of Allah). And from this we know the error of some of the authors now in tawhid, where they focus on tawhid al-rububiyyah (oneness of lordship) and forget tawhid al-uluhiyyah (oneness of worship). And this is a great error, because tawhid is not merely affirming the Creator and acknowledging Him, since this is already present with the polytheists whose blood and wealth the Prophet (may Allah's prayer and peace be upon him) made lawful. But *al-Ilah* means the one who is worshipped, and this is a matter above the one who is capable or the Creator. Now, and He the Exalted said: [verse]. When He affirmed His divinity with the form of the nominal sentence, this is a nominal sentence whose two ends are definite. It is known among rhetoricians that if a nominal sentence has two definite ends, it implies restriction. Yes, he confirmed that by saying: [verse]. So this is also a restriction of divinity to Allah alone, so there is no god with Him. Allah the Exalted said: [The Believers:91]. This indicates that *al-Ilah* is the one who is worshipped who creates. And for this reason he said: [verse]. Do not think that this verse supports the interpretation of the theologians when they said [that] this is evidence that the intended meaning of *al-Ilah* is the Creator, otherwise he would have said: "Every god will take away with him those who worshipped him." No, but because the true *Ilah* is the Creator *Ilah*, he said: [verse]. And here, is the restriction real or relative? The restriction is real, and it may be confusing for some people, and they will say: it is relative. And that is because if we make this restriction real, it poses a problem for them that Allah affirmed gods other than Him, where He said: [verse]. And He the Exalted and Majestic said about Ibrahim (peace be upon him) that he said to his people: [The Heavans:86]. And likewise the disbelievers said to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), they said about him [verse]. So the one who thinks thinks that we cannot combine this verse with the affirmation of divinity for the idols unless we make the restriction relative, meaning that we affirm divinity but in another way, and the negation here is in another way contrary to what we affirmed. So we say in that: the original *Ilah* truly is the Creator, the true *Ilah* is the Creator, and as for these idols that were worshipped besides Allah, they are false gods, a lie. And for this reason Ibrahim (peace be upon him) said: [verse]. He made that a lie and not a truth. So even though they were worshipped and deified, they are not gods. And for this reason you will find that the messengers (peace and blessings be upon them), each of them says to his people: "Worship Allah, you have no god other than Him." Meaning, you have no god who is worshipped and deserves to be worshipped with truth other than Allah the Mighty and Majestic. And He the Exalted said: [The Prophets:99]. What is the meaning of *alaah* (gods)? Is it worshipped with truth, or did Allah affirm worship for them? On this basis, we say: the combining of this restriction with what was mentioned of the affirmation of divinity for the idols is that *al-Ilah* is the one who is worshipped with truth. This *Ilah* is the one who is worshipped with truth, and this does not apply to anyone but Allah the Exalted and Majestic. And as for what is worshipped without truth, even if it is called a god, it does not deserve to be a god. And as Allah said: [verse]. And His saying: [verse]. Is it a dhikr (remembrance) in isolation, meaning that it is prescribed that you say: "There is no god but He," "There is no god but He," or is it not a dhikr in isolation unless the pronoun is preceded by a referent? This is the specific case. You cannot say: "There is no god but He," except if a referent for this pronoun is mentioned or spoken before it. Mentioned, like "Allah, there is no god but He," or spoken, like if something of the actions of Allah comes, you say: "There is no god but He." And as for "There is no god but You," it is correct because you are addressing Allah, so it is specific. And we only said that in the first case, meaning [it] must have a referent, contrary to the Sufis. The Sufis say: "There is no god but He." They repeat it, saying: "He, He, He, He," and so on, so they worship Allah with a word and remember Allah with the word of the pronoun only, and they drop [the name]. They say "He, He, He." If you find them in their gatherings, shaking their heads, beating drums, making sounds, and saying "He, He," and perhaps they cut themselves from the intensity of emotion and trance, we ask Allah for safety. The result is that this does not happen unless a referent precedes it. He said: [verse]. Yes. The pronoun refers back to That is, the Lord who creates and who knows is Allah. Its original form is *ilah*, with the hamzah omitted for ease of pronunciation due to frequent usage, as in It is said regarding it: the hamzah is dropped for the sake of lightness, so the meaning of Allah the Exalted is originally, then the hamzah was removed for the sake of lightness and it became So what is the meaning of *ilah*? in the sense of the one who is worshipped, not in the sense of It means the one who is worshipped, just as meaning "planted" in the sense of built meaning "spread out," and there are many examples of this, so meaning a deity, that is, one who is worshipped. The one who is worshipped is called a deity because the heart inclines toward him, meaning it leans toward him. You will find that this agrees with the minor derivation of the word *ahl* (family), does it not? It agrees with the minor derivation of *ahl*, since the word contains the hamza, the ha, and the lam. So in *uluhiyyah* (divinity), which is worship, there is a kind of settling and tranquility, because the *alil* (the one who is settled upon) of a thing is one who is at peace with it. Therefore, *ilah* (deity) means the one who is worshipped, because the worshipper inclines toward him and finds peace in him. *Ilah* does not mean *alil* as the theologians said, where they claimed that *ilah* means *alil*, that is, the one capable of creation, meaning the one capable of creating. But for them, these are philosophical expressions. If we defined *ilah* as the one capable of creation, would the polytheists whom the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) fought not be monotheists? Because they say: there is no creator and no one capable of creation except Allah. And there is no doubt that this leads to the invalidation of the message and tawhid (the oneness of Allah). From this, we know the error of some of the authors today in tawhid, where they focus on tawhid al-rububiyyah (oneness of lordship) and forget tawhid al-uluhiyyah (oneness of worship). This is a serious error, because tawhid is not merely affirming the Creator and acknowledging Him, since that is already present among the polytheists whose blood and wealth the Prophet (may Allah's prayer and peace be upon him) made lawful to take. But *ilah* means the one who is worshipped, and this is a matter above the one who is capable or the Creator. Now, Allah the Exalted said: [marker] When He affirmed His divinity with the form of the nominal sentence. This is a nominal sentence whose two ends are definite. It is known among rhetoricians that if a nominal sentence has two definite ends, it implies restriction. Yes, He confirmed that by saying: [marker] So this is also a restriction of divinity to Allah alone, so there is no deity with Him. Allah the Exalted said: [marker] This indicates that the deity is the one who is worshipped, who creates. For this reason He said: [marker] And do not think that this verse supports the interpretation of the theologians when they said [marker] that this is proof that the intended meaning of *ilah* is the Creator; otherwise He would have said: "Every deity will take with him those who worshipped him." No, but because the true deity is the Creator, He said: [marker] And here, is the restriction real or relative? The restriction is real, and it may be confusing for some people, who might say that it is relative. This is because if we make this restriction real, it poses a difficulty for them regarding the fact that Allah affirmed deities other than Himself, where He said: [marker] And He, Glorified and Exalted is He, said about Ibrahim (peace be upon him) that he said to his people: [marker] And likewise, the disbelievers said to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), saying about him: [marker] So the one who thinks assumes that we cannot combine this verse with the affirmation of divinity for the idols unless we make the restriction relative, meaning that we affirm divinity but in another sense, and the negation here is in another sense contrary to what we affirmed. So we say in this: The true origin of *ilah* is the Creator; the true deity is the Creator. As for these idols that were worshipped besides Allah, they are false deities, a lie. For this reason, Ibrahim (peace be upon him) said: [marker] He made that a lie, not a truth. So even though they were worshipped and deified, they are not deities. For this reason, you will find that the Messengers (peace and blessings be upon them), each of them said to his people: "Worship Allah; you have no deity other than Him." Meaning, you have no deity who is worshipped and deserves to be worshipped with truth other than Allah, Mighty and Majestic. And He, the Exalted, said: [marker] What is the meaning of *alaah* (deities)? That is, worshipped with truth, or did Allah affirm worship for them? On this basis, we say: The combination of this restriction with what was mentioned of affirming divinity for the idols is that the deity is the one who is worshipped with truth. This deity is the one who is worshipped with truth, and this applies only to Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He. As for what is worshipped without truth, even if it is called a deity, it does not deserve to be a deity. And as Allah said: [marker] And His saying: [marker] Is this a dhikr (remembrance) in itself, meaning that it is prescribed to say: "La ilaha illa Huwa" (There is no deity but He), "La ilaha illa Huwa," or is it not a dhikr in itself unless the pronoun is preceded by a referent? This is the specific case. You cannot say: "La ilaha illa Huwa," unless a referent for this pronoun is mentioned or spoken before it. Mentioned, like "Allah, La ilaha illa Huwa," or spoken, like when something of the actions of Allah comes, and you say: "La ilaha illa Huwa." But "La ilaha illa Anta" (There is no deity but You) is correct because you are addressing Allah, so it is specific. And we said that in the first case, meaning [marker] a referent is necessary, contrary to the Sufis. The Sufis say: "La ilaha illa Huwa." They repeat it, saying: "Huwa, Huwa, Huwa, Huwa," and so on, worshipping Allah with the word and remembering Allah with the word of the pronoun only, and they omit [marker] saying "Huwa, Huwa, Huwa." When you find them in their gatherings, shaking their heads, beating drums, making sounds, and saying "Huwa, Huwa," and perhaps cutting themselves due to the intensity of emotion and trance, we ask Allah for safety. The result is that this does not happen unless a referent precedes it. He said: [marker] Yes. It agrees in the smaller derivation with the word *ahl*, does it not? It agrees with the smaller derivation of *ahl*, because it contains the alif, ha, and lam. So in *uluhiyyah* (divinity), which is worship, there is a type of *ta'ahhal* (becoming a close one) and tranquility, because the *alilah* (close one) of a thing is one who is tranquil toward it. Therefore, *al-Ilah* means the one who is worshipped, because the worshipper *ya'lahu* (leans toward) Him, meaning he inclines toward Him and finds tranquility in Him. *Al-Ilah* does not mean *al-alilah* as the theologians (*mutakallimun*) said: that *al-Ilah* means *al-alilah*, i.e., the one capable of invention, meaning the one capable of creation. But for them, "the one capable of creation" is a philosophical expression. If we interpreted *al-Ilah* as the one capable of creation, would not the polytheists whom the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) fought be monotheists, or not? Because they say: "There is no creator and no one capable of creation except Allah." And there is no doubt that this leads to the invalidation of the message and *tawhid* (the oneness of Allah). From this, we know the error of some of the authors today in *tawhid*, where they focus on *tawhid al-rububiyyah* (oneness of lordship) and forget *tawhid al-uluhiyyah* (oneness of worship), and this is a great error. Because *tawhid* is not merely affirming the Creator and acknowledging Him, since that is already possessed by the polytheists whose blood and wealth the Prophet (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) made lawful to take. But *al-Ilah* means the one who is worshipped, and that is a matter above the one who is capable or the Creator. Now, the Exalted says: When He affirmed His divinity using the form of a nominal sentence This is a nominal sentence whose two ends are definite, and it is known among rhetoricians that if the two ends of a nominal sentence are definite, it conveys exclusivity. Yes, he confirmed this by saying: This is also a restriction of divinity to Allah alone, so there is no deity with Him. Allah the Exalted said: This indicates that the *ilah* (deity) is the one who is worshipped and who creates. For this reason, He said: And do not think that this verse supports the interpretation of the theologians when they said that this is evidence that the intended meaning of *ilah* (deity) is the Creator; otherwise, He would have said: "Every deity would have taken with it those who worshipped it." No, but because the true deity is the Creator, He said: Here, the restriction is real, not relative. The restriction is real, and it may be confusing for some people, who might say that it is relative. This is because if we consider this restriction to be real, it becomes difficult for them to reconcile the fact that Allah affirmed the existence of deities other than Himself, as He said: And He, Glorified and Exalted is He, said regarding Ibrahim that he said to his people:[Saffat:86] And the disbelievers said to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), saying about him The one who thinks may assume that we cannot reconcile this verse with affirming divinity for the idols unless we make the restriction additional, meaning that we affirm divinity but in another sense, and the negation here is in another sense contrary to what we affirmed. So we say in this: The original, true deity is the Creator; the true deity is the Creator. As for these tools that were worshipped besides Allah, they are false deities, a lie. For this reason, Ibrahim (peace be upon him) said: He considered that to be a lie and not the truth, so even if it is worshipped and deified, it is not a deity. For this reason, you find that the messengers (peace and blessings be upon them) each said to their people: "Worship Allah; you have no deity other than Him." This means: there is no deity who is worshipped and who deserves to be worshipped with truth other than Allah (Mighty and Majestic). And He the Exalted said: What does *alaah* (gods) mean? It means a deity worshipped in truth, otherwise Allah would have affirmed worship for them. On this basis, we say: The way to reconcile this restriction with what was mentioned regarding the attribution of divinity to idols is that the *ilah* (deity) is the one who is worshipped with truth. This *ilah* is the one who is worshipped with truth, and this applies only to Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He). As for what is worshipped without truth, even if it is called a deity, it does not deserve to be a deity. And as Allah said: And His saying: Is it a dhikr in its own right, meaning that it is prescribed to say: "There is no god but He, there is no god but He," or is it not a dhikr in its own right unless the pronoun is preceded by a referent? This is the specific case where one can say: "There is no god but He," only if a referent for this pronoun has been mentioned or spoken before. A mentioned referent is like saying "Allah, there is no god but He," or a spoken referent is like when something of the actions of Allah comes up and you say: "There is no god but He." As for "There is no god but You," that is valid because you are addressing Allah, so it is specific. And we said that about the first one, meaning There must be a referent, unlike the Sufis. The Sufis say: "There is no god but He." They repeat it, saying: "He, He, He, He," and so on, thereby worshipping Allah with a word and remembering Allah with only the pronoun, and they omit They say, "He, He, He." When you see them in their gatherings, shaking their heads, beating drums, making loud noises, and saying, "He, He," and sometimes even harming themselves due to intense emotion and trance—may Allah keep us safe from that—the point is that this is not permissible unless a referent precedes the pronoun. He said: Yes.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : No, only.