Explanation of the author's statement: And the saying of Allah the Exalted: ((Say: Have you considered what you invoke besides Allah? If Allah intends harm for me, can they remove it? Or if He intends mercy for me, can they retain it? Say: Allah is sufficient for me. Upon Him rely those who put their trust in Him.))

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes, finding the trial, yes.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : It is not permissible because there is no known effect.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : No, it never has an effect. It has no effect, it has no influence whatsoever.

The questioner : It falls under this.

The Shaykh : Yes, it falls under the Shaykh's statement. Yes, I see that it falls under it.

The questioner : Okay, why...

The Shaykh : ... because they, meaning, requested...

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : This is a fabrication, if Allah wills. Yes, yes.

The questioner : ... he tries

The Shaykh : Yes

The questioner : He tries an experiment.

The Shaykh : And he does not believe.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Therefore, if he is trying in order to establish the proof that this is false, there is no harm in it.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : It has not come to us... from the amulets that come to us, if Allah wills... from the amulets, like they hang them, claiming that they make the woman beloved to her husband and the husband to his wife. Yes.

The questioner : He says he tries. Okay, if he tries and the intended result happens, if he believes.

The Shaykh : What happened to him?

The questioner : What happened to him happened through this experiment.

The Shaykh : No, he says without, I believe that the one who is trying is challenging, he cannot, one minute, no, the one who is trying is challenging.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : Yes, this means he is not protected, but the effective influence is intrinsic, whether you believed or you did not believe. The burning happens whether you believed or you did not believe. The medicine that relieves pain happens whether you believed or you did not believe. So the thing that has an intrinsic effect, there is no belief involved in it, and it is reasonable for us to believe that it is a cause.

The questioner : The Shari'ah cause is not restricted to being... lawful.

The Shaykh : No, now we are speaking only about the effect of causes. As for whether the cause is forbidden or not forbidden, that is a second matter.
Okay, the important thing, my brothers, is that the author's statement: "from shirk" is divided into major shirk and minor shirk. Okay, do we say that everything must be denied as a cause? No, we spoke at the beginning of the discussion that denying causes is undoubtedly misguidance, and affirming what is not a cause is also misguidance, and the middle path is affirming the Shari'ah causes or the natural causes and denying what is not a cause. Yes.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes, yes, yes, this is from the forbidden, this is from the forbidden.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : Yes, that it drives away the Shaytan.

The questioner : It drives away the Shaytan.

The Shaykh : This is not correct.

The questioner : All of this is a false belief.

The Shaykh : All of this is a false belief, yes.
He said: And the saying of Allah the Exalted: Say: Have you considered what you invoke besides Allah? If He intends for me
The student: Have you considered

The Shaykh : "Have you considered" is interpreted by the scholars to mean "inform me," and they interpreted it by its necessary implication in reality, because one who sees informs, otherwise it is a question about seeing, not about information. But one who sees informs, so the meaning of "Have you considered" is "inform me." Meaning, inform me of his state. Inform me of your state, and the like. And it, meaning "Have you considered," takes two objects; the first of them is singular, and the second is an interrogative sentence. So here, "what" is the first object, and his saying: this sentence is the second object; it is the second object. And this occurs frequently in the Qur'an, because the Qur'an, as you know, addresses a people who deny, challenging them with such challenges. And his saying: "you invoke"—is the meaning of "invoke" worship, or the invocation of asking, or both? Both. So they invoke these idols with the invocation of worship, they worship them, they vow to them, they bow and prostrate, and may Allah protect us, to idols. And they mentioned that among the Arabs, some, when they settled in a land, would place four stones, making three of them... and making the fourth a god to worship, and may Allah protect us. And among them, some would make an idol from dates with their hands to worship. If he was hungry and said, "Feed me," and did not feed it, he would say, "I will feed you; I will eat it; he will eat it." All of this, praise be to Allah for the blessing of Islam. These idols that they worship—Allah says: Rather, Allah may remove His mercy, and these idols do not benefit them. So they neither remove harm nor retain benefit, is that not so? Then why do they worship them? Why do they worship them? The relevance of the verse to the translation is very clear, because these idols and their worship are not a cause for removing harms or for retaining benefits, or are they? So everything that is not a Shari'ah cause is measured by them. And this, in fact, indicates the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) skill and the strength of his deduction. Otherwise, the verse is undoubtedly about major shirk in which idols are worshipped. But the analogy is very clear, and it is that these idols are not causes that benefit, so everything that is not a cause is measured by them and is considered shirk with Allah the Mighty and Majestic. These idols do not benefit their worshippers, neither by removing harm, nor do we say by bringing good, nor by retaining good. And the one who cannot retain what exists cannot create what does not exist, or can he? Which is easier, retaining what exists or creating what does not exist?
The student: Retaining what exists.

The Shaykh : Retaining what exists. So as long as these idols do not retain the mercy that Allah the Exalted and Sublime sent and intended for the servant, how can they bring mercy to him? So there is no good in them, neither in bringing benefits, nor in repelling harms, nor in retaining benefits. And it is as if the saying of Allah the Exalted: "removers" includes both repelling and removing, for they do not remove harm by repelling it and driving it away, nor do they remove it by eliminating it and lifting it. They cannot, because they are created, so how can they be creators? The author says: "the verse" is a reference. "Hasbi" means "sufficient for me." "Hasbi" means "sufficient for me," and "hasb" means sufficiency. From this is His saying: "a reckoning"—it is not from "hisab" which is number, but it is "hasb" which is sufficiency. Yes. And his saying: let us look at its grammar. Is "Hasbi" the subject and "Allah" the predicate, or is "Hasbi" the predicate placed first and "Allah" the subject placed last? Is the meaning "Allah is sufficient for me" or "Sufficient for me is Allah"? Yes, but perhaps both are valid. But which is more eloquent: making "Hasbi" the subject and "Allah" the predicate, or with the inversion?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : First, what is the original? The original is the absence of inversion. The original is the order, that "Hasbi" is the subject and "Allah" is the predicate. It is sufficient to say "Hasbi" is the subject and "Allah" is the predicate. It is sufficient to say that, relying on the original, even if we did not know the difference. But nevertheless, there is a difference between them. "Hasbi Allah" is more eloquent than "Allah Hasbi." Yes.
The student: "Hasbi Allah"... "Allah Hasbi" might be someone else.

The Shaykh : Yes, meaning that saying "Hasbi Allah" is like saying "I have no sufficient one except Allah," so it is more eloquent, because you are informing about who the sufficient one is. But if I say "Allah Hasbi," I am informing about Allah that He is your sufficient one only. But this is more eloquent. So it is now clear that "Hasbi Allah"—"Hasbi" is the subject and "Allah" is its predicate. That is preferred for two reasons:
The first reason: that the original is the absence of inversion.
The second aspect is that the difference between them is apparent. "Hasbi Allah" means "Allah is sufficient for me," implying that I have no protector other than Allah. If Allah is his protector, then, glory be to Allah, does the Quran say that these idols can harm him? They cannot harm him. That is why, when you insult the idols of the idolaters, they say, "May you be struck tonight; you will not sleep tonight." They mean that you will be afflicted. If you insult so-and-so tonight, you will not be able to sleep. So Allah says: meaning, "I insult these idols of yours and say that they are of no benefit, and I do not care about them." Yes. And based on this, if one of these superstitious people threatens you and says, "My master will come to you tonight," what do you say? I say, "Hasbi Allah; your idols do not concern me." Why was it placed in the accusative case? To indicate exclusivity. "Whatever is right for it to be delayed, if you advance it, it becomes for the sake of exclusivity." Anything that is right for it to be delayed, if advanced, becomes for the sake of exclusivity for it, not for anything else. Its parallel is what we recite every day 17 times. What is it? The objects were advanced for the sake of exclusivity. And His saying: Someone might say: This is a tautology. "The ones who rely [rely]" is like saying "the standing ones stand," is it not? And is it possible for a tautology to exist in the speech of Allah? Never. Every word, every letter in the Quran has a meaning, though we do not encompass it all. There are things we cannot encompass because we are limited. So what is the meaning of His saying: If He had said "the believers rely," the matter would be clear; the difference between the verb and the doer is clear. But "the ones who rely rely"—what is the meaning? Do you understand now? Come on, Ismail.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: He relies on Allah.

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
The student: ... .

The Shaykh : The meaning is that the one who truly relies is the one who relies on Allah. As for the one who relies on idols, awliya (close friends of Allah), prophets, or messengers, he is not relying on anything and is not a true one who relies. True reliance is reliance on Allah (Mighty and Majestic). And it does not contradict, my brothers, that you rely on a person to buy something for you and depend on him, because you distinguish between your reliance on a person to buy something for you and your reliance on Allah. There is a difference between them, because your reliance on Allah is reliance on something you believe is your support and foundation, and that He is the one in whose hand is your benefit and harm. You also depend on Him while being humble before Him and in need of Him. This is unlike your dependence on other than Allah in entrusting a task, where it is correct for you to say, "I entrusted so-and-so" and "I relied on so-and-so," meaning I depended on him as one depends on his like. But this is not like that. Spiritual, conscious matters differ. We have two men: one, we play the oud for him and sing to him, and he is very happy and delighted. The other, we admonish him with the verses of Allah and the hadiths of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and he is pleased and at ease. Is there a difference between the two kinds of pleasure? Yes, a great and vast difference. Both are called pleasure, and both are joy, but the difference is great. That joy is followed by the death of the heart. Joy in amusement is followed by the death of the heart and heedlessness. This joy is followed by the life of the heart and turning toward Allah. Allah knows best. Yes.
The student: ... .