Explanation of the author's statement: And his saying: "Who is more astray than one who calls upon other than Allah one who will not respond to him until the Day of Resurrection?"

The Shaykh : And his saying: It has passed to us that when the interrogative form is used to intend negation, it is more eloquent than simple negation. Why? The negation intended as an interrogative is more eloquent than simple negation. Why?
Because it transforms it from an interrogative of negation into a challenge. It transforms it into a challenge. "Who is more astray" means he is challenging, meaning: "Bring me someone more astray than one who calls upon other than Allah." Keep in mind that the interrogative with the meaning of negation implies what? It implies a challenge, and it is more eloquent than saying: "I am not more astray than one who calls upon other than Allah." It is more eloquent because this is simple negation, and that is negation mixed with what? With a challenge. Meaning: If you are truthful, bring me someone more astray than one who calls upon other than Allah. "More astray" is connected to "one who calls upon other than Allah one who will not respond to him." "Calls" here is intended to mean the call of worship and the call of asking, encompassing both: the call of asking and the call of worship. And his saying: means: other than Him. And his saying: "Who" — what is its grammatical analysis? "Who" means "the one who," but its grammatical position is the object of "calls." "Calls one who will not respond to him until the Day of Resurrection" means until the Day of Resurrection he will not respond. If he remained for the entire life of the world, he would not respond to him. Allah the Exalted said in another verse: ... The news is that this means Himself, (Glorified and Exalted is He). Now, "one who will not respond to him until the Day of Resurrection" His saying: He used "who" (man), which is for the rational, even though they worship idols, trees, stones, and the dead. Yes, are they rational? They are not rational. They are not rational. But when they worshipped them, they placed them in the position of the rational, so they were addressed according to what they call upon, because it is more eloquent in establishing the argument against them. If it were said "what" (ma) that does not respond to him, they would say, "Yes, we have an excuse; they do not respond because they are not rational." But if "who" (man) is said, there is an argument against them. The wisdom of deviating from the expression "what" to the expression "who" is to establish the argument against them that they are calling upon those they consider rational, and yet they do not respond to them. This is part of the eloquence of the Qur'an: it descends to their level in addressing them to establish the argument against them. Because if "what" (ma) were used, they would say, "Yes, by Allah, this does not respond to us because it is not rational." But when "who" (man) is used, and they are those who placed these idols in the position of what? The rational, and yet they cannot respond to them. "They are heedless of their calling." The pronoun in "they" refers to "who" (man) in terms of meaning. Keep in mind, it refers to "who" (man) in terms of meaning, and the pronoun in "respond" refers to "who" (man) in terms of wording. Did you understand? Is "one who will not respond" singular or plural?
The student: The wording is singular.

The Shaykh : "Responds," "responds" is singular, and "they" is plural. The referent of the pronoun in "responds" and the referent of the pronoun in "they" is "who" (man), is that not so? Now, why was the pronoun singular in one place and plural in another? The answer is: it was singular in terms of wording because the wording of "who" (man) is singular, and it was plural in terms of meaning because "who" (man) refers to the idols, which are plural. It has passed to us many times that it is permissible to consider the wording and it is permissible to consider the meaning. It has passed and we said that sometimes the wording and the meaning are both considered in one speech. Look, he considered the wording, then the meaning, then the wording. Now, "and they are heedless of their calling." "Of their calling" — the pronoun in "their calling" refers to whom? The idols. Is the meaning "they are heedless of the calling of the worshippers" or is the meaning "they are heedless of their calling"? Reflect on it. Is the meaning "of the calling of those who are heedless of them," in which case it would be from the chapter of adding the object to the verb, meaning "of the calling of the worshippers of them," and "they" meaning the idols, so "of their calling" meaning the calling of those who call upon them, in which case it would be from the chapter of adding the object to the verb? Or is the meaning "they are heedless of the calling of the worshippers of them," in which case the object of "calling" is omitted, and "calling" here is added to its subject? Yes.
The student: Both meanings.

The Shaykh : Yes, it is permissible. Both meanings are permissible, this and that. But which is more eloquent? That it be "of their calling," meaning when they are called, they are heedless. This is actually more eloquent. Meaning "of the calling of the worshippers of them" is more eloquent than "of the calling of the worshippers" in a general sense. Meaning "of their calling" — who? You must assume the one called is omitted, and it is "of their calling," meaning "of the calling of the worshippers of them." And the pronoun here refers to the one called, so the meaning is that these idols are heedless of the calling of these people to them. This is more eloquent in that these idols do not benefit them in any way. "They are heedless of their calling." This is in this world; they are heedless and cannot respond to them. If they are among the misguided disbelievers, then they, (may Allah protect us from that), are heedless in the punishment. Otherwise, they are heedless in the bliss. When people are gathered, Allah the Exalted said: When? On the Day of Resurrection. To whom does this pronoun also refer? Were the worshippers enemies to the worshipped idols, or were the worshipped enemies to the worshippers? This is it.
Even the angels say: The evidence from this verse is the saying in the translation: Thus, the attachment of these worshippers to their objects of worship is invalidated. The one who comes to al-Badawi in Egypt and says: "O Master al-Badawi, O Master al-Dasouqi, help me, help, help," and the like, does that benefit him in any way? No, it does not benefit him at all. Rather, it only increases his regret, (may Allah protect us from that). No. And a person may be tested and find that his desire is fulfilled at this thing, not by this thing. There is no harm in choosing the Ash'ari school of thought; it happened at his place, not by him. Why? Because we know with certainty that the calling of these people does not benefit. Allah says in the Qur'an that it does not benefit. In Iraq, al-Jilani; in Syria, Ibn Arabi; and in all, unfortunately, in the Islamic lands, there are graves of those they claim are awliya (close friends of Allah). They say that they benefit and that they ward off harm and bring benefit. And yet, there is no doubt that they do not benefit. If they remained until the Day of Resurrection, they would not respond to them. Even al-Husayn ibn 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, who was a capable person, three men would come to Iraq saying, "We have him," and come to the Syrians saying, "We have him," and come to the Egyptians saying, "We have him." So, (Glorified is He) who divided the one. This is actually foolishness; foolishness in intellect and foolishness in religion. The common people may not be blamed in reality, but the one who is blamed is the one who has knowledge, from the scholars and also from non-scholars who have been guided to sound fitrah (the innate natural disposition). Because this does not require study. A dead, lifeless body itself needs to be called upon for forgiveness. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to come to the cemetery in Madinah and call for them, not call them? He called for them. How can you come and ask them for help? The poor one now needs the forgiveness of Allah and the mercy of Allah. He has no power over himself. So the important thing is that this verse and its like indicate the foolishness of these people, and that if they turned to Allah (Mighty and Majestic), they would find what they seek.