But what is meant by that is likening the terror that befalls them when they hear this chain on a rock, he said

The Shaykh : But what is meant by that is likening the terror that befalls them when they hear this chain on a rock. He said: Penetration is entering into a thing, and from this... the target, so the arrow descended, the arrow descended into the target, meaning it entered into it. The meaning is that this sound reaches them to the utmost extent. Meaning the terror was removed from them. They said, meaning some of them said to others: What did your Lord say? Meaning they said the word: The truth, meaning they said the true word. "The truth" is an attribute of a deleted source with its operator, and the estimation is: they said the true word. And this word that they say, is it because they heard what He said and knew that it is truth, or because they knew that He does not say anything but truth? It is possible that they knew what He said and that it is truth, and this would refer to the specific revelation with which Allah spoke. And it is possible that it is because of their knowledge that He, Glorified and Exalted is He, does not say anything but truth. And therefore they said this, because that is His attribute, Glorified and Exalted is He, and He is the Most High, the Great. This matches the verse exactly. And on this basis, it must be that this is the estimation of the verse, and it is not acceptable for any speaker to interpret it with anything else. Because if the interpretation of the Qur'an is by the Qur'an or by the Sunnah, no one can go beyond it. And if the Companion interprets it, it is a proof with many of the scholars of knowledge. And if the Successor interprets it, most of the scholars are of the opinion that it is not a proof, except for those among them who were distinguished by something specific, like Mujahid, who said that he presented the mushaf to Ibn Abbas more than twenty times, stopping at every verse and asking him about its meaning... Interpreting the Qur'an by the Qur'an, this is a matter from which one must not deviate. And by the Sunnah likewise. And by the saying of the Companions with most of the exegetes. And by the saying of the Successors with some of the exegetes, with some of them. So here, who interpreted the verse? The one who interpreted it was the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). So we do not accept that a speaker says: When the terror is removed from the hearts of the people on the Day of Resurrection. Yes, rather we say: The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) interpreted the verse with an interpretation of the unseen in which there is no room for independent legal reasoning. What was unseen and brought by the text, what is obligatory for us is what? Accepting it. It is obligatory for us to accept it. For this reason, we say: In the matter of what is excused by independent legal reasoning and what is not excused, it does not return to the fact that this is from the principles and this is from the branches, as some of them said. Some scholars say: There is no room for independent legal reasoning in the principles, and the one who opposes in them is absolutely wrong. And some scholars, yes, say the opposite of the branches. But the Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) denied the division of religion into principles and branches and said: There are no principles and branches. And what indicates the invalidity of this division is that prayer, with those who divide religion into principles and branches, is a branch, although it is a principle from the best of principles. Yes, but the correct view is that the criterion for declaring someone wrong or not declaring them wrong is what has room for independent legal reasoning and what has no room for independent legal reasoning. In matters of the unseen, the one who opposes is wrong because... until he opposes. All matters of the unseen that relate to the attributes of Allah or to the Last Day or to anything else, we declare wrong the one who opposes in them and we do not excuse them. Do you understand? As for matters of independent legal reasoning, these are those in which there is room for opinion. These, it is not possible for us to declare a person wrong, meaning it is not possible for us to declare a person misguided in the sense that we say this man is misguided and we deny him. Although it is correct for us to say that he may have gone astray with this matter, he may have gone astray, just as is narrated from Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) when it was said to him: Regarding a daughter and a daughter of a son and a sister, and the division of Abu Musa was mentioned to him, he said to him: So the important thing is that denial in matters of the unseen is upon the one who opposes, and what is its ruling? It is obligatory, because he has no excuse. In matters of the unseen, upon us is submission and obedience. In matters of independent legal reasoning, we do not deny him except if he opposes a text. If he opposes a text, we deny him. Meaning, if the text is clear and explicit, is there room for a person to exercise independent legal reasoning in opposing it? It is absolutely not possible. Yes, yes. Then he says: He hears it, meaning he hears this word that the angels spoke in the heaven. The eavesdropper, "mustariq" is singular but it is attached, so it is general, meaning those who eavesdrop on the hearing. And Allah the Exalted indicated them by His saying: Yes, he eavesdrops on the hearing. In the word "eavesdrops" is an indication that he hastens, he hastens... meaning as if he snatches it by snatching. Yes. The one Sufyan, one of the narrators, says: "The eavesdropper is thus, some above some" And it is possible that this is from the words of Abu Hurayrah or from the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), because "thus, some above some" is a statement, and Sufyan described it with his hand. How did he describe it? He said: He moved it, meaning he distorted it and spread it between his fingers. How did he say it? No, like this, thus he said, meaning that one is above the second, and he spread it between his fingers. They understand, meaning the jinn who eavesdrop on the hearing, he says they ride on each other until they reach the heaven, and they sit, each one has a specific seat. They sit and eavesdrop. He says: Who hears? The eavesdropper, the highest of them, hears it and casts it to the one below him, informing him...

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : ... He said: Or the one below him?
The student: Who
The student: Who is this, and what is it? It is a relative pronoun meaning "who." Yes, good. And "below him" is the relative clause, is it a sentence or a quasi-sentence? A quasi-sentence. Yes, because it is a circumstantial phrase.