Explanation of the Book of Tawhid-25
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : And both of them [al-Bukhari and Muslim] narrated from Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him and his father): that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Sahih al-Bukhari 5767 Indeed, we all know that it is a particle of emphasis that puts the noun in the accusative case and raises the predicate, and that "min" can mean partiality and can mean specifying the genus. And his saying: the lam is for emphasis, and "sihran" is the noun of "inna", and eloquence is fluency and rhetoric, and it is a blessing of Allah upon man. Allah the Exalted said: [Ar-Rahman 55:3-4] Eloquence is of two types: eloquence regarding what is necessary, and this is shared by all people. All people express what is necessary; when a person is hungry, he says "I am hungry," and when he is thirsty, he says "I am thirsty," and when he is tired, he says "I am tired," and so on. This is general eloquence for everyone. And there is eloquence, yes, eloquence meaning complete fluency that stuns the intellects and attracts the minds. This is what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) spoke of: And on this interpretation, that is, on dividing eloquence into two parts—eloquence regarding what must be expressed and eloquence meaning fluency—does "min" for fluency mean partiality? It is partial. "Min" for fluency is partial; the fluency that came was only from...
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : So, does "min" mean partiality or not? It means partiality. "Min" for partiality means some eloquence, and that is the complete eloquence which is fluency, [which is] sorcery. But if we make eloquence mean only fluency and do not divide it, then "min" becomes for specifying the genus: sorcery. The reason for this is that eloquence seizes the mind of the listener and diverts him or inclines him. Therefore, a person always speaks with words whose meaning is false, but because of the strength of his fluency and eloquence, the listener considers it true and turns to it. And a person always speaks eloquently warning about the truth, and because of his fluency and eloquence, the listener thinks that this truth is false and turns away from it. And this is of the sorcery they call "inclination" and "diversion." What else? Eloquence causes inclination and diversion; there is no doubt in this. Therefore, especially in the speech of Ibn al-Qayyim and Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), when they bring up an issue they are discussing, and then mention evidence for a group, evidence and reasoning, and he proceeds to present the proofs and causes, you say, "Is this statement the correct one or not?" and you incline to it. Then he brings the second statement that contradicts it and mentions its proofs and how he answered the proofs of the first, so you incline to it and do not settle for the first; you incline to it. And this is an observed matter. So eloquence, in truth, eloquence meaning fluency, no doubt it does the work of sorcery. And Ibn al-Qayyim says about the houris, he says:
"Her speech is lawful sorcery" ... lawful, yes. Now, eloquence is sorcery. Is this by way of blame or by way of praise? Or is it to explain the reality, and then the effect is looked at?
The student: To explain the reality.
The Shaykh : The last hadith, in truth, is not for blame nor for praise, but it is to explain the reality, and then what is the effect is looked at. If this eloquent person speaks to refute the truth and establish falsehood, then no doubt his eloquence is blameworthy, and that he used the blessing of Allah in disobedience to Allah. And if this eloquent person wants with his eloquence to establish the truth and refute falsehood, then this is praiseworthy, and it is praise and commendation. So eloquence, in itself as eloquence, is neither praised nor blamed, but its effect and its purpose are looked at. The intended meaning is that the reality of eloquence is that it is sorcery that affects a person in turning toward or turning away. Now, if a questioner asked you, "Which do you prefer: to have eloquence or to be inarticulate?" I would say, if the eloquence is used in obedience to Allah and in calling to Allah, yes, then this is what I prefer. But if, may Allah protect us, a person is afflicted with eloquence to mislead people from the religion of Allah, then there is no good in it; this inarticulateness is better than it. Indeed, eloquence is no doubt a blessing, and for this Allah has bestowed it upon the servant, and He said:.
Some eloquent speech is as effective as magic.
إن من البيان لسحراًis sorcery
لسحراًIndeed, some eloquence
إن من البيان(3) Created man, (4) [And] taught him eloquence.
خلق الإنسان علمه البيانis sorcery
لسحراThe student: ... .
The Shaykh : So, does "min" mean partiality or not? It means partiality. "Min" for partiality means some eloquence, and that is the complete eloquence which is fluency, [which is] sorcery. But if we make eloquence mean only fluency and do not divide it, then "min" becomes for specifying the genus: sorcery. The reason for this is that eloquence seizes the mind of the listener and diverts him or inclines him. Therefore, a person always speaks with words whose meaning is false, but because of the strength of his fluency and eloquence, the listener considers it true and turns to it. And a person always speaks eloquently warning about the truth, and because of his fluency and eloquence, the listener thinks that this truth is false and turns away from it. And this is of the sorcery they call "inclination" and "diversion." What else? Eloquence causes inclination and diversion; there is no doubt in this. Therefore, especially in the speech of Ibn al-Qayyim and Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), when they bring up an issue they are discussing, and then mention evidence for a group, evidence and reasoning, and he proceeds to present the proofs and causes, you say, "Is this statement the correct one or not?" and you incline to it. Then he brings the second statement that contradicts it and mentions its proofs and how he answered the proofs of the first, so you incline to it and do not settle for the first; you incline to it. And this is an observed matter. So eloquence, in truth, eloquence meaning fluency, no doubt it does the work of sorcery. And Ibn al-Qayyim says about the houris, he says:
"Her speech is lawful sorcery" ... lawful, yes. Now, eloquence is sorcery. Is this by way of blame or by way of praise? Or is it to explain the reality, and then the effect is looked at?
The student: To explain the reality.
The Shaykh : The last hadith, in truth, is not for blame nor for praise, but it is to explain the reality, and then what is the effect is looked at. If this eloquent person speaks to refute the truth and establish falsehood, then no doubt his eloquence is blameworthy, and that he used the blessing of Allah in disobedience to Allah. And if this eloquent person wants with his eloquence to establish the truth and refute falsehood, then this is praiseworthy, and it is praise and commendation. So eloquence, in itself as eloquence, is neither praised nor blamed, but its effect and its purpose are looked at. The intended meaning is that the reality of eloquence is that it is sorcery that affects a person in turning toward or turning away. Now, if a questioner asked you, "Which do you prefer: to have eloquence or to be inarticulate?" I would say, if the eloquence is used in obedience to Allah and in calling to Allah, yes, then this is what I prefer. But if, may Allah protect us, a person is afflicted with eloquence to mislead people from the religion of Allah, then there is no good in it; this inarticulateness is better than it. Indeed, eloquence is no doubt a blessing, and for this Allah has bestowed it upon the servant, and He said: