Explanation of the author's statement: He said: "Some of My servants have become believers in Me, and some have become disbelievers."

The Shaykh : He said: He said: This hadith is called by the people of hadith a qudsi hadith, named "qudsi" due to its attribution to Allah, Mighty and Majestic. It holds a rank between the Prophetic hadith and the Qur'an, between the Prophetic hadith and the Qur'an.
The scholars differed on whether it is the speech of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, in both wording and meaning, or whether it is the speech of Allah, the Exalted, in meaning, with the wording from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). There are two positions among the scholars on this. As for the Qur'an, the people of the Sunnah are in agreement that it is the speech of Allah in both wording and meaning.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed. Those who said it is the speech of Allah in both wording and meaning stated that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "He said." The principle is that when "He said" is used, what follows is attributed to Him in wording. On this basis, it would be the speech of Allah, Mighty and Majestic. Those who said it is not the wording of Allah responded to this by saying: If we considered it the wording of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, it would have a higher chain of transmission than the Qur'an, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is narrating it here from Allah, whereas the Qur'an was received from whom? From Jibril. It would thus have a higher chain of transmission. This would imply that it is more established than the Qur'an. Although the Qur'an is established without any doubt, according to the elevation of the chain of transmission and its descent, there is no doubt that the higher one is superior.
Second, if it were the speech of Allah in both wording and meaning, it would be a miracle; it would be among the miracles. There is nothing miraculous except the Qur'an. We say this because the speech of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, is not the speech of humans, and they cannot produce anything like it, just as with His other attributes. Indeed, Allah, the Exalted, said: Why? Because it is His speech, and His speech is one of His attributes, and the attributes of the created cannot resemble the attributes of the Creator.
Second, if it were the speech of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, it would be an act of worship to recite it. It is well known that if you recited these qudsi hadiths in prayer, would it be valid or not? It is not valid and it is not prescribed. If it were the speech of Allah, it would be prescribed and would be like the Qur'an. Also, the scholars are in agreement that it is permissible for a person in a state of major ritual impurity to recite them, and to touch the qudsi hadiths without ritual purity, and that it is permissible to sell and buy them, unlike the selling and buying of the mushaf, where there is disagreement. Therefore, the rulings of the Qur'an do not apply to it.
What remains for us is the evidence used by those who said it is the speech of Allah in both wording and meaning, which is the attribution by the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) of this to Him, saying "Allah says" or "Allah said" and the like. This is a simple matter to answer. The Messenger transmitted it in meaning, just as Allah, the Exalted, says about Musa, "Musa said," and about Pharaoh, "Pharaoh said," and the like. We know with certainty that Pharaoh, Musa, and the previous prophets did not say this exact wording, but rather they said the meaning of this wording. Allah, the Exalted, attributes it to them because they did not read in the Arabic language nor speak in the Arabic language. In any case, if someone says, "We say in the qudsi hadith, 'Allah, the Exalted, said,' and we remain silent, without delving into whether it is wording or meaning," yes. Although there is no doubt in our view that it is not like the Qur'an; rather, it is in a position between two positions: between the Prophetic hadith and the Qur'an.

The questioner : Shaykh... If a person speaks about an issue he does not know, is it best to say "Allah and His Messenger know best"?

The Shaykh : In legal matters, yes. In legal matters, you say "Allah and His Messenger know best." In cosmic matters, you say "Allah knows best," because the Messenger does not know. If someone asked, "Will it rain tomorrow," what would you say?
The student: Allah knows best.

The Shaykh : Or "Allah and His Messenger know best"?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : "Allah knows best." But if he asked, "Is this permissible? Is this obligatory?" you say "Allah and His Messenger know best."

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes, but the Messenger is aware of all legal rulings, including this issue.

The questioner : Or is it best to say "Allah knows best"...

The Shaykh : The best and the worst are two different things. It is permissible to say "Allah and His Messenger know best" in legal matters. In cosmic matters, it is not permissible. Also, if you were asked now, "Are you more knowledgeable than the Messenger in legal rulings?"
The student: The Messenger is more knowledgeable.

The Shaykh : The Messenger is more knowledgeable. So "Allah and His Messenger know best" means He is more knowledgeable than me and more knowledgeable than you.

The questioner : But the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)...

The Shaykh : Yes, correct. But Allah said: Everything related to the religion is now complete; it does not need any new law to be revealed. It is complete.

The questioner : New things.

The Shaykh : New things must have a basis in what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) knew. They must have a basis in the Shari'ah as known by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), because Allah concluded the matter: .

The questioner : Did all the prophets, other than the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), not speak Arabic?

The Shaykh : There is no prophet who was Arab except Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). The rest of them were not Arabs.

The questioner : Ibrahim.

The Shaykh : Ibrahim spoke in a language other than Arabic.

The questioner : Ismail, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Ismail. Yes, indeed. Ismail spoke Arabic. Yes, it appears that he spoke Arabic because Arabs came to him and settled with him, and he spoke with them.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : I do not know, by Allah. I do not know. As for the Arabized Arabs, there is no one among them except the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) . As for the previous languages, the original Arabic, we do not know if it was like our current Arabic language or if it differs. It may differ in some words. Yes.
"Some of My servants have become believers." This is a description of a described noun that is omitted. The estimation is "a servant who is a believer" and "a servant who is a disbeliever." Yes. What is the grammatical parsing of "became" in "some of My servants, a servant or a believer"? "Became" is one of the sisters of "was," and "believer" is...
The student: The subject.

The Shaykh : And it is so, because the meaning is "he became a believer, he became one of My servants who is a believer." The intended meaning is the transition from one state to another. The intended meaning of "Zayd became" is not that he entered the morning, because this is a description. Since it is a description, its meaning is the transition from one state to another. Yes.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : to "ma"

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : And it is.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : No, it is not like that. Even "became a believer" and "became a disbeliever" are the same thing, meaning "became" as it came in the hadith: . No, it appears that it is an incomplete verb, and... "believer" is its subject, and "some of My servants" is its predicate. That is, "a servant who is a believer, whoever he is, from among My servants." It is also permissible that "became" is a past tense incomplete verb, and its subject is the pronoun of the matter, meaning "the matter became," and we make "some of My servants" a fronted predicate and "believer" a delayed subject. That is, "the matter of the people became: some of them are believers and some of them are disbelievers."
Then he detailed and said: "As for the one who said: With his tongue and his heart, 'We have been given rain by the grace of Allah.'" The "ba" here indicates causality. "And His mercy." "Grace" means giving and increase, and "mercy" is well known; it is one of the attributes of Allah, Glorified and Exalted, by which He bestows favor and kindness upon creation. "So he is a believer in Me and a disbeliever in the star." He is a believer in Me because he attributed this rain to what? To Allah, Mighty and Majestic, to His grace and mercy. He is a disbeliever in the star because he did not attribute it to it, and he did not see any effect of the star in its descent. Rather, it only descended by the grace and mercy of Allah. "The one who says, 'We have been given rain by a constellation.'" The "ba" here indicates causality. "By such and such a constellation." "So he is a disbeliever in Me and a believer in the star." He is a disbeliever in Me because he denied the favor of Allah and attributed it to a cause that Allah did not make a cause. So his soul is now attached to Allah or to this cause?
The student: To this cause.

The Shaykh : To this cause, and he forgot the favor of Allah, Mighty and Majestic. And this disbelief is not a disbelief that takes one out of the religion, because it is a disbelief below disbelief. The intended meaning is attributing the rain to the constellation, not attributing the rain to the constellation as a cause, but attributing the rain to the constellation as an agent. Because look, he said: "We have been given rain by a constellation." He did not say "A constellation sent down the rain upon us." Because some people have said: This does not indicate the prohibition of attributing the rain to the constellation as a cause. Rather, the intended meaning is attributing the rain to the constellation as a creator. And this is a mistake, because if it were attribution as a creator, he would have said: "The constellation sent down the rain." He did not say "We have been given rain." Because it is known that the one who sends down the rain is Allah. But by saying "We have been given rain by a constellation," he made the "ba" indicate causality. So it is known that the intended meaning of the hadith is one who acknowledged that the one who created the rain and sent it down is Allah, but he made the constellation a cause. On this basis, it falls under the category of minor shirk that does not take one out of the religion. And it has been mentioned to us at the beginning of the chapter that seeking rain by constellations has three categories.
What is meant by the star? The stars are meant, the individual stars. They attributed the rain to them, saying, "When such-and-such a star falls, the rain comes," or "When such-and-such a star rises, the rain comes," and so on. They did not attribute it to them in terms of time, but in terms of the cause of existence. So the attribution, in reality, to the *anwa' (constellations)* became an attribution of creation and bringing into being, an attribution of causality, and an attribution of time. The attribution of creation and bringing into being, as we mentioned, is major shirk (associating partners with Allah). The attribution of causality is minor shirk. The attribution of time, however, is permissible in the sense that it came to us in this constellation. For this reason, the scholars said: "It is forbidden to say, 'We were rained upon by such-and-such a constellation,' but it is permissible to say, 'in such-and-such a constellation.'" They distinguished between the two by saying that the preposition *bi* (by) indicates causality, while *fi* (in) indicates a temporal or locative context. Consequently, some scholars of knowledge said that if a person says, "We were rained upon by a constellation," using *bi* to indicate a temporal context, then this is permissible. And although this has a basis in terms of meaning, it has no basis in terms of wording, because the wording of the hadith is and the use of *bi* for causality is more prominent than its use for a temporal context. It is true that it is used for a temporal context, as in the saying of Allah the Exalted: meaning "in the night." But its use for causality is more prominent. And the reverse is the reverse: *fi* is more prominent for a temporal context than for causality, even though it is used for causality, as in his saying: The conclusion is that the closer view is to prohibit saying "We were rained upon by such-and-such a constellation," even if one intends a temporal context. However, if the person speaking does not know of *bi* anything other than a temporal context, absolutely, and does not have in mind that it indicates causality, do we say that this is permissible? That is, he does not know at all except that it is for a temporal context. For example, the common people among us now say, "The flood came to us... in the *Muraqibaniyyah* (a period of the year), or not? The flood came to us... they have only *bi* here as a temporal context, meaning 'at this time' or 'in this time.' We say this is permissible because it does not occur to their imagination that it is for causality. Nevertheless, it is better to tell them to say "in the *Muraqibaniyyah*." But it seems to me that the people of al-Qasim would say, "You have put us down from the people of the South." Yes, we say, as long as this does not contradict what is in accordance with the words of eloquent Arabic, praise be to Allah. The intention is to express ourselves in a way that is free from doubt. As for the common people, we do not say to the one who says, "We were rained upon by the *Muraqibaniyyah* and... and by the Scorpions (constellation), and so on," that these people are polytheists or that they have committed minor shirk, because the concept of causality is completely absent in their minds; they do not know it and do not intend anything other than a temporal context, absolutely. Rather, it is better to say, "Say 'in.'" And for this reason, the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) mentioned in the chapter on seeking rain that it is permissible to say "in such-and-such a constellation" and forbidden to say "by such-and-such a constellation." Yes.

The questioner : Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes

The questioner : but

The Shaykh : No, rather, deeds are by intentions. So as long as this has not occurred to their minds, this is just a matter of adjusting the wording, and we say, "You should say 'in.'"