Explanation of the author's statement: "And both of them have a hadith from Ibn Abbas to this effect, in which it is said: (Some of them said: 'The star of so-and-so has been true.')"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: "And both of them have a hadith from Ibn Abbas to this effect". Regarding his statement "And both of them," the apparent view, and Allah knows best, is that it is a slip of the pen by the author. The hadith he referred to is in Muslim, not in the two Sahihs. It is the hadith of Ibn Abbas that he referred to in Muslim, not in the two Sahihs. The commentator pointed this out and said: "And both of them have a hadith from Ibn Abbas to this effect, in which it is said: Sahih Muslim 73". This means that when the rain fell, some attributed it to the mercy of Allah and the favor of Allah, while some said, "The star of so-and-so has been true." Thus, they made the star the one who brought the rain or the cause of its descent. From this is what is mentioned in some books, some books of timekeeping, which say: "Rarely does its star fail" or "This is its star, it is true." You find this in some books that write about times. This is an error. This is not permissible. This is what Allah the Mighty and Majestic has condemned in His servants. "Rarely does it fail" is not correct. This is because you are now attributing creation to this star, or saying that "this is its star, it is true," or "this star is true," or the like. This is forbidden and not permissible because its meaning is clear.
The questioner : Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes
The questioner : And this is found among some of the common people in the desert, saying ... .
The Shaykh : No, it is not permissible.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, it is not permissible because its meaning is clear.
The questioner : No, but does it mean shirk (associating partners with Allah) or ...?
The Shaykh : Minor shirk (minor associating partners with Allah), yes. Minor shirk, yes.
The questioner : What if he said "by the permission of Allah"?
The Shaykh : Even if he said "by the permission of Allah," he should not say it absolutely. Because those who believe that it is a cause believe that it is by the permission of Allah, because all causes are from Allah the Mighty and Majestic.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, the apparent view is that there is no harm in it, because sometimes, by the permission of Allah, there is lightning ... lightning, but there is no water. It could be lightning from very light clouds where you find no water. So if he intends this meaning, there is no harm. "True" means that it is from clouds that carry water.
The questioner : He said:Sahih al-Bukhari 1038 ... .
The Shaykh : He said:Sahih Muslim 1277b And the intended meaning of the verse [Al-Waqi'ah 56:75-77] is that some of them said it is a negation, and some said it is for emphasis. Those who said it is a negation said that the negated thing is omitted. And others said that the negated thing is the oath. So those who said it is a negation divided into two groups. One group said that this ... is negated ... Another group said that it is a negation of the oath, meaning "I do not swear," i.e., I am not one who swears. Yes. Those who said it is included in an omitted negated thing said that the estimation is: "There is no truth to what you claim, that the Qur'an is falsehood, magic, poetry, and divination. I swear by the places of the stars that it is a noble Qur'an." They made the negated thing here ... what? Omitted. And what is the estimation? "There is no truth to what you mention, that this Qur'an ... or what you claim about this Qur'an is magic, divination, and poetry. I swear that it is a noble Qur'an." So "I swear" has no relation to "no," it has no relation at all. Do you understand now? Good. And the second opinion is that "no" is a negation and that it is included in "I swear," so the negated thing is the oath, meaning "I do not swear" and "I am not one who swears." Why? Because the matter is clearer than needing an oath. I do not swear that the Qur'an is a noble Qur'an, a revelation from the Lord of the worlds. I am not one who swears to this. Why? Because the matter is clearer and more evident than needing an oath. Do you understand or not? And this last one is very weak. The first one has some merit, it has some aspect, even if it may not be feasible in every case that is in this form.
The second opinion in the issue is that "no" is for emphasis, not for negation. And this is the correct one. And on this basis, the sentence after it is affirmed, not negated? It is affirmed, because "no" means "be aware." "I swear by the places of the stars," and so on. And here, the one who swears is ...? Allah the Mighty and Majestic. And He, Glorified and Exalted is He, is truthful in what He informs about. Did He swear or did He not swear? Is that not so? Good. So what is the benefit of the oath? Because if the person is a believer, he will believe without an oath. And if he is a denier, here, even if you came to him with every sign, he would not believe. What is the benefit? Yes ...
and those who entered with ingratitude said: Such and such asterism was right.
قال بعضهم : لقد صدق نوء كذا وكذاThe questioner : Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes
The questioner : And this is found among some of the common people in the desert, saying ... .
The Shaykh : No, it is not permissible.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, it is not permissible because its meaning is clear.
The questioner : No, but does it mean shirk (associating partners with Allah) or ...?
The Shaykh : Minor shirk (minor associating partners with Allah), yes. Minor shirk, yes.
The questioner : What if he said "by the permission of Allah"?
The Shaykh : Even if he said "by the permission of Allah," he should not say it absolutely. Because those who believe that it is a cause believe that it is by the permission of Allah, because all causes are from Allah the Mighty and Majestic.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, the apparent view is that there is no harm in it, because sometimes, by the permission of Allah, there is lightning ... lightning, but there is no water. It could be lightning from very light clouds where you find no water. So if he intends this meaning, there is no harm. "True" means that it is from clouds that carry water.
The questioner : He said:
it had rained with the blessing and mercy of Allah
مُطرنا بفضل الله ورحمتهThe Shaykh : He said:
So Allah, the Exalted and Majestic, revealed this verse.
فأنزل الله تعالى هذه الآية(75) Then I swear by the setting of the stars, (76) And indeed, it is an oath - if you could know - [most] great. (77) Indeed, it is a noble Qur'an
فلا أقسم بمواقع النجوم * وإنه لقسم لو تعلمون عظيم * إنه لقرآنThe second opinion in the issue is that "no" is for emphasis, not for negation. And this is the correct one. And on this basis, the sentence after it is affirmed, not negated? It is affirmed, because "no" means "be aware." "I swear by the places of the stars," and so on. And here, the one who swears is ...? Allah the Mighty and Majestic. And He, Glorified and Exalted is He, is truthful in what He informs about. Did He swear or did He not swear? Is that not so? Good. So what is the benefit of the oath? Because if the person is a believer, he will believe without an oath. And if he is a denier, here, even if you came to him with every sign, he would not believe. What is the benefit? Yes ...