Explanation of the author's statement: The fifth: His saying: (Some of My servants have become believers in Me and disbelievers) due to the descent of the blessing. The sixth: Noticing the faith in this context.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : That this man would descend to rescue you, and had it not been that the man had strength, and strength is from Allah, the rescue would not have happened, right? So no matter how you turn the matter, you find it returns to where?
The student: To Allah
The Shaykh : To Allah (Mighty and Majestic). So you believe that this is a pure cause. A good man drowned, and Allah made it easy for him, so he came out and said: "So-and-so the wali (close friend of Allah) saved me." What does this become? It is major shirk (associating partners with Allah). Why? Because he attributed it to an incorrect cause. Furthermore, his attribution to him does not indicate that he intends him to be a cause; rather, he intends that he is the savior in himself. Because believing that he is a cause, and that this wali is in his grave, is not valid. He sees that he is the savior in himself. For this reason, the followers of the false awliya (close friends of Allah), when hardship befalls them, whom do they ask?
The student: Allah
The Shaykh : They do not ask the awliya. Some of them, when hardship befalls him, says: "O so-and-so son of so-and-so."
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes. And as for the simple matter, he says: "O Allah." If the matter is simple, he says: "O Allah." If the matter is severe, he says: "O so-and-so." And this is an observed matter. Therefore, the jurists differed, even though it is not the subject of the lesson, regarding whether it is permissible to make someone swear by one of the awliya. Because some of those who revere these awliya, if you say "swear by Allah," they give you oaths filling the heavens and the earth. But if you say "swear by so-and-so the wali," he may not be able to swear unless he is truthful.
The student: ... in Sudan.
The Shaykh : Yes, in Sudan and other than Sudan.
The student: And the Rafidah (the Twelver Shi'ah).
The Shaykh : Yes, and the Rafidah and others. If they are told to swear by their wali, they may not be able to swear unless they are truthful. So the jurists differed in this issue. Some said it is permissible to make him swear by his wali, and some said it is not permissible, that it is not permissible to make him swear except by Allah. And that is the truth. And we leave him to swear and lie, and the right of the owner of the right is lost, and the matter is upon him on the Day of Resurrection. And this is the truth. It is not permissible to order obscenity under the authority of the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law) and its ruling. Because the judge rules with what? With what Allah has revealed in the Shari'ah. So how can he order what is shirk? This is not permissible.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, if he is ignorant, this has another ruling. But the knowledgeable judge, it is not permissible for him.
The questioner : No, swearing by the wali, even if he is ignorant, means...
The Shaykh : He thinks it does not contradict, right? In any case, we have a rule, O Adam: "Everyone who commits a forbidden act while ignorant, yes, if he did not neglect, then there is no sin upon him by consensus." If he did not neglect, but if he neglected in seeking, it is heard that this is haram (forbidden), but he said: No,[Al-Ma'idah 5:101] I am not asking, I am afraid they will say it is haram and I will no longer be able to swear by it. So this is not permissible, he is sinful.
The questioner : Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes
The questioner : The one who says: "By my pledge."
The Shaykh : There is nothing in it. It is not an oath by the pledge. This meaning: "In my pledge" is an oath, just as the grammarians said: "In my pledge, I will certainly do it." They said: This is an oath. The meaning: "In my pledge, I will certainly do it." Good.
"The sixth: Noticing the faith in this context." Let those who have a copy like mine check it.
The student: To Allah
The Shaykh : To Allah (Mighty and Majestic). So you believe that this is a pure cause. A good man drowned, and Allah made it easy for him, so he came out and said: "So-and-so the wali (close friend of Allah) saved me." What does this become? It is major shirk (associating partners with Allah). Why? Because he attributed it to an incorrect cause. Furthermore, his attribution to him does not indicate that he intends him to be a cause; rather, he intends that he is the savior in himself. Because believing that he is a cause, and that this wali is in his grave, is not valid. He sees that he is the savior in himself. For this reason, the followers of the false awliya (close friends of Allah), when hardship befalls them, whom do they ask?
The student: Allah
The Shaykh : They do not ask the awliya. Some of them, when hardship befalls him, says: "O so-and-so son of so-and-so."
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes. And as for the simple matter, he says: "O Allah." If the matter is simple, he says: "O Allah." If the matter is severe, he says: "O so-and-so." And this is an observed matter. Therefore, the jurists differed, even though it is not the subject of the lesson, regarding whether it is permissible to make someone swear by one of the awliya. Because some of those who revere these awliya, if you say "swear by Allah," they give you oaths filling the heavens and the earth. But if you say "swear by so-and-so the wali," he may not be able to swear unless he is truthful.
The student: ... in Sudan.
The Shaykh : Yes, in Sudan and other than Sudan.
The student: And the Rafidah (the Twelver Shi'ah).
The Shaykh : Yes, and the Rafidah and others. If they are told to swear by their wali, they may not be able to swear unless they are truthful. So the jurists differed in this issue. Some said it is permissible to make him swear by his wali, and some said it is not permissible, that it is not permissible to make him swear except by Allah. And that is the truth. And we leave him to swear and lie, and the right of the owner of the right is lost, and the matter is upon him on the Day of Resurrection. And this is the truth. It is not permissible to order obscenity under the authority of the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law) and its ruling. Because the judge rules with what? With what Allah has revealed in the Shari'ah. So how can he order what is shirk? This is not permissible.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, if he is ignorant, this has another ruling. But the knowledgeable judge, it is not permissible for him.
The questioner : No, swearing by the wali, even if he is ignorant, means...
The Shaykh : He thinks it does not contradict, right? In any case, we have a rule, O Adam: "Everyone who commits a forbidden act while ignorant, yes, if he did not neglect, then there is no sin upon him by consensus." If he did not neglect, but if he neglected in seeking, it is heard that this is haram (forbidden), but he said: No,
do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you
لا تسألوا عن أشياء إن تبد لكم تسؤكمThe questioner : Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes
The questioner : The one who says: "By my pledge."
The Shaykh : There is nothing in it. It is not an oath by the pledge. This meaning: "In my pledge" is an oath, just as the grammarians said: "In my pledge, I will certainly do it." They said: This is an oath. The meaning: "In my pledge, I will certainly do it." Good.
"The sixth: Noticing the faith in this context." Let those who have a copy like mine check it.