Explanation of the author's statement: And His saying: "O Prophet, Allah is sufficient for you, and those who have followed you from among the believers" [Surah al-Anfal: 64], and His saying

The Shaykh : Then he said, and His saying: "O Prophet," the one intended by this is the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Allah the Exalted addresses His servant, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), with both descriptions: with the description of prophethood and with the description of messengership. So when He commands him to convey, He addresses him with the description of messengership: And in such situations, in the rulings that are specific to him, He addresses him mostly with what? With prophethood. He addresses him with prophethood: and the like. But when the command regarding messengership came, He said: And His saying: It passed to us that the derivation of "nabi" (prophet) here is fa'il in the meaning of fa'il, and mufa'il in the meaning of fa'il, and mufa'il in the meaning of fa'il, in the meaning of
The student: Fa'il, or not fa'il?

The Shaykh : Fa'il, and mufi'il in the meaning of fa'il, mufa'il in the meaning of fa'il, in the meaning of, it is fa'il in the meaning of fa'il, and mufa'il. I have confused it. Fa'il in the meaning of mufa'al, and in the meaning of mufi'il. So fa'il in the meaning of mufa'al, meaning one who is informed, and in the meaning of mufi'il, meaning one who informs. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is one who is informed and one who informs, is he not? One who is informed by whom?
The student: Allah

The Shaykh : By Allah. One who informs the servants of Allah, conveying the message to them.
And His saying: means "Allah is sufficient for you." "Al-Hasib" means the sufficient one. From this is the phrase "Give me a dirham, that is enough," meaning it is the sufficiency. So "al-Hasib" means the sufficient one. And His saying: What is its grammatical parsing? "Hasib" is a predicate placed before, yes, and "Allah" is a subject placed after. And the reverse is permissible, meaning the meaning would be "None is sufficient for you except Allah." And in this case, "Hasib" would be the subject and "Allah" the predicate. As for the first case, the meaning is "None is sufficient for you except Allah." If we say "Allah is sufficient for you," Allah alone is sufficient for you. Good. And His saying: Is it conjoined to the "ka" (you)? Because of His saying: Or is it conjoined to the Name of Allah? Yes.
The student: To the "ka" (you).

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed. There are two opinions among the scholars. Some said: "Allah is sufficient for you, and those who have followed you from among the believers are sufficient for you." They made "man" conjoined to "Allah." They said because it is closer. Yes, and because if it were conjoined to the "ka" in "hasibuka," it would be necessary to repeat the preposition, or not? Ibn Malik says:
"And the return of the preposition when conjoining to *** A pronoun in the genitive case is necessary, it has been made"
But... and it is not necessary in my view, and that is the correct one. Yes.
Good. Then they said: This is like His saying, the Exalted: But this opinion is weak and not correct. The answer to what they cited as evidence is:
First: Their saying that the conjunction is to... mentioned is not correct. The conjunction can be to something previous, as in its parallels, and there are many. So much so that the grammarians said: If the conjoined items are multiple, the conjunction is to what? To the first one.
And second: If it were conjoined to the "ka" (you), it would be necessary to repeat the preposition. We said: This is not necessary, because as Ibn Malik said:
"For it has come in correct poetry and prose, affirmed" And its examples have been presented to us in grammar. As for their argument with His saying: Supporting them is different from them being his support, because the meaning of them being his support is that he relies on them, but the meaning of them supporting him is that they help him while he is independent on his own. So there is a difference between them, is there not? So "al-Hasib" is the sufficient one, meaning he is sufficient for you even from yourself. But support by others means that he is the one supported for him; he has independence, but this is a supporting helper. And this is indicated by the fact that Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, when He mentions "al-Hasib," He makes it exclusive to Allah, like His saying, the Exalted: And He said, the Exalted: So just as reliance is on Allah because He is the support, others cannot be a support. For if they were a support, reliance on them would be permissible. But the support is Allah, and He is the one upon whom the trusting ones place their trust. So the correct one is that it is conjoined to what?
The student: The "ka" (you).

The Shaykh : To the "ka" in His saying: meaning "And those who have followed you from among the believers are sufficient for you." So place your trust in Him, all of you, you and those who have followed you. Then in His saying: This wording contains what prevents the Companions from being a support for the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). The point is: They are followers, those who follow. How can the follower be a support for the one followed? This does not hold at all. So the necessary correct one is that the meaning of the verse is: "Allah is sufficient for you, and sufficient for those who have followed you." So Allah the Exalted is sufficient for all. He said: And His saying: This is a conditional sentence that conveys a meaning in its explicit statement and conveys another meaning in its implicit meaning. The explicit statement is that whoever places his trust in Allah, then Allah suffices him in his concerns and facilitates his affairs. And Allah the Exalted did not say: "And whoever places his trust in Allah, he will not find one who harms him." He said: He suffices him in what concerns him, so even if some harm befalls him from his enemies, Allah the Exalted suffices him from its evil, so they do not reach their goal. Otherwise, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is the master of those who place their trust, and yet harm befalls him. But Allah is his support, sufficient for him, so even if harm occurs, the damage does not occur. The result must be... that he who relied on Allah.
As for the implicit meaning of the verse: Whoever places his trust in other than Allah is abandoned, because other than Allah cannot be a support, as we mentioned earlier. So you have placed your trust in what is not correct and not a pillar. So whoever places his trust in other than Allah is abandoned, and whoever places his trust in other than Allah moves away from Allah by the amount of his trust in others. Because when the human soul relies on something, it trusts in it and forgets what else there is. For this reason, whoever places his trust in Allah, Allah abandons him? No, whoever places his trust in other than Allah, Allah abandons him, may Allah protect us, and he becomes entrusted to that thing. And whoever is entrusted to other than Allah is lost and does not achieve his purpose. So in the verse there are two rulings: explicit and implicit.