Explanation of the author's statement: And Abu al-Abbas said - after the hadith of Zayd ibn Khalid in which it is stated: That Allah the Exalted said: (Some of My servants have become believers in Me and some have become disbelievers...
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And Abu al-Abbas said after the hadith of Zayd ibn Khalid in which it is stated" to the end of it. Abu al-Abbas is Shaykh al-Islam Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him). He was given this name because he had a son named al-Abbas who was buried next to him, as is the case at the Umayyad Mosque. If you go to the Umayyad Mosque, they tell you, "This is Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah, and this is the grave of his son next to him." It is as if he had a son without a wife. Yes or no? So, is al-Abbas his son? Hmm, yes. This is a lie. Shaykh al-Islam did not marry (may Allah have mercy on him), so he was known by this kunya (patronymic) but without having a son. This is something certain from a historical perspective.
Abu al-Abbas said after the hadith of Zayd ibn Khalid in which it is statedSahih al-Bukhari 846 the hadith, and this has been mentioned previously. Where was it mentioned?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : In the chapter on seeking rain from the stars? Yes.
He says, "And this is frequent in the Book and the Sunnah". This refers to establishing disbelief for one who attributes blessings to the cause while forgetting the Creator, or to an incorrect cause, as in seeking rain from the stars, for this cause is incorrect.
He says: "And this is frequent in the Book and the Sunnah; the Exalted One condemns those who attribute His blessings to others and associate them with Him". So, is the one who attributes Allah's blessings to others deserving of condemnation? Yes, deserving of condemnation. If a slave of so-and-so brought you a gift from so-and-so, and you thanked the slave but not the master, what is this considered? It is bad manners, bad manners toward the master and ingratitude for the master's blessing, is it not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And the connection of this slave to his master is stronger than the connection of causes to the Creator (Mighty and Majestic). So, if you attribute a thing to its cause without the Creator, this is uglier than attributing this gift to the slave without his master, when it is from his master. Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is the Creator of the causes, so do not attribute blessings to their causes. Why? First: Who is the Creator of this cause?
The student: It is Allah.
The Shaykh : So, it is obligatory to thank Him and attribute the blessing to Him. Second: We find that causes may not have an effect, even though they are causes through which a thing occurs, they do not have an effect. It is established in Sahih Muslim that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Rain is a cause for vegetation, but sometimes Allah does not make it a cause; the causality is nullified. So, if rain had an effect in itself, would rain occur without vegetation? It would not occur. So, Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is the Creator of the cause, and He is able to make this cause not a cause. Is that so? He is able, He is able (Glorified and Exalted is He) to place obstacles that prevent this cause from taking effect, whether by Shari'ah or by divine decree, is it not? As if this valley that waters this garden had barriers, barriers that prevent it, or if it had pits that swallow the water, would it reach this garden or not? It would not reach it. Why? Because of the presence of an obstacle. And whoever knows the causes and their obstacles knows that everything is in the hand of Allah (Mighty and Majestic). So, the causes: first, their Creator is Allah; second, a cause may not have an effect; third, a cause may have an obstacle that prevents its effect. So, how is it fitting for you to attribute a thing to its cause and forget the Creator, forget the one who is caused, who is Allah (Mighty and Majestic)?
So, Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "Indeed, Allah the Exalted condemns those who attribute His blessings to others and associate them with Him". And the one who attributes Allah's blessings to others and associates them with Him is deserving of condemnation, yes, by Shari'ah and by reason.
"Some of the Salaf said: It is like their saying: 'The wind was good and the sailor was skilled,' and the like of that which is common on the tongues of many". "The wind was good" is regarding ships. Sailing ships move by what? By the wind.[Yunus 10:22] So they move by the wind. If the wind is good, meaning it is not calm so the ship stops... the journey on the ship is comfortable, is it not? It is comfortable. Likewise, if the sailor is skilled and good, knowing how to follow the winds, not facing them directly, this also becomes... this is not correct... Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), if He willed (Glorified and Exalted is He)... and if He willed, He would have blinded... the sailor...
What is the meaning of knowing the meaning? ... The person becomes a disbeliever, either they apply the name of disbelief to him as the Mu'tazilah say, or he is neither a believer nor a disbeliever, so he is in a position between the two positions. But the correct view is what the author said, which is the madhhab (school of thought) of the people of the Sunnah and the community, for there is no barrier to a person having both of these, yes. If the disbelief that the Shari'ah indicates is incompatible with faith is found, it becomes disbelief that does not coexist with... yes.
The student: ... Is his expression here correct, or if he expressed it with another meaning...
The Shaykh : ... But his intention is... in the sense of considering each one in isolation, each one is the opposite of the other. But the correct view could be said to be if the author said the coexistence of the two opposites in the heart. But in any case, they are lenient in expression.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, this is the terminology of the logicians. The people of logic say: the two opposites that do not cease to exist and do not coexist.
The student: Is this correct?
The Shaykh : Correct.
Good, so the correct view is what the author said, that disbelief and faith may coexist, yes.
The student: Is...?
The Shaykh : No, no, it is one thing, ... there is no problem. That is, it may be pure disbelief and pure faith, this is not a problem. But their coexistence in the sense of their existence at the same time, this is the point of disagreement. And the correct view is that they may coexist. But if the disbelief is major, it cannot coexist with faith. And likewise, complete faith, and this is rare for a person to have faith without disbelief; sins are inevitable. Good, the ruling on the phrase "lawa" (if only) was mentioned to us, and we stated that this has sections, yes. Start with the first section.
Abu al-Abbas said after the hadith of Zayd ibn Khalid in which it is stated
Allah has said, 'In this morning some of my slaves remained as true believers
أن الله تعالى قال أصبح من عبادي مؤمن بي وكافرThe student: ...
The Shaykh : In the chapter on seeking rain from the stars? Yes.
He says, "And this is frequent in the Book and the Sunnah". This refers to establishing disbelief for one who attributes blessings to the cause while forgetting the Creator, or to an incorrect cause, as in seeking rain from the stars, for this cause is incorrect.
He says: "And this is frequent in the Book and the Sunnah; the Exalted One condemns those who attribute His blessings to others and associate them with Him". So, is the one who attributes Allah's blessings to others deserving of condemnation? Yes, deserving of condemnation. If a slave of so-and-so brought you a gift from so-and-so, and you thanked the slave but not the master, what is this considered? It is bad manners, bad manners toward the master and ingratitude for the master's blessing, is it not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And the connection of this slave to his master is stronger than the connection of causes to the Creator (Mighty and Majestic). So, if you attribute a thing to its cause without the Creator, this is uglier than attributing this gift to the slave without his master, when it is from his master. Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is the Creator of the causes, so do not attribute blessings to their causes. Why? First: Who is the Creator of this cause?
The student: It is Allah.
The Shaykh : So, it is obligatory to thank Him and attribute the blessing to Him. Second: We find that causes may not have an effect, even though they are causes through which a thing occurs, they do not have an effect. It is established in Sahih Muslim that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
It is not the Sunnah that you do not rain, but the Sunnah is that you rain and then the earth does not grow
ليس السنة أن لا تمطروا بل السنة أن تمطروا ثم لا تنبت الأرضSo, Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "Indeed, Allah the Exalted condemns those who attribute His blessings to others and associate them with Him". And the one who attributes Allah's blessings to others and associates them with Him is deserving of condemnation, yes, by Shari'ah and by reason.
"Some of the Salaf said: It is like their saying: 'The wind was good and the sailor was skilled,' and the like of that which is common on the tongues of many". "The wind was good" is regarding ships. Sailing ships move by what? By the wind.
until, when you are in ships and they sail with them by a good wind and they rejoice therein
حتى إذا كنتم في الفلك وجرين بهم بريح طيبة وفرحوا بهاWhat is the meaning of knowing the meaning? ... The person becomes a disbeliever, either they apply the name of disbelief to him as the Mu'tazilah say, or he is neither a believer nor a disbeliever, so he is in a position between the two positions. But the correct view is what the author said, which is the madhhab (school of thought) of the people of the Sunnah and the community, for there is no barrier to a person having both of these, yes. If the disbelief that the Shari'ah indicates is incompatible with faith is found, it becomes disbelief that does not coexist with... yes.
The student: ... Is his expression here correct, or if he expressed it with another meaning...
The Shaykh : ... But his intention is... in the sense of considering each one in isolation, each one is the opposite of the other. But the correct view could be said to be if the author said the coexistence of the two opposites in the heart. But in any case, they are lenient in expression.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, this is the terminology of the logicians. The people of logic say: the two opposites that do not cease to exist and do not coexist.
The student: Is this correct?
The Shaykh : Correct.
Good, so the correct view is what the author said, that disbelief and faith may coexist, yes.
The student: Is...?
The Shaykh : No, no, it is one thing, ... there is no problem. That is, it may be pure disbelief and pure faith, this is not a problem. But their coexistence in the sense of their existence at the same time, this is the point of disagreement. And the correct view is that they may coexist. But if the disbelief is major, it cannot coexist with faith. And likewise, complete faith, and this is rare for a person to have faith without disbelief; sins are inevitable. Good, the ruling on the phrase "lawa" (if only) was mentioned to us, and we stated that this has sections, yes. Start with the first section.