Explanation of the author's statement: Mujahid said, meaning: (It is the man's saying: "This is my wealth, which I inherited from my fathers").
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"Mujahid said: What is meant is the man's saying: 'This is my wealth, which I inherited from my fathers'".
Mujahid is an imam among the imams of the Tabi'un (the generation after the Companions). He presented the mushaf (written copy of the Qur'an) to Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), stopping at every verse and asking him about its interpretation. Sufyan al-Thawri said: "If an interpretation comes to you from Mujahid, it is sufficient for you", meaning: it is enough for you. However, he is not infallible in everything; he may err just as other people do. But why does he say "the man's saying" and not the woman's?
The students: It includes the woman, by way of predominance.
The Shaykh : Ah, this is by way of predominance and honor, because the man is more honorable than the woman.
Now, "the man's saying: 'This is my wealth, which I inherited from my fathers'". On its surface, there is nothing wrong with this phrase. If someone asked you: "Where did you get this house?" and you said, "By Allah, this is my house. Is this house yours or are you a tenant?" and you said, "No, it is my house. Where did you get it? I inherited it from my fathers." Is there anything wrong with this? There is nothing wrong with it; it is a pure statement of fact. But what Mujahid means is when one attributes ownership of this thing to the cause, which is inheritance, while forgetting the effecter, which is Allah. By what means did you inherit it? By the Shari'ah of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), where He legislated that you inherit what your father left behind. So, did you acquire it by your own power and strength? No, but by the Shari'ah of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) and by His decree regarding your fathers. Your fathers, had not Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) bestowed it upon them and made them its owners, would not have acquired it. And you, had not Allah legislated for you to inherit from them, would not have acquired it. Therefore, if there had been in you any of the barriers to inheritance, you would not have obtained this. It becomes clear that this wealth reaching you is from Allah and to Allah. From Allah the Exalted, because He is the One who created that house and facilitated its ownership for your fathers. And to Allah it returns in terms of judgment, because He is the One who ruled that your fathers' wealth transfers to you by inheritance. How can you forget the effecter, (Glorified and Exalted is He), by the natural causes and the legislative causes, and attribute the matter to the ownership of your fathers and your inheritance of it after them? From this angle, it becomes a type of ingratitude for the blessing. However, if a person's intention is merely to state a fact, as we exemplified first: a man asked you, "Is this house you are in rented or not?" You said, "No, it is my property. Where did it come from? I inherited it from my fathers." There is nothing wrong with that. For this reason, it is established from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that it was said to him on the day of the Conquest: The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) clarified that these houses transferred to whom? To 'Aqil by inheritance. And by this, it becomes clear that there is a difference between attributing ownership to a person by way of stating a fact, and attributing it to its cause while forgetting what? The effecter, which is Allah (Mighty and Majestic). Yes.
Now, he said: "And 'Awun ibn 'Abd Allah said: They say: 'If it were not for so-and-so, such-and-such would not have happened'". He says: "If it were not for so-and-so, such-and-such would not have happened." This is also like the first one. A person sometimes utters it intending to state a fact, and sometimes utters it intending to clarify the cause while forgetting the effecter. Did you understand? If he utters it intending to state a fact, and the fact is accurate and true, then it is a phrase with no harm; there is nothing wrong with it. "If it were not for so-and-so, such-and-such would not have happened." There is nothing wrong with it. And if he intends the cause, "If it were not for so-and-so, such-and-such would not have happened," if he intends the cause, then we look first: is this cause valid or not? If it is not valid, then it is false and a type of shirk (associating partners with Allah), such as if he said: "If it were not for the wali (close friend of Allah) so-and-so, who has been buried for decades, such-and-such would not have happened." We say: This is false shirk, because the buried so-and-so cannot be a cause in bringing benefit or repelling harm from you. Attributing that to him is shirk. And in this case, it becomes major shirk, because he made him a manager alongside Allah (Mighty and Majestic), since nothing is attributed to the dead except because the one attributing it believes that he has a secret, hidden control over the universe.
Now, if he attributes it to a valid cause established by the Shari'ah or by sense, is it permissible or not? It is permissible, on the condition that he does not make the cause effective in itself. If he makes the cause effective in itself, then it becomes shirk. These are two.
The third: that he attributes it to a non-legislative cause, but it is not a secret, hidden cause like the matter of the dead. This is minor shirk, such as amulets and talismans and the like, if he does not believe that they act by themselves. If he believes that they act by themselves, then it is not permissible.
So it becomes clear now that a person's saying: "If it were not for such-and-such, such-and-such would not have happened," we divide it first into two categories: either it is a statement of fact or a cause. If it is a statement of fact, then there is no harm with it if it is true and corresponds to reality; it is truth. The second: that he makes it a cause. This has three cases: either this is a hidden cause with no effect whatsoever, such as if he says: "If it were not for the wali (close friend of Allah) so-and-so, such-and-such would not have happened." This is major shirk, because by this statement he believes that this person has control over the universe, since he is dead, so this is a secret, hidden control.
The second: that he attributes it to a legislative cause or to a valid cause established by the Shari'ah or by sense. What do you say?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : This is permissible on the condition that he does not believe that the cause is effective by itself, or that he forgets the Bestower, which is Allah.
The third: that he attributes it to an apparent cause, but it is not established as a cause, neither by the Shari'ah nor by sense. This is a type of minor shirk, such as what? Such as talismans and necklaces that some people wear, saying that they repel the evil eye, and the like. This is minor shirk, because it is not established, neither by the Shari'ah nor by sense.
And it has been mentioned to us previously that the aspect in which it is shirk is that this person established a cause that Allah did not make a cause, so he became a partner with Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) in establishing causes, and Allah the Exalted did not make it a cause, neither legislatively nor cosmically. And what indicates this detail is that the attribution of "if it were not for" to a cause is established by the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), where he said regarding his uncle Abu Talib:Sahih al-Bukhari 6208, he said: . The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is undoubtedly the farthest of people from shirk and the most sincere of people in tawhid (the oneness of Allah) for Allah (Mighty and Majestic), and yet he said: "If it were not for me," attributing the thing to its cause, but it is a real legislative cause. Is that so? Yes, a real legislative cause. It is that he was permitted intercession for his uncle Abu Talib so that Allah would lighten his punishment. So, may Allah protect us, he was in a shallow part of the Fire, with two sandals on his feet from which his brain boiled. He did not see anyone more severely punished than him, because if he saw someone more severely punished than him, he would have been consoled, as al-Khansa said in the elegy for her brother Sakhr, she said:
"And if it were not for the multitude of mourners around me *** for their brothers, I would have killed myself
And what they mourn is not like my brother, but *** I console my soul about him by taking comfort in others"
So the result is that attributing a thing to its valid legislative cause, there is no harm in that. Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him), and although the saying of a scholar is not a proof, it is a source of comfort. Ibn al-Qayyim said in the Nuniyyah poem, praising the Companions, he said:
"*** And if it were not for them, there would be no Muslim on earth
And if it were not for them, the earth would have wobbled with its inhabitants, but *** He folded it in, and its pegs are they
And if it were not for them, it would have been darkness with its inhabitants, *** But they are in it like lamps and stars"
So he attributed this to its cause, to its valid cause. And there is no doubt that if it were not for them with the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), in the company of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), because there is no acceptance for them except from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Yes.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : These are the omens. It has been mentioned to us previously that we said if one intends them to be a circumstance, there is no harm. But as a cause, if he intends that they act by themselves, it is major shirk. And if he believes that they are a cause, it is minor shirk.
Mujahid is an imam among the imams of the Tabi'un (the generation after the Companions). He presented the mushaf (written copy of the Qur'an) to Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), stopping at every verse and asking him about its interpretation. Sufyan al-Thawri said: "If an interpretation comes to you from Mujahid, it is sufficient for you", meaning: it is enough for you. However, he is not infallible in everything; he may err just as other people do. But why does he say "the man's saying" and not the woman's?
The students: It includes the woman, by way of predominance.
The Shaykh : Ah, this is by way of predominance and honor, because the man is more honorable than the woman.
Now, "the man's saying: 'This is my wealth, which I inherited from my fathers'". On its surface, there is nothing wrong with this phrase. If someone asked you: "Where did you get this house?" and you said, "By Allah, this is my house. Is this house yours or are you a tenant?" and you said, "No, it is my house. Where did you get it? I inherited it from my fathers." Is there anything wrong with this? There is nothing wrong with it; it is a pure statement of fact. But what Mujahid means is when one attributes ownership of this thing to the cause, which is inheritance, while forgetting the effecter, which is Allah. By what means did you inherit it? By the Shari'ah of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), where He legislated that you inherit what your father left behind. So, did you acquire it by your own power and strength? No, but by the Shari'ah of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) and by His decree regarding your fathers. Your fathers, had not Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) bestowed it upon them and made them its owners, would not have acquired it. And you, had not Allah legislated for you to inherit from them, would not have acquired it. Therefore, if there had been in you any of the barriers to inheritance, you would not have obtained this. It becomes clear that this wealth reaching you is from Allah and to Allah. From Allah the Exalted, because He is the One who created that house and facilitated its ownership for your fathers. And to Allah it returns in terms of judgment, because He is the One who ruled that your fathers' wealth transfers to you by inheritance. How can you forget the effecter, (Glorified and Exalted is He), by the natural causes and the legislative causes, and attribute the matter to the ownership of your fathers and your inheritance of it after them? From this angle, it becomes a type of ingratitude for the blessing. However, if a person's intention is merely to state a fact, as we exemplified first: a man asked you, "Is this house you are in rented or not?" You said, "No, it is my property. Where did it come from? I inherited it from my fathers." There is nothing wrong with that. For this reason, it is established from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that it was said to him on the day of the Conquest:
Will you descend to your house tomorrow? He said: And has 'Aqil left us any house or garden?
أتنزل في دارك غدا؟ فقال: وهل ترك لنا عقيل من دار أو رباعNow, he said: "And 'Awun ibn 'Abd Allah said: They say: 'If it were not for so-and-so, such-and-such would not have happened'". He says: "If it were not for so-and-so, such-and-such would not have happened." This is also like the first one. A person sometimes utters it intending to state a fact, and sometimes utters it intending to clarify the cause while forgetting the effecter. Did you understand? If he utters it intending to state a fact, and the fact is accurate and true, then it is a phrase with no harm; there is nothing wrong with it. "If it were not for so-and-so, such-and-such would not have happened." There is nothing wrong with it. And if he intends the cause, "If it were not for so-and-so, such-and-such would not have happened," if he intends the cause, then we look first: is this cause valid or not? If it is not valid, then it is false and a type of shirk (associating partners with Allah), such as if he said: "If it were not for the wali (close friend of Allah) so-and-so, who has been buried for decades, such-and-such would not have happened." We say: This is false shirk, because the buried so-and-so cannot be a cause in bringing benefit or repelling harm from you. Attributing that to him is shirk. And in this case, it becomes major shirk, because he made him a manager alongside Allah (Mighty and Majestic), since nothing is attributed to the dead except because the one attributing it believes that he has a secret, hidden control over the universe.
Now, if he attributes it to a valid cause established by the Shari'ah or by sense, is it permissible or not? It is permissible, on the condition that he does not make the cause effective in itself. If he makes the cause effective in itself, then it becomes shirk. These are two.
The third: that he attributes it to a non-legislative cause, but it is not a secret, hidden cause like the matter of the dead. This is minor shirk, such as amulets and talismans and the like, if he does not believe that they act by themselves. If he believes that they act by themselves, then it is not permissible.
So it becomes clear now that a person's saying: "If it were not for such-and-such, such-and-such would not have happened," we divide it first into two categories: either it is a statement of fact or a cause. If it is a statement of fact, then there is no harm with it if it is true and corresponds to reality; it is truth. The second: that he makes it a cause. This has three cases: either this is a hidden cause with no effect whatsoever, such as if he says: "If it were not for the wali (close friend of Allah) so-and-so, such-and-such would not have happened." This is major shirk, because by this statement he believes that this person has control over the universe, since he is dead, so this is a secret, hidden control.
The second: that he attributes it to a legislative cause or to a valid cause established by the Shari'ah or by sense. What do you say?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : This is permissible on the condition that he does not believe that the cause is effective by itself, or that he forgets the Bestower, which is Allah.
The third: that he attributes it to an apparent cause, but it is not established as a cause, neither by the Shari'ah nor by sense. This is a type of minor shirk, such as what? Such as talismans and necklaces that some people wear, saying that they repel the evil eye, and the like. This is minor shirk, because it is not established, neither by the Shari'ah nor by sense.
And it has been mentioned to us previously that the aspect in which it is shirk is that this person established a cause that Allah did not make a cause, so he became a partner with Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) in establishing causes, and Allah the Exalted did not make it a cause, neither legislatively nor cosmically. And what indicates this detail is that the attribution of "if it were not for" to a cause is established by the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), where he said regarding his uncle Abu Talib:
Were it not for me, he would have been in the bottom-most depth of the Fire.
لولا أنا لكان في الدرك الأسفل من النارIf it were not for me
لولا أنا"And if it were not for the multitude of mourners around me *** for their brothers, I would have killed myself
And what they mourn is not like my brother, but *** I console my soul about him by taking comfort in others"
So the result is that attributing a thing to its valid legislative cause, there is no harm in that. Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him), and although the saying of a scholar is not a proof, it is a source of comfort. Ibn al-Qayyim said in the Nuniyyah poem, praising the Companions, he said:
"*** And if it were not for them, there would be no Muslim on earth
And if it were not for them, the earth would have wobbled with its inhabitants, but *** He folded it in, and its pegs are they
And if it were not for them, it would have been darkness with its inhabitants, *** But they are in it like lamps and stars"
So he attributed this to its cause, to its valid cause. And there is no doubt that if it were not for them with the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), in the company of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), because there is no acceptance for them except from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Yes.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : These are the omens. It has been mentioned to us previously that we said if one intends them to be a circumstance, there is no harm. But as a cause, if he intends that they act by themselves, it is major shirk. And if he believes that they are a cause, it is minor shirk.