Explanation of the author's statement: And Ibn Majah narrated from al-Tufayl, the maternal brother of 'A'ishah, who said: (I saw as if I came upon a group of Jews, and I said: You are the people, if only you did not say: 'Uzayr is the son of Allah. They said: And you are the people, if only you did not say: What Allah wills and what Muhammad wills. Then I passed by a group of Christians, and I said: You are the people, if only you did not say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. They said: And you are the people, if only you did not say: What Allah wills and what Muhammad wills. When morning came, I told those I told. Then I came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and informed him. He said: Did you tell anyone? I said: Yes. He said: Then he praised Allah and extolled Him, and then said: As for after, al-Tufayl saw a dream and informed those of you whom he informed, and you said a word that such and such prevented me from forbidding you from it, so do not say: What Allah wills and what Muhammad wills, but say: What Allah wills alone).

The Shaykh : He said: "And Ibn Majah narrated from al-Tufayl, the maternal brother of 'A'ishah, who said:

I saw as if I came upon a group of Jews

رأيت كأني أتيت على نفر من اليهود

" I saw, meaning a dream in sleep, this "as if" (ka-anni) is for comparison, and "an" is a particle of emphasis, and it is not "kanna"? It is "kanna," and its subject is the yā', and the clause "I came" is its predicate, and his saying: a group (nifir) is from three to nine, followers of Moses.
, "You are the people" means this is a word of praise, like when you say: These are the men, these are the people, this is a word of commendation, . Now, this "if only you did not say 'Uzayr is the son of Allah," is this disbelief or not? Yes, claiming that Allah has a son is disbelief, and 'Uzayr was previously mentioned as a righteous man whom the Jews claimed to be the son of Allah, and this is from their lies and fabrications. One might ask: Is this the only fault of the Jews?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : They have many faults, but why did he single this out?
The student: It is the greatest of them.

The Shaykh : This is one of the greatest of them, and perhaps it is also well-known among them and frequent among them.
, they criticized us for saying: What Allah wills and what Muhammad wills, and this is minor shirk (associating partners with Allah), because the Companions who said that undoubtedly did not believe that the will of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is equal to the will of Allah. Now, so they criticized this phrase, and the one who criticized the affirmation of the will for the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and its being equal to the will of Allah? Its being equal, as for the will of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), he has a will, everyone has a will and a desire.
The Messiah is who? 'Isa ibn Maryam, and he was called al-Masih (the Messiah) meaning "the one who wipes," so it is fa'il (active participle) in the sense of fa'il (doer), because he did not wipe a person with a defect unless they were cured, he cured the blind and the leper, if he wiped them they were cured by the permission of Allah, so he was called al-Masih. And they say that the Messiah is the son of Allah because Satan played with them, he said how can one come without a father, so he is the son of Allah, a son of Allah, refuge with Allah, especially if it is in the Gospel as it is in the Qur'an , so they say this is a part of Allah the Exalted, from our spirit, the addition is to whom? To Allah, our spirit, nā, they said: So he is a part of Allah, and the part is the son, I say now because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) says regarding Fatimah: meaning a part, and as Allah the Exalted said: they said: So he would be some of Allah and a part of Allah, refuge with Allah, because Allah said: I breathed into him of My spirit, in it from My spirit?
The student: In Adam.

The Shaykh : In Adam, in it is from our spirit, but this confusion from this addition is from Satan, and the answer to it is very easy, for if Allah the Exalted attributes something to Himself, put it down, if He attributes something to Himself, then either it is a separate entity distinct from Allah, or it is an attribute by which no one is described, if the attributed thing is an attribute, then it is from His attributes, and it is not a created thing, like the speech of Allah, the hearing of Allah, the power of Allah, the might of Allah, and the like. And as for if the thing attributed to Allah is a distinct entity or an attribute in that entity, then it is not from the attributes of Allah, but it is a created thing distinct from Allah the Exalted, distinct from Him and not from Him, like: the she-camel of Allah, the house of Allah, the mosques of Allah, and the like, yes?
The student: And the servants of Allah.

The Shaykh : And the servants of Allah, many, is that so?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : And likewise, if it is an attribute in a separate entity, then it is not from the attributes of Allah the Exalted, but it is from the attributes of that entity. The spirit, some people said it is an attribute in the body, but this view is contrary to the stronger position (rajih) among the people of the Sunnah and the community, and that the spirit is an entity, but it is a subtle entity, and it enters the body and settles in it as water settles in dry clay, it enters it, and for this reason, at death, the angel takes it, it is shrouded, and it is raised to Allah, and the person sees it at his death, so the correct view is that it is an entity, even though some people say it is an attribute, but it is not so, life is indeed an attribute, a person being alive or dead is an attribute, but the spirit is not, the spirit is an entity, this is the stronger view among the scholars.
Now, so we say to these groups that Allah attributed the spirit of 'Isa to Him as He attributed the she-camel and the house and the like, by way of what? Honor and exaltation, and undoubtedly the thing attributed to Allah acquires honor, until some poets say about their beloved, he says:
"Do not call me except by 'O her servant' *** For it is the noblest of my names"
Do not say O Muhammad, O 'Ali, O Bakr, O Khalid, no, say O servant of Layla, for example, if he is the madman of Layla, say O servant of Layla, say O servant of so-and-so, this is the noblest of my names, poor thing, because when her name comes, he delights in this name, may Allah keep us safe.
He says: , his saying: I told those I told, how is the speech: this is "I told those I told"? Is this not like the saying of the one who says:
"As if we and the water around us *** Are a group sitting, their sweetness is water"
Or that we stood and the sky is above us and the earth is below us, I told those I told, it is known that he is not informing except those he informed, what do you say?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : What do you mean?
The student: It means I told people.
I told people, and this is the best thing to say that the intended meaning of this ambiguity is, I told those I told, the ambiguity, and this is like His saying the Exalted what overtook them overtook them! You might say this is a tautology, it is known that what overtook them is only what overtook them, so we say: this is from the category of ambiguity, but it sometimes differs, the ambiguity is sometimes for exaltation, and sometimes for diminution, and sometimes for belittling, according to the context, so "what overtook them from the sea overtook them," meaning: something great from the sea overtook them.
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) asked this question because if he had said "I did not inform anyone," the expected response would be that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) would say to him "Do not inform anyone," this is the apparent meaning, that the Messenger asked him because if he said "I did not inform," he would say "Do not inform anyone," then he would clarify the ruling to him (peace and blessings be upon him), but when he said that he had informed, it became necessary to clarify it to the people in general, because when something spreads, it must be announced, unlike if it was private, then he informs those who received the news.
Then he said: and the apparent, and Allah knows best, from the story is that he informed the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and there was someone with him or not? There was someone with him.
, what is praise (hamd)? Describing the praised one with perfection, and extolling (ithna') is repeating that description, he praised Allah and extolled Him, then he said: "As for after" (amma ba'd) was previously explained to us that it means whatever happens after, meaning after what I mentioned, so and so.
It is as if the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was aware of that, , so what prevents him from doing so? Modesty prevents him, as in another narration, but not modesty from refuting falsehood; rather, it is modesty from forbidding it without being commanded to do so. That is, he is modest before Allah the Exalted to command something that Allah has not commanded to be refuted. This is what the wording must be understood to mean, if it is preserved: that the modesty preventing him is not modesty from refutation, because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is not modest about the truth. But it is modesty from refuting something that has become common on people’s tongues and which they have grown accustomed to, before he is commanded to refute it. Just as the people remained for years drinking wine until it was forbidden in Surat al-Ma'idah, which was among the last things revealed. So when the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was not commanded to forbid it, he remained silent. Then, when the prediction came about regarding the refutation by these Jews and Christians, he saw that it was necessary to refute it, because now there was blame upon the Muslims and refutation of it.
He says: He forbade them from what is prohibited, and explained to them what is permissible and lawful, .