Explanation of the author's statement: And in a narration: (Do not curse time, for Allah is time).

The Shaykh : He said: "And in a narration:

Do not curse Time, for it is Allah Who is Time.

لا تسبوا الدهر فإن الله هو الدهر

Sahih Muslim 2246e

" The benefit of mentioning this narration is that it explicitly forbids cursing time. As for the first one? Huh? The first one does not explicitly forbid it, but it is an indication, and the implication of the speech is that it is forbidden, because Allah threatened those who harm Him But the second one is explicit:
The student: Then time is Allah.

The Shaykh : In my view, it is: "For Allah is time."
The student: ...

The Shaykh : No, "For Allah is time" is the correct wording.
And his saying: This is the reason for the prohibition. It has been mentioned to us repeatedly that among the eloquence of the speech of Allah and His Messenger is that He sometimes joins the ruling with the cause to clarify the wisdom, to increase reassurance, and for the sake of extending the cause to other matters, if the thing explained by the cause is a ruling, then it extends to others.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : No, what we have is "For Allah is time," this wording, this wording that we mentioned.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : The meaning is that "time" is the turner of time, like the first one.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : It does not make sense, the Messenger did not say it this way, prove this to me before...
The student: ...

The Shaykh : What we have is "For Allah is time"
The student: Regarding the theory, O Shaykh...

The Shaykh : ... and always the one who feels deficient, what does he do? He imitates the one he considers more knowledgeable and higher than him. We are now panting after the civilizations... they have now, it is no longer a civilization for them, it has become humiliations for them, but nevertheless we pant after it. They have outpaced us by a lot in these sciences, but we are panting after them, and everything they left behind of the "arameesh" we took, just as Ibn al-Qayyim said in the al-Nuniyyah, he says:
"Like a dog following them, sniffing at bones" May the dogs be excluded, so the result is that some writers who do not have knowledge in the Shari'ah, or whose knowledge is weak and whose certainty is weak, adopt this false idea. And the truth is that if there had been strength among the Muslims, they would not have gone beyond the Qur'an and the Hadith, and they would have seen them as meteors falling upon their falsehoods and burning them. But unfortunately, we have turned away from the Qur'an in reality, and we have abandoned it except in few matters or with few people. Abandoning the Qur'an does not mean abandoning its words and recitation; abandoning its words, meanings, and rulings, all of them. It does not mean that they do not read it. If they read it but did not believe in its reports and did not act upon its rulings, they became abandoners of it. The Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), since they did not abandon the Qur'an, they did not pass ten verses until they learned them and the knowledge and action contained in them. And what do you think if they looked into the knowledge and action contained in it, would they believe in the report? They would believe without doubt, and act upon the ruling. This is the acceptance of the Qur'an and acting upon it. So I say, just as the brother Ahmad said, that this theory has been refuted now, but unfortunately... it is a regrettable thing.