Ibn Hazm said: “They agreed on the prohibition of every name that worships other than Allah, such as 'Abd Amr and 'Abd al-Ka'bah.”

The Shaykh :“Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) said: ‘They agreed on the prohibition of every name that worships other than Allah’”. “They agreed” means the scholars, and agreement means consensus, meaning they reached consensus on the prohibition of every name that worships other than Allah. That is, it is said: 'Abd al-Shams (Servant of the Sun), 'Abd al-Qamar (Servant of the Moon), 'Abd al-Nahar (Servant of the Day), 'Abd al-Hajar (Servant of the Stone), 'Abd al-Lat, 'Abd al-Uzza, and the like; 'Abd al-Masih (Servant of the Messiah), 'Abd al-Husayn, 'Abd 'Ali, 'Abd al-Nabi (Servant of the Prophet), 'Abd al-Rasul (Servant of the Messenger). All of this is forbidden by consensus. Consensus is one of the fundamental proofs, which are the Book, the Sunnah, consensus, and analogy. He says: “such as 'Abd 'Umar and 'Abd al-Ka'bah”. He gave as examples what is attributed to humans and what is attributed to stone. 'Abd 'Umar is attributed to a human, and 'Abd al-Ka'bah to stone. So, whatever is attributed to other than Allah that is worshipped is forbidden by the consensus of the scholars. He says: “and the like”. Like Husayn, and what is similar to that?
The student: Like 'Abd al-Bayt (Servant of the House).

The Shaykh : Yes, 'Abd al-Sayyarah (Servant of the Car), right? 'Abd al-Husayn, 'Abd al-Rasul.
The student: 'Abd al-Zawj (Servant of the Wife).

The Shaykh : 'Abd al-Zawj, hmm, okay, good. It remains to be said: does this consensus not contradict the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) ? Is this a name that worships other than Allah? It is said that the answer is that this is a description. The last one is a description, not a proper name; rather, it is a description where the one immersed in love for these things, preferring them over what pleases Allah, is described by the worshipper. So, 'Abd al-Dinar (Servant of the Dinar) is like saying 'Abid al-Dinar (Worshipper of the Dinar); it is a description, so it does not contradict this consensus. He said: “except 'Abd - I say it as it is ... - 'Abd al-Muttalib”. Correct it.
The student: 'Abda.

The Shaykh : 'Abda and 'Abdi, like that?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : But if he said "ma hasha," he would say 'Abda al-Muttalib, and otherwise it is permissible to say 'Abdi al-Muttalib. So, the exclamatory hasha, when "ma" enters it, it is obligatory to put what follows it in the accusative case, otherwise it is permissible to have either the accusative or the genitive case after it. Okay, hasha 'Abd al-Muttalib. Yes?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes, yes, it accompanies them, but Ibn Malik says it does not accompany them, and others said that it does accompany them. Okay, hasha 'Abd al-Muttalib. 'Abd al-Muttalib means that they did not reach consensus on its prohibition, but what? But they differed. But they differed, and the meaning is not that they did not reach consensus, but that they reached consensus on its permissibility, because this is an exception from the consensus, so it is a matter of difference. Do you understand? Good.
He says: “except 'Abd al-Muttalib, so they did not reach consensus on it”. Why did they not reach consensus on it? Those who said it is permissible said: We cannot say it is forbidden, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said . Do we say the Messenger committed a forbidden act? He did not commit a forbidden act, so it is permissible. So, it is permissible to worship al-Muttalib, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said it, and what the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, no one dares to say is forbidden, except by a text. This is a report of the words of Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him). But the correct view is that 'Abd al-Muttalib is forbidden, and it is not permissible to worship al-Muttalib, so it is not permissible for anyone to name his son 'Abd al-Muttalib. Yes, and that is because what those who permit it used as evidence has no proof in it. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not name anyone 'Abd al-Muttalib, nor did he approve any of his Companions naming him 'Abd al-Muttalib. The discussion is about the ruling, not about reports, or about the ruling, not about reporting. And the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) here reported that he had a grandfather named 'Abd al-Muttalib; he only reported it, he did not approve it. But he became famous by this name, so he was attributed to it. So, there is a difference between reporting and creating/approving. Reporting is one thing, and creating/approving is another. For this reason, he said: . 'Abd Manaf also. Do we say it is permissible to name someone 'Abd Manaf? It is not permissible. The chapter of creation/approving is different from the chapter of reporting. So, the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) about the son of 'Abd al-Muttalib is from the chapter of reporting, not from the chapter of creation/approving. And the scholars said: “One who narrates disbelief is not a disbeliever”. So, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was only speaking about something that happened and ended and passed. So, the correct view is that it is not permissible to worship other than Allah absolutely, not 'Abd al-Muttalib, nor anyone other than 'Abd al-Muttalib. Accordingly, worshipping other than Allah is from the category of shirk (associating partners with Allah). If you name your child 'Abd al-Muttalib, this becomes a type of shirk, or 'Abd al-Rasul becomes a type of shirk, or 'Abd 'Ali becomes a type of shirk, or 'Abd al-Husayn becomes a type of shirk. And all of this is not permissible. He said: “And from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) regarding the verse”. Which verse? “When He gave them a good son,” yes.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : Yes

The questioner : ... he asked him to make ... his name 'Abd al-Muttalib ibn al-Harith ...

The Shaykh : No, the correct one is that his name was al-Muttalib; this is the correct one.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : No, it is not authentic. The correct one is that his name was al-Muttalib, not 'Abd al-Muttalib.

The questioner : Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes

The questioner : The one you mentioned ... 'Abd Manaf.

The Shaykh : Yes

The questioner : In the hadith:

The Shaykh : No, and 'Abd Manaf, because al-Muttalib is said to have been named 'Abd Manaf. Yes.

The questioner : Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes

The questioner : ... is it said that ... for boasting.

The Shaykh : No, absolutely not. The important thing is that the Messenger, the important thing is that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not name anyone 'Abd al-Muttalib, but he mentioned that among his ancestors there was one named this, but he did not, yes. If someone asks: Why did he not say “I am the son of 'Abd Allah” but rather said “I am the son of 'Abd al-Muttalib”? Because 'Abd al-Muttalib is more famous than 'Abd Allah.
He said: “And from Ibn 'Abbas regarding the verse, he said: ‘When Adam covered her’”. Covered whom? Hawwa (Eve). “Adam covered her, he said: ‘She became pregnant, and Iblis came to them’”. Iblis is a form of the verb ablasa, meaning to despair, because he is one who has despaired of the mercy of Allah. Iblis came to them “and said: ‘I am your companion who took you out of Paradise’”. Look at the speech; the story indicates from its context that it is a lie. He said: “‘I am your companion who took you out of Paradise’”. He intends by this speech that they should accept the words he commands them with. Is this a means for them to accept his words or to reject his words?
The student: They reject his words.

The Shaykh : This is a means for them to reject his words. How can he say, "The one who drove you out of Paradise and brought this great calamity upon you, so accept my words"? If that were the case, he would say, "I am an advisor," as the Exalted said: It would not be right for him to say, "I made a mistake with you the first time, and I will make a mistake with you the second time." Yes, he says: "I am your companion who drove you out of Paradise, so obey me — this is a sentence of oath — or I will make him have the horns of a male gazelle, so that he comes out of your belly and splits it open". So obey me. And if you did not obey me, what would happen? I will make him have the horns of a male gazelle, and the male gazelle is the male of the gazelles, so he will come out of your belly and split it open. No one can imagine that Adam and Eve would believe that Iblis is able to create horns for the fetus that split its belly. They could never believe this. If we believed that, the matter would be great, or not? Yes. "He will split it open, and I will certainly do it, to threaten them". What is the demand he is making when he says, "Obey me"? "Name him 'Abd al-Harith". "Name him 'Abd al-Harith". Why did he choose 'Abd al-Harith? It was said that because Iblis's name is al-Harith, he wanted them to worship him for himself. "Name him 'Abd al-Harith, but they refused to obey him. It is said that he came out dead". This is less severe than him having horns that split the belly. Yes, he came out dead. Did the threat from the first warning, "I will make him have the horns of a male gazelle," happen? No. It is possible that his saying "I will certainly do it" was part of what he threatened them with, that he said, "I will bring him out dead." It is possible, but what he explicitly stated, which is that he would make him have the horns of a male gazelle, did not happen. He says: "So he came out dead, then she became pregnant, and it came to them, and he mentioned it to them, so the love of the child overtook them, and they named him 'Abd al-Harith. That is His saying, the Exalted:

they ascribe partners to Him concerning that which He has given them

جعلا له شركاء فيما آتاهما

[Al-A'raf 7:190]

Narrated by Ibn Abi Hatim". This is the interpretation of the verse as narrated from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him). But this narration is weak. In fact, Ibn Hazm said that it is a fabricated, false, and lying tale. A fabricated, false, and lying tale is not authentic. This one says: "That is His saying, the Exalted:

They made partners with Her in what He gave them.

جعلا لها شركاء فيما آتاهما

, Narrated by Ibn Abi Hatim, and he has a sound chain from Qatadah —". He has a sound chain for whom? For Ibn Abi Hatim. "With a sound chain from Qatadah. He said: 'Partners in his obedience, but not in his worship' ". "Partners in his obedience, but not in his worship". This means that they obeyed him in what he commanded them, not in worship. They did not worship him, but they made the child a slave to other than Allah. But they made the child a slave to other than Allah. And there is a difference between obedience and worship. If someone obeys a person in disobeying Allah and commits the sin, does he make him a partner with Allah in worship? No, but in obedience, where he obeyed him in what Allah has forbidden.
"And he has a sound chain from Mujahid regarding His saying:

If You should give us a good

لئن آتيتنا صالحا

[Al-A'raf 7:189]

He said: 'They feared that he would not be a human being' ". "They feared" — the pronoun refers to Adam and Eve — that he would not be a human being. "They feared" means they were afraid. And what would happen? Would he be an animal, or a jinn, or what?
"And he mentioned its meaning from al-Hasan and Sa'id and others". But the correct view from al-Hasan (may Allah have mercy on him) is that the verse refers to other than Adam and Eve. That the verse refers to the polytheists among the children of Adam. This is the correct view from al-Hasan. And the rest of the evidence that this view is not correct regarding the verse will come, if Allah wills.
The first point is that there is no authentic report from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding this. And this is among the reports that are not accepted except by revelation. And Ibn Hazm said about this story: "That it is a fabricated, false, and lying narration".
Second, we say that if this story were about Adam and Eve, their state would either be that they repented from this shirk (associating partners with Allah) or that they remained upon this shirk. Is that not so?
The student : Yes

The Shaykh : If we say that they remained upon this shirk, that means that Adam, who is one of the prophets, and Eve died upon shirk. And this is something that is impossible. If we said that, it would be greater than what some of the atheists said about Adam and Eve:
"When we mention Adam and his deeds *** And his marriage of his daughters to his sons in the tent
We know that creation is from the offspring of a fornicator *** And that all people are from the element of fornication"
I seek refuge in Allah. This one who allows that Adam (peace and blessings be upon him), who is one of the prophets, dies upon shirk, is greater than that. I say either they repented from it or they did not repent. If they did not repent, they died upon shirk, and this is a great lie. And if they repented from it, then that cannot be consistent with the perfection of the wisdom, justice, and mercy of Allah. Because if they did not repent from it, if they repented from it, Allah the Exalted would have mentioned their sin and not mentioned their repentance, and this is impossible. And Allah, Mighty and Majestic, when He mentions a sin that occurred to some of His prophets and messengers, He mentions their repentance from it. So it is absolutely impossible that Allah mentions the sin of Adam and Eve, and they repented from it, and He did not mention their repentance.
The third point is that if we said that, we would allow shirk for the prophets, and the prophets are protected from shirk by the consensus of the scholars.
The fourth point is that it is established in the hadith of intercession. It is established in the hadith of intercession that people come to Adam seeking intercession from him, and he excuses himself with what? With his eating from the tree. And eating from the tree is a sin less severe than shirk. If shirk had occurred from him, his excuse with it would be greater and more appropriate and more likely.
The fifth point in this story mentioned from Ibn 'Abbas is that the devil came to them and said: "I am your companion who drove you out of Paradise". Yes. Would someone who wants to mislead them say something like this? No. Because the one who wants them to obey him does not come with something that repels, but comes with something that brings them closer to accepting his words. So if he said, "I am your companion who drove you out of Paradise," they would know with certainty that he is an enemy to them, so they would not accept from him, neither in a direct way nor in an indirect way. The sixth point is that in this story he says: "I will make him have the horns of a male gazelle, so that he comes out of your belly and splits it open". And at that time, either Adam and Eve believe that this is possible for him, or they do not believe it. Is that not so? If they believe that it is possible for him, this is shirk in lordship, because they believed that he can create, and there is no creator except Allah. And if they did not believe that he can do it, then it is not possible that they accept his words while they know that it is not possible for him. These are six points.
And among them also, we say that Allah said at the end of the verse: with the plural pronoun. If it were Adam and Eve, He would have said "about their shirk" or "about their associating partners" or something similar. So this indicates that Adam and Eve are not intended by it. So these points indicate that this story is fundamentally false, and that it is not permissible to believe that shirk occurs from Adam and Eve in any way. And the prophets are purified from shirk and cleared of it by the consensus of the scholars. And on this basis, the interpretation of the verse, as we mentioned in the previous lesson, is that it refers to the children of Adam who committed real shirk, for among them are polytheists and among them are monotheists. And as for His saying.