Explanation of the author's statement: The chapter on not saying "my slave" and "my maidservant." In the Sahih, it is narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said:

The Shaykh : And he should say and he should not say, "I fed my Lord" or "I helped my Lord," or "Feed my Lord" or "Help my Lord." Instead, he should say, "My master" and "my lord," saying, "I fed my master," "I fed my lord," and the like. Did you understand? As for when we say that saying "Feed your Lord" is specific to the one addressing the slave, this is because it involves humiliating the slave if he is told, "Feed your Lord," unlike when he says it himself, "I will feed my Lord, I will help my Lord, I will assist my Lord," and the like, in which case the humiliation is absent. It is said that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), when he directed the address to the one speaking about the slave, directed the address to the slave himself, to the slave himself.
The lam here is the lam of command, and the intended meaning is guidance, not obligation. It is not obligatory for the slave to say "my master"; if he says "my owner," that is permissible, or is it not? It is permissible; it is not obligatory. If he says, for example... for example, as the common people say, is that permissible? It is permissible. The important point is that the lam here is for guidance, meaning he should say "my master" instead of "my Lord." If we say that the first phrase indicates prohibiting the slave from saying "my Lord, my master, and my lord," then "my master" here is "master" attached to the first-person pronoun, not "the Master" in the absolute sense. "The Master" in the absolute sense belongs only to Allah (Mighty and Majestic), but "master" in the attached form can be used for other than Allah, for humans. Now, "master" originally means honor, because it is from *sudd*, which means honor, status, and the like. There is no doubt that the status of the master relative to the slave is more honorable than the status of the slave relative to the master, who is his master. "Master" is used for many meanings, including: the noble, the obeyed, the influential one who is a prominent figure and a notable of the town. From this comes the saying of the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them): "Those whose hearts are to be reconciled" are the masters who are obeyed in their tribes. Did you understand? Also, the husband is called "master" because he has authority over his wife, until the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Women are captives among you," meaning they are in the position of a captive. Now, what is the evidence for this? The evidence is the saying of Allah the Exalted: What is meant by "her master"? Her husband; it refers to her husband. It is also used for the owner, as in this hadith: "He should say, 'My master and my lord.'" So it has three usages, and it may have other usages. Now, "my master." Incidentally, it has become common among people now for women to be named or described with this term, so they say "Mrs. So-and-so," or if they want to refer to women, they say "the ladies." And I have men and ladies, and... you find it written on the restrooms: "For ladies" and next to it "For men." Men have no right to the title of "master"; things have been reversed now. Men are called "for men" and women are called "for ladies." Is this a reversal of the facts? Because the masters are the men in reality. But those people have reversed it, so they do not speak of a woman except as "Mrs.," while a man is just a man. Yes, these expressions that come to our tongues without us realizing them—I have always warned you or alerted you that we must scrutinize these words and look at whether they agree with our religion or not. If they agree, we accept them, not because they came to us from those people, but because they agree with our religion, or because our religion brought them. If they contradict it, we must cast them behind our backs. As for continuing with them as if we were deaf, dumb, and blind, that is a mistake. Therefore, we should say that if we want to refer to women, we should refer to them as Allah referred to them: Men are men and women are women. And so we say that "master" is used for three things: the husband, the one of honor and status, and the third, the owner. And his saying: "And my lord," hmm?

The questioner : ... If he addresses them as a group, he said...

The Shaykh : I mean, no, this is few. This is few. You may not have looked at some hotels or public places; you find the restrooms like this. I found it, I saw it with my own eyes, I saw it with my own eyes, hmm?

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : I mean, but I saw with my own eyes that it says "Men and Ladies." This is injustice to us. If they make them "ladies," they make us "masters," otherwise let us be men and they be women.
The student: ... Ladies and masters.

The Shaykh : I mean, this pleased us in one way and upset us in another way. They give them precedence over us, and we are more deserving of precedence. Yes, indeed.

The questioner : ... Is the mention of "lady" used for women in the Shari'ah?

The Shaykh : Yes, it does not contradict, but "Mrs. So-and-so" is like what was mentioned for "Mr. So-and-so."

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : It does not contradict

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : The point is that it was mentioned in this form and that form, but making "ladies" a generic name or a proper name for women, that was not mentioned. The single "lady" is not like... and she has the right to be a lady. "Ladies" includes the wicked, the prostitutes, and the disbelieving women. Yes.
And his saying means "he should say, 'My lord.'" How can it be "my lord" when the *mawla* is Allah the Exalted? We say that *mawla* is of two types: absolute lordship, which belongs to Allah the Exalted, like absolute mastery, because Allah the Exalted is the *Wali al-Hamid* (the Praiseworthy Guardian), the Guardian of everyone, yes? Yes, the Guardian of everyone in the general sense, as Allah the Exalted said: So He made him a guardian over these liars. This is the general guardianship, so Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) is the Guardian of everyone. As for specific guardianship, it is for the believers: Look, *Subhan Allah*, the Qur'an is great. It did not say "and not the guardian of the disbelievers," and the context required it to say "and not the guardian of the disbelievers," but it said "no guardian for them," meaning neither he is a guardian nor are their guardians, whom they take as gods, guardians. So it became broader, it became broader. The result is that absolute guardianship belongs to Allah the Exalted, while the attached, restricted guardianship is used for other than Allah the Exalted, used for other than Allah the Exalted. It occurs with many meanings in the Arabic language, including: the supporter, the one who takes charge of affairs, the master, and the freed slave. Allah the Exalted said: meaning his *mawla*. meaning his *mawla*. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: And it is said that Zayd ibn Harithah was the *mawla* of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: So *mawla* is used for several meanings, but is it general guardianship or specific guardianship? It is specific, restricted guardianship. And by this we know that people's disapproval of addressing kings by saying "my lord" has no basis, because the intended meaning is "my lord, the one who takes charge of my affairs," and there is no doubt that the head of state takes charge of its affairs, as He said the Exalted: Now, "he should say, 'My master and my lord.'" Does the slave say to his *mawla*, "O my lord"?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Yes, he says, "O my master." And if asked, "Who is your master?" he says, "My master is so-and-so," and there is no harm in that. To whom is this address directed? To the master. One should not say "my slave" or "my female slave," because we are all servants of Allah, and our women are female servants of Allah. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, So a person should not say to his slave, "my slave" or "my female slave." Why? First, because if he says "my slave," it is likening himself to Allah (Mighty and Majestic), even if only in the outward appearance of the wording, because Allah (Mighty and Majestic) addresses His servants with the word "my slave," as in the hadith: and the like. If a person says of his slave, "he is my slave," he becomes a partner with Allah (Mighty and Majestic) in making this created being his slave, even if only in wording. And although the master does not intend by saying "my slave" what Allah the Exalted intends by saying "my slave," but rather the master intends by saying "my slave" what? It means "my owned one, the one I own." But even so, this falls under the category of—pray two rak'ahs, my brother—under the category of purifying the wording and distancing oneself from what implies associating partners with Allah. However, if he says it by way of reporting a fact, for example, if he says, "Who is this? He is the slave of so-and-so," and he says, "This is my slave," that is permissible. Is it or is it not? It is permissible. Or, for example, he says, "I sold my slave so-and-so," or "I married off my slave so-and-so," or "I bought such-and-such for my slave," and the like. This is permissible. But addressing him as "O my slave" or saying "You are my slave"—this is what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited. He said, The female slave is called an "ummah" (female slave) and is also called a "jariyah" (maiden). But "my jariyah" is permissible, whereas "my ummah" is not, because "my ummah" implies servitude, so it is the counterpart of "my slave." As for "my jariyah," it is the counterpart of "my ghulam" (male slave), and "my ghulam" is permissible, and likewise "my jariyah" is permissible.
And let him say, "My slave, yes." Who says this? The master says, "O my young man," "O my young woman," "O my ghulam," "O my jariyah," and the like. Or, "This is my ghulam," "This is my jariyah," "This is my young man," "This is my young woman," or the like of these words. All of this is in the category of protecting tawhid (the oneness of Allah). All of this that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited is for the protection of tawhid and to distance oneself from shirk (associating partners with Allah), even in wording. For this reason, some of the scholars, including our Shaykh 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Sa'di (may Allah have mercy on him), held that the prohibition in this hadith is not by way of prohibition (tahrim) but rather by way of etiquette, excellence, and what is most complete and best. In any case, the details we have mentioned clarify the ruling: if it leads to the humiliation of this man and the arrogance of his master, then it is by way of prohibition. And if the matter does not go beyond being shirk in wording without intending the meaning, then it is certainly lesser.
And in this hadith, among the benefits, is the good teaching of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and that when he prohibited something, he opened for people its opposite; he opened for people what is permissible for them. He said, And this, just as it is the way of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), is also the way of the Qur'an, as we explained in the tafsir (exegesis) in His saying:
The student: O you who believe

The Shaykh : And likewise, it is necessary for the scholars and the callers to Islam that when they close upon people a forbidden door, they open for them the permissible door, so that they do not restrict people and block the paths before them. Because in opening the door, there are two great benefits:
The first benefit is facilitating the abandonment of the forbidden for these people. Is it or is it not? Because if they know that there is something alternative, that there is something alternative, it becomes easy for them.
And the second thing is clarifying that the Islamic religion has spaciousness for people, and that what people need, the Islamic religion encompasses it. It does not restrict people so that they cannot say anything or do anything except... what replaces it... What replaces saying "my slave" and "my female slave," where is it taken from? Sami.
The student: Let none of you say, "Feed

The Shaykh : Meaning, let him not say, "Feed your Lord," and the prohibition of saying "my slave" and "my female slave."
The student: ...

The Shaykh : The author does not argue with his saying; he argues for his saying, not with his saying.
The student :

The Shaykh : Be patient, define it.
The student:

The Shaykh : And let none of you say "my slave" and "my female slave." Yes, correct. Good, so that we do not be like the one who asks, "What is the ruling on..."? It is in the category of etiquette in words and distancing oneself from resembling shirk, even in wording. Did you understand? Then, if it is accompanied by what necessitates prohibition, it becomes haram (forbidden), such as the master's arrogance and the slave's humiliation... in the right of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), as in "Feed your Lord" and "Light your Lord," it becomes... forbidden. Otherwise, it is in the category of purifying oneself only. And we mentioned to you last Saturday that this is the choice of our Shaykh 'Abd al-Rahman al-Sa'di (may Allah have mercy on him) that this is in the category of etiquette in words. Good, what remains with us is "Let him say 'my master'" and "Let him say 'my master and my lord.'" Yes, "Let him say 'my master and my lord.'" Has it not been reported that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said, Yes? How does he say "my lord" here?
The student: Here... it is absolute.

The Shaykh : Yes
The student: As for lordship attributed to the slave,

The Shaykh : Well done. It is specific. As for absolute lordship, it is for Allah. And as for restricted lordship, it is permissible. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, (peace and blessings be upon him)... Lordship is for Him over all the children of Adam. And He the Exalted said, And the scholars have continued to say that if the master says to his slave such-and-such, "Yes," and if the slave says to his master such-and-such, and they speak with it without objection. Good, what do you say about "my master"? Is it permissible or is it not?
The student: Permissible.

The Shaykh : Permissible? Meaning, let him say "my master and my lord" instead of "my Lord." It is permissible; it is from what is permissible. Yes. Good, how is it permissible when the master (mawla) is Allah (Mighty and Majestic)?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : How?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : How is it permissible for us to say to this master "my master" when the mastership (wilayah) is for Allah (Mighty and Majestic)?
The student: Absolute mastership is for Allah.

The Shaykh : Yes
The student: And this is specific mastership... the one in authority...

The Shaykh : Is there no harm in it? Good, correct. It is said that absolute mastership is for Allah, and as for restricted mastership, it is for the one to whom it is attributed. Yes. Allah the Exalted said, And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, The result is that if "mawla" (master) is attributed, there is no harm in it, because it is used for many meanings. Even to the extent that we can say of the one who takes charge of an orphan's wealth that he is the "mawla" of the orphan. Is it or is it not? Or is it not? And people have continued to say "mawla of so-and-so" for the freed slave, and it is said "mawla of so-and-so" for the one who freed him. The difference between them in their view is that the one who frees is called "mawla" and the freed one is called "mawla," but what is the difference? If the one intended is the one who frees, it is said "mawla from above," and if the one intended is the freed one, it is said "mawla from below," "mawla from below," in order to distinguish between this and that. Yes.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : No.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : Is it correct? Meaning, if I... wronged him.

The questioner : ... The pronoun refers to...

The Shaykh : That it is the king. Yes, correct. Good, are there issues other than those the author mentioned in the chapter? Are there or are there not? There are issues, among them:
The good teaching of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and that when he prohibited a saying, he guided to another saying. When he said "do not say," he said "let him say" or not? And among them is that the command comes for permissibility. The command comes for permissibility. Where is it taken from, O Rashid?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : What is this lam? The lam of command?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : It is not for recommendation.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Correct? Yes, and it is for permissibility.
The student: For guidance, for guidance.

The Shaykh : Yes, for guidance. This is a substitute for that. He guided him to a permissible matter. Good, what is the sign that the command is for permissibility, because it is confusing now; sometimes we say the command is for obligation, sometimes for recommendation, and sometimes we say for permissibility? The scholars say that if it comes in opposition to a prohibited command, it is for permissibility. If it is in opposition to a prohibited command, it is for permissibility. Here, it is in opposition to a prohibited command, so this is for permissibility. In opposition to a prohibited command, it is for permissibility. You ask permission of a man in his house... you knock on the door and he says to you, "Enter." The command is for permissibility. And for this reason, if you do not enter, you are not considered a sinner, because the command here is for permissibility. So, if it is in opposition to a prohibited command, meaning in the permissibility of something prohibited, it is for permissibility. Yes.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : No, no, this is guidance. This is recommendation.

The questioner : It is not from this. It is not... for permissibility.

The Shaykh : No, it is for guidance, for recommendation. It is recommended.

The questioner : ... For prohibition.

The Shaykh : How... for prohibition.

The questioner : Meaning... for dislike and reprehensibility.

The Shaykh : This is according to the circumstances.

The questioner : It is not from itself.

The Shaykh : No, no, it is not from itself. What is your question?

The questioner : His saying, "The wording is general. Do not say 'my slave' and 'my female slave'... We said if it is... for reporting...

The Shaykh : The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says that this is not said in the sense of absolute guidance, meaning guidance intended to be absolute. That is, do not say this absolutely; it is in the sense of guidance and plurality. And for this reason, he pointed to it by saying, "The note is for the intended meaning, and he placed it there." So the author (may Allah have mercy on him) intended to avoid these things in order to distance himself from what resembles shirk (associating partners with Allah), even in terms of wording. Then he returned to the question: does it prohibit it or not? He is looking at what consequences follow from it.

The questioner : ... the difference between the forbidden and the possible

The Shaykh : Which one?

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : Yes, the apparent wording of the author is that there is no difference. The apparent wording of the author is that there is no difference, ... because even saying "my master" to a young boy may imply a type of humiliation for him and subjugation ... to a status he does not deserve.