Explanation of the Author's Statement: The Chapter on Not Saying "My Slave" and "My Female Slave" (Explanation of the Beginning of the Chapter, Reiteration)

The Shaykh : The chapter on not saying "my slave" and "my female slave" means that a person should not say "my slave" regarding a male slave or "my female slave" regarding a female slave. Why is this prohibited? Because if he says "my slave" and attributes it to himself, he may become arrogant toward this slave, may consider himself superior to this slave, and may look down on this slave because he says "my slave," attributing it to himself. For example, he might say, "You are my slave," or say to her, "You are my female slave." However, if someone else says it, such as "this is so-and-so's slave" or "so-and-so's female slave," there is no harm in that. Allah the Exalted said: But the prohibition is when the person himself says "my slave" and "my female slave," especially if he addresses them with it, because there is a difference between addressing and informing. Addressing means saying, "O my slave, come," or "O my female slave, come." Informing is when it is said about a slave, "Who is this slave?" and you say, "This is my slave," or when you say to a person, "Will you buy my slave? Will you buy my female slave?" This is milder. But addressing them with it is the more severe matter, where you call out, "O my slave, O my female slave," or you say it to show arrogance over them, saying, "You are my slave, you are my female slave." This is what is prohibited. So, it is said, "Do not say 'my slave' and 'my female slave.'" Therefore, we say that this word is either attributed by the speaker to himself or to someone else. If he attributes it to someone else, there is no harm in it, and it is permissible. And Allah the Exalted said: And the Muslims have continued to say "this is so-and-so's slave" and "this is so-and-so's female slave" without objection. As for when the speaker attributes it to himself, there are two forms: the first form is saying it in the manner of informing, and the second form is saying it in the manner of addressing, meaning he calls out, "O my slave, O my female slave." And in the form of informing, there are also two aspects:
The first aspect is that he says it in the presence of the slave or the female slave.
The second is that he says it in their absence. If he says it in their absence, it is permissible. For example, if he says to a person, "Will you buy my slave? Will you buy my female slave?" Or, for example, "My slave will be free after my death." Yes, and the like of that. This is permissible and there is no issue with it, and it is not what the hadith prohibited.
The second aspect is that he says it to his slave as information in the presence of whom? The slave. He says, "This is my slave, this is my female slave." In this case, it is looked at: if a harm results from it, such that it leads to the slave's arrogance, the master's arrogance, or the humiliation of the slave, then this is prohibited. This is prohibited not for its own sake, but because it leads to a harm, which is arrogance over Allah's slaves and the humiliation of this slave or this female slave. Do you understand now? As for if he says it in the manner of addressing, "O my slave" and "O my female slave," then this is not permissible.
So the categories are divided first into two: the speaker attributes it to himself, or he attributes it to someone else. If he attributes it to someone else, it is permissible. If he attributes it to himself, there are two forms: the first form is that it occurs in the manner of addressing, "O my slave." Addressing means calling out, "O my slave, O my female slave." This is not permissible due to the prohibition of it, as will come if Allah wills. The second is that he says it in the wording of informing, and this has two aspects: either he says it in the presence of the slave or the female slave, or in their absence. If he says it in their absence, there is no harm in it and there is no objection to it. If he says it in their presence, it is looked at: if a harm related to the slave or the master results from it, it is prohibited; otherwise, there is no harm in it. Yes, otherwise there is no harm in it, because the one who says "this is my slave" or "this is my female slave" does not intend the slavery that is humiliation, but he intends by slavery that it is his property and owned by him, not that it is humiliated like a person's worship of his Lord.
It was said in Sahih, from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: This is a question, not just the title. "Let none of you say to whom? To the slave or the female slave: 'Feed your master and water your master.' Do not say this. Why is it not said? Because there are two objections: the first objection is attributing feeding to the Lord, and its apparent meaning is that the Lord may need to be fed. And "Lord" is one of the names of Allah. And Allah, Mighty and Majestic, feeds but is not fed. So there is a great implication that it is permissible to direct the command to feed Him, "Feed your Lord."
The second is that if you say "Feed your Lord," you are addressing this slave, and in reality, you are scratching his dignity by making him a servant and that one a Lord. So there are two objections: an objection from the wording, "Feed your Lord and water your Lord," and an objection from the meaning, that you make this slave or female slave feel humiliated, because if he is a Lord, then the slave or female slave is a servant. And this, as the common people say, breaks their spirits and puts them in a bad state. So on this basis, it is disliked. As for if a person says it in the absence of the slave, not addressing him, there is no harm in it. For example, if he says, "The Lord of the boy is so-and-so, son of so-and-so," there is no harm in that. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said in the authentic hadith regarding the signs of the Hour: And Yusuf (peace be upon him) said to his two companions in prison: So there is no harm in that, because the story of Yusuf does not contain a wording that implies a deficiency in... "Mention me in the presence of your Lord" does not contain anything that implies a deficiency. And some scholars see in the answer to the story of Yusuf that this... our Shari'ah came with the opposite of it, but upon reflection, it becomes clear that there is a difference between... there is a difference between the two terms, and Allah knows best.
From his saying: , ...? Okay, "Do not say 'my slave' and 'my female slave.'" Not a detail. , the attribution of "Lord" is either to the pronoun of the addressed, or to the pronoun of the speaker, or to the pronoun of the absent, or to an explicit name. How many categories? Four: the pronoun of the speaker, the pronoun of the addressed, the pronoun of the absent, and the fourth? To an explicit name. Clear? Okay, the hadith with us, which of the four categories is it from? From its attribution to the addressed. So, "Do not say 'Feed your Lord and water your Lord,'" because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited it, and for the two causes that Khalid mentioned, that this implies a corrupt meaning regarding the Lord, the word "Lord," even though there is no doubt that the "Lord" here is not the Lord who feeds and is not fed.
And the second is that humiliation may occur for the one who is told "Feed your Lord and water your Lord," and elevation for the master who was named "Lord" in the wording of the address. As for if it is in the wording of absence, if it is attributed to the pronoun of the absent, then there is no harm in it, because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said in the hadith of Jibril which contains the signs of the Hour: And in a wording: As for the first wording, "her Lord," there is no issue in it due to the difference between "Lord" (Rabb) and "Mistress" (Rabbah). What is the difference? The taa is the taa of femininity, so it cannot be that there is any association with Allah in the wording, because Allah the Exalted is only called "Lord" (Rabb) and not "Mistress" (Rabbah). But in the second wording: And this is in al-Bukhari. In that case, the sharing occurs, the sharing occurs. Yes, so we say that there is no harm in it, because it distinguishes between "your Lord" and "her Lord" by the kaa, between "your Lord" with the kaa and "her Lord" with the haa of absence. And it came in the hadith of the lost item: And it is a hadith agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim. However, some scholars said that the hadith of the lost item is only for a beast that is not worshipped as a human is worshipped, and that humiliation does not occur for it or from it as it occurs from a human. But the correct view is that this is not a difference, because the beast worships Allah, or not? But it has a special worship: As for the slaves, He said: They are all: Yes, so we say if it is with the pronoun of the absent, there is no harm in it.
Okay, the third is that it is with the pronoun of the speaker, such that the slave says, "This is my Lord, this is my Lord," for example. Is it permissible or not? Someone might say that this is permissible because this is from the slave to his master, and Allah the Exalted said about the companion of Yusuf: meaning my master. And because the objection from saying "your Lord," which necessitates the humiliation of this slave, is absent, or not? It is absent, because he himself says "this is my Lord," he himself says "this is my Lord." Do you understand?
The fourth is that it is added to an explicit noun, such as saying, "This is the master of so-and-so," or "This is the master of the boy," or "This is the master of the slave woman," and the like. What do you say about this? If we take the wording of the hadith at face value, it appears permissible, and it is indeed permissible as long as it does not involve a prohibited implication. If it does involve a prohibited implication, it is forbidden. For example, if it leads those who hear such speech to think that the master is a true Lord, the Creator, then it is forbidden in that case because of this danger. Otherwise, the original ruling is permissibility. And if we say it is permissible, that does not mean it is equivalent to the word "master" (sayyid). No, "master" is much milder, as will be mentioned later. But we say it is not forbidden because we cannot say it is forbidden, as there is no prohibition mentioned regarding it. In fact, there is evidence indicating the permissibility of adding "Lord" (Rabb) to the pronoun of absence, as in the hadith we referred to. So, how many cases are there? There are four cases.
As for his saying, "Let him say, 'My master and my lord,'" the expectation was that he would say, "Let him say, 'Your master and your lord,'" because the hadith says, . So, what was indicated as guidance was appropriate to the situation, corresponding to what was prohibited. What was prohibited was saying it using the pronoun of address, and what was indicated as guidance was to say it using the pronoun of the speaker: "Let him say, 'My master and my lord.'" Do we say that this indicates that if it is prohibited for a non-slave to say, "Feed your Lord," then it is even more prohibited for the slave to say, "This is my Lord," or "This is for my Lord," or "This car is my Lord's," and the like? This is what the Shaykh understood from it, as will be mentioned in the issues, that it is prohibited. That is, if it is prohibited for another person to say to the slave, "Feed your Lord" or "Wash your Lord," then the slave is prohibited from doing so a fortiori. For this reason, the guidance was directed to whom?