In the Path of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), Part Three: Who wants to just mess around? Who wants to just mess around means someone who is sitting with nothing to do, yes, and he has...

The Shaykh : In the Path of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), Part Three: Who wants to just mess around? Who wants to just mess around means someone who is sitting with nothing to do, yes, and he has... worries, and he gets up... I am saying this... I make an image, whether it is a statue or drawn by hand...
The student: Futility

The Shaykh : It is messing around and removing worries and sorrows from oneself, because when a person moves and works, his worries disappear, for the soul becomes occupied with what is before it and forgets what came before. So is he included in the first category or the second, or is he in a rank below the first and the second?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : He is in a rank below the first and the second. There is no doubt that it is comparable to the creation of Allah, because intention is not a condition for similarity. Therefore, if someone imitates the Jews or the Christians in their clothing or appearance or the like, we say this is forbidden. If he says, "I did not intend to imitate them," we say that if the similarity occurs, it is realized, whether you intended it or not. As the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said to him, because if the similarity is realized, there is no need for the intention. So these are three categories, or three intentions, in the case of... what?
The student: One who makes images.

The Shaykh : In the case of one who makes images... like what some teachers do, yes, they make images for the sake of... the students, or as they say, for the sake of clarification. And this is also forbidden; this is prohibited and not permissible...
He said, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: What is the end of the chain of narration in this hadith? The end of the chain is Allah (Mighty and Majestic). If the end of the chain is Allah, it is called a Qudsi hadith because of its sanctity and its excellence over the Prophetic hadiths. If the end of the chain is the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), it is called Marfu' because of its elevated rank over what is attributed to other created beings. If it is attributed to a Companion, it is called Mawquf because it stops with him. If it is attributed to a Successor or someone after him, it is called Maqtu'. It is called Maqtu'. So we have four things: Maqtu', Mawquf, Marfu', and Qudsi. The highest is the Qudsi, then the Marfu', then the Mawquf, then the Maqtu'. For example, if a hadith is attributed to Mujahid, what is it called?
The student: Maqtu'.

The Shaykh : Maqtu', because he is a Successor. And if it is attributed to Ibn Mas'ud...
The student: Mawquf.

The Shaykh : Then it is Marfu'.
The student: Mawquf.

The Shaykh : Mawquf?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : And if it is attributed to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)...
The student: It is raised.

The Shaykh : Then it is Marfu', and it is either legal or real. And if it is attributed to Allah (Mighty and Majestic), it is called Qudsi because of its sanctity.
The discussion regarding the Qudsi hadith: Is it the speech of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) in both wording and meaning, or is it the speech of Allah in meaning but not in wording? Yes.
The student: The latter.

The Shaykh : The latter is closer, because one does not worship by its wording, meaning that you do not worship by reciting it. If it were the speech of Allah in wording, it would be possible to read it in prayer as you read the Qur'an, and it would also be a miracle, as the speech of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is a miracle. If it were the speech of Allah in wording, it would have a higher chain of narration than the Qur'an, because the chain of the Qur'an is between the Messenger and his Lord.
The student: Jibril

The Shaykh : Jibril, and the Messenger narrates it from Allah directly, as appears from its wording. And this cannot be; this Qudsi hadith cannot have a higher chain of narration than the Qur'an. Some scholars said that we say, as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Allah said," and we do not investigate whether it is the wording of Allah, whether the wording is the wording of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) or not the wording of the speech of Allah (Mighty and Majestic)? It is not for us to investigate this, but we say, as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said. However, the Qur'an is undoubtedly higher than the Qudsi hadiths by consensus, because it relates to rulings that do not relate to the rulings of the Qudsi hadiths, or are not equal to them. For example, the Qur'an is not touched except by the purified, whereas if all the Qudsi hadiths were compiled, it is permissible for the purified and the unpurified to touch them. The Qur'an is not recited by one in a state of major ritual impurity, whereas this is recited by one in a state of major ritual impurity. If a person denied even one letter of the Qur'an upon which the reciters have agreed, he would be a disbeliever, unlike this. The Qur'an is not valid to sell, according to the opinion of many scholars, unlike this. And the important thing is that there are differences between the Qudsi hadiths and the Noble Qur'an. This is an interrogative particle, and its intended meaning is negation, i.e., no one is more unjust. And when negation comes in the form of a question, it is more eloquent than simple negation or pure negation, because when negation comes in the form of a question, it is infused with the meaning of a challenge, as if the one negating is challenging you, saying, "Bring me someone stronger than such-and-such, or more knowledgeable than such-and-such, or more understanding than such-and-such." By this, we know that the interrogative which means negation is...
The student: More eloquent.

The Shaykh : More eloquent in negation than pure, simple negation, because it is...
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Infused with challenge and threat, meaning it includes them. And his saying If we say that its meaning is "no one is more unjust," then there remains a problem, because such a formulation is frequent in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Allah the Exalted said: And there are many examples of this. So how do we say "no one is more unjust" when in another verse or another text, no one is more unjust? Would there not be a contradiction in that? The answer is no, because the meaning is that these share in being the most unjust, that these share in being the most unjust, meaning that they are on the same level in being at the peak of injustice, in being at the peak of injustice. This is one aspect. The second aspect is that being the most unjust is relative, meaning no one is more unjust than this in this type of action, not in everything. For example, means who is more unjust than those who fabricate lies against others, among those who fabricated a lie against Allah, not in everything. means no one is more unjust than those who prevented people from the places of worship, from those who prevented them from the mosques of Allah... And on this interpretation, there is no problem in that. So being the most unjust is... what?
The student: Relative.

The Shaykh : Relative, meaning relative to this type of action. Who is more unjust than one who went to create like the creation of Allah? On the second aspect, it is a ratio. How do we say, meaning, who is more unjust than one who imitates someone in making something, from among...
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : ...from among those who went to create like the creation of Allah. But someone might say that this has no benefit in reality, because imitating so-and-so in his making involves injustice.
The student: No.

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: No.

The Shaykh : The original state is that there is no injustice, but there may be injustice if it is his right to be exclusive in this work, and then you come to compete with him in his work. There may be some injustice in that. And His saying, Exalted is He: What is the grammatical analysis of ? What is its position in the grammar? Yes.
The student: Present tense verb.

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Present tense verb.

The Shaykh : It is a present tense verb, but what is its position in the grammar?
The student: A state (hal).

The Shaykh : A state (hal) from...
The student: From the doer (fā'il).

The Shaykh : From the subject...
The student: Went (dhahaba).

The Shaykh : Went, meaning who is more unjust than one who went creating, i.e., in creation. And his saying Creation in language, the original meaning is estimation, as the poet said:
"And you do not do what you created *** And some people create and then do not give life"
"Do (tafri)" means you do, and "what you created" means what you estimated. And creation is used for the action after the estimation, and this is the common usage: that creation arising from estimation, contemplation, and consideration. Yes, contemplation and consideration for the human being, not for Allah, is creation. So on this, we say that creation here means making after looking and contemplating by this image-maker. And his saying: It affirms that other than Allah may be a creator, while we know that the oneness of lordship is singling out Allah the Exalted with what? With creation, ownership, and management, as passed to us previously. I think singling out Allah the Exalted with creation, ownership, and management is the oneness of lordship. Did this not pass to you previously?
The student: Yes.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes
The student: With His actions...

The Shaykh : With creation, ownership, and management. So it means it did not pass to you?
The student: It passed.

The Shaykh : Pass.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: With this formulation.

The Shaykh : No, I think it was mentioned at the beginning of the book *Tawhid*. Yes, regarding creation, ownership, and management. We mentioned the evidence for this from the Book, and we raised an objection that other than Allah creates, that other than Allah owns, and that other than Allah manages. Yes, and we answered that other than Allah does not create by way of bringing into existence and formation, but rather creates by way of changing and transforming. In other words, the one we called a creator did not create the substance of the thing, but rather changed it into a specific form. For example, the maker of a door is called its creator, but is he truly the one who created it?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : No, because the wood was created by Allah. But this man transformed the wood from its original form into the formation of a door. So this is not creation in the true sense, because creation is bringing into existence and formation, and he is not a creator in this respect. Likewise, we mentioned ownership, that Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, is unique in ownership, and the evidence is clear to you. We mentioned that Allah affirmed ownership for others, how is this? And we mentioned that the ownership of a man, in what he owns, is limited in its type and its scope. As for its scope, I do not own except what is my ownership only. If I own this book, the book of *Tawhid*, I do not own the recorder that is yours. And if you own the recorder, you do not own the book that is with me. So the ownership of a man is not comprehensive. Likewise in its type, the ownership of a man is not absolute ownership in which a man disposes as he wishes, but his disposal in his ownership is according to what the Shari'ah requires. If he wanted to burn his ownership, we said it is not possible. If he wanted to use his ownership to aid in what his soul desires, contrary to the Shari'ah, we said it is not possible. So there is a difference between this and that. As for management, it is also apparent that although we may own some management, it is limited management. By this, we know that creation is unique to the Creator, and likewise ownership and management.