The ruling on using the term (Mawlanā) for a created servant

The questioner also asks: What is the ruling on using the term "Mawla" (our master) for the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)? Because we know that the Mawla (Master) of the believers is Allah ?
There is no harm in that; because Mawla is a shared term. It is used for Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), for the master who owns, and for a close relative [al-Dukhan:41], meaning a relative through a relative. It is also used for a freed slave, who is called Mawla, and for the one who freed him, who is called Mawla. So it is a shared term. However, it is better and more preferable not to use it for people in the sense of leadership, meaning the great one, or the like; because it came in a hadith narrated by Muslim in the Sahih that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: And it came in another hadith that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to the slave: So the scholars derived from this that it is permissible to use the term Mawla for the master or the owner, and this extends to the sultan, the prince, the sheikh of the tribe, and the like; because they have leadership and dominion. But leaving it with them is better and more preferable, except in the case of the master who owns, due to the hadith that came regarding that: .
In any case, the matter is broad, if Allah wills, because of its permissibility in the case of the master who owns. So what is like it in meaning is included with it, such as the sultan, the prince, the sheikh of the tribe, the father, and the like. But leaving it in their case is better, by saying: O Sultan, O Prince, O Abu So-and-so, O So-and-so. This is better in practice, following the hadith that contains the prohibition, out of caution. Because when there is a prohibition in it, caution is to leave that. Yes.
The presenter: May Allah bless you and reward you with good.