The Meaning of the Poet's Statement: If He Did Not Will This, But He Willed *** Its Occurrence Through the Action of the Possible
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"If He did not will this, but He willed *** Its occurrence through the action of the possible
And the action and the acted-upon are one thing ***"
He means that he said that the attributes are of two types: conceptual and active. And with this, he did not truly describe Allah with active attributes, but rather he said that the action and the acted-upon are one thing. So Allah's action is His acted-upon. His giving life is attributed to Him, but in reality, the one who is given life is the one who is given life. His providing sustenance is attributed to Him, but in reality, what is it? The one who is provided with sustenance. And so on.
As for the attribution to Him, the author says:
"Therefore, he described the action as having with him *** Only a negative relation, by explanation"
He means that it is attributed to Allah by way of relation and addition, not by way of reality. Otherwise, the action and the acted-upon are one thing. Did Allah possess an attribute which is creation in their view? No. But He performed an action whose acted-upon is the heavens. And the action in their view is the very acted-upon.
"So all the names of the doers with him *** Are not definitely established as having meanings
That exist, but they are all matters *** Relations that you see as non-existent in reality"
Glory be to Allah. If they are told that this is impossible, and that the acted-upon things exist, they say that they are attributed to Allah by way of what? Relation and addition, and are not a reality which is Allah's action, but rather they are His acted-upon. And in that case, it necessitates them to say that there is an acted-upon without an action. This is stubbornness. Stubbornness. Is there an actor without an action? No. And there is no action without an actor, and no acted-upon without an actor, ever. But they are stubborn.
And the action and the acted-upon are one thing ***"
He means that he said that the attributes are of two types: conceptual and active. And with this, he did not truly describe Allah with active attributes, but rather he said that the action and the acted-upon are one thing. So Allah's action is His acted-upon. His giving life is attributed to Him, but in reality, the one who is given life is the one who is given life. His providing sustenance is attributed to Him, but in reality, what is it? The one who is provided with sustenance. And so on.
As for the attribution to Him, the author says:
"Therefore, he described the action as having with him *** Only a negative relation, by explanation"
He means that it is attributed to Allah by way of relation and addition, not by way of reality. Otherwise, the action and the acted-upon are one thing. Did Allah possess an attribute which is creation in their view? No. But He performed an action whose acted-upon is the heavens. And the action in their view is the very acted-upon.
"So all the names of the doers with him *** Are not definitely established as having meanings
That exist, but they are all matters *** Relations that you see as non-existent in reality"
Glory be to Allah. If they are told that this is impossible, and that the acted-upon things exist, they say that they are attributed to Allah by way of what? Relation and addition, and are not a reality which is Allah's action, but rather they are His acted-upon. And in that case, it necessitates them to say that there is an acted-upon without an action. This is stubbornness. Stubbornness. Is there an actor without an action? No. And there is no action without an actor, and no acted-upon without an actor, ever. But they are stubborn.