(Explanation of which is prioritized when transmitted evidence and reason conflict according to the one who denies the divine attributes, and mention of the fourfold division) There is nothing but one of four*** mutually opposing things, all in the meter
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author mentioned the four states, saying:
"There is nothing but one of four *** mutually opposing things, all in the meter
of implementing both of them and its opposite, or abolishing the rational; this is not possible". To the end of it...
Meaning, either we implement both of them. What are they?
The rational evidence and the transmitted evidence, or the opposite of that, which is neglecting both of them entirely; we do not take the rational evidence nor the transmitted evidence. Or we abolish the rational and take the transmitted evidence, abolishing the rational evidence. He says: This is not possible.
"... *** this is not possible"
Meaning, it is not possible to abolish the rational. So we abolish the transmitted. So we abolish the transmitted. If they do not conflict, we implement both of them. If they conflict, either we implement both of them, or we neglect both of them, or we implement the rational and leave the transmitted, or we implement the transmitted and leave the rational. How many states is this?! Four:
Implementing the transmitted and neglecting the rational. He says it is not possible. Why?
"There is nothing but one of four *** mutually opposing things, all in the meter
of implementing both of them and its opposite, or abolishing the rational; this is not possible". To the end of it...
Meaning, either we implement both of them. What are they?
The rational evidence and the transmitted evidence, or the opposite of that, which is neglecting both of them entirely; we do not take the rational evidence nor the transmitted evidence. Or we abolish the rational and take the transmitted evidence, abolishing the rational evidence. He says: This is not possible.
"... *** this is not possible"
Meaning, it is not possible to abolish the rational. So we abolish the transmitted. So we abolish the transmitted. If they do not conflict, we implement both of them. If they conflict, either we implement both of them, or we neglect both of them, or we implement the rational and leave the transmitted, or we implement the transmitted and leave the rational. How many states is this?! Four:
Implementing the transmitted and neglecting the rational. He says it is not possible. Why?