The Meaning of the Poet's Saying: "All but the singular accept a school of thought *** in one form, and reject it in another"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said:
"All but the singular accept a school of thought *** in one form, and reject it in another"
Allah is the Greatest! It is true that those who rely on mere wording, if you present the meaning in one phrase and then present it in a second phrase, they accept it in the first phrase and reject it in the second, even though the meaning is the same. But because they are literalists who do not know the meaning and do not grasp it, they rely on mere wording. So, for example, they say: "Allah is free from parts, Glorified is He, and we glorify Allah and sanctify Allah." If you say that Allah is free from parts, but if I say that Allah does not have a hand, I seek refuge in Allah, they deny the hand of Allah, which He has affirmed for Himself. What is the meaning? The meaning is the same. But in the first form, they accepted it. But you say that Allah is free from parts. He, the Exalted, said: "Glory to Him who has no part." Yes, if you say that Allah does not have a hand, they say, "I seek refuge in Allah," and deny what came in the Qur'an. And the meaning is the same, but the wording is different. Yes, and this happens often. And how much of it is found among the people of stratagems.
Stratagems, and what do you know about stratagems? You find a person shaping something in a form that is the meaning of the forbidden thing, like the stratagems of people regarding riba (usury or interest) and other things. If you look at the apparent action, you say: "It is correct, there is nothing wrong with it." But its meaning and what is intended from it is defective, all of it is evil. So it is with words as well; some people play with them to mislead others.
"All but the singular accept a school of thought *** in one form, and reject it in another"
Allah is the Greatest! It is true that those who rely on mere wording, if you present the meaning in one phrase and then present it in a second phrase, they accept it in the first phrase and reject it in the second, even though the meaning is the same. But because they are literalists who do not know the meaning and do not grasp it, they rely on mere wording. So, for example, they say: "Allah is free from parts, Glorified is He, and we glorify Allah and sanctify Allah." If you say that Allah is free from parts, but if I say that Allah does not have a hand, I seek refuge in Allah, they deny the hand of Allah, which He has affirmed for Himself. What is the meaning? The meaning is the same. But in the first form, they accepted it. But you say that Allah is free from parts. He, the Exalted, said: "Glory to Him who has no part." Yes, if you say that Allah does not have a hand, they say, "I seek refuge in Allah," and deny what came in the Qur'an. And the meaning is the same, but the wording is different. Yes, and this happens often. And how much of it is found among the people of stratagems.
Stratagems, and what do you know about stratagems? You find a person shaping something in a form that is the meaning of the forbidden thing, like the stratagems of people regarding riba (usury or interest) and other things. If you look at the apparent action, you say: "It is correct, there is nothing wrong with it." But its meaning and what is intended from it is defective, all of it is evil. So it is with words as well; some people play with them to mislead others.