(Explanation of the second answer, which is that we do not deny the body, because if the existence of a body is a necessary consequence of the word of Allah and the word of His Messenger, then the word of Allah and the word of His Messenger is truth
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :
" If you claim that preventing its necessity *** is from you a stubbornness against falsehood
Then our second answer is the impossibility of denial in *** what you claim is necessary, by explanation "
Yes, meaning if you say that this is stubbornness, what is the stubbornness? Preventing the necessity, meaning preventing the concomitance. Meaning if they said to us, "No, this is necessary without doubt, and your saying that it is not necessary is stubbornness," and you knew just now, recently, that our saying in preventing the concomitance is not stubbornness. What is its aspect? It is that a thing may be described with an attribute and not be a body. So our prevention is correct and is not stubbornness, because we say, "A long day" and "a hot day" and the like, and these are not bodies. So our prevention of the concomitance is not stubbornness, because we found that it is valid, so it is not stubbornness. But with that, by way of concession
" Then our second answer is the impossibility of denial in *** what you claim is necessary, by explanation
If that is necessary for the text, then the necessitated *** is truth, and it is with proof
And the truth is its necessary consequence, so it is truth like it *** how can the thing be with falsehood
And be necessitated by it as truth, so this *** is the very impossibility and it is not in the possible "
Yes, the second answer is to say: If you say that we are stubborn and that the described one must be a body, then we say: If that is the case, then we do not deny the body, because if the existence of a body is a necessary consequence of the word of Allah and the word of His Messenger, then the word of Allah and the word of His Messenger is truth, and what is necessary for the truth is truth, and it is impossible for what is necessary for the truth to be false, ever. Just as it is impossible for what is necessary for falsehood to be truth. So you, now, if you say that it is necessary from affirming the attribute that He affirmed for Himself that Allah be a body, we say: Who affirmed it? Allah. And the word of Allah is truth. And at that time, the body is truth, because what is necessary for the truth is truth, and it is impossible for what is necessary for falsehood to be false. Take hold of it, people, it is clear now. So we feed them a stone, we say: If affirming the attributes that Allah affirmed for Himself necessitates ascribing a body to Allah, then ascribing a body to Allah is truth, and your denial of it is an error. Why is it truth? Because it is necessary for the truth, and what is necessary for the truth is truth. It is impossible for the necessary to be false and the necessitated to be truth, ever. And the reverse is impossible. And this is truly an argument that binds them, a stone that feeds them. And for this reason he said:
" Then our second answer is the impossibility of denial in *** what you claim is necessary, by explanation "
What is it that they claim is necessary? Ascribing a body to Allah or corporeality. We say: We do not deny it. We prevent its denial and say that it is established, because it is necessitated, because it is necessary for the truth, according to their claim, and what is necessary for the truth is truth. And for this reason they said:
" If that is necessary for the text, then the necessitated *** is truth "
And the truth is its necessary consequence, which is truth. What is the necessitated? The text. And the necessary, according to their saying, is the body.
If that is necessitated by the text, then adherence"and it is the text"is the truth, and it is supported by proof
" And the truth is its necessary consequence, so it is truth like it *** how can the thing be with falsehood
And be necessitated by it as truth "
And what is the necessitated? No, the necessitated is... yes, correct. Yes, the author says:
" And be necessitated by it as truth, how can the thing be with falsehood
And be necessitated by it as truth, how can the thing be with falsehood "
What is the thing that is with falsehood, according to their speech? Ascribing a body to Allah.
And be necessitated by it, which is the text, as truth.
" So this *** is the very impossibility and it is not in the possible "
The author's speech is clear: what is necessary for the truth is truth, and it is impossible for what is necessary for the truth to be false. So if the body is necessary from what Allah affirmed for Himself, and that is truth, and if it is not necessary, then it is not valid for you to compel us with it. Good.
" If you claim that preventing its necessity *** is from you a stubbornness against falsehood
Then our second answer is the impossibility of denial in *** what you claim is necessary, by explanation "
Yes, meaning if you say that this is stubbornness, what is the stubbornness? Preventing the necessity, meaning preventing the concomitance. Meaning if they said to us, "No, this is necessary without doubt, and your saying that it is not necessary is stubbornness," and you knew just now, recently, that our saying in preventing the concomitance is not stubbornness. What is its aspect? It is that a thing may be described with an attribute and not be a body. So our prevention is correct and is not stubbornness, because we say, "A long day" and "a hot day" and the like, and these are not bodies. So our prevention of the concomitance is not stubbornness, because we found that it is valid, so it is not stubbornness. But with that, by way of concession
" Then our second answer is the impossibility of denial in *** what you claim is necessary, by explanation
If that is necessary for the text, then the necessitated *** is truth, and it is with proof
And the truth is its necessary consequence, so it is truth like it *** how can the thing be with falsehood
And be necessitated by it as truth, so this *** is the very impossibility and it is not in the possible "
Yes, the second answer is to say: If you say that we are stubborn and that the described one must be a body, then we say: If that is the case, then we do not deny the body, because if the existence of a body is a necessary consequence of the word of Allah and the word of His Messenger, then the word of Allah and the word of His Messenger is truth, and what is necessary for the truth is truth, and it is impossible for what is necessary for the truth to be false, ever. Just as it is impossible for what is necessary for falsehood to be truth. So you, now, if you say that it is necessary from affirming the attribute that He affirmed for Himself that Allah be a body, we say: Who affirmed it? Allah. And the word of Allah is truth. And at that time, the body is truth, because what is necessary for the truth is truth, and it is impossible for what is necessary for falsehood to be false. Take hold of it, people, it is clear now. So we feed them a stone, we say: If affirming the attributes that Allah affirmed for Himself necessitates ascribing a body to Allah, then ascribing a body to Allah is truth, and your denial of it is an error. Why is it truth? Because it is necessary for the truth, and what is necessary for the truth is truth. It is impossible for the necessary to be false and the necessitated to be truth, ever. And the reverse is impossible. And this is truly an argument that binds them, a stone that feeds them. And for this reason he said:
" Then our second answer is the impossibility of denial in *** what you claim is necessary, by explanation "
What is it that they claim is necessary? Ascribing a body to Allah or corporeality. We say: We do not deny it. We prevent its denial and say that it is established, because it is necessitated, because it is necessary for the truth, according to their claim, and what is necessary for the truth is truth. And for this reason they said:
" If that is necessary for the text, then the necessitated *** is truth "
And the truth is its necessary consequence, which is truth. What is the necessitated? The text. And the necessary, according to their saying, is the body.
If that is necessitated by the text, then adherence"and it is the text"is the truth, and it is supported by proof
" And the truth is its necessary consequence, so it is truth like it *** how can the thing be with falsehood
And be necessitated by it as truth "
And what is the necessitated? No, the necessitated is... yes, correct. Yes, the author says:
" And be necessitated by it as truth, how can the thing be with falsehood
And be necessitated by it as truth, how can the thing be with falsehood "
What is the thing that is with falsehood, according to their speech? Ascribing a body to Allah.
And be necessitated by it, which is the text, as truth.
" So this *** is the very impossibility and it is not in the possible "
The author's speech is clear: what is necessary for the truth is truth, and it is impossible for what is necessary for the truth to be false. So if the body is necessary from what Allah affirmed for Himself, and that is truth, and if it is not necessary, then it is not valid for you to compel us with it. Good.