(The Asha'irah's claim that the speech of Allah is the meaning subsisting in the self) The attachment of words does not yield what *** I stopped upon the creation in the realities, this if what
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He says:
"The attachment of words does not yield what *** I stopped upon — yes — I stopped upon the creation in the realities"
This means that the meaning subsisting in the self, which is the speech of Allah according to their claim, does not become attached externally to the one who became a prophet, but it is only a mental attachment. And I do not actually conceive of this statement, because it is not possible for one to be a prophet except by revelation that descends upon him. For this reason, the author refuted it.
"This if the meaning that *** you said is mental in the proof"
They say: The speech is the meaning subsisting in the self, and it is not the thing that is heard, so it is neither a sound nor a letter. The author says:
"But the majority of the sects did not see *** this as possible, rather that is one of invalidity"
For how can it be said to be speech when it is a meaning subsisting in the self, and how can it be said to be revelation to a messenger when it is a meaning subsisting in the self? This is something that is not possible. But we say: This is assumed by the mind and does not exist in the realities. So what is the benefit? If it is assumed as a mental assumption with no existence in the external world, where is the benefit?
He says:
Ninety aspects "No one else among the other *** thinkers in the horizons and times said this"
Who is being addressed with this speech? The Asha'irah, because the Asha'irah say that the speech is the meaning subsisting in the self.
"The attachment of words does not yield what *** I stopped upon — yes — I stopped upon the creation in the realities"
This means that the meaning subsisting in the self, which is the speech of Allah according to their claim, does not become attached externally to the one who became a prophet, but it is only a mental attachment. And I do not actually conceive of this statement, because it is not possible for one to be a prophet except by revelation that descends upon him. For this reason, the author refuted it.
"This if the meaning that *** you said is mental in the proof"
They say: The speech is the meaning subsisting in the self, and it is not the thing that is heard, so it is neither a sound nor a letter. The author says:
"But the majority of the sects did not see *** this as possible, rather that is one of invalidity"
For how can it be said to be speech when it is a meaning subsisting in the self, and how can it be said to be revelation to a messenger when it is a meaning subsisting in the self? This is something that is not possible. But we say: This is assumed by the mind and does not exist in the realities. So what is the benefit? If it is assumed as a mental assumption with no existence in the external world, where is the benefit?
He says:
Ninety aspects "No one else among the other *** thinkers in the horizons and times said this"
Who is being addressed with this speech? The Asha'irah, because the Asha'irah say that the speech is the meaning subsisting in the self.