(If the necessary consequence is unknown to the speaker, it is not considered binding upon him, with the example being the denial of the elevation of Allah, whose necessary consequence is His presence in all places) and what is other than that is not a necessary consequence in His case*** Intention
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And what is other than that" means other than the one who knows "is not a necessary consequence in his case*** Intending the necessity, intending the necessary consequences, which are clear in themselves"
It means that other than the one who does not know the necessary consequence of his speech, it does not become a necessary consequence for him. Why? He said:
"For it may be that their necessity is unknown, or*** he may have known it without denial
But his fault was negligence regarding their necessity*** for he was one of forgetfulness and one of deficiency" and one of negligence" Yes, he says it is not a necessary consequence, intending the necessary consequences, and he explained the reason. He said:
"For it may be that their necessity is unknown" means unknown to him, for the necessary consequence may be unknown to the speaker, meaning he did not think that this meaning follows from his speech, and if he had thought so, he would have retracted his statement.
For example, if someone said that Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) is in every place by His essence, it follows from this statement that Allah is in filthy places, that He is divided into parts, and that He is multiple. There is no doubt that this necessary consequence is false. Is this considered the statement of the one who said that Allah is in every place by His essence? One looks: if he knew that this was a necessary consequence of his statement and committed to it, it became his statement, even if he did not utter it. And if he did not know that it was a necessary consequence of his statement, meaning he was negligent, ignorant, forgot, or refused to accept that it was a necessary consequence, saying, "No, this does not follow; it does not follow that He is in filth and the like," then it does not become his statement. For this reason, when scholars discuss a person who made a false statement from which a false necessary consequence follows, they do not make this necessary consequence his statement. For this reason, they say, "This follows from this statement," and they do not say, "This statement is this necessary consequence." Why? Because he may be ignorant of this necessary consequence. And if he is ignorant of it, how can it be said to be among his statements? It may be that negligence and forgetfulness overtook him, meaning he knew that it followed but forgot. So how do we say that the man who forgot this necessary consequence makes the necessary consequence his statement?
The third aspect: He may deny this necessary consequence and say, "It does not follow from my statement such and such." In that case, it does not become his statement. As long as these three possibilities apply to the necessary consequence, the necessary consequence of the statement is not made a statement of its speaker, as will come later. Yes.
"For it may be that their necessity is unknown, or*** he may have known it without denial
But his fault was negligence regarding their necessity*** for he was one of forgetfulness and one of negligence".
It means that other than the one who does not know the necessary consequence of his speech, it does not become a necessary consequence for him. Why? He said:
"For it may be that their necessity is unknown, or*** he may have known it without denial
But his fault was negligence regarding their necessity*** for he was one of forgetfulness and one of deficiency" and one of negligence" Yes, he says it is not a necessary consequence, intending the necessary consequences, and he explained the reason. He said:
"For it may be that their necessity is unknown" means unknown to him, for the necessary consequence may be unknown to the speaker, meaning he did not think that this meaning follows from his speech, and if he had thought so, he would have retracted his statement.
For example, if someone said that Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) is in every place by His essence, it follows from this statement that Allah is in filthy places, that He is divided into parts, and that He is multiple. There is no doubt that this necessary consequence is false. Is this considered the statement of the one who said that Allah is in every place by His essence? One looks: if he knew that this was a necessary consequence of his statement and committed to it, it became his statement, even if he did not utter it. And if he did not know that it was a necessary consequence of his statement, meaning he was negligent, ignorant, forgot, or refused to accept that it was a necessary consequence, saying, "No, this does not follow; it does not follow that He is in filth and the like," then it does not become his statement. For this reason, when scholars discuss a person who made a false statement from which a false necessary consequence follows, they do not make this necessary consequence his statement. For this reason, they say, "This follows from this statement," and they do not say, "This statement is this necessary consequence." Why? Because he may be ignorant of this necessary consequence. And if he is ignorant of it, how can it be said to be among his statements? It may be that negligence and forgetfulness overtook him, meaning he knew that it followed but forgot. So how do we say that the man who forgot this necessary consequence makes the necessary consequence his statement?
The third aspect: He may deny this necessary consequence and say, "It does not follow from my statement such and such." In that case, it does not become his statement. As long as these three possibilities apply to the necessary consequence, the necessary consequence of the statement is not made a statement of its speaker, as will come later. Yes.
"For it may be that their necessity is unknown, or*** he may have known it without denial
But his fault was negligence regarding their necessity*** for he was one of forgetfulness and one of negligence".