Commentary on the preceding verses, refuting those who say that the speech of Allah is created, and what necessarily follows from their statement
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He says this: a logical implication. When we compelled them, my brothers, when we compelled them previously that denying speech entails denying the message, and that denying speech entails deficiency, we compelled them with a third implication: that denying speech entails that the speech of all people, indeed the speech of all creation, even the barking of dogs and the braying of donkeys, is the speech of Allah. Pay attention. This is a defective implication. Why? Because if they say that His speech is created, we say: and the speech of created things is created. And if the created speech is attributed to Allah, it necessarily follows that the speech of created things is what? It is the speech of Allah. It necessarily follows that the speech of created things is the speech of Allah, because you say that speech is attributed to Allah even if it is created. Is that clear? So the speech of humans, the speech of birds, the speech of donkeys, the speech of dogs, all of it is the speech of Allah according to your claim. Why? Because it is created by Allah. The one who holds to the unity of the Creator and the created, the one who says by the union of the Creator and the created, said: Yes.
"And all speech in existence is His speech *** Whether it is prose or verse, it is the same to us"
He committed to it. The one who holds to the unity of existence became consistent in applying their rule. Why? Because he applied his statement without contradiction. He said: Everything that Allah created of speech is His speech. And they contradicted themselves by making the speech that Allah attributed to Himself His speech, while the speech of people is not His speech. I don't know, is that clear? Clear, Muhammad? Good.
We say: It is obligatory for you, if you say that Allah does not speak and that speech is created, it is obligatory for you to say that the speech of all people is the speech of Allah, that the speech of people is the speech of Allah, because it is created. And attributing His speech to Him does not prevent other things from being created by Him, just as He attributed the House to Himself, and it is His creation, and it does not prevent other houses from being created by Him. And just as He attributed the she-camel to Himself, and it does not prevent other she-camels from being created by Him. Similarly, He attributed speech to Himself, and it is created by Him, so the speech of people is created by Him. So according to your claim, the speech of people is the speech of Allah because it is created.
So if you say: Even if speech is created, it is His speech, it is obligatory for you to say that the speech of created things is the speech of Allah. Is the implication clear? Yes?
The student : If they say, we are not compelled to this thing?
The Shaykh : No, the author will answer it.
The important thing now, we say to them: If you say that Allah does not speak and that His speech is created, we say: It is obligatory for you to say that the speech of people is the speech of Allah, because it is created, since you made what Allah created of speech His speech. It is obligatory for you, on this basis, that the speech of created things is what? It is the speech of Allah, because it is created. What is the difference between the speech that is the speech of Allah, and you say it is created, and the other speech? They are all created. So if the attribution in your view is because it is created, then this includes all speech, even the speech of creation. For this reason, the people of unity and union, who said unity of existence, said: Yes, the speech of people is the speech of the Creator. And they said in the famous verse:
"And all speech in existence is His speech *** Whether it is prose or verse, it is the same to us"
And let us now listen to the words of the author. He said:
"Has not the evidence been established that *** The actions of the servants are the creation of the Most Merciful"
The answer: Yes, one piece of evidence? The author said:
"From a thousand aspects, or close to a thousand *** He who is concerned with this matter can count them"
If we were to look, we would not find even fifty. Yes, but the author says: From a thousand aspects, or close to a thousand. Let it be nine hundred. Nine hundred pieces of evidence indicate that the actions of the servants are created by Allah, the Exalted and Mighty. Do you understand? Who can count them? The one who is concerned with this matter, who attends to it and seeks the evidences from revelation and reason, from the Book and the Sunnah, and from reason and sense perception, he counts them. So, on this basis,
"Every speech of this creation *** Is the very speech of Him"
Why is it the very speech of Him? Because it is created by Him. So you say the speech of Allah is created by Him, so you made the created speech the very speech of the Creator. We say to them: And the speech of humans is created, so according to your opinion, it is the very speech of the Creator.
He said: "Glory be to the One of Sovereignty, when His speech is attributed to Him ***"
Meaning the speech of creation "is created", "when His speech is attributed to Him *** as created"
And it is permissible that "His speech" means the speech of Allah. Meaning: If the speech of Allah is attributed to Him because He created it, then let the speech of humans be attributed to Allah because He created it. Is that correct or not? They say it is attributed to Allah because He created it, and its attribution to Him is like the attribution of the she-camel of Allah and the House of Allah to Allah. We say: If it is attributed to Him because He created it, then also say that the speech of people is the speech of Allah, attributed to Him because He created it. This is obligatory for them, as long as they make the rule that every speech Allah created is attributed to Him, then let the speech of creation be attributed to whom? To Allah.
"When His speech is attributed to Him *** as created" because they say speech is created, "like the House of Allah, the one with pillars" Now, the House of Allah, Allah attributed it to Himself as created
The student : As an honor
The Shaykh : Yes, as created or not? As created, but He attributed it as an honor. When Allah attributed the House to Himself as created, did it prevent other things from being created by Him? He created the other mosques, He created the mountains, He created the rivers. So when Allah attributed creation to the House, it was not, yes. When Allah attributed the House to Himself as created, this did not prevent other created things from being attributed to Him. So all are creations of Allah, all are creations of Allah. This mountain is the creation of Allah, this sun is the creation of Allah, this House is the creation of Allah. Is that clear? So when it was attributed to Allah as created, it did not prevent the other from being attributed to Him. He said: "This, and the implication of your statement, has been said *** By the one of union, explicitly stated in explanation
He said it, fearing contradiction, when you contradicted yourselves ***"
Who is the one who holds to the unity of existence? The one who said unity of existence, and said: The speech of creation is the speech of the Creator, because Allah created it, so it is His speech. Ibn al-Qayyim says: The one who holds to the unity of existence committed to this and applied it consistently, and you contradicted yourselves. You said: The speech of humans is not attributed to Allah, even though He is its Creator, and the created speech that is attributed to Allah is attributed to Allah. Yes, is this a contradiction or not? Because if you made its attribution to Allah, or the reason for its attribution to Allah, that He created it, it is obligatory for you to attribute the speech of creation to Allah because Allah created it, and there is no difference. Good. He says: The one who holds to the unity of existence applied it consistently.
"*** But his consistent application is the height of disbelief"
There is no doubt. We declare him a disbeliever, and you declare him a disbeliever. The one who holds to the unity of existence, who says that the speech of creation is the very speech of the Creator, is a disbeliever. We declare him a disbeliever, and they also declare him a disbeliever. And this consistent application is a consistent application in falsehood, which is not acceptable.
"So if you claim that the specification of the Qur'an *** Like its House, and both are creations
It will be said: This specification does not negate the generality *** Like the Lord of the worlds"
Yes. If you said, if you claimed that the specification of the Qur'an is like the specification of the House, meaning: That Allah attributed it to Himself as an honor and exaltation, just as He attributed the House to Himself as an honor and exaltation, we say: This does not prevent other things from being created by Allah and attributed to Him. Similarly, it does not prevent, when He attributed speech to Himself, that the speech of others be attributed to Him and created. So the reality is that speech, in terms of what is attributed to Allah and what is attributed to humans, is like the House in terms of its attribution to Allah and other worlds. So specifying the House as the House of Allah, and He is the one who created it, does not prevent the creation of others, and what is not attributed? It is attributed to Allah as created. He said: He created the heavens, and He says: The heavens are His creation.
"And it is also said: The Lord of the Throne is also like this *** His specification for the attribution of the Qur'an
Does not prevent the generality in the rest ***"
Allah attributed lordship to the Throne, and He said:[At-Tawbah 9:129] Does His attribution of lordship to the Throne imply that it is specific to the Throne, or is it general?
The student : General.
The Shaykh : And for this reason he said:
"Does not prevent the generality in the rest, and this *** Is the height of clarification and explanation"
Similarly, if Allah attributes to Himself the speech that you claim is created, this does not prevent other speech from also being attributed to Allah, because He created it. Therefore, specifying one instance does not preclude generalization. This is the summary of Ibn al-Qayyim’s statement.
So the summary of this section is: It follows from their claim that Allah’s speech is created—what does it follow?—that all speech in existence is speech belonging to Allah and attributed to Him. Because the reason for attributing Allah’s speech to Him is what? It is that it is created by Him. We say: This reason is present in people’s speech, for people’s speech is created by Allah. Therefore, it follows from this that people’s speech is speech belonging to Allah, just as you said regarding the created speech that it is attributed to Allah. We also say: This is created speech, so it is attributed to Allah. Do you understand, or not?
If they say: “Its attribution to Allah is like the attribution of the House to Allah.” We say to them: The attribution of the House to Allah does not imply specification. For Allah the Exalted attributed the House to Himself as a mark of honor. As for the aspect of creation, things other than the House are also included in being created by Allah, such as the Lordship of the Throne. Do we say: Because Allah attributed His Lordship to the Throne, it necessitates that He is not the Lord of anything else? No, we do not say that. So, specification does not preclude generalization. Yes.
"And all speech in existence is His speech *** Whether it is prose or verse, it is the same to us"
He committed to it. The one who holds to the unity of existence became consistent in applying their rule. Why? Because he applied his statement without contradiction. He said: Everything that Allah created of speech is His speech. And they contradicted themselves by making the speech that Allah attributed to Himself His speech, while the speech of people is not His speech. I don't know, is that clear? Clear, Muhammad? Good.
We say: It is obligatory for you, if you say that Allah does not speak and that speech is created, it is obligatory for you to say that the speech of all people is the speech of Allah, that the speech of people is the speech of Allah, because it is created. And attributing His speech to Him does not prevent other things from being created by Him, just as He attributed the House to Himself, and it is His creation, and it does not prevent other houses from being created by Him. And just as He attributed the she-camel to Himself, and it does not prevent other she-camels from being created by Him. Similarly, He attributed speech to Himself, and it is created by Him, so the speech of people is created by Him. So according to your claim, the speech of people is the speech of Allah because it is created.
So if you say: Even if speech is created, it is His speech, it is obligatory for you to say that the speech of created things is the speech of Allah. Is the implication clear? Yes?
The student : If they say, we are not compelled to this thing?
The Shaykh : No, the author will answer it.
The important thing now, we say to them: If you say that Allah does not speak and that His speech is created, we say: It is obligatory for you to say that the speech of people is the speech of Allah, because it is created, since you made what Allah created of speech His speech. It is obligatory for you, on this basis, that the speech of created things is what? It is the speech of Allah, because it is created. What is the difference between the speech that is the speech of Allah, and you say it is created, and the other speech? They are all created. So if the attribution in your view is because it is created, then this includes all speech, even the speech of creation. For this reason, the people of unity and union, who said unity of existence, said: Yes, the speech of people is the speech of the Creator. And they said in the famous verse:
"And all speech in existence is His speech *** Whether it is prose or verse, it is the same to us"
And let us now listen to the words of the author. He said:
"Has not the evidence been established that *** The actions of the servants are the creation of the Most Merciful"
The answer: Yes, one piece of evidence? The author said:
"From a thousand aspects, or close to a thousand *** He who is concerned with this matter can count them"
If we were to look, we would not find even fifty. Yes, but the author says: From a thousand aspects, or close to a thousand. Let it be nine hundred. Nine hundred pieces of evidence indicate that the actions of the servants are created by Allah, the Exalted and Mighty. Do you understand? Who can count them? The one who is concerned with this matter, who attends to it and seeks the evidences from revelation and reason, from the Book and the Sunnah, and from reason and sense perception, he counts them. So, on this basis,
"Every speech of this creation *** Is the very speech of Him"
Why is it the very speech of Him? Because it is created by Him. So you say the speech of Allah is created by Him, so you made the created speech the very speech of the Creator. We say to them: And the speech of humans is created, so according to your opinion, it is the very speech of the Creator.
He said: "Glory be to the One of Sovereignty, when His speech is attributed to Him ***"
Meaning the speech of creation "is created", "when His speech is attributed to Him *** as created"
And it is permissible that "His speech" means the speech of Allah. Meaning: If the speech of Allah is attributed to Him because He created it, then let the speech of humans be attributed to Allah because He created it. Is that correct or not? They say it is attributed to Allah because He created it, and its attribution to Him is like the attribution of the she-camel of Allah and the House of Allah to Allah. We say: If it is attributed to Him because He created it, then also say that the speech of people is the speech of Allah, attributed to Him because He created it. This is obligatory for them, as long as they make the rule that every speech Allah created is attributed to Him, then let the speech of creation be attributed to whom? To Allah.
"When His speech is attributed to Him *** as created" because they say speech is created, "like the House of Allah, the one with pillars" Now, the House of Allah, Allah attributed it to Himself as created
The student : As an honor
The Shaykh : Yes, as created or not? As created, but He attributed it as an honor. When Allah attributed the House to Himself as created, did it prevent other things from being created by Him? He created the other mosques, He created the mountains, He created the rivers. So when Allah attributed creation to the House, it was not, yes. When Allah attributed the House to Himself as created, this did not prevent other created things from being attributed to Him. So all are creations of Allah, all are creations of Allah. This mountain is the creation of Allah, this sun is the creation of Allah, this House is the creation of Allah. Is that clear? So when it was attributed to Allah as created, it did not prevent the other from being attributed to Him. He said: "This, and the implication of your statement, has been said *** By the one of union, explicitly stated in explanation
He said it, fearing contradiction, when you contradicted yourselves ***"
Who is the one who holds to the unity of existence? The one who said unity of existence, and said: The speech of creation is the speech of the Creator, because Allah created it, so it is His speech. Ibn al-Qayyim says: The one who holds to the unity of existence committed to this and applied it consistently, and you contradicted yourselves. You said: The speech of humans is not attributed to Allah, even though He is its Creator, and the created speech that is attributed to Allah is attributed to Allah. Yes, is this a contradiction or not? Because if you made its attribution to Allah, or the reason for its attribution to Allah, that He created it, it is obligatory for you to attribute the speech of creation to Allah because Allah created it, and there is no difference. Good. He says: The one who holds to the unity of existence applied it consistently.
"*** But his consistent application is the height of disbelief"
There is no doubt. We declare him a disbeliever, and you declare him a disbeliever. The one who holds to the unity of existence, who says that the speech of creation is the very speech of the Creator, is a disbeliever. We declare him a disbeliever, and they also declare him a disbeliever. And this consistent application is a consistent application in falsehood, which is not acceptable.
"So if you claim that the specification of the Qur'an *** Like its House, and both are creations
It will be said: This specification does not negate the generality *** Like the Lord of the worlds"
Yes. If you said, if you claimed that the specification of the Qur'an is like the specification of the House, meaning: That Allah attributed it to Himself as an honor and exaltation, just as He attributed the House to Himself as an honor and exaltation, we say: This does not prevent other things from being created by Allah and attributed to Him. Similarly, it does not prevent, when He attributed speech to Himself, that the speech of others be attributed to Him and created. So the reality is that speech, in terms of what is attributed to Allah and what is attributed to humans, is like the House in terms of its attribution to Allah and other worlds. So specifying the House as the House of Allah, and He is the one who created it, does not prevent the creation of others, and what is not attributed? It is attributed to Allah as created. He said: He created the heavens, and He says: The heavens are His creation.
"And it is also said: The Lord of the Throne is also like this *** His specification for the attribution of the Qur'an
Does not prevent the generality in the rest ***"
Allah attributed lordship to the Throne, and He said:
the Lord of the Great Throne."
رب العرش العظيمThe student : General.
The Shaykh : And for this reason he said:
"Does not prevent the generality in the rest, and this *** Is the height of clarification and explanation"
Similarly, if Allah attributes to Himself the speech that you claim is created, this does not prevent other speech from also being attributed to Allah, because He created it. Therefore, specifying one instance does not preclude generalization. This is the summary of Ibn al-Qayyim’s statement.
So the summary of this section is: It follows from their claim that Allah’s speech is created—what does it follow?—that all speech in existence is speech belonging to Allah and attributed to Him. Because the reason for attributing Allah’s speech to Him is what? It is that it is created by Him. We say: This reason is present in people’s speech, for people’s speech is created by Allah. Therefore, it follows from this that people’s speech is speech belonging to Allah, just as you said regarding the created speech that it is attributed to Allah. We also say: This is created speech, so it is attributed to Allah. Do you understand, or not?
If they say: “Its attribution to Allah is like the attribution of the House to Allah.” We say to them: The attribution of the House to Allah does not imply specification. For Allah the Exalted attributed the House to Himself as a mark of honor. As for the aspect of creation, things other than the House are also included in being created by Allah, such as the Lordship of the Throne. Do we say: Because Allah attributed His Lordship to the Throne, it necessitates that He is not the Lord of anything else? No, we do not say that. So, specification does not preclude generalization. Yes.