A Refutation of Those Who Say That Allah Speaks with Words That Exist in Another, and What Necessarily Follows from That
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"So if you claim that He is a Speaker, *** but with words that exist in a human being
or in another, it is said: This is false *** "
If they say: We say that Allah is a Speaker with words that exist in a human being, or in something other than a human being, such as Jibril, a tree, or the air. The point is, if you say: We affirm that Allah is a Speaker, but with words that exist in another, is this correct? Huh? I mean, if they qualify it and say: He is a Speaker with words that exist in another, it is said: This is false. This statement is false. We cannot say that He is a Speaker with words that exist in another, can we? He said:
" *** And upon you in that are two dangers " In that, in what? If you say that He is a Speaker with words that exist in another, upon you in that are two dangers. First:
" Denying that the word is derived from the Existent *** whose meaning is in Him "
Denying that the word is derived from the Existent whose meaning is in Him. This is one. Because they denied that speech exists in Allah. "And affirming it for the second " They made speech belong to whom? To the created, to other than Allah. Either to the human, or to Jibril, or to another. So in that there are two dangers. The first danger: You denied speech from Allah, even though He is the one described by it. The second: You affirmed speech for other than Allah, even though He did not speak with it. So they erred in both matters: denying that the word is derived from the Existent whose meaning is in Him, and affirming it for the second.
"I mean the one whose meaning does not exist in Him *** Inverting the truths is the ugliest lie "
May Allah have mercy on him. This is a principle, a beneficial principle: Inverting the truths is the ugliest lie. And this statement made by the Jahmiyyah is an inversion of the truths, not a correspondence to the truths. It inverts them, it inverts them. So inverting the truths is the ugliest lie. And how much the truths are inverted in the Arab broadcasts today. They say things that have no basis. They invert the truths. Truths that are witnessed, and they invert them into matters contrary to what is witnessed. But this principle benefits us. Inverting the truths, huh? Is the ugliest lie. For this reason, it is good to cite this verse regarding many of the Arab broadcasts today, and say: Inverting the truths is the ugliest lie. Good. He said, may Allah have mercy on him:
"And the like of this " Meaning: The author intended to illustrate the rational with the tangible
"The like of this is two brothers, one who sees *** And his brother is counted among the blind "
If his brother is counted among the blind, what is he? Blind.
"You called the blind one a seer, since his brother *** Sees, and the opposite in the second "
Meaning, you called the seer blind. Is this possible or not possible? Huh? In the case of two brothers, one is... and the second sees. So we said to the blind one: May Allah bless you with strong sight. And we said to the seer: May Allah restore your affliction of blindness. So we described the seer with what? That he is blind. He said: O people, I am not blind, I am open-eyed and I see. We said: No, we transferred the description from your brother to you, and we transferred your description from you to your brother. So your brother we call a seer, and you we call blind. Does he establish a claim against us or not?
The student : He establishes it.
The Shaykh : And his brother? His brother is happy, he makes a celebration for us.
In any case, Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, says: Is this rational, that you call the blind one a seer and the seer blind? Huh? It is not rational. You are now saying that Allah is a Speaker and the speech is from other than Him. And how is this? You described a Speaker for whom? For the one in whom the speech exists. So if other than Allah is the one who speaks, then Allah does not speak. And if Allah is the one who speaks, then other than Him does not speak. As for saying that Allah is a Speaker, and where is His speech? He said: It is what was heard from Jibril, what was heard from the tree, what was heard in the air. As for the Essence of Allah, no. Listen, he says:
"So if you claim that that is established *** In His action, like the creation of the worlds
And the action is not established in our God *** For He cannot be a place for one who has occurrences "
They said: You say it is not possible to describe Him with speech that existed in another. But we do not accept this. And we have an example: Creation. Creation is an action. Creation is an action. It exists in another. It exists in the created. Creation exists in the created. Pay attention to the analogy to know whether this analogy is correct or not correct.
or in another, it is said: This is false *** "
If they say: We say that Allah is a Speaker with words that exist in a human being, or in something other than a human being, such as Jibril, a tree, or the air. The point is, if you say: We affirm that Allah is a Speaker, but with words that exist in another, is this correct? Huh? I mean, if they qualify it and say: He is a Speaker with words that exist in another, it is said: This is false. This statement is false. We cannot say that He is a Speaker with words that exist in another, can we? He said:
" *** And upon you in that are two dangers " In that, in what? If you say that He is a Speaker with words that exist in another, upon you in that are two dangers. First:
" Denying that the word is derived from the Existent *** whose meaning is in Him "
Denying that the word is derived from the Existent whose meaning is in Him. This is one. Because they denied that speech exists in Allah. "And affirming it for the second " They made speech belong to whom? To the created, to other than Allah. Either to the human, or to Jibril, or to another. So in that there are two dangers. The first danger: You denied speech from Allah, even though He is the one described by it. The second: You affirmed speech for other than Allah, even though He did not speak with it. So they erred in both matters: denying that the word is derived from the Existent whose meaning is in Him, and affirming it for the second.
"I mean the one whose meaning does not exist in Him *** Inverting the truths is the ugliest lie "
May Allah have mercy on him. This is a principle, a beneficial principle: Inverting the truths is the ugliest lie. And this statement made by the Jahmiyyah is an inversion of the truths, not a correspondence to the truths. It inverts them, it inverts them. So inverting the truths is the ugliest lie. And how much the truths are inverted in the Arab broadcasts today. They say things that have no basis. They invert the truths. Truths that are witnessed, and they invert them into matters contrary to what is witnessed. But this principle benefits us. Inverting the truths, huh? Is the ugliest lie. For this reason, it is good to cite this verse regarding many of the Arab broadcasts today, and say: Inverting the truths is the ugliest lie. Good. He said, may Allah have mercy on him:
"And the like of this " Meaning: The author intended to illustrate the rational with the tangible
"The like of this is two brothers, one who sees *** And his brother is counted among the blind "
If his brother is counted among the blind, what is he? Blind.
"You called the blind one a seer, since his brother *** Sees, and the opposite in the second "
Meaning, you called the seer blind. Is this possible or not possible? Huh? In the case of two brothers, one is... and the second sees. So we said to the blind one: May Allah bless you with strong sight. And we said to the seer: May Allah restore your affliction of blindness. So we described the seer with what? That he is blind. He said: O people, I am not blind, I am open-eyed and I see. We said: No, we transferred the description from your brother to you, and we transferred your description from you to your brother. So your brother we call a seer, and you we call blind. Does he establish a claim against us or not?
The student : He establishes it.
The Shaykh : And his brother? His brother is happy, he makes a celebration for us.
In any case, Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, says: Is this rational, that you call the blind one a seer and the seer blind? Huh? It is not rational. You are now saying that Allah is a Speaker and the speech is from other than Him. And how is this? You described a Speaker for whom? For the one in whom the speech exists. So if other than Allah is the one who speaks, then Allah does not speak. And if Allah is the one who speaks, then other than Him does not speak. As for saying that Allah is a Speaker, and where is His speech? He said: It is what was heard from Jibril, what was heard from the tree, what was heard in the air. As for the Essence of Allah, no. Listen, he says:
"So if you claim that that is established *** In His action, like the creation of the worlds
And the action is not established in our God *** For He cannot be a place for one who has occurrences "
They said: You say it is not possible to describe Him with speech that existed in another. But we do not accept this. And we have an example: Creation. Creation is an action. Creation is an action. It exists in another. It exists in the created. Creation exists in the created. Pay attention to the analogy to know whether this analogy is correct or not correct.