A Refutation of Those Who Say That New Events Do Not Subsist in Allah and That Speech Is a New Event
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : They say:
"So if you claim that this is established *** in His action, like the creation of the worlds
and the action does not subsist in our God *** "
They say:
"The action does not subsist in our God *** for it cannot be the locus of one who has new events"
They hold a principle among them: that new events do not subsist in Allah; anything that is a new event cannot subsist in Allah. What does it mean that it cannot subsist in Allah? It means that Allah cannot be described with it. Everything that is a new event, and speech, in their view, is a new event, just as it is with the people of the Sunnah, is connected to the will. Creation is a new event connected to the will; He creates what He wills.
They say: creation does not subsist in Allah, speech does not subsist in Allah, rising above the Throne does not subsist in Allah. Anything that entails newness does not subsist in Allah. Why? They said: because whatever a new event subsists in is itself a new event. The principle is: whatever a new event subsists in is itself a new event. What do you say? Is this correct? This is not correct. He says: a new event cannot subsist except in a new event. So if you say that new events subsist in Allah, it follows that Allah is a new event.
But this principle is invalid, invalid from its root. New events are the actions of the one who brings them into existence, and the actor must precede the action, and the action must precede the object of the action, or at least be concurrent with it. As for saying: everything in which a new event subsists is itself a new event, this is not correct. We also have evidence from ourselves. We are created beings from twenty years ago. He stood up now. What time is it? Here? Seven and a quarter. He stood up at seven and a quarter. Does it follow that he is a new event at seven and a quarter, when he has been around for twenty years? So it is established that the actor precedes what? It precedes the action, and it does not follow from the newness of the action that the actor is a new event. This person is old relative to his action; he is twenty years old, and the action did not occur except in this month, Jumada, in the year 1411. So it does not follow from the newness of a thing that the thing in which it occurred is a new event; rather, it precedes it in time. So Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has new events subsisting in Him in the sense that He does what He wills, an action that is renewed and new after it did not exist, and yet He Himself is ancient and eternal. Good. He says:
"And the action does not subsist in our God *** for it cannot be the locus of one who has new events"
Whose saying is this?
The student : The Jahmiyyah.
The Shaykh : The Jahmiyyah.
"So if you claim that this is established *** in His action, like the creation of the worlds
and the action does not subsist in our God *** "
They say:
"The action does not subsist in our God *** for it cannot be the locus of one who has new events"
They hold a principle among them: that new events do not subsist in Allah; anything that is a new event cannot subsist in Allah. What does it mean that it cannot subsist in Allah? It means that Allah cannot be described with it. Everything that is a new event, and speech, in their view, is a new event, just as it is with the people of the Sunnah, is connected to the will. Creation is a new event connected to the will; He creates what He wills.
They say: creation does not subsist in Allah, speech does not subsist in Allah, rising above the Throne does not subsist in Allah. Anything that entails newness does not subsist in Allah. Why? They said: because whatever a new event subsists in is itself a new event. The principle is: whatever a new event subsists in is itself a new event. What do you say? Is this correct? This is not correct. He says: a new event cannot subsist except in a new event. So if you say that new events subsist in Allah, it follows that Allah is a new event.
But this principle is invalid, invalid from its root. New events are the actions of the one who brings them into existence, and the actor must precede the action, and the action must precede the object of the action, or at least be concurrent with it. As for saying: everything in which a new event subsists is itself a new event, this is not correct. We also have evidence from ourselves. We are created beings from twenty years ago. He stood up now. What time is it? Here? Seven and a quarter. He stood up at seven and a quarter. Does it follow that he is a new event at seven and a quarter, when he has been around for twenty years? So it is established that the actor precedes what? It precedes the action, and it does not follow from the newness of the action that the actor is a new event. This person is old relative to his action; he is twenty years old, and the action did not occur except in this month, Jumada, in the year 1411. So it does not follow from the newness of a thing that the thing in which it occurred is a new event; rather, it precedes it in time. So Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has new events subsisting in Him in the sense that He does what He wills, an action that is renewed and new after it did not exist, and yet He Himself is ancient and eternal. Good. He says:
"And the action does not subsist in our God *** for it cannot be the locus of one who has new events"
Whose saying is this?
The student : The Jahmiyyah.
The Shaykh : The Jahmiyyah.