Commentary on the preceding verses, refuting the Jahmiyyah and clarifying that the origin of all denial of the divine attributes (ta'til) is the Jahmiyyah

The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
This author (may Allah have mercy on him) said, (may Allah have mercy on him), in this excerpt, that he began by refuting these deviants in their belief regarding the speech of Allah. He started first with the Jahmiyyah, who are the followers of Jahm ibn Safwan, the first to advocate for the denial of the divine attributes (ta'til) when he said: "Allah did not take Ibrahim as a friend, nor did He speak to Musa directly." The doctrine of the Jahmiyyah is that they say: Allah is a speaker, meaning He creates speech in another entity, but He Himself does not speak. However, He creates speech and attributes it to Himself as an honor and exaltation, just as He created the she-camel and attributed it to Himself as "the she-camel of Allah" as an honor and exaltation, and just as He created the House and attributed it to Himself, saying: as an honor and distinction, and just as He attributed the place of His worship to Himself, which are the mosques, saying: So, the speech of Allah is the speech of the created being that He created in another entity, but He attributed it to Himself in the sense of honoring it. As for Allah Himself, it is impossible for Him to speak. The explanation of their error will come later. Do you understand the doctrine?
So, what is speech according to them? The speech of Allah is created speech in another entity, attributed to Himself in the sense of honor and exaltation. As for Allah, it is impossible for Him to speak. It is impossible for Allah to say: Absolutely not. It is impossible for Him to say: But He created speech with these letters, which Jibril heard, and he brought it down to Muhammad. It was not Allah who said to Musa: He did not say it; it was not Allah who spoke it. What? He created it in something, either in the air, or in the tree, or in such and such, and Jibril heard it. I mean, Musa heard it. As for Allah, He did not speak. Do you understand? He wanted to refute them, so he said:
"So turn away from the Jahmiyyah, the Mongols, those who *** "
"Mughul" means the Mongols. The Mongols are the Tatars who rebelled against the Muslims and corrupted the world and the religion. The origin of the Mongol catastrophe is from the Jahmiyyah, because the origin of all denial of the divine attributes (ta'til) is from the Jahmiyyah. The origin of all denial of the divine attributes (ta'til) is from the Jahmiyyah. Just as the origin of all rebellion against the imams is from the Khawarij, and just as the origin of all extremism regarding the Family of the Prophet is from the Rafidah, and so on. The origins of all religious innovations (bid'ah) are known, praise be to Allah. The Jahmiyyah are the origin of the denial of the divine attributes (ta'til), and these Mongols who corrupted the world and the religion were on their doctrine. He said:
" *** They tore apart the fence of reason and the Qur'an "
The fence of a thing is what surrounds it with a wall. So they tore apart the fence of reason and the transmitted texts. Where do we take from that they tore apart the fence of the transmitted texts? From his saying:
"and the Qur'an "
"They scattered those behind them and broke them *** "
"They scattered those behind them" means: They dealt with them harshly, causing those behind them to flee, just as Allah the Exalted said:
"They scattered those behind them and broke them *** Nay, they called out in their assembly with a proclamation " Their assembly is their gathering. "With a proclamation" means with an announcement. Say:
"You corrupted the rational, the transmitted, and the heard from every language with every tongue "
Meaning, your speech corrupted the rational, the transmitted, and the heard from the languages. So you corrupted reason, here? And the transmitted texts and the language, and you corrupted the language. Then he clarified the reason, saying:
"Is it valid to describe a thing with a derivative *** whose meaning is stripped from it, for those with intellects? "
Answer: Is it valid or not valid? How is it valid to describe a thing with a derivative when it does not contain its meaning? Is it valid to say to a person sitting, "You are standing"? Here?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : No, because if you said to a person sitting that he is standing, and you described this sitting person with a description that is stripped from him, "stripped from him" means negated from him, is it valid to describe a thing with a derivative whose meaning is stripped from it, for those with intellects? The answer is: No, it is absolutely not valid.
"Is it valid to call a thing patient when it has no patience *** " Meaning: Is it valid to describe a thing with a derivative when it does not have that derivative, let alone to describe another with it? Here? It is not valid, it is absolutely not valid.
"Is it valid to call a thing patient when it has no patience *** And is it valid to call a thing grateful when it has no gratitude?
And is it valid to call a thing knowing when it has no knowledge? *** And is it valid to call a thing forgiving when it has no forgiveness?
And is it said that this is a hearer or a seer? *** While hearing and sight are absent? "
You saw a deaf person. If you fired a cannon near his ear, he would not hear. You said: "Masha'Allah! This man's hearing pierces walls." Is it valid or not valid? Is it not valid? How is it not valid? It is not valid. A man who does not hear, if you fire a cannon near his ear and he does not hear, you call him "Hearer." It is impossible. Also, is it valid to say: "This is a seer," while sight is absent from him? Here? If you said to a blind person, you have a blind man, and you said: "Masha'Allah! This man sees a black ant in a dark night," what do you say, is it correct or not correct? It is not correct, my brothers, it is clearly not correct. If you said this, people would throw you with madness. This is impossible. For this reason, he said:
"This is impossible in reason and in the transmitted texts *** And in languages and not possible "
It is impossible. You describe a person with sight while he is blind, with hearing while he is deaf, with patience while he is impatient, with gratitude while he is ungrateful. This is absolutely impossible.