The Meaning of the Poet's Statement: "But the Reality of Their Statement and Its Explicit Meaning... And It Is a Refutation of Those Who Say That the Act Is the Acted-Upon"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He says:
"But the reality of their statement and its explicit meaning *** is the denial of the attributes of the Creator of these universes
regarding His act"
This means: If we say that the acted-upon is the act, it necessitates the denial of Allah's attributes regarding His act, correct? Because there is no attribute in Allah that is the act. Because if the act were considered to be a new, renewed acted-upon, and Allah the Exalted is precluded from being affected by new events, for if new events were to affect Him, it would necessitate that He is a new creation. If you say this, it necessitates that Allah has no act, because you say that the act is the very same as the acted-upon. For example, regarding the heavens, they say Allah has no act which is creation, but rather He has an acted-upon which is the heavens. As for there being an act of creation by which the heavens were created, no, rather His act is the very same as the acted-upon, so that new events do not attach to Allah, because the attachment of new events to a thing makes it a new creation. Do you know the school of thought now? First know the school of thought and visualize it. This is the principle. They say: The act is the very same as the acted-upon, so Allah's act means His acted-upon, and Allah does not have an act that attaches to Him. Why? Because if acts attached to Him, He would be a receptacle for new events, and if He were a receptacle for new events, it would necessitate that He is a new creation, and the newness of Allah is impossible. Do you see how it is?
So Ibn al-Qayyim says: If you make the act the very same as the acted-upon, its consequence is that Allah has no act, because the acted-upon is a created thing separate from Allah; it is not one of His attributes. The created thing is separate from Allah and is not one of His attributes, so it necessitates for you, according to your assumption, that Allah has no act. Good.
Can we refute them by saying: If an act attached to Him, He would be a receptacle for new events, and whatever new events attach to is a new creation?
Yes, we refuted them previously. We said: It does not necessitate that if new events attach to Him, He is a new creation, because the doer precedes his act. And we are doing something today, and we were created before that by years. So Allah the Exalted does the thing, and the thing happens, and the new act attaches to Him, and He is not a new creation. This is an apparent matter with no difficulty, meaning their statement is not correct.
"So in truth He has no act, for *** the acted-upon is separate from the Exalted"
Very well.
"But the reality of their statement and its explicit meaning *** is the denial of the attributes of the Creator of these universes
regarding His act"
This means: If we say that the acted-upon is the act, it necessitates the denial of Allah's attributes regarding His act, correct? Because there is no attribute in Allah that is the act. Because if the act were considered to be a new, renewed acted-upon, and Allah the Exalted is precluded from being affected by new events, for if new events were to affect Him, it would necessitate that He is a new creation. If you say this, it necessitates that Allah has no act, because you say that the act is the very same as the acted-upon. For example, regarding the heavens, they say Allah has no act which is creation, but rather He has an acted-upon which is the heavens. As for there being an act of creation by which the heavens were created, no, rather His act is the very same as the acted-upon, so that new events do not attach to Allah, because the attachment of new events to a thing makes it a new creation. Do you know the school of thought now? First know the school of thought and visualize it. This is the principle. They say: The act is the very same as the acted-upon, so Allah's act means His acted-upon, and Allah does not have an act that attaches to Him. Why? Because if acts attached to Him, He would be a receptacle for new events, and if He were a receptacle for new events, it would necessitate that He is a new creation, and the newness of Allah is impossible. Do you see how it is?
So Ibn al-Qayyim says: If you make the act the very same as the acted-upon, its consequence is that Allah has no act, because the acted-upon is a created thing separate from Allah; it is not one of His attributes. The created thing is separate from Allah and is not one of His attributes, so it necessitates for you, according to your assumption, that Allah has no act. Good.
Can we refute them by saying: If an act attached to Him, He would be a receptacle for new events, and whatever new events attach to is a new creation?
Yes, we refuted them previously. We said: It does not necessitate that if new events attach to Him, He is a new creation, because the doer precedes his act. And we are doing something today, and we were created before that by years. So Allah the Exalted does the thing, and the thing happens, and the new act attaches to Him, and He is not a new creation. This is an apparent matter with no difficulty, meaning their statement is not correct.
"So in truth He has no act, for *** the acted-upon is separate from the Exalted"
Very well.