The Meaning of the Poet's Statement: "And Their Opponents Did Not Act Justly in Their Refutation..."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He says:
"And their opponents did not act justly in their refutation *** Rather, they defied them without presenting any proof"
Yes, who are their opponents? Those who said that the act is the very thing acted upon. They said: "The act is the very thing acted upon, and we do not agree with you. We do not agree with you that the act is other than the thing acted upon. Then you say that the act is eternal and the thing acted upon is created. Even if you called it creation, we would not agree with you." But they did not act justly toward them; they did not act justly in their refutation. Why? Because in their refutation of these people, and their statement that "it is not possible for creation to occur without a created being," this is correct. But how can you say that it is possible for the thing acted upon to exist without an act? Pay attention to their opponents now so that we understand? Those who say that the thing acted upon is the very act, or that the act is the very thing acted upon—it is the same whether they express it this way or that way—did not act justly when they refuted them. How?
First: We must know the point of the refutation. The point of their refutation is that they said: "You say that the act is other than the thing acted upon, and then you say that the act is what? Eternal, like the eternity of power. And this is impossible." Who says this? Those who said that the act is the very thing acted upon. They said: "It is not possible for the act to be eternal and the thing acted upon to be created." Is their refutation correct or not? It is correct, without doubt. But they did not act justly, because when they said that it is not possible for the thing acted upon to be later and the act to be earlier, they also said that it is not possible for the thing acted upon to be the very act. But they defied and refused to say anything other than that the thing acted upon is the very act, so in reality, they did not act justly. Yes.
"And their opponents did not act justly in their refutation *** Rather, they defied them without presenting any proof"
Yes, who are their opponents? Those who said that the act is the very thing acted upon. They said: "The act is the very thing acted upon, and we do not agree with you. We do not agree with you that the act is other than the thing acted upon. Then you say that the act is eternal and the thing acted upon is created. Even if you called it creation, we would not agree with you." But they did not act justly toward them; they did not act justly in their refutation. Why? Because in their refutation of these people, and their statement that "it is not possible for creation to occur without a created being," this is correct. But how can you say that it is possible for the thing acted upon to exist without an act? Pay attention to their opponents now so that we understand? Those who say that the thing acted upon is the very act, or that the act is the very thing acted upon—it is the same whether they express it this way or that way—did not act justly when they refuted them. How?
First: We must know the point of the refutation. The point of their refutation is that they said: "You say that the act is other than the thing acted upon, and then you say that the act is what? Eternal, like the eternity of power. And this is impossible." Who says this? Those who said that the act is the very thing acted upon. They said: "It is not possible for the act to be eternal and the thing acted upon to be created." Is their refutation correct or not? It is correct, without doubt. But they did not act justly, because when they said that it is not possible for the thing acted upon to be later and the act to be earlier, they also said that it is not possible for the thing acted upon to be the very act. But they defied and refused to say anything other than that the thing acted upon is the very act, so in reality, they did not act justly. Yes.