The Meaning of the Poet's Statement: "And So, Other Than al-Jahm, Between Them Is *** Thus al-'Alaf in Denial and Invalidity, and for This Reason, They Ruled with an Invalid Ruling *** Categorical Regarding the Gardens and the Fires"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : And so, in your view, is it so? And for this reason?
The student: For this reason.
The Shaykh : And the Ancient with you? Huh?
"And so, other than al-Jahm, between them is *** thus al-'Alaf in denial and invalidity"
Al-Jahm and al-'Alaf; al-Jahm ibn Safwan, and likewise al-'Alaf, and I think he was from the Mu'tazilah. They equated between them, meaning between the past and the future. They said: There is no difference between them. If succession is possible in the past, it is not prevented in the future, and if it is possible in the future, it is not prevented in the past. But they, he says:
"And for this reason, they ruled with an invalid ruling *** categorical regarding the gardens and the fires
So the Jahmiyyah annihilated the Essence, and the 'Ati'ah *** annihilated the motions, as the Thawran said.
They made them like bulls, yes. They ruled with an invalid ruling regarding the gardens and the fires. So they ruled that Paradise will be annihilated and the Fire will be annihilated. Why? By applying the rule, which is the prevention of succession in the future just as it is prevented in the past. But al-Jahm annihilated the Essence, and al-'Alaf annihilated the movements. The difference is: al-Jahm says this world, with its Paradise and its Fire, will be annihilated, and nothing will remain except Allah (Mighty and Majestic). And al-'Alaf said: No, what is annihilated is only the movements, and the essences remain. It even passed us that he said: If a man is in Paradise and has taken something to eat, and Allah decrees annihilation, his movements are annihilated, and this thing remains in his hand, between its place and his mouth, like this, for how long? Forever, the eternity of eternities, always. And that if he were with his wives in Paradise, if he were with his wives in Paradise and Allah decrees annihilation, he is annihilated and remains with his wives forever, the eternity of eternities, as if they are two stones stuck together. Is this speech reasonable or not reasonable? This is not reasonable. This is something the foolish laugh at, let alone the scholars.
The student: For this reason.
The Shaykh : And the Ancient with you? Huh?
"And so, other than al-Jahm, between them is *** thus al-'Alaf in denial and invalidity"
Al-Jahm and al-'Alaf; al-Jahm ibn Safwan, and likewise al-'Alaf, and I think he was from the Mu'tazilah. They equated between them, meaning between the past and the future. They said: There is no difference between them. If succession is possible in the past, it is not prevented in the future, and if it is possible in the future, it is not prevented in the past. But they, he says:
"And for this reason, they ruled with an invalid ruling *** categorical regarding the gardens and the fires
So the Jahmiyyah annihilated the Essence, and the 'Ati'ah *** annihilated the motions, as the Thawran said.
They made them like bulls, yes. They ruled with an invalid ruling regarding the gardens and the fires. So they ruled that Paradise will be annihilated and the Fire will be annihilated. Why? By applying the rule, which is the prevention of succession in the future just as it is prevented in the past. But al-Jahm annihilated the Essence, and al-'Alaf annihilated the movements. The difference is: al-Jahm says this world, with its Paradise and its Fire, will be annihilated, and nothing will remain except Allah (Mighty and Majestic). And al-'Alaf said: No, what is annihilated is only the movements, and the essences remain. It even passed us that he said: If a man is in Paradise and has taken something to eat, and Allah decrees annihilation, his movements are annihilated, and this thing remains in his hand, between its place and his mouth, like this, for how long? Forever, the eternity of eternities, always. And that if he were with his wives in Paradise, if he were with his wives in Paradise and Allah decrees annihilation, he is annihilated and remains with his wives forever, the eternity of eternities, as if they are two stones stuck together. Is this speech reasonable or not reasonable? This is not reasonable. This is something the foolish laugh at, let alone the scholars.