The Meaning of the Poet's Statement: A Chapter on Their Objection to the Claim of the Permanence of the Lord's (Exalted is He) Action and His Speech and His Separation from It; So if you claim that that is a sequence, we say:
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"The Permanence of the Lord's Action and His Speech and His Separation from It" refers to their objection, and "His Separation from It" means His separation from this objection.
The author said: "So if you claim that that is a sequence *** We say: You have spoken the truth"
"That" refers to the permanence of the Lord's action in the past. You have learned that people have three opinions regarding the sequence: its permissibility in the past and the future, its impossibility in the past and the future, and its impossibility in the past but not in the future. These are the people's opinions on this matter. Now, he says:
"So if you claim that that is a sequence ***" means: that the permanence of the action of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, in the past is a sequence. "*** We say: You have spoken the truth" means: we accept this. "And it is possible", meaning: you have spoken the truth, and this is possible. What prevents it?
"Like the sequence of effect in the future *** Is there any difference between those two?", meaning: just as you say that a sequence is possible in the future, what is the difference between claiming the possibility of a sequence in the future and its possibility in the past? There is no difference, because it is known that Allah is the First, before whom there is nothing, and He is the Last, after whom there is nothing. So if we say there is a sequence in the future, even though Allah is the Last, why should we not say there is a sequence in the past, even though Allah is the First? What difference is there? This is, in reality, an analogy from which there is no escape. Moreover, it has been established that the claim of the permanence of the action of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, in the past is part of His perfection, and that He has always been an Actor. The thing to be guarded against is saying that the very entity of the created thing has been permanent in the past. That is the danger. For example, saying: the universe has always existed. This is wrong. The universe is created, without doubt.
Now, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) raised an objection and answered it. How did he answer?
He said: Just as a sequence is possible in the future, what prevents it in the past? Yes.
The author said: "So if you claim that that is a sequence *** We say: You have spoken the truth"
"That" refers to the permanence of the Lord's action in the past. You have learned that people have three opinions regarding the sequence: its permissibility in the past and the future, its impossibility in the past and the future, and its impossibility in the past but not in the future. These are the people's opinions on this matter. Now, he says:
"So if you claim that that is a sequence ***" means: that the permanence of the action of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, in the past is a sequence. "*** We say: You have spoken the truth" means: we accept this. "And it is possible", meaning: you have spoken the truth, and this is possible. What prevents it?
"Like the sequence of effect in the future *** Is there any difference between those two?", meaning: just as you say that a sequence is possible in the future, what is the difference between claiming the possibility of a sequence in the future and its possibility in the past? There is no difference, because it is known that Allah is the First, before whom there is nothing, and He is the Last, after whom there is nothing. So if we say there is a sequence in the future, even though Allah is the Last, why should we not say there is a sequence in the past, even though Allah is the First? What difference is there? This is, in reality, an analogy from which there is no escape. Moreover, it has been established that the claim of the permanence of the action of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, in the past is part of His perfection, and that He has always been an Actor. The thing to be guarded against is saying that the very entity of the created thing has been permanent in the past. That is the danger. For example, saying: the universe has always existed. This is wrong. The universe is created, without doubt.
Now, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) raised an objection and answered it. How did he answer?
He said: Just as a sequence is possible in the future, what prevents it in the past? Yes.