The Meaning of the Poet's Statement: (The Conclusion of the Refutation of Those Who Said That Allah Is Not Inside the World or Outside It, and Mentioning the Benefit of Delving into This Issue) And It Is Also Said
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
"And it is also said: Your denial of His accepting them *** removes the reality of possibility"
If you say that Allah does not accept them, and the pronoun here refers to being inside the world and outside the world, meaning He does not accept being inside the world or outside the world, and if He does not accept it, then it is permissible for us to deny them of Him, so we say He is not inside and not outside. Just as it is correct to say of a wall that it is not oppressive and not non-oppressive, because it does not accept [such attributes], so we say to them: If you say that He does not accept them, then this removes the reality of possibility, meaning it makes the possible thing impossible. How is that? Rather, explain to them an analogy; explain to him an analogy.
"Rather, that is a denial of His subsisting by Himself or *** by another in the innate dispositions and minds"
And that is because we ask this man who denies the attributes, who says that Allah does not accept being inside the world or outside it, we ask him: Did He subsist by Himself or by another? He cannot say that He did not subsist by Himself or by another, because if he says He did not subsist by Himself, it necessitates that He is in need of another. At that point, describing Allah with this is uglier than if he said He subsists by Himself. Therefore, he has no escape, and it is an embarrassing question, an embarrassing one with which one cannot engage in conversation.
We say to him: All right, if you say that He does not accept being inside the world and outside it, you must say that He does not accept subsisting by Himself or by another. And no one says that; He must subsist by Himself or by another. And we say: What is this straining and this affectation? Why? Did the Companions follow this path? Yes, no, they did not discuss this discussion. But the scholars of the Salaf, especially in the middle ages, were compelled to this research, which someone might say should not be researched regarding Allah the Exalted, and that we should not strain and affect ourselves with this affectation. They were compelled to it because they were afflicted with people who speak about such matters in order to deny the reality of Allah, because the reality of their statement is that there is no God. If they say Allah is not inside the world nor outside it, every person understands by his innate disposition that the thing that is not inside the world nor outside it is a non-existent thing. And they address people with their minds and innate dispositions, so when they hear such speech, they say: Then there is no Lord. Therefore, the scholars, like the Shaykh al-Islam and Ibn al-Qayyim and other scholars of the imams, were compelled to delve into this matter. Otherwise, a person would say: What do we have to do with this research, whose understanding may be difficult, let alone its affirmation or denial? We say: Because if we are afflicted, we should not let falsehood run in the field where it pleases and turn where it pleases. We must enter the battle until the matter becomes clear. Here, may Allah have mercy on him, he says:
"Rather, that is a denial of His subsisting by Himself or *** by another"
And this is impossible; no one can say that Allah does not subsist by Himself nor by another. All right.
"And it is also said: Your denial of His accepting them *** removes the reality of possibility"
If you say that Allah does not accept them, and the pronoun here refers to being inside the world and outside the world, meaning He does not accept being inside the world or outside the world, and if He does not accept it, then it is permissible for us to deny them of Him, so we say He is not inside and not outside. Just as it is correct to say of a wall that it is not oppressive and not non-oppressive, because it does not accept [such attributes], so we say to them: If you say that He does not accept them, then this removes the reality of possibility, meaning it makes the possible thing impossible. How is that? Rather, explain to them an analogy; explain to him an analogy.
"Rather, that is a denial of His subsisting by Himself or *** by another in the innate dispositions and minds"
And that is because we ask this man who denies the attributes, who says that Allah does not accept being inside the world or outside it, we ask him: Did He subsist by Himself or by another? He cannot say that He did not subsist by Himself or by another, because if he says He did not subsist by Himself, it necessitates that He is in need of another. At that point, describing Allah with this is uglier than if he said He subsists by Himself. Therefore, he has no escape, and it is an embarrassing question, an embarrassing one with which one cannot engage in conversation.
We say to him: All right, if you say that He does not accept being inside the world and outside it, you must say that He does not accept subsisting by Himself or by another. And no one says that; He must subsist by Himself or by another. And we say: What is this straining and this affectation? Why? Did the Companions follow this path? Yes, no, they did not discuss this discussion. But the scholars of the Salaf, especially in the middle ages, were compelled to this research, which someone might say should not be researched regarding Allah the Exalted, and that we should not strain and affect ourselves with this affectation. They were compelled to it because they were afflicted with people who speak about such matters in order to deny the reality of Allah, because the reality of their statement is that there is no God. If they say Allah is not inside the world nor outside it, every person understands by his innate disposition that the thing that is not inside the world nor outside it is a non-existent thing. And they address people with their minds and innate dispositions, so when they hear such speech, they say: Then there is no Lord. Therefore, the scholars, like the Shaykh al-Islam and Ibn al-Qayyim and other scholars of the imams, were compelled to delve into this matter. Otherwise, a person would say: What do we have to do with this research, whose understanding may be difficult, let alone its affirmation or denial? We say: Because if we are afflicted, we should not let falsehood run in the field where it pleases and turn where it pleases. We must enter the battle until the matter becomes clear. Here, may Allah have mercy on him, he says:
"Rather, that is a denial of His subsisting by Himself or *** by another"
And this is impossible; no one can say that Allah does not subsist by Himself nor by another. All right.