Questions regarding the terminology of the phrase that Allah is neither inside the world nor outside of it (and the ways of refuting it, and clarifying the difference between opposites, contraries, similarity, and difference)
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : That He is neither inside nor outside is correct. It is not correct to describe Him as inside or outside if He is capable of being so. If He is not capable of it, then you may say He is neither inside nor outside, just as you say of a wall that it is neither unjust nor just. Ibn al-Qayyim, and before him Shaykh al-Islam, said that this terminology is a convention of yours. Allah the Exalted negated a thing from what is not capable of it and affirmed it while it is not capable of it. He said regarding the idols: [An-Nahl 16:21] and they are not capable of that. And He negated a thing from what does not accept it, saying: [Al-Kahf 18:49] And injustice, in your view, is among the things that are impossible in their essence. This is a convention, and a convention does not change realities. We say that the Lord (Mighty and Majestic) must be either inside or outside, or He is the very existing things themselves. There is no fourth category. However, the people of the Sunnah and the community say that He is outside these creations and above everything.
The questioner : Shaykh, may Allah reward you. A question regarding the issue of black and white that you mentioned.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Yes, do you want to understand? Do you want to understand? We love to simplify the statement in it, there is no harm.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: We simplified it in the principles.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed, but the brothers did not come; they were not with us in the principles.
The student: O Shaykh, we...
The Shaykh : Fine, is there any benefit in it? Is there any benefit? Do you want to explain it to them?
The student: I said there is no benefit in it.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, you dismissed it.
The student: I mean, explain... one of...
The Shaykh : Yes, it does not contradict if someone understands.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Fine, it does not contradict. He says that the relationship between things is either opposition, contradiction, similarity, or difference. This relationship between things is four things: either similarity, difference, opposition, or contradiction. For example, contradiction: the relationship between two contradictories is that they do not coexist and they do not both cease to exist. These are contradictories, meaning one of them must exist, and it is not possible for both to exist. These two contradictories are like motion and rest. A thing must be either moving or at rest. As soon as I say "not moving," the listener understands that it is at rest. And as soon as I say "not at rest," he understands that it is moving, because one of them must exist. So the two things that do not coexist and do not both cease to exist are called
The student: ...
The Shaykh : contraries. They are called contraries. The opposites are those that do not coexist but they do cease to exist. They agree with the contraries in that they do not coexist, and they differ from them in that they can cease to exist, meaning it is possible for both to cease to exist. An example is whiteness and blackness. Whiteness and blackness are contraries.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, whiteness and blackness are opposites. Why? Because they do not coexist, but they can cease to exist. So a thing can be neither black nor white; for example, it can be green. Clear, brothers? Did you understand now?
The questioner : Did you understand in the world of...
The Shaykh : "Cease to exist" means the thing is devoid of them. "Cease to exist" means the thing is devoid of them. For example, this is now black. What is negated from it? Whiteness and redness. See, it is devoid of whiteness and redness. Are whiteness and redness opposites or not? Opposites. They do not coexist; it is not possible for a thing to be red and white at the same time. So here they ceased to exist. Now this thing is neither red nor white, but it is black. As for moving and at rest, you cannot say "not moving and not at rest." But for this, you can say "not white and not red." Correct? Clear, brothers? Fine. Inside the world or outside the world, which of the relationships is it?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Contraries. Why?
The student: They do not coexist.
The Shaykh : They do not coexist.
The student: And they do not cease to exist.
The Shaykh : And they do not cease to exist. Every existing thing must be either inside the world or outside the world. But if someone says, "It is the world," we say, "Then there are no existing things, and we are talking about
The student: existing things.
The Shaykh : about two existing things. So if someone says, "Neither inside the world nor outside of it," they are not contradictories, because it can be said that He is the world itself. And if I say He is the world itself, He is the world itself, you have not affirmed two existing things; you have affirmed one existing thing.
The student: One.
The Shaykh : One. Fine. The two similar things are the synonyms. "Human" and "person." Their meaning is one. These are two similar things, meaning humanity and personhood are one thing.
The two different things are those that coexist and cease to exist. Meaning, it is possible for them to coexist and it is possible for them to cease to exist, but each one is not the other. The two similar things: each one is the other. The two different things coexist and what else?
The student: And they cease to exist.
The Shaykh : And they cease to exist, but they are different, not similar.
The student: Different.
The Shaykh : Different. Each one is not the other. Like standing and whiteness. Standing and whiteness, these are two different things, correct?
The student: Yes.
Another student : ...
The Shaykh : Yes, they are different because standing is not whiteness, so it is different from it. So standing and whiteness, we say these are two different things. Fine, is it possible for them to coexist?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : How is it said?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : He is standing and white, okay?
The student: He rolls and is white.
The Shaykh : How does he roll?
The student: ...
Another student: He moves and is white.
Another student: He moves and is white.
The Shaykh : We say standing, we don't have... Fine, do they cease to exist?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So it becomes
The student: ...
The Shaykh : sitting and black. Sitting and black. This is regarding... You know, the most important thing that is always refuted is the contraries. In the chapter of theology, the contraries are the most frequently refuted.
The questioner : ... refuting them.
The Shaykh : What?
The questioner : ... refuting them, summarized.
The Shaykh : As we mentioned, if we say, "You believe that the Creator and the created are two distinct things," they say, "Yes." We say, "Is Allah inside the world or outside of it?" They are compelled to say either inside or outside. But they say, "It is not necessary for us to say inside and outside, because this is only necessary for us if He is capable of it. If He is not capable, it is correct to say He is neither inside nor outside, just as it is correct to say of a wall that it is neither unjust nor just." We say, "Your statement that He is not capable is a claim
The student: bare.
The Shaykh : without evidence. The second point is that "neither inside the world nor outside of it"—the opposition between them is opposition of absence and presence. When you say He is not capable or capable, the opposition between them is opposition of what? Opposition of negation and affirmation. Meaning, if you negate one of them,
The student: ...
The Shaykh : the other is affirmed, necessarily, because they are contradictories. Because they are contradictories, as long as you have affirmed the Creator and affirmed the created, you have affirmed two things. Now you have affirmed two things, so one of them must be inside the other or outside the other. Necessarily, you must say either inside or outside. If he says the Creator is the created, we say, "Now you have not affirmed two things; what did you affirm? One thing." But the Jahmi and the Ash'ari and others do not say it is one thing. So as long as you have affirmed two existing things, one of them must be either inside the world or outside of it. Necessarily. Just as if you were asked, "Is Allah standing by Himself or by other than Himself?" you would say
The student: ...
The Shaykh : "Standing by Himself." And they say "Standing by Himself." We say, negating "neither inside the world nor outside of it" is like the negation in saying "neither standing by Himself nor by other than Himself." It is exactly the same. If you deny that it can be said "neither standing by Himself nor by other than Himself," then deny that it can be said "neither inside the world nor outside of it." And the result now is that he will be compelled to acknowledge that He is outside the world. Outside the world. And if he affirms that He is outside the world, he is compelled to say that He is above, because anything other than being above is an attribute
The student: It is an imperfection.
The Shaykh : of deficiency, and he acknowledges that Allah is free from deficiency. Yes, indeed.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : ... and what...
The student: This is what...
The Shaykh : Fine, now this is the first thing, and it is now clear.
The questioner : ... we refute them by evidence from the Book.
The Shaykh : They say that negating the two contraries or negating the two opposites from a thing is not correct. Negating them from a thing capable of them is not correct, but for what is not capable, it is correct. We say that Allah is neither inside the world nor outside of it because He does not accept being inside the world and outside of it, so it is correct to negate it from Him. We negate them from Allah.
The questioner: The wall.
The Shaykh : The wall. We say it is not suitable, meaning it is suitable to say "neither unjust nor just" because it is not capable. Not capable of being attributed with justice or injustice. The Lord (Mighty and Majestic), according to their statement, is not capable of being inside the world or outside of it. So first, we prevent this rule. Second, we say that the opposition in "neither inside the world nor outside of it" is the opposition of contraries, not opposites. One of them must exist, or you must say He is the very creation. And at that time, the people of the Unity of Existence say, "Welcome to you." Yes, indeed.
They are, [in fact], dead, not alive, and they do not perceive when they will be resurrected.
أموات غير أحياءAnd your Lord does injustice to no one.
ولا يظلم ربك أحداThe questioner : Shaykh, may Allah reward you. A question regarding the issue of black and white that you mentioned.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Yes, do you want to understand? Do you want to understand? We love to simplify the statement in it, there is no harm.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: We simplified it in the principles.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed, but the brothers did not come; they were not with us in the principles.
The student: O Shaykh, we...
The Shaykh : Fine, is there any benefit in it? Is there any benefit? Do you want to explain it to them?
The student: I said there is no benefit in it.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, you dismissed it.
The student: I mean, explain... one of...
The Shaykh : Yes, it does not contradict if someone understands.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Fine, it does not contradict. He says that the relationship between things is either opposition, contradiction, similarity, or difference. This relationship between things is four things: either similarity, difference, opposition, or contradiction. For example, contradiction: the relationship between two contradictories is that they do not coexist and they do not both cease to exist. These are contradictories, meaning one of them must exist, and it is not possible for both to exist. These two contradictories are like motion and rest. A thing must be either moving or at rest. As soon as I say "not moving," the listener understands that it is at rest. And as soon as I say "not at rest," he understands that it is moving, because one of them must exist. So the two things that do not coexist and do not both cease to exist are called
The student: ...
The Shaykh : contraries. They are called contraries. The opposites are those that do not coexist but they do cease to exist. They agree with the contraries in that they do not coexist, and they differ from them in that they can cease to exist, meaning it is possible for both to cease to exist. An example is whiteness and blackness. Whiteness and blackness are contraries.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, whiteness and blackness are opposites. Why? Because they do not coexist, but they can cease to exist. So a thing can be neither black nor white; for example, it can be green. Clear, brothers? Did you understand now?
The questioner : Did you understand in the world of...
The Shaykh : "Cease to exist" means the thing is devoid of them. "Cease to exist" means the thing is devoid of them. For example, this is now black. What is negated from it? Whiteness and redness. See, it is devoid of whiteness and redness. Are whiteness and redness opposites or not? Opposites. They do not coexist; it is not possible for a thing to be red and white at the same time. So here they ceased to exist. Now this thing is neither red nor white, but it is black. As for moving and at rest, you cannot say "not moving and not at rest." But for this, you can say "not white and not red." Correct? Clear, brothers? Fine. Inside the world or outside the world, which of the relationships is it?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Contraries. Why?
The student: They do not coexist.
The Shaykh : They do not coexist.
The student: And they do not cease to exist.
The Shaykh : And they do not cease to exist. Every existing thing must be either inside the world or outside the world. But if someone says, "It is the world," we say, "Then there are no existing things, and we are talking about
The student: existing things.
The Shaykh : about two existing things. So if someone says, "Neither inside the world nor outside of it," they are not contradictories, because it can be said that He is the world itself. And if I say He is the world itself, He is the world itself, you have not affirmed two existing things; you have affirmed one existing thing.
The student: One.
The Shaykh : One. Fine. The two similar things are the synonyms. "Human" and "person." Their meaning is one. These are two similar things, meaning humanity and personhood are one thing.
The two different things are those that coexist and cease to exist. Meaning, it is possible for them to coexist and it is possible for them to cease to exist, but each one is not the other. The two similar things: each one is the other. The two different things coexist and what else?
The student: And they cease to exist.
The Shaykh : And they cease to exist, but they are different, not similar.
The student: Different.
The Shaykh : Different. Each one is not the other. Like standing and whiteness. Standing and whiteness, these are two different things, correct?
The student: Yes.
Another student : ...
The Shaykh : Yes, they are different because standing is not whiteness, so it is different from it. So standing and whiteness, we say these are two different things. Fine, is it possible for them to coexist?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : How is it said?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : He is standing and white, okay?
The student: He rolls and is white.
The Shaykh : How does he roll?
The student: ...
Another student: He moves and is white.
Another student: He moves and is white.
The Shaykh : We say standing, we don't have... Fine, do they cease to exist?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So it becomes
The student: ...
The Shaykh : sitting and black. Sitting and black. This is regarding... You know, the most important thing that is always refuted is the contraries. In the chapter of theology, the contraries are the most frequently refuted.
The questioner : ... refuting them.
The Shaykh : What?
The questioner : ... refuting them, summarized.
The Shaykh : As we mentioned, if we say, "You believe that the Creator and the created are two distinct things," they say, "Yes." We say, "Is Allah inside the world or outside of it?" They are compelled to say either inside or outside. But they say, "It is not necessary for us to say inside and outside, because this is only necessary for us if He is capable of it. If He is not capable, it is correct to say He is neither inside nor outside, just as it is correct to say of a wall that it is neither unjust nor just." We say, "Your statement that He is not capable is a claim
The student: bare.
The Shaykh : without evidence. The second point is that "neither inside the world nor outside of it"—the opposition between them is opposition of absence and presence. When you say He is not capable or capable, the opposition between them is opposition of what? Opposition of negation and affirmation. Meaning, if you negate one of them,
The student: ...
The Shaykh : the other is affirmed, necessarily, because they are contradictories. Because they are contradictories, as long as you have affirmed the Creator and affirmed the created, you have affirmed two things. Now you have affirmed two things, so one of them must be inside the other or outside the other. Necessarily, you must say either inside or outside. If he says the Creator is the created, we say, "Now you have not affirmed two things; what did you affirm? One thing." But the Jahmi and the Ash'ari and others do not say it is one thing. So as long as you have affirmed two existing things, one of them must be either inside the world or outside of it. Necessarily. Just as if you were asked, "Is Allah standing by Himself or by other than Himself?" you would say
The student: ...
The Shaykh : "Standing by Himself." And they say "Standing by Himself." We say, negating "neither inside the world nor outside of it" is like the negation in saying "neither standing by Himself nor by other than Himself." It is exactly the same. If you deny that it can be said "neither standing by Himself nor by other than Himself," then deny that it can be said "neither inside the world nor outside of it." And the result now is that he will be compelled to acknowledge that He is outside the world. Outside the world. And if he affirms that He is outside the world, he is compelled to say that He is above, because anything other than being above is an attribute
The student: It is an imperfection.
The Shaykh : of deficiency, and he acknowledges that Allah is free from deficiency. Yes, indeed.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : ... and what...
The student: This is what...
The Shaykh : Fine, now this is the first thing, and it is now clear.
The questioner : ... we refute them by evidence from the Book.
The Shaykh : They say that negating the two contraries or negating the two opposites from a thing is not correct. Negating them from a thing capable of them is not correct, but for what is not capable, it is correct. We say that Allah is neither inside the world nor outside of it because He does not accept being inside the world and outside of it, so it is correct to negate it from Him. We negate them from Allah.
The questioner: The wall.
The Shaykh : The wall. We say it is not suitable, meaning it is suitable to say "neither unjust nor just" because it is not capable. Not capable of being attributed with justice or injustice. The Lord (Mighty and Majestic), according to their statement, is not capable of being inside the world or outside of it. So first, we prevent this rule. Second, we say that the opposition in "neither inside the world nor outside of it" is the opposition of contraries, not opposites. One of them must exist, or you must say He is the very creation. And at that time, the people of the Unity of Existence say, "Welcome to you." Yes, indeed.