The Meaning of the Poet's Statement: (Explanation of the Nineteenth Type of Evidence for the Exaltation, which is that the defect of the necessary consequence necessitates the defect of the necessitated, and that the sent Messenger combined knowledge, sincere advice, and eloquence, so why did he conceal that Allah is not in the Exaltation, whereas the opposite, namely the Exaltation, is established?)
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : This is the nineteenth
The student: Yes, the explanation
The Shaykh : The explanation: In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said
"This is its nineteenth ***" It is permissible to say "and its nineteenth" and it is permissible to say "and its nineteenth" yes
"Compelling the one of *** ta'til (denial of the divine attributes) to corrupt the necessary consequence by explanation"
It means that we argue with the one who holds ta'til (denial of the divine attributes), who denied the Exaltation of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), by compelling him
"And the defect of the necessary consequence of his statement is the *** necessitated for the defect of that statement by proof"
And this is a useful rule: the defect of the necessary consequence indicates the defect of the necessitated
"And the defect of the necessary consequence of his statement is the *** necessitated for the defect of that"
"*** that statement"
Because the established rule among all people of intellect is that the defect of the necessary consequence necessitates the defect of the necessitated. For this reason, we say to every person: it follows from your saying such-and-such, and this is a defective necessary consequence, so it indicates the defect of his statement. The reason for this is that he says
"So ask the one of ta'til (denial of the divine attributes) about three questions *** that lead to the invalidity of ta'til (denial of the divine attributes)"
"What do you say, did he know his Lord *** this Messenger, the reality of recognition"
"Or not ***"
Ask him: Say, when the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) described his Lord with Exaltation, did he know his Lord? The answer is
The student: Yes.
Another student: Without a doubt
The Shaykh : Yes, or no
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : You are saying yes, but this one who holds ta'til (denial of the divine attributes) either says yes or says no. If he says no, he has admitted disbelief upon himself if he says the Messenger did not know his Lord. Well, and if he says he knew him, he says
"Was his advice to us *** all sincere advice, not betrayal"
"Or not ***"
Ask him a second time: Say, well, if he knew his Lord (Glorified and Exalted is He), was he sincere to his Ummah (the Muslim community) or a traitor? If he says a traitor, he has committed disbelief. And if he says sincere, we say
"And did he possess all eloquence *** so that word and meaning are submissive to him"
It means, or not? Ask him: If he said that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was sincere, say to him: Well, was he eloquent or inarticulate? Was he eloquent or inarticulate? It means he wants a meaning but the word does not submit to him. Ask him, because the inarticulate one is the one who wants the meaning but the word does not always submit to him. A person is always in his heart something but he is unable to express it. Yes, so ask him: Was the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) eloquent or not? I do not think he will say he was inarticulate. He will say he was eloquent. So knowledge, sincere advice, and eloquence combined in his speech. Knowledge, sincere advice, and eloquence; these are three things. If they combine, it is obligatory to act according to the necessitated of his statement
The student: Yes, the explanation
The Shaykh : The explanation: In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said
"This is its nineteenth ***" It is permissible to say "and its nineteenth" and it is permissible to say "and its nineteenth" yes
"Compelling the one of *** ta'til (denial of the divine attributes) to corrupt the necessary consequence by explanation"
It means that we argue with the one who holds ta'til (denial of the divine attributes), who denied the Exaltation of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), by compelling him
"And the defect of the necessary consequence of his statement is the *** necessitated for the defect of that statement by proof"
And this is a useful rule: the defect of the necessary consequence indicates the defect of the necessitated
"And the defect of the necessary consequence of his statement is the *** necessitated for the defect of that"
"*** that statement"
Because the established rule among all people of intellect is that the defect of the necessary consequence necessitates the defect of the necessitated. For this reason, we say to every person: it follows from your saying such-and-such, and this is a defective necessary consequence, so it indicates the defect of his statement. The reason for this is that he says
"So ask the one of ta'til (denial of the divine attributes) about three questions *** that lead to the invalidity of ta'til (denial of the divine attributes)"
"What do you say, did he know his Lord *** this Messenger, the reality of recognition"
"Or not ***"
Ask him: Say, when the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) described his Lord with Exaltation, did he know his Lord? The answer is
The student: Yes.
Another student: Without a doubt
The Shaykh : Yes, or no
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : You are saying yes, but this one who holds ta'til (denial of the divine attributes) either says yes or says no. If he says no, he has admitted disbelief upon himself if he says the Messenger did not know his Lord. Well, and if he says he knew him, he says
"Was his advice to us *** all sincere advice, not betrayal"
"Or not ***"
Ask him a second time: Say, well, if he knew his Lord (Glorified and Exalted is He), was he sincere to his Ummah (the Muslim community) or a traitor? If he says a traitor, he has committed disbelief. And if he says sincere, we say
"And did he possess all eloquence *** so that word and meaning are submissive to him"
It means, or not? Ask him: If he said that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was sincere, say to him: Well, was he eloquent or inarticulate? Was he eloquent or inarticulate? It means he wants a meaning but the word does not submit to him. Ask him, because the inarticulate one is the one who wants the meaning but the word does not always submit to him. A person is always in his heart something but he is unable to express it. Yes, so ask him: Was the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) eloquent or not? I do not think he will say he was inarticulate. He will say he was eloquent. So knowledge, sincere advice, and eloquence combined in his speech. Knowledge, sincere advice, and eloquence; these are three things. If they combine, it is obligatory to act according to the necessitated of his statement