The Second Case: That it is mentioned for him, and the necessary implication between it and his statement is denied, such as when the one who denies the attributes says to the one who affirms them:
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Consequently, our faith in the actions of Allah is faith in His perfection, and our denial of them would be a deficiency in the right of Allah (Mighty and Majestic).
"The Second Case: That it is mentioned for him, and the necessary implication between it and his statement is denied, such as when the one who denies the attributes says to the one who affirms them: 'It follows from your affirmation that Allah the Exalted would be likened to creation in His attributes'" Look at these false necessary implications that the people of innovation impose on the people of the Sunnah. If the necessary implication is mentioned for the speaker and he denies that it is a necessary implication, then it does not follow if it is not entailed by reason. However, if it is entailed by reason, then it must follow. We will come to this point, if Allah wills. Now, this is what the one who denies the attributes says to the one who affirms them: "It follows from your affirmation that Allah the Exalted would be likened to creation in His attributes." This is what the people of denial of attributes imposed on the people of affirmation. The people of denial of attributes imposed this on the people of affirmation, saying, "If you affirm an attribute for Allah, you have likened Allah to creation." For this reason, the people of denial of attributes call the people of affirmation "likeners" and "ascribers of a body to Allah." Does this follow? The one who affirms says, "It does not follow. It does not follow from affirming the attributes that He is likened to creation or made similar to them." "Because the attributes of the Creator are attributed to Him and were not mentioned in an absolute sense such that what you have made necessary would be possible. Consequently, they are specific to Him and befitting of Him, just as you, O one who denies the attributes, affirm a Self for Allah the Exalted and deny that He is likened to creation in His Self. So what is the difference between the Self and the attributes?" It is clear now. The one who affirms has escaped the imposition. He says, "I affirm for Allah (Mighty and Majestic) the attributes that He affirmed for Himself, and I do not commit to them being likened to creation. Why? Listen to the clear rational explanation: The attributes of Allah the Exalted are attributed to Him. His Hand, His Face, His Hearing, His Sight, and the like are attributed to Allah. They were not mentioned in an absolute sense that all individuals would possess, but rather they were mentioned as attributed. The Hand of Allah. Does anyone understand that the Hand of Allah is like the hand of a created being, while knowing that the Self of Allah is not like the Self of a created being? Answer, everyone. It is impossible. Therefore, this imposition is false. For this reason, we say to the man, "Do you not affirm a Self for Allah?" He will say, "Yes." We say, "Does the created being have a Self?" He will say, "Yes." We say, "If that is the case, does it follow from affirming a Self for Allah that He is likened to the created being?" He will say, "No." And we say, "No. What is the difference between the attributes and the Self?" Does he find a difference or not? He finds no difference at all. For this reason, the scholars said: "The attributes are treated in the same manner as the Self" Just as we affirm a Self for Allah that does not resemble the Selves of creation, we must affirm attributes for Him that do not resemble the attributes of creation. This is the second case. The first case is that the necessary implication is mentioned, and what is it? He commits to it. The second is that the necessary implication is mentioned, and he does not commit to it, and he mentions the cause. Here we say that if he does not commit to it and mentions the cause, he is free from it. He is free from this necessary implication. The example is clear. We mentioned that if one denies the necessary implication without any evidence, neither textual nor rational, we do not accept his denial. Be clear about this. The example: If we say to one who denies the rising of Allah and says that He is in every place, "It follows from your statement that Allah the Exalted is in the mosques, in the places of dancing, and in filthy places," and he says, "This does not follow for me," we say, "Bring the evidence, because you said 'in every place' and did not exclude anything, and this is a necessary implication of your statement. Where is the evidence that excludes what was mentioned from the necessary implication of your statement?" He will not find evidence. If he says, "I have evidence, which is the exalting of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) from these places," we say, "Why do you not affirm that He is in a place, in the height, and rest, since you have introduced a specification into the generality of your speech? You must affirm the height, because your speech has been contradicted. And at that time, he will find no room or exit. Similarly, those who say that He is not above, not below, not to the right, not to the left, not connected, and not separated. We say, this is non-existence. If you describe Allah with this description, it is as if you said He is non-existent. If he says, "This follows for me," we say, "How?" Yes. If he says, "This does not follow for me," we say, "But it does follow for you. Where will He be if you deny all directions? Because encompassing is either above, below, to the right, to the left, behind, or in front. If you say He is not in this, where will He be? Non-existence follows. For this reason, some of the scholars of affirmation said, if we were asked to describe non-existence, we would not find a description that encompasses it as this description encompasses the case of Allah (Mighty and Majestic).
The Third Case. Yes, he says: "And the ruling regarding the necessary implication in these two cases is apparent" How is it apparent? In the first case, he acknowledged it and committed to it. In the second case, he denied this necessary implication and presented the evidence that it does not follow.
"The Second Case: That it is mentioned for him, and the necessary implication between it and his statement is denied, such as when the one who denies the attributes says to the one who affirms them: 'It follows from your affirmation that Allah the Exalted would be likened to creation in His attributes'" Look at these false necessary implications that the people of innovation impose on the people of the Sunnah. If the necessary implication is mentioned for the speaker and he denies that it is a necessary implication, then it does not follow if it is not entailed by reason. However, if it is entailed by reason, then it must follow. We will come to this point, if Allah wills. Now, this is what the one who denies the attributes says to the one who affirms them: "It follows from your affirmation that Allah the Exalted would be likened to creation in His attributes." This is what the people of denial of attributes imposed on the people of affirmation. The people of denial of attributes imposed this on the people of affirmation, saying, "If you affirm an attribute for Allah, you have likened Allah to creation." For this reason, the people of denial of attributes call the people of affirmation "likeners" and "ascribers of a body to Allah." Does this follow? The one who affirms says, "It does not follow. It does not follow from affirming the attributes that He is likened to creation or made similar to them." "Because the attributes of the Creator are attributed to Him and were not mentioned in an absolute sense such that what you have made necessary would be possible. Consequently, they are specific to Him and befitting of Him, just as you, O one who denies the attributes, affirm a Self for Allah the Exalted and deny that He is likened to creation in His Self. So what is the difference between the Self and the attributes?" It is clear now. The one who affirms has escaped the imposition. He says, "I affirm for Allah (Mighty and Majestic) the attributes that He affirmed for Himself, and I do not commit to them being likened to creation. Why? Listen to the clear rational explanation: The attributes of Allah the Exalted are attributed to Him. His Hand, His Face, His Hearing, His Sight, and the like are attributed to Allah. They were not mentioned in an absolute sense that all individuals would possess, but rather they were mentioned as attributed. The Hand of Allah. Does anyone understand that the Hand of Allah is like the hand of a created being, while knowing that the Self of Allah is not like the Self of a created being? Answer, everyone. It is impossible. Therefore, this imposition is false. For this reason, we say to the man, "Do you not affirm a Self for Allah?" He will say, "Yes." We say, "Does the created being have a Self?" He will say, "Yes." We say, "If that is the case, does it follow from affirming a Self for Allah that He is likened to the created being?" He will say, "No." And we say, "No. What is the difference between the attributes and the Self?" Does he find a difference or not? He finds no difference at all. For this reason, the scholars said: "The attributes are treated in the same manner as the Self" Just as we affirm a Self for Allah that does not resemble the Selves of creation, we must affirm attributes for Him that do not resemble the attributes of creation. This is the second case. The first case is that the necessary implication is mentioned, and what is it? He commits to it. The second is that the necessary implication is mentioned, and he does not commit to it, and he mentions the cause. Here we say that if he does not commit to it and mentions the cause, he is free from it. He is free from this necessary implication. The example is clear. We mentioned that if one denies the necessary implication without any evidence, neither textual nor rational, we do not accept his denial. Be clear about this. The example: If we say to one who denies the rising of Allah and says that He is in every place, "It follows from your statement that Allah the Exalted is in the mosques, in the places of dancing, and in filthy places," and he says, "This does not follow for me," we say, "Bring the evidence, because you said 'in every place' and did not exclude anything, and this is a necessary implication of your statement. Where is the evidence that excludes what was mentioned from the necessary implication of your statement?" He will not find evidence. If he says, "I have evidence, which is the exalting of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) from these places," we say, "Why do you not affirm that He is in a place, in the height, and rest, since you have introduced a specification into the generality of your speech? You must affirm the height, because your speech has been contradicted. And at that time, he will find no room or exit. Similarly, those who say that He is not above, not below, not to the right, not to the left, not connected, and not separated. We say, this is non-existence. If you describe Allah with this description, it is as if you said He is non-existent. If he says, "This follows for me," we say, "How?" Yes. If he says, "This does not follow for me," we say, "But it does follow for you. Where will He be if you deny all directions? Because encompassing is either above, below, to the right, to the left, behind, or in front. If you say He is not in this, where will He be? Non-existence follows. For this reason, some of the scholars of affirmation said, if we were asked to describe non-existence, we would not find a description that encompasses it as this description encompasses the case of Allah (Mighty and Majestic).
The Third Case. Yes, he says: "And the ruling regarding the necessary implication in these two cases is apparent" How is it apparent? In the first case, he acknowledged it and committed to it. In the second case, he denied this necessary implication and presented the evidence that it does not follow.