Explanation of the author's statement: "3. The position of the Asha'irah: It is like the position of the Kalbiyyah, except that they differ from them in two things: the first of which is
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"The third: The position of the Asha'irah: It is like the position of the Kalbiyyah, except that they differ from them in two things:
The first is in the meanings of speech. The Kalbiyyah say that it has four meanings. The Asha'irah say that it is a single meaning".
This is an evil that is not conceivable. A single speech "Thus, the statement, the question, the command, and the prohibition, each one of them is identical to the other. They are not types of speech, but rather attributes of it. Indeed, the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur'an, each one of them is identical to the other, differing only in the wording".
Look, I believe that understanding this school's view is sufficient to refute it. They say that the speech of Allah subsists in Himself and is necessary to Him, and they call it the mental speech. They do not believe that Allah speaks with letters and sounds. They say that these letters and sounds were created by Allah to express His speech. As for Him, (Glorified and Exalted is He), speaking, no, His speech is a meaning that subsists in Himself.
Then He refuted their claim that it is a single meaning. All speech is a single meaning. The statement, the question, the interrogation, the command, and the prohibition, all of them are one thing. Rather, we add to that and say that the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur'an are one thing. One thing in their view. For example, His saying, the Exalted:[Al-Isra 17:32] is identical to His saying, the Exalted: What do you say? Is this conceivable? Absolutely not. It means: were it not for the fact that he mentions this, we would say that no sane person could say that the statement is identical to the question and identical to the interrogation, and that the command is identical to the prohibition, and that the command and the prohibition are identical to the statement and the question. Because they say that it is a single meaning. A single meaning that is not divisible.
All of this, in their claim, is that if it were divisible, it would necessitate that accidents subsist in Allah, the Mighty and Majestic. And accidents do not subsist except in an accident. And these are all false premises with no evidence for them.
But look now, what do they differ from the Kalbiyyah in? The Kalbiyyah say that it has four meanings, and these people say that it is a single meaning.
The second is that the Kalbiyyah said that the letters and sounds are a narration of the speech of Allah, while the Asha'irah said that they are an expression of the speech of Allah. What is the difference between them?
Narration is to recite the wording of the sound, and expression is to convey it with another meaning, not to recite the wording of the sound.
For example, if I say that so-and-so says such and such, and I do not recite his speech, I am now expressing. But if I recite his speech exactly, I would be narrating.
They say that the Qur'an is an expression of the speech of Allah, and is not the speech of Allah itself, but Allah created it to express what is in Himself. So when Moses heard:[Taha 20:17] Did Allah speak with it? No, because His speech is a meaning that subsists in Himself from the origin. But He created a sound that Moses heard as an expression of the speech of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic.
And this meaning is also false, as you see. Yes.
The first is in the meanings of speech. The Kalbiyyah say that it has four meanings. The Asha'irah say that it is a single meaning".
This is an evil that is not conceivable. A single speech "Thus, the statement, the question, the command, and the prohibition, each one of them is identical to the other. They are not types of speech, but rather attributes of it. Indeed, the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur'an, each one of them is identical to the other, differing only in the wording".
Look, I believe that understanding this school's view is sufficient to refute it. They say that the speech of Allah subsists in Himself and is necessary to Him, and they call it the mental speech. They do not believe that Allah speaks with letters and sounds. They say that these letters and sounds were created by Allah to express His speech. As for Him, (Glorified and Exalted is He), speaking, no, His speech is a meaning that subsists in Himself.
Then He refuted their claim that it is a single meaning. All speech is a single meaning. The statement, the question, the interrogation, the command, and the prohibition, all of them are one thing. Rather, we add to that and say that the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur'an are one thing. One thing in their view. For example, His saying, the Exalted:
And do not approach unlawful sexual intercourse
ولا تقربوا الزنىEstablish prayer
أقيموا الصلاةAll of this, in their claim, is that if it were divisible, it would necessitate that accidents subsist in Allah, the Mighty and Majestic. And accidents do not subsist except in an accident. And these are all false premises with no evidence for them.
But look now, what do they differ from the Kalbiyyah in? The Kalbiyyah say that it has four meanings, and these people say that it is a single meaning.
The second is that the Kalbiyyah said that the letters and sounds are a narration of the speech of Allah, while the Asha'irah said that they are an expression of the speech of Allah. What is the difference between them?
Narration is to recite the wording of the sound, and expression is to convey it with another meaning, not to recite the wording of the sound.
For example, if I say that so-and-so says such and such, and I do not recite his speech, I am now expressing. But if I recite his speech exactly, I would be narrating.
They say that the Qur'an is an expression of the speech of Allah, and is not the speech of Allah itself, but Allah created it to express what is in Himself. So when Moses heard:
And what is that in your right hand, O Moses?"
وما تلك بيمينك يا موسىAnd this meaning is also false, as you see. Yes.