Refuting the Denial of Attributes (The Rational Refutation)
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : that it is metaphorical.
Now, how do we refute them using the rational approach?
We refute them using the rational approach from two angles:
The first angle is to say: Suppose that reason does not indicate the attributes you have denied. Suppose that reason does not indicate the attributes you have denied. However, revelation has indicated them, so they must be affirmed, because the absence of a specific proof does not necessitate the absence of the thing indicated, because a thing may have multiple proofs, so the absence of one proof does not mean it is absent, or does it?
The second angle is to say: It is possible to affirm what you have denied using the rational method in the same way you mentioned regarding what you have affirmed.
You stated that specificity indicates will, and we say: Rewarding the obedient indicates love, taking revenge on the criminals indicates hatred and aversion, and the repeated bestowal of favors upon the nations indicates mercy, or does it not?
And which is more indicative of the attribute: the repeated bestowal of favors upon the servants, such as the descent of rain, the growth of the earth, and the removal of harm? Which is more eloquent in its indication: these things indicating mercy, or specificity indicating will?
The first is more eloquent, clearer, and more apparent, because even the common person in the market, if you say to him: This rain is a sign of what? What would he say to you? It is a sign of Allah's mercy, and a proof of what? Of Allah's mercy toward His servants, or is it not?
But if you go to the common person and say: Come, the sky, the earth, the stars, and the sun, what do they indicate? He says: They indicate power. In reality, he tells you they indicate power because no one can create something like them. But does he know that they are a proof of will, or does he not know? He absolutely does not know. So the result is that we refute these people with the same argument, and this is not the place for it, but it is by way of illustration.
As for the Mu'tazilah and the Jahmiyyah, the moderate ones among the Jahmiyyah, they say: It is impossible for Allah the Exalted to be described with an affirmative attribute ever, because if you affirm an affirmative attribute for Him, you liken Him to existing things.
So we say to them: And when you describe Him with negative attributes, what do you liken Him to? To non-existent things.
So some of them became confused and said: I deny both matters, I neither affirm nor deny, I do not say that Allah is existent or non-existent, nor hearing nor deaf, nor mute nor speaking, yes, nor blind nor seeing. What does this become? Huh?
We say: Now you have likened Him to impossibilities, huh? It is impossible for a thing to be neither existent nor non-existent, so a thing is either existent or non-existent. It is impossible for it to be neither hearing nor seeing.
He said: As for your saying "neither hearing nor seeing," that is not impossible. There exists a thing that is neither hearing nor seeing, which is what does not accept hearing and sight, such as: a wall. And by Allah, this is a wall for me, it is not hearing nor seeing. Is that acceptable or not? It is acceptable, because denying both opposites of something that is not capable of them is possible, or is it not?
Now, we say to him: First, your saying that this does not accept or accepts this is merely a convention with you, otherwise Allah the Exalted said regarding the idols:[An-Nahl 16:21] And it is known that an idol is inanimate, an idol is inanimate, in your view it does not accept life or death, and Allah the Exalted described them as dead, not living thereafter.
So your saying "capable" and "not capable" is a convention you have established, and it is not the reality that corresponds to what the Arabic language requires.
And if we concede to you for the sake of argument, and say: It is possible for a thing to be neither hearing nor deaf, if it is not capable of being described with them, but what do you say about existence and non-existence? You say: I do not describe Allah with existence or non-existence. Existence and non-existence are opposites in the sense of negation and affirmation, not in the sense of capacity and non-existence, or is it not? Huh? And opposites in the sense of negation and affirmation must have one of them existing rationally, so it is not possible to deny that a thing is not existent, meaning it is not possible to describe a thing as neither existent nor non-existent ever, rather it must be either existent or non-existent, just as if you said this thing is neither stationary nor moving, is that possible or not? It is not possible.
So opposites in the sense of negation and affirmation cannot have one of them removed ever. It is true that opposites in the sense of non-existence and capacity can both be denied, just as if we said of the wall that it is neither hearing nor deaf.
The result is: The deniers, in reality, their matter is strange, and the strange thing is that they call themselves, huh? philosophers, the rational, and the wise. They call the people of the Sunnah and the community, or the Salaf, they call them the anthropomorphists, the upstarts, and the dregs, yes, and the superficial ones and the like, they do not have the depth that these people have.
And it is known that a person wants to claim a difficult height for himself, and claim a descent for another, every person does this, but the discussion is about the truths.
Now, how do we refute them using the rational approach?
We refute them using the rational approach from two angles:
The first angle is to say: Suppose that reason does not indicate the attributes you have denied. Suppose that reason does not indicate the attributes you have denied. However, revelation has indicated them, so they must be affirmed, because the absence of a specific proof does not necessitate the absence of the thing indicated, because a thing may have multiple proofs, so the absence of one proof does not mean it is absent, or does it?
The second angle is to say: It is possible to affirm what you have denied using the rational method in the same way you mentioned regarding what you have affirmed.
You stated that specificity indicates will, and we say: Rewarding the obedient indicates love, taking revenge on the criminals indicates hatred and aversion, and the repeated bestowal of favors upon the nations indicates mercy, or does it not?
And which is more indicative of the attribute: the repeated bestowal of favors upon the servants, such as the descent of rain, the growth of the earth, and the removal of harm? Which is more eloquent in its indication: these things indicating mercy, or specificity indicating will?
The first is more eloquent, clearer, and more apparent, because even the common person in the market, if you say to him: This rain is a sign of what? What would he say to you? It is a sign of Allah's mercy, and a proof of what? Of Allah's mercy toward His servants, or is it not?
But if you go to the common person and say: Come, the sky, the earth, the stars, and the sun, what do they indicate? He says: They indicate power. In reality, he tells you they indicate power because no one can create something like them. But does he know that they are a proof of will, or does he not know? He absolutely does not know. So the result is that we refute these people with the same argument, and this is not the place for it, but it is by way of illustration.
As for the Mu'tazilah and the Jahmiyyah, the moderate ones among the Jahmiyyah, they say: It is impossible for Allah the Exalted to be described with an affirmative attribute ever, because if you affirm an affirmative attribute for Him, you liken Him to existing things.
So we say to them: And when you describe Him with negative attributes, what do you liken Him to? To non-existent things.
So some of them became confused and said: I deny both matters, I neither affirm nor deny, I do not say that Allah is existent or non-existent, nor hearing nor deaf, nor mute nor speaking, yes, nor blind nor seeing. What does this become? Huh?
We say: Now you have likened Him to impossibilities, huh? It is impossible for a thing to be neither existent nor non-existent, so a thing is either existent or non-existent. It is impossible for it to be neither hearing nor seeing.
He said: As for your saying "neither hearing nor seeing," that is not impossible. There exists a thing that is neither hearing nor seeing, which is what does not accept hearing and sight, such as: a wall. And by Allah, this is a wall for me, it is not hearing nor seeing. Is that acceptable or not? It is acceptable, because denying both opposites of something that is not capable of them is possible, or is it not?
Now, we say to him: First, your saying that this does not accept or accepts this is merely a convention with you, otherwise Allah the Exalted said regarding the idols:
They are, [in fact], dead, not alive, and they do not perceive when they will be resurrected.
أموات غير أحياءSo your saying "capable" and "not capable" is a convention you have established, and it is not the reality that corresponds to what the Arabic language requires.
And if we concede to you for the sake of argument, and say: It is possible for a thing to be neither hearing nor deaf, if it is not capable of being described with them, but what do you say about existence and non-existence? You say: I do not describe Allah with existence or non-existence. Existence and non-existence are opposites in the sense of negation and affirmation, not in the sense of capacity and non-existence, or is it not? Huh? And opposites in the sense of negation and affirmation must have one of them existing rationally, so it is not possible to deny that a thing is not existent, meaning it is not possible to describe a thing as neither existent nor non-existent ever, rather it must be either existent or non-existent, just as if you said this thing is neither stationary nor moving, is that possible or not? It is not possible.
So opposites in the sense of negation and affirmation cannot have one of them removed ever. It is true that opposites in the sense of non-existence and capacity can both be denied, just as if we said of the wall that it is neither hearing nor deaf.
The result is: The deniers, in reality, their matter is strange, and the strange thing is that they call themselves, huh? philosophers, the rational, and the wise. They call the people of the Sunnah and the community, or the Salaf, they call them the anthropomorphists, the upstarts, and the dregs, yes, and the superficial ones and the like, they do not have the depth that these people have.
And it is known that a person wants to claim a difficult height for himself, and claim a descent for another, every person does this, but the discussion is about the truths.