Explanation of the author's statement: "2- A doubt composed of defective analogical reasoning, such as their claim: affirming the attributes for Allah necessitates likening Him to creation"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"Secondly: A doubt composed of defective analogical reasoning, such as their claim: affirming the attributes for Allah necessitates likening Him to creation, because the attributes are accidents, and an accident does not subsist except in a body, and bodies are similar."
Look, this doubt is composed of defective analogical reasoning. How is it defective analogical reasoning? Because they say: affirming the attributes for Allah necessitates likening Him to creation. This claim is justified by what? By the fact that the attributes are accidents, and an accident does not subsist except in a body. And bodies are similar.
All these conclusions and premises are invalid. So their statement that the attributes are accidents is not correct. The attributes may be accidents, or they may be essential. Because "accidents" is the plural of "accident," which is that which occurs and then disappears, like illness, fullness, thirst, and the like. So are all the attributes accidents? No, they are not all accidents.
Then their statement that an accident does not subsist except in a body is not correct, because an accident can be for a body and for something other than a body. We say, for example, "today is a long day," or "the heat is intense," and the like. Are these bodies? No, the day is time, and the heat is a state of the atmosphere. They are not bodies, yet they are described as accidents.
And their statement that bodies are similar is also not correct. Its invalidity is apparent. We find that bodies are not similar, and they acknowledge this as well. They cannot say that the body of a camel is like the body of an atom, can they? Nor can they say that the body of butter is like the body of iron, for example.
Is iron softer than butter, hmm? Or the other way around? The other way around. The point is that their claim that bodies are similar is not correct.
So this is the doubt. But if a reader reads it, it may become confusing to him, and he may think that this justification is correct and the analogy is correct. However, upon reflection, it becomes clear that it is not correct.
And this is found in their books. Now you might ask: How do they say this? How do they proceed with this statement, the invalidity of which is known to everyone?
We say: This is found in their books. It is either that they are confused about it, or that they are confusing others. Allah knows best.
Look, this doubt is composed of defective analogical reasoning. How is it defective analogical reasoning? Because they say: affirming the attributes for Allah necessitates likening Him to creation. This claim is justified by what? By the fact that the attributes are accidents, and an accident does not subsist except in a body. And bodies are similar.
All these conclusions and premises are invalid. So their statement that the attributes are accidents is not correct. The attributes may be accidents, or they may be essential. Because "accidents" is the plural of "accident," which is that which occurs and then disappears, like illness, fullness, thirst, and the like. So are all the attributes accidents? No, they are not all accidents.
Then their statement that an accident does not subsist except in a body is not correct, because an accident can be for a body and for something other than a body. We say, for example, "today is a long day," or "the heat is intense," and the like. Are these bodies? No, the day is time, and the heat is a state of the atmosphere. They are not bodies, yet they are described as accidents.
And their statement that bodies are similar is also not correct. Its invalidity is apparent. We find that bodies are not similar, and they acknowledge this as well. They cannot say that the body of a camel is like the body of an atom, can they? Nor can they say that the body of butter is like the body of iron, for example.
Is iron softer than butter, hmm? Or the other way around? The other way around. The point is that their claim that bodies are similar is not correct.
So this is the doubt. But if a reader reads it, it may become confusing to him, and he may think that this justification is correct and the analogy is correct. However, upon reflection, it becomes clear that it is not correct.
And this is found in their books. Now you might ask: How do they say this? How do they proceed with this statement, the invalidity of which is known to everyone?
We say: This is found in their books. It is either that they are confused about it, or that they are confusing others. Allah knows best.