The statement of the author of al-Jalalayn: "And He is described at all times with all of these attributes." Is this not an affirmation of the attributes?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The student: ... "And He is described at all times with all of these attributes" So he affirmed the attributes?
The Shaykh : Yes, but on the condition that they are essential attributes. Then the author also noted another point from the perspective of grammar, which is that *Ghafir al-dhamb* (Forgiver of sin), *Qabid al-tawbah* (Acceptor of repentance), and *Shadid al-'iqab* (Severe in punishment) are attributes that are in the genitive case, and their genitive relationship is not pure; their genitive relationship is a verbal genitive, and a verbal genitive does not imply definiteness. Do you understand?
The student: But he called them attributes.
The Shaykh : What contradicts [the view] is that they are attributes, but what is his intention? Look at the author's phrase: "And He is described at all times with all of these attributes" If He is described with them at all times, what are they? They are essential attributes. Then he says: "So the genitive of the derived word is for definiteness, like the last one" The derived words are *Ghafir*, *Qabid*, and *Shadid*. He says "for definiteness," meaning that their genitive relationship provided definiteness, like the last one, *Dhi al-tul* (Possessor of length). Indeed, this genitive relationship provided definiteness without doubt, because it is the genitive of a static noun to a definite noun, so it becomes definite. ... Now, pay attention: if the active participle, the passive participle, or the comparative adjective is put in the genitive case, it does not provide definiteness. They call this genitive relationship a verbal genitive, not a semantic one. Some of them say it is pure or not pure. The author brought this statement because a problem is raised against him. *Allah al-'Aziz al-'Alim* (Allah the Mighty, the All-Knowing) are definite nouns. If we say *Ghafir* is an attribute of Allah, and we say that its genitive relationship is verbal, a problem is raised against us: a verbal genitive does not imply definiteness, so the attribute would be indefinite, and describing a definite noun with an indefinite noun is not permissible. It is not permissible to say: "Zayd came, a virtuous man." It is not permissible. You must say: "Zayd the virtuous came." So if the genitive relationship in *Ghafir*, *Qabid*, and *Shadid* does not provide definiteness, and we parse them as attributes, there is a problem in this, which is that we described a definite noun with an indefinite noun, and this is not permissible. The author wanted to correct the matter, so he said that these attributes are not intended to be newly created, but rather they are attributes at all times. And if the attributes are at all times, they are removed from resembling an action, and the genitive relationship becomes for definiteness, in order to make the description of the Name of Glory or the Term of Glory with these attributes valid, because their genitive relationship is purely semantic.
But the grammarians have another view, or rather a third view. The other view says that *Ghafir*, *Qabid*, and *Shadid* are a substitute (*badal*) for *Allah*, and a substitute does not require agreement with the noun it substitutes for. But the view that it is a substitute is not correct, because the sign of a substitute is that it takes the place of the noun it substitutes for, and this is not valid; this is an extra description for the described noun.
There is a third opinion from our easy-going, facilitating Kufi brothers. They say it is permissible to describe a definite noun with such a construction, even if the genitive relationship is verbal and not pure. That is, they say that whatever is added to a definite noun, even if the genitive relationship is not pure, is permissible to be a description of the definite noun, considering the word, because the word *Ghafir al-dhamb* is definite or indefinite? It is definite because it was added to a definite noun, even if the genitive relationship is not real for them, but rather verbal. So the grammarians say it does not matter if it is verbal or semantic, as long as the apparent word is harmonious, the attribute with the described noun, then this is sufficient. And the rule followed by us when there is a disagreement among grammarians is to follow the easier one, following the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), who said, "I was never given a choice between two things except that I chose the easier of them, as long as it was not a sin." And we do not sin if we follow the Kufis in their opinion, because these are not legal issues. In any case, according to the opinion of the Kufis, there is no need for the author's statement. We say the genitive relationship is verbal, but its form is that it is a semantic genitive because it was added to a definite noun, so it is valid to describe the definite noun with it. In any case, this discussion is not fully understood by a person unless he knows that the genitive relationship is of two types: pure semantic and verbal non-pure.
The Shaykh : Yes, but on the condition that they are essential attributes. Then the author also noted another point from the perspective of grammar, which is that *Ghafir al-dhamb* (Forgiver of sin), *Qabid al-tawbah* (Acceptor of repentance), and *Shadid al-'iqab* (Severe in punishment) are attributes that are in the genitive case, and their genitive relationship is not pure; their genitive relationship is a verbal genitive, and a verbal genitive does not imply definiteness. Do you understand?
The student: But he called them attributes.
The Shaykh : What contradicts [the view] is that they are attributes, but what is his intention? Look at the author's phrase: "And He is described at all times with all of these attributes" If He is described with them at all times, what are they? They are essential attributes. Then he says: "So the genitive of the derived word is for definiteness, like the last one" The derived words are *Ghafir*, *Qabid*, and *Shadid*. He says "for definiteness," meaning that their genitive relationship provided definiteness, like the last one, *Dhi al-tul* (Possessor of length). Indeed, this genitive relationship provided definiteness without doubt, because it is the genitive of a static noun to a definite noun, so it becomes definite. ... Now, pay attention: if the active participle, the passive participle, or the comparative adjective is put in the genitive case, it does not provide definiteness. They call this genitive relationship a verbal genitive, not a semantic one. Some of them say it is pure or not pure. The author brought this statement because a problem is raised against him. *Allah al-'Aziz al-'Alim* (Allah the Mighty, the All-Knowing) are definite nouns. If we say *Ghafir* is an attribute of Allah, and we say that its genitive relationship is verbal, a problem is raised against us: a verbal genitive does not imply definiteness, so the attribute would be indefinite, and describing a definite noun with an indefinite noun is not permissible. It is not permissible to say: "Zayd came, a virtuous man." It is not permissible. You must say: "Zayd the virtuous came." So if the genitive relationship in *Ghafir*, *Qabid*, and *Shadid* does not provide definiteness, and we parse them as attributes, there is a problem in this, which is that we described a definite noun with an indefinite noun, and this is not permissible. The author wanted to correct the matter, so he said that these attributes are not intended to be newly created, but rather they are attributes at all times. And if the attributes are at all times, they are removed from resembling an action, and the genitive relationship becomes for definiteness, in order to make the description of the Name of Glory or the Term of Glory with these attributes valid, because their genitive relationship is purely semantic.
But the grammarians have another view, or rather a third view. The other view says that *Ghafir*, *Qabid*, and *Shadid* are a substitute (*badal*) for *Allah*, and a substitute does not require agreement with the noun it substitutes for. But the view that it is a substitute is not correct, because the sign of a substitute is that it takes the place of the noun it substitutes for, and this is not valid; this is an extra description for the described noun.
There is a third opinion from our easy-going, facilitating Kufi brothers. They say it is permissible to describe a definite noun with such a construction, even if the genitive relationship is verbal and not pure. That is, they say that whatever is added to a definite noun, even if the genitive relationship is not pure, is permissible to be a description of the definite noun, considering the word, because the word *Ghafir al-dhamb* is definite or indefinite? It is definite because it was added to a definite noun, even if the genitive relationship is not real for them, but rather verbal. So the grammarians say it does not matter if it is verbal or semantic, as long as the apparent word is harmonious, the attribute with the described noun, then this is sufficient. And the rule followed by us when there is a disagreement among grammarians is to follow the easier one, following the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), who said, "I was never given a choice between two things except that I chose the easier of them, as long as it was not a sin." And we do not sin if we follow the Kufis in their opinion, because these are not legal issues. In any case, according to the opinion of the Kufis, there is no need for the author's statement. We say the genitive relationship is verbal, but its form is that it is a semantic genitive because it was added to a definite noun, so it is valid to describe the definite noun with it. In any case, this discussion is not fully understood by a person unless he knows that the genitive relationship is of two types: pure semantic and verbal non-pure.