Commentary on the preceding verses, and the continuation of the refutation of the Asha'irah and an explanation of their danger
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : So, let us pause here and look at the phrases that were missed.
He says: "So the door is one door in negation *** and affirmation is in reason and in a scale"
Now, in the context of refuting whom are we? We are refuting the Asha'irah who affirm some things and deny others. He says: How can you affirm something and deny its like, when the door is one? Either you affirm all of it, or you deny all of it. He says:
"So when one affirms some of that, affirming *** necessitates all of it, or bring the distinction"
Correct. If one affirms some of that, if the author said, affirming, if one affirms some of that, affirming it for him, what is necessitated? All of it, or that he brings the distinction. So he would say, "I affirmed such-and-such for such-and-such, and I denied such-and-such for such-and-such." It has been mentioned to us previously that the Asha'irah have a doubt regarding what they affirmed, and they have a doubt regarding what they denied. It was previously stated that their doubt, which they argued with, is invalid from how many angles? From four angles. It was previously stated that their doubt is invalid from four angles:
First: Relying on reason is not correct.
Second: It necessitates not relying on reason.
Third: If it is assumed that reason did not indicate it, then revelation indicated it, and the absence of a specific proof does not necessitate the absence of the indicated meaning.
Fourth: That reason indicated what they denied by reason, is that not so? Good.
It is also possible to argue for the invalidity of their school by contradiction. We can also say that your school is contradictory, for there is no difference between what you denied, what? And what you affirmed. There is no difference. And we can also say, additionally:
Sixth: Your denial necessitates two evils:
First: That you fled from what Allah affirmed for Himself, and you fell into the like of what you fled from. We gave an example previously of the hand. They said, "We do not affirm it because a human has a hand, and affirming the hand necessitates likening Allah to creation." We said, "You said it means power, and a human has power, so affirming power in your view necessitates likening Allah to creation. So you fell into the like of what you fled from, but in a more ugly way. What is it? Your distortion of the texts from their apparent meaning to this meaning that you presented."
The author's speech now says:
"And when he denies something and affirms its like *** he is a corporealizer, a contradictory, a wavering one"
A corporealizer because of the affirmation, a contradictory because he denied something while affirming its like. As for the word "dayisan," it is a linguistic term; I do not know what its meaning is, but perhaps its meaning is the wavering one who has no foundation. So we ask Khalil to clarify it for us linguistically. Good.
He says: "So leave the dispute". "Leave the dispute" means leave the argumentation. To where? He says: "And declare the schools of the predecessors and strip yourselves of faith". He says, if the matter is in this state and the creed is in this contradictory state, then leave it. Let us be consistent in the rule. Strip yourselves of faith. And by this, we know the misguidance of those among the people who said that the Asha'irah who judged by reason are those who closed the door on the philosophers and logicians. Ibn al-Qayyim, on the contrary to this opinion, holds that these are the ones who opened the door for the philosophers, logicians, and atheists. They said: If you are contradictory in your creed, and this creed is not trivial, it is not just words spoken, it is a creed. How do you affirm the will and deny mercy, when the door is one? Then this is an invalid, contradictory creed that we do not accept. And what do we accept, according to their claim? Denial of everything, disbelief. Strip yourselves of faith and the contradictory, defective creeds, and say, "We do not believe in anything at all." So it becomes clear by this that the contradiction and wavering of these people is what opened the door for the atheists. They said, a person builds his creed, upon which his life and death depend, on matters that are what? Contradictory. It is impossible.
He says: "So the door is one door in negation *** and affirmation is in reason and in a scale"
Now, in the context of refuting whom are we? We are refuting the Asha'irah who affirm some things and deny others. He says: How can you affirm something and deny its like, when the door is one? Either you affirm all of it, or you deny all of it. He says:
"So when one affirms some of that, affirming *** necessitates all of it, or bring the distinction"
Correct. If one affirms some of that, if the author said, affirming, if one affirms some of that, affirming it for him, what is necessitated? All of it, or that he brings the distinction. So he would say, "I affirmed such-and-such for such-and-such, and I denied such-and-such for such-and-such." It has been mentioned to us previously that the Asha'irah have a doubt regarding what they affirmed, and they have a doubt regarding what they denied. It was previously stated that their doubt, which they argued with, is invalid from how many angles? From four angles. It was previously stated that their doubt is invalid from four angles:
First: Relying on reason is not correct.
Second: It necessitates not relying on reason.
Third: If it is assumed that reason did not indicate it, then revelation indicated it, and the absence of a specific proof does not necessitate the absence of the indicated meaning.
Fourth: That reason indicated what they denied by reason, is that not so? Good.
It is also possible to argue for the invalidity of their school by contradiction. We can also say that your school is contradictory, for there is no difference between what you denied, what? And what you affirmed. There is no difference. And we can also say, additionally:
Sixth: Your denial necessitates two evils:
First: That you fled from what Allah affirmed for Himself, and you fell into the like of what you fled from. We gave an example previously of the hand. They said, "We do not affirm it because a human has a hand, and affirming the hand necessitates likening Allah to creation." We said, "You said it means power, and a human has power, so affirming power in your view necessitates likening Allah to creation. So you fell into the like of what you fled from, but in a more ugly way. What is it? Your distortion of the texts from their apparent meaning to this meaning that you presented."
The author's speech now says:
"And when he denies something and affirms its like *** he is a corporealizer, a contradictory, a wavering one"
A corporealizer because of the affirmation, a contradictory because he denied something while affirming its like. As for the word "dayisan," it is a linguistic term; I do not know what its meaning is, but perhaps its meaning is the wavering one who has no foundation. So we ask Khalil to clarify it for us linguistically. Good.
He says: "So leave the dispute". "Leave the dispute" means leave the argumentation. To where? He says: "And declare the schools of the predecessors and strip yourselves of faith". He says, if the matter is in this state and the creed is in this contradictory state, then leave it. Let us be consistent in the rule. Strip yourselves of faith. And by this, we know the misguidance of those among the people who said that the Asha'irah who judged by reason are those who closed the door on the philosophers and logicians. Ibn al-Qayyim, on the contrary to this opinion, holds that these are the ones who opened the door for the philosophers, logicians, and atheists. They said: If you are contradictory in your creed, and this creed is not trivial, it is not just words spoken, it is a creed. How do you affirm the will and deny mercy, when the door is one? Then this is an invalid, contradictory creed that we do not accept. And what do we accept, according to their claim? Denial of everything, disbelief. Strip yourselves of faith and the contradictory, defective creeds, and say, "We do not believe in anything at all." So it becomes clear by this that the contradiction and wavering of these people is what opened the door for the atheists. They said, a person builds his creed, upon which his life and death depend, on matters that are what? Contradictory. It is impossible.