The division of people in the chapter of attributes regarding affirmation and negation, and the clarification that the Asha'irah affirm only seven attributes for Allah and the refutation of them.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Now, what we understood from the author's words is that people are divided into three categories in the chapter of attributes: the affirmers and the deniers, meaning those who affirm all of them or deny all of them, and the third: the contradictory ones who affirm some and deny some. It is well known that this third group is the Asha'irah and those who follow their path. They affirm some attributes for Allah the Exalted and deny some, while affirming the names. However, in affirming these attributes they affirm, they do not agree with the people of the Sunnah, or they do not agree with the Salaf in what they affirm. What they affirm of the attributes has been explained to us previously, and it is seven, grouped in a verse mentioned by al-Safarini:
"He has life, speech, and sight *** Hearing, will, knowledge, and power"
By a power, seven attributes they affirm for Allah, and the rest they do not affirm: mercy, pleasure, anger, wrath, dislike, hatred, love, the Face, and the like. All of this, in their view, is not established for Allah in reality. It must be interpreted figuratively. Well, why? Some of them said: because the intellect does not indicate it, and we do not affirm except what the intellect indicates. And some of them said: because affirming it necessitates ascribing a body to Allah, because we do not see anything possessing these qualities except what is a body. So if we affirm their reality for Allah, it follows that He is a body. Then they said: bodies are similar to one another, and whatever necessitates a falsehood is itself false, because similarity is false. Do you understand now?
Well, we say to them: What is your evidence for the intellect affirming these seven attributes? They said: Creation indicates power. Creation indicates power. All the heavens and the earth, humans, and animals are created by Allah, so it is evidence for what? For power. Is this correct or not? Correct. Specification indicates will. And what is the meaning of specification? It means that this is a sky and this is earth, and this is a human and this is a camel, and this is the sun and this is the moon, which indicates that there is a will that distinguished between the created things. And if there were no will, all creation would have been one thing. So, specifying each created thing with what distinguishes it is evidence for what? For will. Is this correct or not? Correct. Well, we looked at these created things and found them precise and well-crafted.[Ya-Sin 36:40] They said: The precision of these things and the craftsmanship of these things indicates knowledge, because the ignorant one does not craft well. If you were to throw this recorder at someone, throw it once and say, "Come on, assemble it for me," and he does not know, he has not studied how it is assembled. Yes, can he assemble it or not? He cannot. If he assembled it out of order, it would not work. They said: So this wonderful system and this strange precision indicates knowledge. Is this correct or not? Correct. We agree. So now we have gathered three attributes: power, will, and knowledge. Well, they said: And these attributes do not exist except in a living being, because the dead one cannot; he has no power, no will, and no knowledge. So we affirm the attribute of life in this way, that it is a necessary consequence of being knowledgeable, powerful, and willing that He is alive. Is this correct or not? Well, the living being is either blind, deaf, and mute, or seeing, hearing, and speaking. The first is impossible for Allah; it cannot be with this defect. So the second remains, and the second follows, which is that He is hearing, seeing, and speaking. What do we say? Correct? Correct. And if only they had said: And the willing one is either a fool or a wise one. Is this correct or not? And the first, the fool, is impossible, so the second follows, which is wisdom. But they did not say this; they did not reach the point of saying this, even though this is one of the most obvious things. The one who wills a thing: a child wills. The child took a cup of tea and hit the girl with it. Did he will it or not?
The student: He willed it.
The Shaykh : Was it wisdom or foolishness?
The student: Foolishness.
The Shaykh : Foolishness, foolishness or not? It is clear. So every willing one is either wise or a fool, and the second is impossible for the Lord Mighty and Majestic that He be a fool. So it follows that He is wise. But they do not say this. Yes, yes. And for this reason, the action of Allah, the judgment of Allah, and the legislation of Allah are for no wisdom, but for absolute will.
Well, may Allah reward you. Now, this is the evidence of the intellect for affirming these seven attributes. So what is our answer? And the rest, they erased it from the dictionary of the Book and the Sunnah, or did they affirm it? Well, is this a contradiction or not? It is one of the greatest contradictions. So we refute them with many things. First, we say: Your reliance on the intellect in what is affirmed for Allah and what is negated from Him is false from its origin, because the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), the Companions, the Caliphs, and the imams after them did not make these matters depend on the intellect. So relying on the intellect is an innovated, deviant path of misguidance, due to the saying of the Messenger, may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him:Sunan an-Nasa'i 1578Sahih (Darussalam) This is one point.
Second, we say: Your reliance on the intellect is contrary to the intellect. We do not say the intellect does not affirm it; we say it is contrary to the intellect. And there is a difference between this and the previous point. How is it contrary to the intellect? Because it is known to everyone that the path of affirmation in these matters is hearing (revelation). It is not part of the path to affirm something for Allah the Exalted or negate it except through hearing (revelation), is it not? So the intellect, therefore, supports that we do not rely in affirming these matters or negating them except on hearing (revelation), not on the intellect. So making the intellect the judge in these matters is contrary to the intellect.
Third, we say: We can affirm what you negated by the intellect, just as you affirmed what you affirmed by the intellect. And we say, for example: Bringing blessings and repelling harms is evidence for what? For mercy. So let it be affirmed, just as you argued by specification for will. And we say: The punishment of criminals and the reward of the obedient is evidence for the dislike of the former and the love of the latter, is it not? For it is not possible for a person to hold a man and flog him and beat him severely, and say, "By Allah, I love you, I love you more than many people," while he is beating him. The punishment indicates what?
The student: It indicates dislike.
The Shaykh : It indicates dislike. But one who beats a person severely and flogs him, and says, "By Allah, I hate him," is that true or not?
The student: Truthful
The Shaykh : True. Well, another person invited someone to his house and honored him with the utmost honor, dressed him in the best clothing, and made him ride the best mount, and said, "Do you know why I did this to you?" He said, "Yes." He said: "Because I hate you." Is this possible or not? It is not possible. So the reward of the obedient and the punishment of the criminals is clear evidence that Allah loves the former and dislikes the latter. Is this clear? So we say to them: We can affirm what you negated by what path? By the path of the intellect, just as you affirmed what you affirmed by the path of the intellect. In fact, our affirmation may be clearer.
Well, fourth: We say to them: Suppose the intellect does not indicate what you negated. Suppose the intellect does not indicate affirming mercy for Allah, or affirming pleasure, or anger, or the like. But hearing (revelation) affirmed it. So if the rational evidence is negated, as you claim, then the revelatory evidence has affirmed it. And the principle that all people of intellect apply is: "The absence of a specific evidence does not necessitate the absence of the indicated thing". Is this principle clear? "The absence of a specific evidence does not necessitate the absence of the indicated thing". Because the indicated thing may be established by another evidence. So suppose this evidence is negated, but there is another evidence. And just as this is the case in rational matters, it is also the case in sensory matters. Have you seen, if Makkah had three roads, and I wanted to travel to it, and a man came to me and said, "The northern road is closed," I say, "Well... I will go with the middle road." He says, "It is closed." What do I say? I will go with the southern road. So if two roads leading to Makkah are blocked, and it has three roads, does it necessitate that the third is blocked? No. So if these attributes, as you claim, are not indicated by the intellect, then hearing (revelation) indicates them. So it is obligatory to affirm them by the established revelatory evidence that is free from opposing or resisting evidence. Is this clear? It is obligatory to affirm them by what? By the established revelatory evidence that is free from opposing or resisting evidence, with nothing opposing it. So it becomes clear by this that the author (may Allah have mercy on him) says to this group: You are contradictory.
"He has life, speech, and sight *** Hearing, will, knowledge, and power"
By a power, seven attributes they affirm for Allah, and the rest they do not affirm: mercy, pleasure, anger, wrath, dislike, hatred, love, the Face, and the like. All of this, in their view, is not established for Allah in reality. It must be interpreted figuratively. Well, why? Some of them said: because the intellect does not indicate it, and we do not affirm except what the intellect indicates. And some of them said: because affirming it necessitates ascribing a body to Allah, because we do not see anything possessing these qualities except what is a body. So if we affirm their reality for Allah, it follows that He is a body. Then they said: bodies are similar to one another, and whatever necessitates a falsehood is itself false, because similarity is false. Do you understand now?
Well, we say to them: What is your evidence for the intellect affirming these seven attributes? They said: Creation indicates power. Creation indicates power. All the heavens and the earth, humans, and animals are created by Allah, so it is evidence for what? For power. Is this correct or not? Correct. Specification indicates will. And what is the meaning of specification? It means that this is a sky and this is earth, and this is a human and this is a camel, and this is the sun and this is the moon, which indicates that there is a will that distinguished between the created things. And if there were no will, all creation would have been one thing. So, specifying each created thing with what distinguishes it is evidence for what? For will. Is this correct or not? Correct. Well, we looked at these created things and found them precise and well-crafted.
It is not allowable for the sun to reach the moon, nor does the night overtake the day
لا الشمس ينبغي لها أن تدرك القمر ولا الليل سابق النهارThe student: He willed it.
The Shaykh : Was it wisdom or foolishness?
The student: Foolishness.
The Shaykh : Foolishness, foolishness or not? It is clear. So every willing one is either wise or a fool, and the second is impossible for the Lord Mighty and Majestic that He be a fool. So it follows that He is wise. But they do not say this. Yes, yes. And for this reason, the action of Allah, the judgment of Allah, and the legislation of Allah are for no wisdom, but for absolute will.
Well, may Allah reward you. Now, this is the evidence of the intellect for affirming these seven attributes. So what is our answer? And the rest, they erased it from the dictionary of the Book and the Sunnah, or did they affirm it? Well, is this a contradiction or not? It is one of the greatest contradictions. So we refute them with many things. First, we say: Your reliance on the intellect in what is affirmed for Allah and what is negated from Him is false from its origin, because the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), the Companions, the Caliphs, and the imams after them did not make these matters depend on the intellect. So relying on the intellect is an innovated, deviant path of misguidance, due to the saying of the Messenger, may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him:
every innovation is going astray, and every going astray is in the Fire
كل بدعة ضلالة وكل ضلالة في النارSecond, we say: Your reliance on the intellect is contrary to the intellect. We do not say the intellect does not affirm it; we say it is contrary to the intellect. And there is a difference between this and the previous point. How is it contrary to the intellect? Because it is known to everyone that the path of affirmation in these matters is hearing (revelation). It is not part of the path to affirm something for Allah the Exalted or negate it except through hearing (revelation), is it not? So the intellect, therefore, supports that we do not rely in affirming these matters or negating them except on hearing (revelation), not on the intellect. So making the intellect the judge in these matters is contrary to the intellect.
Third, we say: We can affirm what you negated by the intellect, just as you affirmed what you affirmed by the intellect. And we say, for example: Bringing blessings and repelling harms is evidence for what? For mercy. So let it be affirmed, just as you argued by specification for will. And we say: The punishment of criminals and the reward of the obedient is evidence for the dislike of the former and the love of the latter, is it not? For it is not possible for a person to hold a man and flog him and beat him severely, and say, "By Allah, I love you, I love you more than many people," while he is beating him. The punishment indicates what?
The student: It indicates dislike.
The Shaykh : It indicates dislike. But one who beats a person severely and flogs him, and says, "By Allah, I hate him," is that true or not?
The student: Truthful
The Shaykh : True. Well, another person invited someone to his house and honored him with the utmost honor, dressed him in the best clothing, and made him ride the best mount, and said, "Do you know why I did this to you?" He said, "Yes." He said: "Because I hate you." Is this possible or not? It is not possible. So the reward of the obedient and the punishment of the criminals is clear evidence that Allah loves the former and dislikes the latter. Is this clear? So we say to them: We can affirm what you negated by what path? By the path of the intellect, just as you affirmed what you affirmed by the path of the intellect. In fact, our affirmation may be clearer.
Well, fourth: We say to them: Suppose the intellect does not indicate what you negated. Suppose the intellect does not indicate affirming mercy for Allah, or affirming pleasure, or anger, or the like. But hearing (revelation) affirmed it. So if the rational evidence is negated, as you claim, then the revelatory evidence has affirmed it. And the principle that all people of intellect apply is: "The absence of a specific evidence does not necessitate the absence of the indicated thing". Is this principle clear? "The absence of a specific evidence does not necessitate the absence of the indicated thing". Because the indicated thing may be established by another evidence. So suppose this evidence is negated, but there is another evidence. And just as this is the case in rational matters, it is also the case in sensory matters. Have you seen, if Makkah had three roads, and I wanted to travel to it, and a man came to me and said, "The northern road is closed," I say, "Well... I will go with the middle road." He says, "It is closed." What do I say? I will go with the southern road. So if two roads leading to Makkah are blocked, and it has three roads, does it necessitate that the third is blocked? No. So if these attributes, as you claim, are not indicated by the intellect, then hearing (revelation) indicates them. So it is obligatory to affirm them by the established revelatory evidence that is free from opposing or resisting evidence. Is this clear? It is obligatory to affirm them by what? By the established revelatory evidence that is free from opposing or resisting evidence, with nothing opposing it. So it becomes clear by this that the author (may Allah have mercy on him) says to this group: You are contradictory.