Commentary on the preceding verses and a refutation of the deviant Qatariyyah sect, who claim that the words are conjoined with one another, with none preceding the others
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : This is the Qatariyyah sect. They also said: Speech is not connected to His will and desire, and that the wording and the meaning are eternal. If they make the wording and the meaning eternal, it necessitates that the words do not precede one another, because if some preceded others, the later ones would be created after the first, and our claim that they are eternal would be refuted. Therefore, they said: The words are conjoined. The sin in the phrase "Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim" is not preceded by the ba; the sin is attached to the ba, neither before it nor after it. Why? They said: If you said the sin is after the ba, it would necessitate that it is created, is that not so? The sin occurred after the ba, so our claim that it is eternal is refuted. So we say, with this ridiculous claim, that all words, from the first time Allah spoke to infinity, all came at once, with none preceding the others. So Allah, Mighty and Majestic, said it in the Qur'an with its letters; He said it with a single letter, with none preceding the others. "Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim," the beginning of Surat al-Baqarah [Al-Baqarah 2:286] the end of Surat al-Baqarah, and everything in between, all came at once. It came at once, with none of it preceding the others, out of fear that we would say it is created, so we say it is eternal.
These people are, in reality, further and further from reason than those before them. For this reason, the author, may Allah have mercy on them, said:
" *** So marvel at the one with confusion and babbling "
Yes, by Allah, marvel. Are these called, here? The Qatariyyah, who hold that the letters of the words and the words are conjoined with one another, with none preceding or lagging. Fine.
So these Qatariyyah, and those who said it is a narration, and those who said it is an expression, and those who said it is one meaning or five meanings, they are all a branch of one thing. They said: If we said that speech is created, it would necessitate that created things subsist in the essence of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, and whatever created things subsist in is itself created. See how the Shaytan speaks: whatever created things subsist in is itself created. The creation of Allah is impossible, impossible. So it necessitates that created things subsist in Him, do you understand?
Fine, is this rule correct or invalid? It is invalid. This is invalid. It does not necessitate that if we say the Qur'an is the speech of Allah in wording and meaning, that it is created in terms of its origin and genus. Because the origin and genus of speech are eternal and ancient, because Allah, Mighty and Majestic, has always been and continues to be a Speaker. Then, even if we assumed creation, it does not necessitate that if a created thing subsists in the described, that the described is created. Necessarily, the one described by speech or action precedes the description. For this reason, I am speaking now; does my speech that occurred now necessitate that it existed with me at birth? No, it does not necessitate. So if it does not necessitate, it becomes clear that created things can subsist in something that precedes them. Created things can subsist in something that precedes them. This preceding thing is eternal. So if created things subsist in Allah, meaning an action or speech occurred from Him, it does not necessitate that the essence of Allah, the Exalted, is created. And I think it is clear, clear from the rational aspect, but this is their doctrine.
So let us look at the verses. The other sect, in terms of what? In terms of the claim that speech is not connected to His will and is not external to His essence. They said: It is wording and meaning that do not separate, and the wording is like the meaning, eternal. There is no created wording. And if the wording is eternal, it necessitates that the letters are conjoined, for if they were arranged, the second would be created, and the one before it would be created relative to what came before it, and so on. For this reason, he said:
" And the wording is like the meaning, eternal, subsisting in the self *** It is not a recipient of creation
So the sin at the ba is not preceded *** "
The sin, from where? From "Bismillah," at the ba, not preceded, meaning: the ba did not precede it.
" *** But they are two conjoined letters "
How can one imagine this? Yes? How can they be two conjoined letters? You cannot even in the case of the "imalah" (vowel shift) where they say its course is between the alif and the ya; it is difficult, and it is neither a ya nor an alif.
" And those who say this say that indeed *** "
There is a grammatical error in the author's speech, and those who say this say that it is; there is an error.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Not "by this"
" And those who say this "
Correct, meaning with this claim
" say that indeed *** "
There is an error. The error is in his saying?
The student: "Say" (qulu).
The Shaykh :" Say " because there is no accusative marker or jussive marker in it, and the nun of the five verbs is not deleted except with the accusative marker or the jussive marker, or with the protective nun, yes, or something similar. So there must be a reason. So they answered it by saying the author deleted it for a reason, which is necessity, the necessity of poetry, yes. Because poetry compels the poet to change; he may raise the accusative, he may make the nominative accusative, he may decline the indeclinable, and he may delete the undeletable, yes. For this reason, al-Hariri said in his Maqamat " and decline " yes?
The student: And permissible.
The Shaykh : And permissible in poetry?
The student: In the craft of poetry.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: In the craft of poetry.
The Shaykh : Yes " And permissible in the craft of bold poetry *** That the poet declines the indeclinable ". The point is his saying " permissible in the craft of bold poetry " it encourages you to decline the indeclinable, yes. Fine, he says:
" They said that indeed *** their arrangement is by hearing, by the adhan "
Meaning we hear them arranged, but their reality is that they are not arranged, but your hearing is what hears them arranged, yes. How is this? This is their opinion.
" And they have a fixed conjunction for their essences *** "
They are, in terms of essence and reality, conjoined, but the arrangement is by your hearing.
" *** So marvel at this confusion and babbling
But the Zaghuniyyah have said *** "
The Zaghuni here is one of the scholars of Kalam, named Ibn al-Zaghuni, but he is not Ali ibn al-Zaghuni, the famous jurist and usuli, who is one of the followers of Imam Ahmad, from whom they quote in fiqh, saying Ibn al-Zaghuni said so. No, this is someone else. And who will give us his biography? You? Fine.
" But the Zaghuniyyah have said that *** their essences and their existence are different "
This is also strange. He says: Their essences and their existence are distinct.
" So they are arranged by their existence, not their essence *** "
They are arranged by their existence, not by their essence. The first group says they are arranged by hearing, while their existence and essence are not arranged. But this one gave them an essence, an existence, and a hearing. He did not speak about hearing; he spoke about essence and existence. He says: They are arranged by their existence, not their essence, or not their essence (genitive), two interpretations are permissible.
" *** Oh, for the minds and the deviation of the intellects "
He pities them, may Allah have mercy on him, that their minds are driven by desire and their intellects are deviant, yes.
" Existence is nothing but their reality for the *** intellects, but in these realities "
The existence of these letters is their reality in fact. So how do you distinguish, O Ibn al-Zaghuni, between existence and reality? The fact is that their reality is their existence. There is no letter, meaning it is not said "this is a ta" unless it exists. How do we call it a reality when it has not existed? Its existence and its reality are the same. For this reason, the author said:
" Existence is nothing but their reality for the *** intellects, but in these realities "
Meaning that the existence of the letter is its reality, whether you conceive it in the mind or see it externally.
" But if you take the reality externally *** and its existence mentally, they are different
And the reverse is like that, if they *** are united by consideration, they are not two things "
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says: It is possible to distinguish between reality and existence by saying that reality may be in the mind, while the external is in the eye, meaning that a person may conceive a letter in his mind, and when it emerges and he pronounces it or writes it, it now exists. He says: It is possible to distinguish between reality and existence in terms of the mind and the external, but in terms of reality itself, it is not possible to distinguish; rather, we say that the existence of a thing is the very essence of its self. However, in terms of the mind and the external, it is possible to distinguish. Look, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) is fair. When he refuted Ibn al-Zaghuni for making existence other than reality, he said: It is possible to make existence other than reality in terms of what? The mind and the external. And what does the mind and the external mean? The mind means what is with you, and the external is what is in America? No? External. They said, where is so-and-so? He said: By Allah, so-and-so is in the external, meaning he is traveling abroad. This is not the meaning. The external means that it has not been found in reality, meaning the very essence of the thing, because the thing has existence in the mind and existence in the external. Its existence in the mind is the human conception of it, and its existence in the external is that it is read if it is speech, or written if it is writing, or created if it is a created thing. The important thing is that it emerges. So here he says:
"But if you take reality as external *** and its existence as mental, they are different"
Existence becomes other than reality if you make the intended meaning of existence its existence in the mind, and reality its existence in the external.
"And the reverse is also like this"
Meaning: its existence is external and its reality is mental; we may also say they are different.
"So if they *** are united by consideration, they are not two things" This is what Ibn al-Zaghuni intended, and Ibn al-Qayyim refuted him, in terms of reality and existence, not the mind and the external. Can we say they are two things? No, and for this reason he said: But if, yes.
"And the reverse, so if they *** are united by consideration"
Meaning: if we consider them as external, or if we consider them as mental, they are united, or
"they are not two things"
so give us victory over the disbelieving people."
فانصرنا على القوم الكافرينThese people are, in reality, further and further from reason than those before them. For this reason, the author, may Allah have mercy on them, said:
" *** So marvel at the one with confusion and babbling "
Yes, by Allah, marvel. Are these called, here? The Qatariyyah, who hold that the letters of the words and the words are conjoined with one another, with none preceding or lagging. Fine.
So these Qatariyyah, and those who said it is a narration, and those who said it is an expression, and those who said it is one meaning or five meanings, they are all a branch of one thing. They said: If we said that speech is created, it would necessitate that created things subsist in the essence of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, and whatever created things subsist in is itself created. See how the Shaytan speaks: whatever created things subsist in is itself created. The creation of Allah is impossible, impossible. So it necessitates that created things subsist in Him, do you understand?
Fine, is this rule correct or invalid? It is invalid. This is invalid. It does not necessitate that if we say the Qur'an is the speech of Allah in wording and meaning, that it is created in terms of its origin and genus. Because the origin and genus of speech are eternal and ancient, because Allah, Mighty and Majestic, has always been and continues to be a Speaker. Then, even if we assumed creation, it does not necessitate that if a created thing subsists in the described, that the described is created. Necessarily, the one described by speech or action precedes the description. For this reason, I am speaking now; does my speech that occurred now necessitate that it existed with me at birth? No, it does not necessitate. So if it does not necessitate, it becomes clear that created things can subsist in something that precedes them. Created things can subsist in something that precedes them. This preceding thing is eternal. So if created things subsist in Allah, meaning an action or speech occurred from Him, it does not necessitate that the essence of Allah, the Exalted, is created. And I think it is clear, clear from the rational aspect, but this is their doctrine.
So let us look at the verses. The other sect, in terms of what? In terms of the claim that speech is not connected to His will and is not external to His essence. They said: It is wording and meaning that do not separate, and the wording is like the meaning, eternal. There is no created wording. And if the wording is eternal, it necessitates that the letters are conjoined, for if they were arranged, the second would be created, and the one before it would be created relative to what came before it, and so on. For this reason, he said:
" And the wording is like the meaning, eternal, subsisting in the self *** It is not a recipient of creation
So the sin at the ba is not preceded *** "
The sin, from where? From "Bismillah," at the ba, not preceded, meaning: the ba did not precede it.
" *** But they are two conjoined letters "
How can one imagine this? Yes? How can they be two conjoined letters? You cannot even in the case of the "imalah" (vowel shift) where they say its course is between the alif and the ya; it is difficult, and it is neither a ya nor an alif.
" And those who say this say that indeed *** "
There is a grammatical error in the author's speech, and those who say this say that it is; there is an error.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Not "by this"
" And those who say this "
Correct, meaning with this claim
" say that indeed *** "
There is an error. The error is in his saying?
The student: "Say" (qulu).
The Shaykh :" Say " because there is no accusative marker or jussive marker in it, and the nun of the five verbs is not deleted except with the accusative marker or the jussive marker, or with the protective nun, yes, or something similar. So there must be a reason. So they answered it by saying the author deleted it for a reason, which is necessity, the necessity of poetry, yes. Because poetry compels the poet to change; he may raise the accusative, he may make the nominative accusative, he may decline the indeclinable, and he may delete the undeletable, yes. For this reason, al-Hariri said in his Maqamat " and decline " yes?
The student: And permissible.
The Shaykh : And permissible in poetry?
The student: In the craft of poetry.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: In the craft of poetry.
The Shaykh : Yes " And permissible in the craft of bold poetry *** That the poet declines the indeclinable ". The point is his saying " permissible in the craft of bold poetry " it encourages you to decline the indeclinable, yes. Fine, he says:
" They said that indeed *** their arrangement is by hearing, by the adhan "
Meaning we hear them arranged, but their reality is that they are not arranged, but your hearing is what hears them arranged, yes. How is this? This is their opinion.
" And they have a fixed conjunction for their essences *** "
They are, in terms of essence and reality, conjoined, but the arrangement is by your hearing.
" *** So marvel at this confusion and babbling
But the Zaghuniyyah have said *** "
The Zaghuni here is one of the scholars of Kalam, named Ibn al-Zaghuni, but he is not Ali ibn al-Zaghuni, the famous jurist and usuli, who is one of the followers of Imam Ahmad, from whom they quote in fiqh, saying Ibn al-Zaghuni said so. No, this is someone else. And who will give us his biography? You? Fine.
" But the Zaghuniyyah have said that *** their essences and their existence are different "
This is also strange. He says: Their essences and their existence are distinct.
" So they are arranged by their existence, not their essence *** "
They are arranged by their existence, not by their essence. The first group says they are arranged by hearing, while their existence and essence are not arranged. But this one gave them an essence, an existence, and a hearing. He did not speak about hearing; he spoke about essence and existence. He says: They are arranged by their existence, not their essence, or not their essence (genitive), two interpretations are permissible.
" *** Oh, for the minds and the deviation of the intellects "
He pities them, may Allah have mercy on him, that their minds are driven by desire and their intellects are deviant, yes.
" Existence is nothing but their reality for the *** intellects, but in these realities "
The existence of these letters is their reality in fact. So how do you distinguish, O Ibn al-Zaghuni, between existence and reality? The fact is that their reality is their existence. There is no letter, meaning it is not said "this is a ta" unless it exists. How do we call it a reality when it has not existed? Its existence and its reality are the same. For this reason, the author said:
" Existence is nothing but their reality for the *** intellects, but in these realities "
Meaning that the existence of the letter is its reality, whether you conceive it in the mind or see it externally.
" But if you take the reality externally *** and its existence mentally, they are different
And the reverse is like that, if they *** are united by consideration, they are not two things "
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says: It is possible to distinguish between reality and existence by saying that reality may be in the mind, while the external is in the eye, meaning that a person may conceive a letter in his mind, and when it emerges and he pronounces it or writes it, it now exists. He says: It is possible to distinguish between reality and existence in terms of the mind and the external, but in terms of reality itself, it is not possible to distinguish; rather, we say that the existence of a thing is the very essence of its self. However, in terms of the mind and the external, it is possible to distinguish. Look, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) is fair. When he refuted Ibn al-Zaghuni for making existence other than reality, he said: It is possible to make existence other than reality in terms of what? The mind and the external. And what does the mind and the external mean? The mind means what is with you, and the external is what is in America? No? External. They said, where is so-and-so? He said: By Allah, so-and-so is in the external, meaning he is traveling abroad. This is not the meaning. The external means that it has not been found in reality, meaning the very essence of the thing, because the thing has existence in the mind and existence in the external. Its existence in the mind is the human conception of it, and its existence in the external is that it is read if it is speech, or written if it is writing, or created if it is a created thing. The important thing is that it emerges. So here he says:
"But if you take reality as external *** and its existence as mental, they are different"
Existence becomes other than reality if you make the intended meaning of existence its existence in the mind, and reality its existence in the external.
"And the reverse is also like this"
Meaning: its existence is external and its reality is mental; we may also say they are different.
"So if they *** are united by consideration, they are not two things" This is what Ibn al-Zaghuni intended, and Ibn al-Qayyim refuted him, in terms of reality and existence, not the mind and the external. Can we say they are two things? No, and for this reason he said: But if, yes.
"And the reverse, so if they *** are united by consideration"
Meaning: if we consider them as external, or if we consider them as mental, they are united, or
"they are not two things"