Commentary on the preceding verses, explaining the position of the Karramiyyah regarding the speech of Allah, and the difference between the Karramiyyah and the Jahmiyyah in this matter.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : These are also of two types among those who affirm the will: the first type is the one who made it originated, meaning: he made His speech an originated thing, originated in type, not originated in individual instances, originated in type. For this reason he said:
"originated in type" meaning: that He, Glorified and Exalted is He, in the beginning was not speaking, then He began to speak, so speech became, in their view, originated in type. If they had said that it is originated in individual instances, the matter would have been correct, but they said it is originated in type, meaning that Allah was not speaking, then He began to speak. So they denied speech for Allah in the first instance and affirmed it for Him in the second instance, and they made His speech not external to His essence, but within His essence. This is the difference between them and whom? The people of the Mu'tazilah and the previous Jahmiyyah, because those people made it external to His essence, making it a created thing separate, like the sky, the earth, the sun, and the moon. As for these, they said: No, it is among His attributes, but it is originated in type and individual instances, originated in type and individual instances. Why? He said: out of fear of such and such? Or out of fear. "out of fear of the succession of entities" because they said: if we affirm that it is eternal in type, it would necessitate that its individual instances are also eternal and successive, since there is no speech except that there is speech before it, without end. And they thought that this is impossible, but it is not impossible, as will come, if Allah wills, in the second sect. So this is against them. Yes, "so that blocks for them, in their belief, *** the affirmation of the Creator of these universes"
They say: if we make speech as having always existed in type, and it is connected to the will, it would necessitate that the one described by it is also originated in existence by His will. And this blocks us from what? It blocks us from affirming Allah, Mighty and Majestic, meaning affirming His eternity, Glorified and Exalted is He. But this is not correct, because it is known that the one described precedes the description and the attribute. So the speaker must necessarily precede his speech. And if we say that speech is eternal in type, it does not necessitate that it is co-existent with the Creator, because the speaker must necessarily precede what follows him.
"So for that reason they said it has a beginning *** for annihilation has no dominion over it"
Meaning: they made speech not eternal, but it has a beginning. "Having a beginning" means having a start. But it is eternal, is it not? Look, he says: "*** for annihilation has no dominion over it" It is eternal. So the difference between them and the people of the Sunnah is simple. What is the difference? The people of the Sunnah say that the speech of Allah is eternal in type and originated in individual instances. They say that it is originated in type and individual instances. Okay, is it eternal? They and the people of the Sunnah agree on that, for the speech of Allah will not cease forever, it is eternal. For this reason he said: "having a beginning *** for annihilation has no dominion over it" So it is eternal.
"And His speech is like His action, and both *** have a beginning, but they do not end"
Meaning they have a beginning but they are eternal. For this reason he said: "but" and this is a conjunction, but it is not for contrast, unless it is said that it is a transition from speech to speech, not from meaning to meaning. Meaning: they have a beginning and will not perish, but they do not end.
"They said, and did not act justly, their opponents made a racket *** and came with denunciation without proof"
What is the meaning of "racket"? Racket is noisy talk that is intended only for repulsion and denunciation. And they mean by these people whom? The Mu'tazilah and the Jahmiyyah. They said: "*** and came with denunciation without proof
We said, as they said, regarding His actions *** Indeed, between us is a vast difference of distinction "
These people say regarding His actions: that they are not eternal, but He was an actor after He was inactive. And these people said regarding His speech what those people said regarding His actions, meaning that speech is originated after it was not, actions are originated after they were not. But they differ: these people say that His actions and His words are external to His essence, and these people say rather that they are connected to His essence.
"We said, as they said regarding His actions *** but between us is a distance of difference
Indeed, we are happier than they are with the truth, for *** we said that both are established by Allah "
The pronoun "both" refers to words and actions. These people say: speech is established by Allah and action is established by Allah. And those people say it is established by other than Allah, separate from Allah. So which is closer to the truth? Here? The Karramiyyah who said that actions and words are established by Allah.
"And they, so they said it is not established by Allah, neither *** action nor word, so it is two denials"
Denial of the word and denial of the action.
"For His action and His word, evil *** and more invalid than the indwelling of accidents by explanation"
Meaning: denying His actions and His words is more evil and more invalid than the indwelling of accidents by explanation. What is the meaning of this statement? Denying His words and actions is more evil and more invalid than the indwelling of accidents, because the Jahmiyyah and the Mu'tazilah denied the establishment of His voluntary actions by His essence out of fear of the indwelling of accidents by His essence. Pay attention, everyone, because among the principles of the deniers is that an originated thing is not established except by an originated thing. So if accidents were established by His essence, it would necessitate that He is originated. For this reason they denied that voluntary actions are established by His essence, and they said: He has no action, and He has no word. We ask Allah for safety. The reality of speech is something a human cannot imagine, let alone digest and accept it. Okay.
These Karramiyyah say: that denying His actions and His words is more evil and more invalid than the indwelling of accidents by Him. Meaning, if they said: that Allah performs an action connected to His essence and speaks a word connected to His essence, this would be less severe than saying that accidents are connected to His essence. Because if we say that accidents are connected to His essence, nothing is necessitated by it. And if we say that He is denied of action and word, this is among the ugliest things by which Allah, Mighty and Majestic, is described. And it has preceded us that the establishment of accidents does not necessitate the origination of the one by whom they are established.
Now, he says:
"His denial of His action and His speech *** is more evil than denunciation with nonsense"
"originated in type" meaning: that He, Glorified and Exalted is He, in the beginning was not speaking, then He began to speak, so speech became, in their view, originated in type. If they had said that it is originated in individual instances, the matter would have been correct, but they said it is originated in type, meaning that Allah was not speaking, then He began to speak. So they denied speech for Allah in the first instance and affirmed it for Him in the second instance, and they made His speech not external to His essence, but within His essence. This is the difference between them and whom? The people of the Mu'tazilah and the previous Jahmiyyah, because those people made it external to His essence, making it a created thing separate, like the sky, the earth, the sun, and the moon. As for these, they said: No, it is among His attributes, but it is originated in type and individual instances, originated in type and individual instances. Why? He said: out of fear of such and such? Or out of fear. "out of fear of the succession of entities" because they said: if we affirm that it is eternal in type, it would necessitate that its individual instances are also eternal and successive, since there is no speech except that there is speech before it, without end. And they thought that this is impossible, but it is not impossible, as will come, if Allah wills, in the second sect. So this is against them. Yes, "so that blocks for them, in their belief, *** the affirmation of the Creator of these universes"
They say: if we make speech as having always existed in type, and it is connected to the will, it would necessitate that the one described by it is also originated in existence by His will. And this blocks us from what? It blocks us from affirming Allah, Mighty and Majestic, meaning affirming His eternity, Glorified and Exalted is He. But this is not correct, because it is known that the one described precedes the description and the attribute. So the speaker must necessarily precede his speech. And if we say that speech is eternal in type, it does not necessitate that it is co-existent with the Creator, because the speaker must necessarily precede what follows him.
"So for that reason they said it has a beginning *** for annihilation has no dominion over it"
Meaning: they made speech not eternal, but it has a beginning. "Having a beginning" means having a start. But it is eternal, is it not? Look, he says: "*** for annihilation has no dominion over it" It is eternal. So the difference between them and the people of the Sunnah is simple. What is the difference? The people of the Sunnah say that the speech of Allah is eternal in type and originated in individual instances. They say that it is originated in type and individual instances. Okay, is it eternal? They and the people of the Sunnah agree on that, for the speech of Allah will not cease forever, it is eternal. For this reason he said: "having a beginning *** for annihilation has no dominion over it" So it is eternal.
"And His speech is like His action, and both *** have a beginning, but they do not end"
Meaning they have a beginning but they are eternal. For this reason he said: "but" and this is a conjunction, but it is not for contrast, unless it is said that it is a transition from speech to speech, not from meaning to meaning. Meaning: they have a beginning and will not perish, but they do not end.
"They said, and did not act justly, their opponents made a racket *** and came with denunciation without proof"
What is the meaning of "racket"? Racket is noisy talk that is intended only for repulsion and denunciation. And they mean by these people whom? The Mu'tazilah and the Jahmiyyah. They said: "*** and came with denunciation without proof
We said, as they said, regarding His actions *** Indeed, between us is a vast difference of distinction "
These people say regarding His actions: that they are not eternal, but He was an actor after He was inactive. And these people said regarding His speech what those people said regarding His actions, meaning that speech is originated after it was not, actions are originated after they were not. But they differ: these people say that His actions and His words are external to His essence, and these people say rather that they are connected to His essence.
"We said, as they said regarding His actions *** but between us is a distance of difference
Indeed, we are happier than they are with the truth, for *** we said that both are established by Allah "
The pronoun "both" refers to words and actions. These people say: speech is established by Allah and action is established by Allah. And those people say it is established by other than Allah, separate from Allah. So which is closer to the truth? Here? The Karramiyyah who said that actions and words are established by Allah.
"And they, so they said it is not established by Allah, neither *** action nor word, so it is two denials"
Denial of the word and denial of the action.
"For His action and His word, evil *** and more invalid than the indwelling of accidents by explanation"
Meaning: denying His actions and His words is more evil and more invalid than the indwelling of accidents by explanation. What is the meaning of this statement? Denying His words and actions is more evil and more invalid than the indwelling of accidents, because the Jahmiyyah and the Mu'tazilah denied the establishment of His voluntary actions by His essence out of fear of the indwelling of accidents by His essence. Pay attention, everyone, because among the principles of the deniers is that an originated thing is not established except by an originated thing. So if accidents were established by His essence, it would necessitate that He is originated. For this reason they denied that voluntary actions are established by His essence, and they said: He has no action, and He has no word. We ask Allah for safety. The reality of speech is something a human cannot imagine, let alone digest and accept it. Okay.
These Karramiyyah say: that denying His actions and His words is more evil and more invalid than the indwelling of accidents by Him. Meaning, if they said: that Allah performs an action connected to His essence and speaks a word connected to His essence, this would be less severe than saying that accidents are connected to His essence. Because if we say that accidents are connected to His essence, nothing is necessitated by it. And if we say that He is denied of action and word, this is among the ugliest things by which Allah, Mighty and Majestic, is described. And it has preceded us that the establishment of accidents does not necessitate the origination of the one by whom they are established.
Now, he says:
"His denial of His action and His speech *** is more evil than denunciation with nonsense"