أَمَّاAs forالدَّليلُthe evidenceالمُوجِبُ؛that necessitates;فَقَالُواthey said::إنَّنَاIndeed, weنَسْتَدِلُّargueبِقَوْلِهِby the sayingالشَّاعِرِof the poet:قَدِIndeed,اسْتَوَىhe has attained/elevatedبِشْرٍBishrعَلَىtoالعِرَاقِIraqمِنْwithoutغَيْرِwithoutسَيْفٍswordأَوْorدَمٍbloodمِهْرَاقٍspilled.
As for the evidence that necessitates; they said: Indeed, we argue by the saying of the poet: Indeed, Bishr has attained to Iraq without sword or spilled blood.
قَالُوا:They said:وَهَذَاAnd thisبَيْتٌis a verseمِنْfromرَجُلٍa manعَرَبِيٍّ،Arabic,وَلَاand cannotيُمْكِنُbe meantأَنْthatيَكُونَto beالْمُرَادُthe intendedبِهِ؛by it;اسْتَوَىelevated overعَلَىonالعِرَاقِ؛Iraq!لَاNotسِيمَاespecially asأَنَّهُhe isفِيinذَلِكَthatالْوَقْتِtimeلَاthere are noطَائِرَاتٍairplanesيُمْكِنُto elevateأَنْthatيَعْلُوcould riseعَلَىaboveالعِرَاقِ بِهَا.over Iraq.
They said: And this is a verse from an Arabic man, and it cannot be meant by it that he elevated over Iraq! Especially as he is in that time, there are no airplanes that could rise above Iraq.
أَمَّاAs forالدَّليلُthe evidenceالسَّلْبِيُّ؛the negative;فَقَالُواthey saidلَوْIfأَثْبَتْنَاwe provedأَنْthatاللَّهَAllahعَزَّ وَجَلَّthe Almighty and Majesticمَسْتَوٍis elevatedعَلَىonعَرْشِهِHis throneبِالْمَعْنَىin the meaningالَّذِيthat you say,وَهُوَand it isالْعُلُوُّthe elevationوَالِاسْتِقْرَارِ؛and the stability;لَزِمَit necessarily followsمِنَfrom thatذَلِكَthatأَنْthatيَكُونَHe would beمُحْتَاجًاin needإِلَىtoالْعَرْشِ،the throne,وَهَذَاand thisمُسْتَحِيلٌ،is impossible,وَاسْتِحَالَةُand the impossibilityاللاَّزِمَof the necessaryتَدُلُّindicatesعَلَىonاسْتِحَالَةِthe impossibilityالْمَلْزُومِ.of the required.
As for the negative evidence; they said if we proved that Allah, the Almighty and Majestic, is elevated on His throne in the meaning that you say, which is the elevation and the stability; it necessarily follows from that that He would be in need of the throne, and this is impossible, and the impossibility of the necessary indicates the impossibility of the required.
وَلَزِمَand it necessarily followsمِنَfromذَلِكَthatأَنْthatيَكُونَit would beجَسَدًا؛a body;لَأَنَّbecauseاسْتَوَاءَthe elevation of somethingشَيْءٍover somethingعَلَىonشَيْءٍsomethingبِمَعْنَىin the sense ofعُلُوِّهُits being elevated overعَلَيْهِmeans thatيَعْنِيit is a body.
And it necessarily follows from that that it would be a body; because the elevation of something over something means that it is a body.
وَلَزِمَAnd it followsأَنْthatيَكُونَit would beمَحْدُودًا؛limited;لَأَنَّbecauseالْمُسْتَوِيthe elevatedعَلَىonالشَّيْءِsomethingيَكُونُwould beمَحْدُودًا،limited;إِذَاifاسْتَوَيْتَyou elevated yourselfعَلَىonالْبَعِيرِ؛the camel;فَأَنْتَyou wouldمَحْدُودٌlimitedفِيinمَنْطِقَةٍa specific areaمُعَيَّنَةٍcertainمَحْصُورٍconfinedبِهَاby it, and limited also.
And it follows that it would be limited; because the elevated on something would be limited; if you elevated yourself on the camel, you would be limited in a specific area confined by it and limited also.
هَذِهِTheseالأَشْيَاءُthingsالثَّلاثَةُthreeالَّتِيthatزَعَمُواthey claimedأَنَّهَاthat theyتَلْزَمُnecessitateمِنْfromإِثْبَاتٍthe proofأَنْthatالِاسْتَوَاءِthe elevationبِمَعْنَىin the sense ofالْعُلُوِّthe elevationوَالِارْتِفَاعِ.and the rise.
These are the three things that they claimed necessitate from the proof that the elevation is in the sense of exaltation and rise.
وَالْرَّدُّAnd the responseعَلَيْهِمْto themمِنْfromوُجُوهٍ:facets:أَوَّلًا :First:تَفْسِيرُكُمْYour interpretationهَذَاthisمُخَالِفٌis contraryلِتَفْسِيرِto the interpretationالسَّلَفِof the previous onesالَّذِيthatأَجْمَعُواthey agreed on,وَالْدَّلِيلُand the evidenceعَلَىforإِجْمَاعِهِمْtheir consensusأَنَّهُThat itلَمْdid notيُنْقَلْtransferعَنْهُمْfrom themأَنَّهُمْthat theyقَالُواsaid it.
And the response to them is from facets: First: Your interpretation is contrary to the interpretation of the previous ones that they agreed on, and the evidence for their consensus is that it did not transfer from them that they said it.