عَلَيْهِon himأَئِمَّةُthe Imamsالإِسْلامِ،of Islam,وَجُمْهورُهُمْand their majorityكَفَرُوهُ.disbelieved him.
On him are the Imams of Islam, and the majority of them disbelieved him.
وَالَّذِينَAnd those whoوَافَقُوهُagreed with himعَلَىonالأَصْلِthe originalخَالَفُوهُdisagreed with himفِيinلَوَازِمِهِits implicationsفَتَنَاقَضُواthus contradicted themselves
And those who agreed with him on the principle contradicted him in its implications, thus they contradicted themselves.
وَفَرْقٌAnd a distinctionمِنْfromفِرَقٍgroupsبَيْنَbetweenالمَاضِيthe pastوَالمُسْتَقْبَلِ،and the future,بِأَنْthatالمَاضِيthe pastدَخَلَenteredفِيintoالْوُجُودِexistenceبِخِلَافِunlikeالمُسْتَقْبَلِ،the future,فَارْقٌis a weak distinction.ضَعِيفٌweakلِوُجُوهٍ:for reasons:
And a distinction from groups between the past and the future, that the past entered into existence unlike the future, is a weak distinction for reasons:
أَحَدُهَا:One of them is:أِنَّthatالمَاضِيَthe pastقَدْhasجَعَلَهُmade itمُتَنَاهِيًا،finite,فَلَمtherefore notيَقَعَoccurالتَّفَاضُلُthe differentiationإِلَّاexceptفِي مَاin whatتَنَاهَىis finiteدُونَunlikeمَاwhatلاis notتَنَاهَىfiniteكَمَاasتَقَدَّمَ،previously mentioned.وَحِينََئِذٍAnd thenفَمَاwhatدَخَلَenteredفِيintoالْوُجُوهِthe aspectsإِلَّاexceptمَاwhatيَتَنَاهَىis finiteمِنْfromهَذَاthisالْجَانِبِ،side,فَهُوَit isتَقْدِيرٌan estimationيَتَنَاهَى،that is finite,فَمَاso whatقَدْرٌis predetermined.مُتَنَاهٍ،finite,ثُمَّthenهَذَاthisإِذَاifقَدْرٌpredeterminedأَنْthatتَنْتَهِيَits finitenessمُمْكِنٌ،is possible,فَكَيْفَhowإِذَاifكَانَwasمُمْتَنِعًا؟impossible?
One of the reasons is: that the past has made it finite, therefore the differentiation does not occur except in what is finite, unlike what is not finite, as previously mentioned. And then, what entered into the aspects is only what is finite from this side, thus it is an estimation that is finite; so what is determined to be finite, then this is if it is determined that its finiteness is possible, how is it if it is impossible?
الثَّانِي:The second is:أَنَّthatالدَّلِيلَthe evidenceشَامِلٌis comprehensiveلِلْنَّوْعَيْنِ،of both types,فَإِنَّهُfor it canيُمْكِنُbe saidأَنْthatالْحَادِثَاتَthe eventsمِنَofالْهِجْرَةِ،the migration,وَمِنَand fromالطُّوفَانِthe floodإِلَىtoمَاwhatلاis notيَتَنَاهَى،finite,هَلْareهُمَاthey bothمُتَفَاضِلَانِ؟are differentiated?أَمْorمُتَمَاثِلَانِ.are identical? (identical.)فَإِنْIfتَمَاثَلَاthey are identical,فَهُوَthen it isمُحَالٌ،impossible,لِأَنَّbecauseأَحَدَهُمَاone of themأَزْيَدُis greaterمِنَthanالْآخَرِ،the other,وَإِنْand ifتَفَاضَلَاthey are differentiated,فَهُوَthen it isمُحَالٌ،impossible,لِأَنَّbecauseالتَّفَاضُلَthe differentiationفِيinمَاwhatلاis notيَتَنَاهَىfiniteمُحَالٌ.is impossible.
The second is: that the evidence is comprehensive for both types, for it can be said that the events from the migration, and from the flood to what is infinite, are they differentiated? Or are they identical? If they are identical, then it is impossible, because one of them is greater than the other, and if they are differentiated, then it is impossible, because the differentiation in what is not finite is impossible.
فَإِنْIfقِيلَ:it is said:هَذَاthisتَقْدِيرٌestimationالتَّفَاضُلِ،of differentiation,وَالتَّمَاثُلِand identityفِيinمَاwhatلَمْhas notيَكُنbeenبَعْدُ.yet.
If it is said: this is an estimation of differentiation and identity in what has not yet been.
قِيلَ:It is said:نَعَمَ،Yes,لَكِنَّهُbut it isتَقْدِيرٌan estimationالتَّفَاضُلِof differentiationوَالتَّمَاثُلِ،and identity,بِتَقْدِيرِby estimatingوُجُودِهِits existenceلَاnotفِيinحَالِthe state ofكَوْنِهِits beingمَعْدُومًا،non-existent,كَمَاasأَنَّthatالمَاضِيَthe pastقَدَّرَتْهُمْthey estimatedفِيْهِin itالتَّمَاثُلَ،the identity,وَالتَّفَاضُلَand differentiationبَعْدَafterعَدَمِهَاits non-existenceبَعْدَafterعَدَمِهَا،its non-existence,لَاnotفِيinحَالِthe state ofوُجُودِهِ،its existence,لَكِنَّbutقَدَّرَتْهُمْthey estimatedتِلْكَthoseالْحَادِثَاتِeventsالْمَاضِيَةِthe pastالَّتِيthatعَدَمَتْhave perishedكَأَنَّهَاas if theyمَوْجُودَةٌ.were existing.
It is said: Yes, but it is an estimation of differentiation and identity by estimating its existence not in the state of its being non-existent, as they estimated the past in identity, and differentiation after its non-existence, not in the state of its existence, but they estimated those past events that have perished as if they were existing.
فَفِيSo inكِلَاbothالمَوْضِعَيْنِinstancesإنَّمَاit is onlyهُوَit isتَقْدِيرٌan estimationالتَّفَاضُلِ،of differentiation,وَالتَّمَاثُلِand identityفِيْمَاin whatهُوَisمَعْدُومٌ.non-existent.
So in both instances, it is only an estimation of differentiation and identity in what is non-existent.
فَإِنْIfصَحَّit is correctفِيinأَحَدِoneالمَوْضِعَيْنِinstancesصَحَّit is correctفِيinالآخَرِ،the other,وَإِنْand ifامْتَنَعَit is impossibleفِيinأَحَدِهِمَاone of themامْتَنَعَit is impossibleفِيinالآخَرِ.the other.
If it is correct in one instance, it is correct in the other, and if it is impossible in one, it is impossible in the other.
تَحْتَهُUnder itبِالْأَصْلِin the originalتَنَاقَضُواthey contradictedمَعَwithالإِشَارَةِthe referenceإِلَىtoمَجِيئِهِits comingهَكَذَاthis wayبِنُسَةٍin another versionأُخْرَىanotherوَأَنَّهُand that it isصَحِيحٌcorrectأَيْضًا.as well.
Under it in the original, "they contradicted" with the reference to its coming this way in another version, and that it is also correct.
فَوْقَهُAbove itبِالْأَصْلِin the originalوَإِذَاand if.
Above it in the original, and if.