Aligned sentence by sentence
.
They said that the meaning of one who says a person “is leaving to that” [means he leaves] something separate and external from him, bare of his action, that is not included in him, and not that he himself leaves as is the meaning of he arrived. They say this is not other than the statement “he was leaving” teaches that this was possible to occur from him and prepared for one like him. And this is not to the degree of the statement “he is bare from it” or “external from it” in all its aspects. And therefore, it is not possible for our opponent to say that a handicapped person is “leaving” an action, because he is removed and bare from it. And they say if this is the case, the statement “leaving” signifies the stripping of one’s self from an action even while it is something possible to occur from it. And his two statements “he is removed from it” or “he is bare from it” do not signify the possibility of what he is removed or bare from, even while he imagines something like this, and [the two statements] do not contradict that.
.
They say that if “leaving” were an action, it would be possible to leave it because every action it is possible to “leave,” since it is a choice that the self does not enter and not caused by the natural forces. And if it were possible to “leave leaving” it would be possible to “leave leaving of leaving” ad infinitum and this is flawed. And if this were possible, it would be possible to “desire desire” and “the desire of desire” ad infinitum. And they argue that this is not at the level of the statement of those who argue it is possible for desire to desire itself, because one who believes leaving is possible, does not leave himself in his action, and that is because doing something requires his presence and leaving it requires his absence and something cannot be both absent and present at the same time.
.
They say that what proves additionally what we said is that the masses of the gentiles, men and women, “leave” the kinds of heresy the practices they do not know, and it does not enter their minds the meaning that “they are not in it” and “it is possible for them.” If they understood this, if it were that leaving means choosing and completing as one chooses and completes an initiative, [this] would not be possible except after the understanding and knowing of what was left. And they also say if it was that [through the act of leaving] one did not leave an action or bare himself from it except for one whose action was external or completed in him external, [it would be that God ِExalted was still comparing the meaning of his action or the action done to him because he is still external from the action and bare of it and leaving it]. If our opponent refuses this argument that he continues to leave, he is obligated like this with the being bare, and removing, and seclusion until they argue that one who describes God in isolation from the action and bare of it prior to the Creation of the created is erroneous, and this is the key to the views of the Dahriya.
.
They said that if one of them argues that “we, even if we prevented the people from permitting these words, we already replaced for them what was expressed of the truth that they use as an explanation, and this argument that God is still not acting and not creating, and the argument that he still knows that he is not creating nor renewing, and there is nothing with him nor anything except him.” We say to them “and what creator other than Him is there in order to validate your argument that He is not in it and that He knows and still knows that he is alone? Is it possible for one to say ‘I am not a rock’ and ‘I am not Zeid,” and ‘I am except Omar” and he does not know who Zeid is nor who is Omar nor what is a rock? And if this is possible, why is it not possible for one who does not know what motion is to know he is without motion? And if they say that he is still not creating, why do you not say he is still not creating? And what is the difference between [being not creating what is created and being not creating what is known?] Does the alif and lam not mark the definiteness of the Creator that you argued is other than Him? And if this Creator is not known according to a single aspect, nor comprehended by logic nor imagination, nor does He exist, nor can he be described, behold it is as if you said that he is still knowing that he is other than anything, and there is not in this a negation of what you desired to separate from. And they follow this with many discussions beyond our capacity here, and I highlighted from it a small sample to explain that a group of our companions listened and believed [this view] without proving its correctness from its failure, and built upon it without examination.