Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ - Shams al‑Din al‑Dhahabi - (14/184)

Siyar Aʿlām al-NubalāʾShams al‑Din al‑Dhahabi

Among his writings are: Kitāb al-Uṣūl, Kitāb al-Nahy ʿan al-Munkar (The Forbiddance of Wrong), Kitāb al-Taʿdīl wa al-Tajwīz, Kitāb al-Ijtihād, Kitāb al-Asmāʾ wa al-Ṣifāt (Divine Names and Attributes), Kitāb al-Tafsīr al-Kabīr (The Great Commentary), Kitāb al-Naqd ʿalā Ibn al-Rāwandī (A Critique of Ibn al-Rāwandī), Kitāb al-Radd ʿalā Ibn Kullāb, Kitāb al-Radd ʿalā al-Munajjimīn (A Refutation of the Astrologers), Kitāb Man Yakfir wa Man Lā Yakfir (Who Is to Be Declared an Unbeliever and Who Is Not), Kitāb Sharḥ al-Ḥadīth, and many other works.

It is related that al-Ashʿarī asked Abū ʿAlī: “(Imagine) three brothers—one pious, the second an unbeliever, and the third who died as a child. What is their fate?”

He replied, “The first is in Paradise, the second in Hell, and the child is among the people of safety.”

Al-Ashʿarī said, “Suppose the child wishes to rise to his brother’s (higher) rank?”

He answered, “No, for it will be said to him, ‘Your brother attained that station only by his deeds.’”

Al-Ashʿarī continued, “But if the child objects: ‘Where was my shortcoming? You did not let me live, nor did You enable me to obey.’”

Abū ʿAlī replied, “God will say to him, ‘I knew that, had you lived, you would have disobeyed and deserved punishment; so I took care of your best interest.’”

Al-Ashʿarī then asked, “And if the elder brother were to say, ‘My Lord, just as You knew his state, You knew mine. Why did You look after his welfare but not mine?’”

At that, al-Jubbāʾī was left speechless (1).

(1) Al-Subki reproduces this disputation in his Tabaqat, 3/356, and comments: “This is a famous debate which our teacher al-Dhahabi transmitted. It decisively refutes the principle of the scholar he follows, for that scholar claims that Allah does nothing unless a motivating wisdom and a resulting benefit compel Him to act—an opinion identical with that of the Mu‘tazila on this issue. Had our teacher realized this, he would have turned away from citing the debate altogether.” I add: Al-Subki’s words invite several criticisms. By saying that the debate “decisively refutes the principle of the scholar he follows,” he is referring to Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya, and this is pure slander against al-Dhahabi. Although al-Dhahabi greatly admired Ibn Taymiyya, frequently praised his learning and virtue, and highly valued his method of adhering to the Book of Allah and the authentic sunnah and interpreting them as the salaf did, he was not in complete agreement with him. At times he accepted Ibn Taymiyya’s views; at other times he deemed him mistaken and rebutted him with severity—just as any perceptive, independent scholar does, convinced that every authority’s words may be taken or left. And what of it?

وَلهُ: كِتَابُ (الأُصُوْلِ) ، وَكِتَابُ (النَّهْيِ عَنِ المُنْكَرِ) ، وَكِتَابُ (التَّعديلِ وَالتَّجويزِ) ، وَكِتَابُ (الاجْتِهَادِ) ، وَكِتَابُ (الأَسْمَاءِ وَالصِّفَاتِ) ، وَكِتَابُ (التَّفْسِيْرِ الكَبِيْرِ) ، وَكِتَابُ (النَّقضُ عَلَى ابْنِ الرَّاوَنْدِيِّ) ، كِتَابُ (الرَّدِّ عَلَى ابْنِ كُلاَّبٍ) ، كِتَابُ (الرَّدِ عَلَى المنَجِّمِينَ) ، وَكِتَابُ (مَنْ يَكفرُ وَمَنْ لاَ يكفرُ) ، وَكِتَابُ (شَرحُ الحَدِيْثِ) ، وَأَشيَاءٌ كَثِيْرَةٌ. قِيْلَ: سَأَلَ الأَشْعَرِيُّ أَبَا عَلِيٍّ: ثَلاَثَةُ إِخوَةٍ: أَحَدُهُم تَقِيٌّ، وَالثَّانِي كَافِرٌ، وَالثَّالِثُ مَاتَ صَبِيّاً؟ فَقَالَ: أَمَّا الأَوَّلُ فَفِي الجَنَّةِ، وَالثَّانِي فَفِي النَّارِ، وَالصَّبِيُّ فَمِنْ أَهْلِ السَّلاَمَةِ. قَالَ: فَإِنْ أَرَادَ أَنْ يَصعدَ إِلَى أَخِيْهِ؟ قَالَ: لاَ؛ لأَنَّه يُقَالُ لَهُ: إِنَّ أَخَاكَ إِنَّمَا وَصلَ إِلَى هُنَاكَ بِعملِه. قَالَ: فَإِنْ قَالَ الصَّغِيْرُ: مَا التَّقْصِيرُ مِنِّي، فَإِنَّكَ مَا أَبْقَيْتَنِي، وَلاَ أَقْدَرْتَنِي عَلَى الطَّاعَةِ. قَالَ: يَقُوْلُ اللهُ لَهُ: كُنْتُ أَعْلَمُ أَنَّكَ لَوْ بَقِيْتَ لَعَصَيْتَ، وَلاستحقَّيْتَ العَذَابَ، فَرَاعَيْتُ مَصْلَحَتَكَ. قَالَ: فَلَو قَالَ الأَخُ الأَكْبَرُ: يَا ربِّ كَمَا علمتَ حَالَه، فَقَدْ عَلمتَ حَالِي، فَلِمَ رَاعِيتَ مَصلحتَهُ دُونِي؟ فَانقطَعَ الجُبَّائِيُّ (١) .

(١) أورد هذه المناظرة السبكي في " طبقاته " ٣ / ٣٥٦، وقال: هذه مناظرة شهيرة، وقد حكاها شيخنا الذهبي، وهي دامغة لاصل من يقلده، لان الذي يقلده يقول: إن الله لا يفعل شيئا إلا بحكمة باعثة له على فعله، ومصلحة واقعة، وهو من المعتزلة في هذه المسألة، فلو يدري شيخنا هذا، لاضرب عن ذكر هذه المناظرة صفحا. قلت: في كلام السبكي هذا مؤاخذات، فقوله " وهي دامغة لاصل من يقلده " يعني به شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية، وهذا محض اقتراء على الذهبي، " فإنه وإن كان شديد الإعجاب به، كثير التنويه بعلمه وفضله، قوي الاعتداد بمنهجه القائم على الاخذ بكتاب الله تعالى، وسنة رسوله الثابتة، والاعتصام بهما، وفهمهما على النحو الذي فهمه السلف لم يكن معه على وفاق تام، فأحيانا يأخذ برأيه ويوافقه، وتارة يخطئة ويرد عليه ويقسو في الرد شأن العالم المتبصر المستقل الذي يرى أن كل أحد من أهل العلم يؤخذ من قوله ويترك، فكان ماذا؟ ! =