Al-Tisʿīniyya - Ibn Taimiya - (2/481)

Al-TisʿīniyyaIbn Taimiya

of it, and because its recitation is in Arabic, it was therefore called “Arabic” for a particular reason; in the same way it was called “Hebrew” for a reason (1). Likewise, it was termed a “command” for a reason, a “prohibition” for a reason, and a “statement” for a reason. Allah has always been speaking before His speech was ever designated a “command,” and before the cause existed on account of which (2) His speech came to be called a “command.” The same applies to its being named a “prohibition” or a “statement.” He denied that the Creator has always been a narrator, or that (3) He has always been one who prohibits.

This, then, is al-Ashʿarī’s report from Ibn Kullāb: Allah has never ceased to speak, and His speech is an attribute subsisting (4) in Him, just like His knowledge and power. All the other attributes that he affirms for Allah Most High are, in his view, likewise eternal, subsisting in Allah and not contingent upon His will or power.

As for the pure Jahmites among the Muʿtazilah and others, they hold that none of these attributes—or any others—subsist (5) in Him at all. Everything that is ascribed to Him, they say, ultimately refers to a created reality external to Him, just as they maintain with respect to speech.

When those objected to these, saying, “Letters can exist only sequentially and necessarily require points of articulation—both of which rule out their pre-eternity,” these replied, “Exactly the same objection applies to meanings, for meanings correspond to letters in their ordering and, like letters, are in need of a locus in which to subsist. Whatever is said about one must therefore be said about the other.”

And when those claimed that all speech is nothing but a single meaning, these answered, “If it is conceivable that the diverse meanings can be reduced to one single meaning (6), then it is likewise conceivable that the diverse letters…"

(1) The phrase “li‘alla” is omitted in manuscripts S and T; in al-Maqalāt it appears, glossed as “namely, that the script it denotes is Hebrew.” (2) In al-Maqalāt the reading is “lahā.” (3) The phrase “wa-kadhālika” (“and likewise”) is omitted in al-Maqalāt. (4) In manuscripts S and T the reading is “lahu qā’im.” (5) The clause “lā yuqaddim” is not in the original edition but is attested in manuscripts S and T. (6) Manuscript S reads “ḥurūf” (letters), while manuscript T reads “ḥarf” (letter); this variation is due to a scribal error.

عنه وهو قراءته عربي فسمي عربيًّا لعلة، وكذلك سمي عبرانيًّا لعلة (١) ، وكذلك سمي أمرًا لعلة، وسمي نهيًا لعلة، وخبرًا لعلة، ولم يزل الله متكلمًا قبل أن يسمى كلامه أمرًا، وقبل وجود العلة التي بها (٢) سمي كلامه أمرًا، وكذلك القول في تسميته نهيًا وخبرًا، وأنكر أن يكون الباري لم يزل مخبرًا، وكذلك (٣) لم يزل ناهيًا). فهذه حكاية الأشعري عن ابن كلاب أنه يقول: إن الله لم يزل متكلمًا، وإن كلامه صفة قائمة (٤) به كعلمه وقدرته، وكذلك سائر الصفات التي يثبتها لله تعالى هي عنده قديمة قائمة بالله غير متعلقة بمشيئته وقدرته. وأما الجهميّة المحضة من المعتزلة وغيرهم فعندهم لا يقوم (٥) به شيء من هذه الصفات ولا غيرها، بل كل ما يضاف إليه فإنما يعود معناه إلى أمر مخلوق منفصل عنه، كما قالوه في الكلام، ولما قال أولئك لهؤلاء: إن الحروف لا تكون إلّا متعاقبة ولا بد لها من مخارج، وكلاهما يمنع قدمها، قال لهم هؤلاء: هذا بعينه وارد في المعنى، فإن المعاني مطابقة للحروف في الترتيب، وهي مفتقرة إلى محل كافتقار الحروف، فما قيل في أحدهما قيل في الآخر، ولما زعم أولئك أن الكلام كله هو معنى واحد، قال هؤلاء: إن جاز أن يعقل أن المعاني المتنوعة تعود إلى معنى (٦) واحد، جاز أن يعقل أن الحروف المتنوعة

(١) لعلة: ساقطة من: س، ط. وفي المقالات: لعلة وهي أن الرسم الذي هو عبارة عنه عبراني. (٢) في المقالات: لها. (٣) وكذلك: ساقطة من: المقالات. (٤) في س، ط: له قائم. (٥) في الأصل: لا يقدم. والمثبت من: س، ط. (٦) في س: حروف. وفي ط: حرف. وهو تصحيف.