Al-Tisʿīniyya - Ibn Taimiya - (2/693)

Al-TisʿīniyyaIbn Taimiya

yet that is not, in fact, the Speech of Allah, even though you take it to be His Speech and suppose that declaring it created is an act of reverence toward Allah—just as those others believed that the men they killed were the leaders of the Muslims and that slaying them was worship, and that the codex they ripped up was the Qur’an and that tearing it to pieces was devotion to Allah.

If matters stand thus, it would not be permissible to say that those men actually killed the leaders of the Muslims or actually tore up the muṣḥaf, even though that is precisely what they intended and thought they were doing. In the same way, according to your own principle it is impermissible to say that the Muʿtazilah declared, “The Speech of Allah is created,” even though they did intend and believe that. For the thing about which they said (1) that it was created—if the statement was figurative (majāz)—was not, in reality, the true Speech of Allah.

[And if the expression they used is mushtarak, that is, shared between several meanings, then they only pronounced it created] (2) with respect to one meaning and not the other; yet it is not allowed to employ a homonymous word while intending (3) only one of its senses (4), for when such a word is uttered without qualification it remains ambiguous. Accordingly, on this view it cannot be said that they stated, “The Speech of Allah is created,” nor that they stated it is uncreated. All of this runs contrary to the consensus of the Salaf and even of the Muʿtazilah themselves; it was never an early position among them, so it is, absolutely speaking, against consensus.

Thirty-first response: Should this report about them be judged sound, it would be so only in one of two ways—either with respect to the figurative usage (majāz) (5) and one of the two literal realities, or with respect to their own intention. In neither case would they be blameworthy for asserting that what they referred to is created; rather, they would be praiseworthy, since you and they are in agreement on that point.

(1) In the original: qala (he said). The reading appropriate to the context has been supplied from manuscripts S and T. (2) The text enclosed in parentheses is an addition found in manuscripts S and T. (3) The text enclosed in parentheses is an addition found in manuscript T. (4) The text enclosed in parentheses is omitted in manuscript S. (5) The text enclosed in parentheses is an addition that I consider necessary for coherence. In all the copies, there is blank space equivalent to two words.

الكتاب، لكن هذا ليس كلام الله وإن اعتقدتم أنَّه كلام الله، وأن القول بخلقه تعظيم لله، كما اعتقد أولئك أن هؤلاء أئمة المسلمين وأن قتلهم عبادة لله، وأن هذا المصحف هو القرآن وتمزيقه عبادة لله، وإذا كان كذلك لم يجز أن يقال: إن هؤلاء قتلوا أئمة المسلمين، ولا مزقوا المصحف، وإن كانوا قصدوا ذلك واعتقدوه، فكذلك لا يجوز على أصلكم أن يقال: إن المعتزلة قالت: إن كلام الله مخلوق، وإن كانوا هم قصدوا ذلك واعتقدوه، فإن الَّذي قالوا (١) : إنه مخلوق إن كان مجازًا فلم يحكموا على ما هو كلام الله في الحقيقة بأنه مخلوق. [وإن كان مشتركًا فهم إنما قالوا: إنه مخلوق] (٢) بأحد المعنيين دون [الآخر، واللفظ المشترك لا يجوز إطلاقه بـ[إرادة] (٣) أحد المعنيين] (٤) بل هو عند الإطلاق مجمل، فلا يقال على هذا القول بأنهم قالوا: كلام الله مخلوق، ولا قالوا: إنه غير مخلوق، وهذا كله خلاف إجماع السلف والمعتزلة، ولم يكن قديمًا عندهم، فهو خلاف الإجماع مطلقًا. الوجه الحادي والثلاثون: إن هذا النقل عنهم إذا قيل: إنه صحيح إما باعتبار [المجاز] (٥) وإحدى الحقيقتين، أو باعتبار قصدهم فإنهم لا يذمون على القول بخلق ذلك عندهم، بل يحمدون على ذلك، إذ أنتم وهم متفقون على ذلك،

(١) في الأصل: قال. وأثبت المناسب للسياق من: س، ط. (٢) ما بين المعقوفتين زيادة من: س، ط. (٣) ما بين المعقوفتين زيادة من: ط. (٤) ما بين المعقوفتين ساقط من: س. (٥) ما بين المعقوفتين زيادة أرى أن الكلام يستقيم بها. وهو بياض في جميع النسخ بقدر كلمتين.