Al-Tisʿīniyya - Ibn Taimiya - (3/867)

Al-TisʿīniyyaIbn Taimiya

He said:
And this is something from which they can find no escape, nor can they detach themselves from it, except by gaudy adornments devoid of soundness—ornaments unfit even to serve as a doubtful objection one might pause (1) over.

Ibn al-Zaghūnī had previously said:
“If it were admissible to claim that the very essence of a command is the same as a prohibition, even though command differs from prohibition in both formulation and meaning—for a command is a summons to act, whereas a prohibition is a summons to refrain; and the subject matter of a command aims only at [bringing about what is desired, whether by way of obligation or recommendation, while the subject matter of prohibition aims] (2) at avoiding what is disliked, whether by way of impermissibility, dislike, or deeming it spiritually scrupulous. Whatever comes under the heading of command entails validity, whereas whatever comes under the heading of prohibition entails invalidity, either intrinsically or by evidence connected to it [or separated from it; likewise, it is impossible for prohibition to entail validity, whether intrinsically or by evidence connected to it] (3).

“Were someone to say, ‘The thing prohibited is prohibited because it is beloved to the one who prohibits it, and the thing commanded is commanded because it is detested by the one who commands it,’ that would be a false claim; reason itself bears witness to its corruption, and common custom is plainly to the contrary. This necessitates that command, in itself and with regard to something other than itself (4), is other than prohibition in its very self and essence. Yet if someone were to contend that this is decisively established, though it does not justify its actual occurrence (5), that would still be conceivable and possible.”

I say: What he has stated concerning the falsity of this view is indeed exactly as he described. Nevertheless, it may be said to him and to those who agree with him: You too (6)—[indeed] (7)—have advanced, in rebuttal of these people, an assertion whose corruption is likewise manifest.

(1) In manuscripts S and T it reads “taqaf” (pause). (2) The text in parentheses is an addition found in S and T. (3) The text in parentheses is an addition found in S and T. (4) In the original, S reads “al-nahy” (the prohibition), a reading confirmed by T and likely the correct one. (5) In the original: “maqbuḍan” (seized), which is a scribal error; the reading is confirmed by S and T. (6) In the original, S reads “wa tu‘ayyinuhu” (and appoint him), confirmed by T and likely the correct reading. (7) The text in parentheses is an addition found in S and T.

قال: وهذا مما لا محيد لهم عنه، ولا انفصال لهم منه، إلا بزخارف عاطلة عن صحة لا يصلح مثلها أن يكون شبهة يوقف (١) معها. وقد قال ابن الزاغوني قبل ذلك: لو جاز أن يقال: إن عين الأمر هو النهي، مع كون الأمر يخالف النهي في وضعه ومعناه، فإن الأمر استدعاء الفعل، والنهي استدعاء الترك، وموضوع الأمر إنما يراد منه [تحصيل ما يراد بطريق الوجوب أو الندب، وموضوع النهي براد منه] (٢) مجانبة ما يكره، إما بطريق التحريم أو الكراهة والتنزيه، وما يدخل تحت الأمر يقتضي الصحة، وما يدخل تحت النهي يقتضي الفساد، إما بنفسه، أو بدليل يتصل به [أو ينفصل عنه، وكذلك من المحال أن يقتضي النهي الصحة، إما بنفسه، أو بدليل يتصل به] (٣) ولو قال قائل: إن المنهي (٤) عنه نهي عنه لكونه محبوبًا عند الناهي عنه، والمأمور به أمر به لكونه مبغوضًا (٥) عند الآمر به، لكان هذا قولًا باطلًا يشهد العقل بفساده، ويعرف جري العادة على خلافه، وهذا يوجب أن يكون الأمر في نفسه وغيره (٦) ، غير النهي بنفسه وعينه، ولو ادعى مدع أن ذلك مقطوع به غير مسوغ حصوله لكان ذلك جائزًا ممكنًا. قلت: ما ذكره من فساد هذا القول هو كما ذكره، لكن يقال له ولمن وافقه: وأنتم أيضًا- [قد] (٧) قلتم في مقابلة هؤلاء ما هو في الفساد ظاهر كذلك.

(١) في س، ط: توقف. (٢) ما بين المعقوفتين زيادة من: س، ط. (٣) ما بين المعقوفتين زيادة من: س، ط. (٤) في الأصل، س: النهي. والمثبت من: ط. ولعله المناسب. (٥) في الأصل: مقبوضًا. وهو تحريف. والمثبت من: س، ط. (٦) في الأصل، س: وتعينه. والمثبت من: ط. ولعله المناسب. (٧) ما بين المعقوفتين زيادة من: س، ط.