Al-Tisʿīniyya - Ibn Taimiya - (3/898)

Al-TisʿīniyyaIbn Taimiya

to construe them (1) as two eternal attributes of Allah—exalted is He—additional to all the other attributes is sheer arbitrariness.

I say: He then offered a response to the proofs advanced by his own masters, but this is not the place for it, for our aim here is not to examine exhaustively the affirmation or negation of this attribute; we have addressed that in its proper context (2). What matters now is only to draw attention to the alteration (3) in the view of al-Ashʿarī and the leading scholars among his followers. Abū al-Maʿālī (4) based his stance on two invalid premises.

The first (5) is his assertion that the transmitted sources contain nothing conclusive—neither a definitive text nor an established consensus (6)—that proves this attribute.

The second (7) is his claim that one must not speak about the divine attributes without decisive rational or transmitted proof, and he alleged consensus on this point. That allegation is false, just like the claim that “if no decisive evidence for affirmation exists, decisive denial becomes obligatory.” This parallels what al-Isfarāyīnī said: that Allah is known in all His attributes in this world either through reason alone, according to one group of his followers, or through both reason and revelation.

= He rejected the first three interpretations and upheld the fourth, namely that the meaning of his statement bi-yadayya (with My two Hands) is the affirmation of two Hands that are neither limbs, nor agents, nor blessings, and are described only by saying: they are two Hands not like the other three categories mentioned above. (Al-Ibanah by al-Ashʿari, p. 56.) The creed of the Salaf, may God have mercy on them, is to affirm two real Hands befitting Him, Glorified and Exalted, as established by the texts, and to refrain from discussing what lacks explicit revelation—such as whether they are limbs—by neither affirming nor denying such attributes. (1) In the original manuscript [S] it reads mahmula; the reading attested by [T] may be preferable. (2) See, for example, Majmuʿ Fatāwā Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyya, vol. 6, pp. 362–373. (3) The text in parentheses is an addition found in [S] and [T]. (4) The term uʿtamida (it was relied upon) is omitted in [S]. (5) In [S] it reads aḥaduhumā (one of them), which is erroneous. (6) In the original it reads yaqaʿu (it occurs), which is erroneous; the reading confirmed by [S] and [T] is correct. (7) In [S] it reads al-thānī (the second), which is erroneous.

محمولتان (١) على صفتين قديمتين لله -تعالى، زائدتين على ما عداهما من الصفات تحكم محض". قلت: ثم ذكر الجواب عن حجة أئمته بما ليس هذا موضعه، فإن المقصود ليس هو الاستقصاء في إثبات هذه الصفة ونفيها، إذ قد تكلمنا على ذلك في موضعه (٢) وإنما الغرض التنبيه على [تغيير] (٣) قول الأشعري وأئمة أصحابه، وأبو المعالي اعتمد (٤) على مقدمتين باطلتين. إحداهما (٥) : أنه ليس في السمع ما يقطع (٦) بثبوت هذه الصفة لا نص ولا إجماع. والثانية (٧) : المنع أن يتكلم في الصفات بغير قطع عقلي أو نقلي، وادعى الإجماع على ذلك، وهذا باطل، كما يقوله من يقول: إذا لم يقم القاطع بالثبوت وجب القطع بالانتفاء، وهذا مطابق لما ذكره الإسفرائيني، من أن الله معروف بجميع صفاته في الدنيا، إما بالعقل على قول قوم من أصحابه، وإما بالعقل والسمع.

= أفسدت الأقسام الثلاثة، صح القسم الرابع، وهو أن معنى قوله (بيدي) إثبات يدين ليستا جارحتين ولا قادرتين ولا نعمتين ولا يوصفان إلا بأن يقال: إنهما يدان ليستا كالأيدي خارجتان عن سائر الوجوه الثلاثة التي سبقت". الإبانة -للأشعري- ص: ٥٦. ومذهب السلف -رحمهم الله- إثبات يدين حقيقتين تليقان به -سبحانه وتعالى- على ما جاءت به النصوص، والوقوف عند ما لم يرد به نص، كإثبات كونهما جارحتين أو نفيه. (١) في الأصل، س: محمولة. والمثبت من: ط. ولعله المناسب. (٢) انظر مثلًا: مجموع فتاوى شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية ٦/ ٣٦٢ - ٣٧٣. (٣) ما بين المعقوفتين زيادة من: س، ط. (٤) اعتمد: ساقطة من: س. (٥) في س: أحدهما. وهو خطأ. (٦) في الأصل: يقع. وهو خطأ. والمثبت من: س، ط. (٧) في س: الثاني. وهو خطأ.