Al-Ṣawāʿiq al-Murṣala - Ibn al-Qayyim - (المقدمة/20)

Al-Ṣawāʿiq al-MurṣalaIbn al-Qayyim

Interpretation (taʾwīl) is tugged between two poles: explanatory elucidation (tafsīr) and distortion (taḥrīf). The tafsīr-type of interpretation is the truth, whereas the taḥrīf-type is falsehood. In reality, false interpretation is nothing but deviation and corruption, even if its proponents dress it up with terms such as “verification,” “gnosis,” or “interpretation.”

Chapter Six: On demonstrating the impotence of the interpreters to establish a criterion that distinguishes between those verses and hadiths on the divine attributes that may be interpreted and those that may not.

The plain fact is that every sect interprets whatever contradicts its own creed and school. Their sole measure for deciding what should or should not be interpreted is the very doctrine to which they adhere and the principles they themselves have fashioned. Whatever conforms to those principles they affirm without interpretation, and whatever conflicts with them—if they can dismiss it outright, they do so; otherwise, they interpret it away.

Each of these groups will interpret one textual proof while leaving its counterpart, or even a stronger candidate for interpretation, upon its apparent sense. This is because they possess, in truth, no comprehensive and consistently applied standard by which to separate what warrants interpretation from what does not. Their only touchstone is the madhhab, its maxims, and the pronouncements of their shaykhs. For this reason, none of them can adduce a scriptural proof against a false claimant, for the latter will subject that very proof to the same sort of interpretation the former used on texts that undercut his own position.

Chapter Seven: On binding them to the very meaning they claim as an interpretation—namely, the same consequence from which they fled.

This is a splendid chapter for anyone who reflects upon it. It shows that the interpreters have gained from their efforts nothing but the negation of the texts’ true import, tampering with them, and violating their sanctity. They have not escaped the danger they imagined; rather, that danger clings to the position to which they fled just as it clung to the one from which they fled—indeed, they may end up in an even graver predicament. In short, the interpreter flees from something only to fall into its very counterpart.

والتأويل يتجاذبه أصلانِ: التفسير والتحريف، فتأويل التفسير هو الحق، وتأويل التحريف هو الباطل. فالتأويل الباطل هو إلحادٌ وتحريفٌ، وإن سمَّاه أصحابُه تحقيقًا وعرفانًا وتأويلًا. الفصل السادس: في تعجيز المتأولين عن تحقيق الفرق بين ما يسوغ تأويلُه من آيات الصِّفات وأحاديثها وما لا يسوغ. حقيقة الأمر أن كل طائفةٍ تتأوَّل ما يخالف نِحْلتَها ومذهبَها، فالعيارُ على ما يُتأوَّل وما لا يُتأوَّل هو المذهبُ الذي ذهبتْ إليه والقواعد التي أصَّلَتْها، فما وافقها أقرُّوه ولم يتأوَّلوه، وما خالفها فإن أمكنهم دفعُه، وإلَّا تأوَّلوه. وكلٌّ مِن هؤلاء يتأول دليلًا سمعيًّا، ويُقِرُّ على ظاهره نظيرَه أو ما هو أشد قبولًا للتأويل منه؛ لأنه ليس عندهم في نفس الأمر ضابطٌ كُلي مطَّرِد منعكس، يُفرَّق به بين ما يُتأوَّل وما لا يُتأوَّل، إن هو إلَّا المذهب وقواعده وما قاله الشيوخ. وهؤلاء لا يمكن أحدًا منهم أن يحتج على مبطِلٍ بحُجةٍ سمعيةٍ؛ لأنه يسلك في تأويلها نظير ما سلكَه هو في تأويل ما خالف مذهبَه. الفصل السابع: في إلزامهم في المعنى الذي جعلوه تأويلًا نظير ما فروا منه. هذا فصلٌ بديعٌ لمن تأمله، يعلم به أن المتأوِّلين لم يستفيدوا بتأويلهم إلَّا تعطيلَ حقائق النصوص والتلاعب بها وانتهاك حرمتها، وأنهم لم يتخلصوا ممَّا ظنُّوه محذورًا، بل هو لازمٌ لهم فيما فرُّوا إليه كلزومه فيما فرُّوا منه. بل قد يقعون فيما هو أعظمُ محذورًا، والمقصود أن المتأول يفر من أمرٍ، فيقع في نظيره.