Al-Ṣawāʿiq al-Murṣala - Ibn al-Qayyim - (المقدمة/21)

Al-Ṣawāʿiq al-MurṣalaIbn al-Qayyim

So why did he not simply leave the texts as they are and refrain from violating their sanctity, seeing that interpretation does not deliver him from the very predicament he is trying to escape? The interpreter must either assign the wording a positive, affirmative meaning or construe it as mere privation. If he opts for an affirmative meaning—whatever it may be—he is met by the very same consequence from which he had fled. Thus, in his interpretation he hovers between taʿṭīl (nullification of the attributes) and tashbīh (anthropomorphism), all the while wronging the text and trampling upon its inviolability. Would it not have been better for him to revere the text, safeguard its sanctity, affirm it, let it stand as it is, and at the same time deny any likeness to creation and avoid falling into nullification?

Chapter Eight: On exposing their error in extracting from the texts the false meanings for whose sake they resorted to interpretation, thereby combining anthropomorphism with nullification.

This chapter lays bare the astonishing affair of the interpreters. They first perceived in the texts a falsehood that could never have been intended; then they wrenched the texts away from their true, intended meanings. In doing so they harbored ill thoughts about the texts and about the One who spoke them, and they stripped the passages of the realities that constitute the very perfection of the One described by them.

Look, then, at the ugliest form of anthropomorphism and comparison which they claim to be the plain sense of the texts, and at the negation they have inflicted upon those same texts while giving it the dignified name of “interpretation.” It is evident, therefore, that they have combined an understanding rooted in tashbīh with a conviction based on taʿṭīl, and they have attributed to the Speaker an intention that is the very opposite of clarity and guidance.

Chapter Nine: On the duties that are incumbent upon the interpreter—duties without which his interpretation is inadmissible.

He must satisfy four conditions; his claim cannot stand unless he fulfills them:

First: He must show that, in the particular construction in which it occurs, the wording can in fact bear the meaning he is proposing. Failing this, he is lying against the language and inventing a usage of his own making.

فهلَّا أقرَّ النصوص على ما هي عليه، ولم ينتهك حُرمتَها؛ إذ كان التأويل لا يُخرِجه ممَّا فرَّ منه، فإن المتأول إمَّا أن يذكر معنًى ثبوتيًّا، أو يتأوَّل اللفظ بما هو عدمٌ محضٌ، فإنْ تأوَّله بمعنى ثبوتي كائنًا ما كان لزمه فيه نظيرُ ما فرَّ منه. فهو في تأويله بين التعطيل والتشبيه مع جِنايته على النَّص وانتهاكه حُرمته، فهلَّا عظَّم قَدْره، وحفظ حرمتَه، وأقرّه وأمرّه مع نفي التشبيه والتخلص من التعطيل! الفصل الثامن: في بيان خطئهم في فهمهم من النصوص المعانيَ الباطلةَ التي تأوَّلوها لأجلها فجمعوا بين التشبيه والتعطيل. هذا الفصل في الكشف عن عجيب أمر المتأوِّلين، فإنهم فهموا من النصوص الباطلَ الذي لا يجوز إرادتُه، ثم أخرجوها عن معناها الحقِّ المراد منها، فأساؤوا الظنَّ بها وبالمتكلِّم بها، وعطَّلوها عن حقائقها التي هي عين كمال الموصوف بها. فانظر إلى أقبح التشبيه والتمثيل الذي ادَّعوا أنه ظاهر النصوص، وإلى التعطيل الذي سطَوْا به عليها وسمَّوْه تأويلًا! فصحَّ أنهم جمعوا بين فَهْم التشبيه منها، واعتقاد التعطيل، ونسبة قائلها إلى قصد ما يضاد البيان والإرشاد. الفصل التاسع: في الوظائف الواجبة على المتأوِّل التي لا يُقبل منه تأويله إلَّا بها. عليه أربعة أمورٍ لا يتم له دعواه إلَّا بها: الأمر الأول: بيان احتمال اللفظ للمعنى الذي تأوَّله في ذلك التركيب الذي وقع فيه، وإلَّا كان كاذبًا على اللغة مُنشِئًا وضعًا مِن عنده.