Darʾ Taʿâroud al-ʿAql wa-n-Naql - Ibn Taimiya - (4/144)

Darʾ Taʿâroud al-ʿAql wa-n-NaqlIbn Taimiya

is also a statement whose falsity is evident, and we know of no recognized proponent who holds it. This is precisely the likening and assimilation to created beings from which Allah is known to be exalted. Everything other than Him is created, and created beings share this designation. Nonexistence, coming into being, and dependence are therefore possible for them collectively, whereas Allah must be declared free of these. Indeed, if whatever is possible, necessary, or impossible for contingent beings and things that have come into being were likewise possible, necessary, or impossible for Him, this would entail affirming two contradictories. For His existence and beginninglessness are necessary. If these were also necessary for something that has come into being, although they are not necessary for it, they would be both necessary and not necessary for that thing. Likewise, if contingency and nonexistence were possible for Him—although contingency and nonexistence are impossible for the One whose existence is necessary in itself, who is beginningless and cannot be nonexistent—then nonexistence would be both impossible and not impossible for Him, and existence would be both necessary and not necessary for Him. This is an affirmation of two contradictories.

Thus, declaring Allah free of the resemblance to created beings from which He must be declared free precludes His sharing any of their distinctive characteristics, whether a given characteristic is common to all created beings or peculiar to some of them.

It is therefore clear that no known group has ever held that He is a substance like other substances, or a body like other bodies, whether the likeness is to each of them or to what they have in common.

If the dispute is only with such people, then there is no actual dispute over the matter. His investigations into its meaning are therefore wasted, and his investigations into its wording are of no benefit. Moreover, to this very moment, I have not encountered any statement by a group, or any report from a group, that they said

أيضاً قول معلوم الفساد ولا نعرف قائلاً معروفاً يقول به فإن هذا هو التشبيه والتمثيل الذي يعلم تنزه الله عنه إذ كان كل ما سواه مخلوقاً والمخلوقات تشترك في هذا المسمى فيجوز على المجموع من العدم والحدوث والافتقار ما يجب تنزيه الله عنه بل لو جاز ووجب وامتنع عليه ما يجوز ويجب ويمتنع على الممكنات والمحدثات لزم الجمع بين النقيضين، فإنه يجب له الوجود والقدم، فلو وجب ذلك للمحدث، مع أنه لا يجب له ذلك، لزم أن يكون ذلك واجباً للمحدث غير واجب له، ولو جاز عليه الإمكان والعدم، مع أن الواجب بنفسه، القديم الذي لا يقبل العدم، لا يجوز عليه الإمكان والعدم للزم أن يمتنع عليه العدم لا يمتنع عليه، وأن يجب له الوجود، لا يجب له، وذلك جمع بين النقيضين. فتنزيه الله عما يستحق التنزيه عنه من مماثلة المخلوقين يمنع أن يشاركها في شيء من خصائصها، سواء كانت تلك الخاصة شاملة لجميع المخلوقات، أو مختصة ببعضها. فعلم أن القول بأنه جوهر كالجواهر، أو جسم كالأجسام، سواء جعل التشبيه لكل منها، أو بالقدر المشترك بينها، لم تقل به طائفة معروفة أصلاً. فإن كان النزاع ليس إلا مع هؤلاء فلا نزاع في المسألة فتبقى بحوثه المعنوية في ذلك ضائعة، وبحوثه اللفظية غير نافعة مع أني إلى ساعتي هذه لم أقف على قول لطائفة ولا نقل عن طائفة أنهم قالوا