Darʾ Taʿâroud al-ʿAql wa-n-Naql - Ibn Taimiya - (1/170)

Darʾ Taʿâroud al-ʿAql wa-n-NaqlIbn Taimiya

[al-Nūr: 35]

And Allah Most High says:

“So those who believe in him, honor him, support him, and follow the light which was sent down with him—it is they who will be successful.”
[al-A‘rāf: 157]

Those afflicted with simple ignorance among these people who oppose the Book and turn away from it are the people of doubt and bewilderment. Those afflicted with compound ignorance hold false beliefs which they claim are rational conclusions. Others who oppose them say:

“The rational conclusions are those that contradict these views.”

It is well known that, in this case, one of the two beliefs—or both—must be false. Usually, both beliefs are false because of their lack of precision and ambiguity. The truth involves distinctions which show that one side has both truth and falsehood, while the other has truth. The truth possessed by each is what the Book has brought, judging between people concerning their disagreements. And Allah knows best.

[Countering Their Argument with an Argument Parallel to Their Own. The Tenth Argument]

Countering their argument with an argument parallel to their own.

The Tenth Argument

Their argument may be countered with an argument parallel to their own, as follows:

If reason and transmitted revelation conflict, transmitted revelation must be given precedence. Affirming both conclusions would mean affirming two contradictory propositions, while denying both would mean denying two contradictory propositions. Giving reason precedence is impossible, because reason has established the validity of revelation and the obligation to accept what the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, has reported. Were we to invalidate transmitted revelation, we would thereby invalidate the inference established by reason. Once we invalidate that inference, reason can no longer serve to oppose transmitted revelation, since what is not evidence cannot serve to oppose anything. Thus, giving reason precedence would itself entail that it must not be given precedence; therefore, it cannot be given precedence.

This is clear and evident. Reason itself establishes the truth and validity of revelation, and that what it reports corresponds to the reality reported. If this inference could be invalid because transmitted revelation is invalid, it would follow that it could not be

[النور: ٣٥] وقال تعالى {فالذين آمنوا به وعزروه ونصروه واتبعوا النور الذي أنزل معه أولئك هم المفلحون} [الأعراف: ١٥٧] . فأهل الجهل البسيط منهم أهل الشك والحيرة من هؤلاء المعارضين للكتاب المعرضين عنه، وأهل الجهل المركب أرباب الاعتقادات الباطلة التي يزعمون أنها عقليات. وآخرون ممن يعارضهم يقول: المناقض لتلك الأقوال هو العقليات. ومعلوم أنه حينئذ يجب فساد أحد الاعتقادين أو كليهما، والغالب فساد كلا الاعتقادين، لما فيهما من الإجمال والاشتباه، وأن الحق يكون فيه تفصيل يبين أن مع هؤلاء حقاً وباطلاً، ومع هؤلاء حقاً، والحق الذي مع كل منهما هو الذي جاء به الكتاب الذي يحكم بين الناس فيما اختلفوا فيه، والله أعلم. [معارضة دليلهم بنظير ما قالوه. الوجه العاشر] معارضة دليلهم بنظير ما قالوه. الوجه العاشر أن يعارض دليلهم بنظير ما قالوه، فيقال: إذا تعارض العقل والنقل وجب تقديم النقل، لأن الجمع بين المدلولين جمع بين النقيضين، ورفعهما رفع للنقيضين، وتقديم العقل ممتنع، لأن العقل قد دل علي صحة السمع ووجوب قبول ما أخبر به الرسول صلي الله عليه وسلم، فلو أبطلنا النقل لكنا قد أبطلنا دلالة العقل، وإذا أبطلنا دلالة العقل لم يصلح أن يكون معارضاً للنقل، لأن ما ليس بدليل لا يصلح لمعارضة شيء من الأشياء، فكان تقديم العقل موجبا عدم تقديمه، فلا يجوز تقديمه. وهذا بين واضح، فإن العقل هو الذي دل علي صدق السمع وصحته وأن خبره مطابق لمخبره، فإن جاز أن تكون هذه الدلالة باطلة لبطلان النقل لزم أن لا يكون