Darʾ Taʿâroud al-ʿAql wa-n-Naql - Ibn Taimiya - (1/228)

Darʾ Taʿâroud al-ʿAql wa-n-NaqlIbn Taimiya

Yet it is a self-evident teaching of Islam that this is polytheism. This and similar matters belong to the monotheism with which Allah sent His messengers, but they do not include them within what they have conventionally termed “monotheism.” Instead, they include within it the negation of His attributes.

For when they say, “He has no counterpart, no parts, and no likeness,” these words may convey a correct meaning: nothing is like Allah, and He—glorified is He—cannot be divided, perish, or undergo transformation. Rather, He is One, the Self-Sufficient Master. The Self-Sufficient Master is He who has no hollow interior, and He is the Master whose mastery is perfect. Yet they incorporate into these words the denial that He is above His creation and distinct from what He has made, together with the denial of those attributes of His that they reject. They say, “Affirming these things entails that He is composite and divisible, and that He has a likeness.”

People of knowledge know that such things are not called composition, division, or likening in the Arabic language in which the Quran was revealed. The same applies to what is meant by “body,” “accident,” “substance,” “that which occupies space,” “the inherence of temporal occurrences,” and similar expressions. Within the meanings of these terms that they negate, they include things with which Allah has described Himself and His Messenger has described Him. Thus, they incorporate into them the denial of His knowledge, power, and speech. They say, “The Quran is created; Allah did not speak it.” They also use these terms to deny that He can be seen, because seeing Him—because seeing Him, according to their terminology, is possible only for something that occupies space in a direction and is a body. They then say, “Allah is exalted above that, so He cannot be seen.”

Likewise, they say, “Only a body occupying space can speak. Allah is not a body occupying space, so He cannot speak.” They also say, “If He were above the Throne, He would be a body occupying space. Allah is not a body occupying space, so He cannot be speaking above the Throne,” and other such statements.

ومن المعلوم بالاضطرار من دين الإسلام أن هذا شرك، فهذا ونحوه من التوحيد الذي بعث الله به رسله، وهم لا يدخلونه في مسمي التوحيد الذي اصطلحوا عليه، وأدخلوا في ذلك نفي صفاته، فإنهم إذا قالوا: لا قسيم له، ولا جزء له، ولا شبيه له، فهذا اللفظ ـ وإن كان يراد به معني صحيح ـ فإن الله ليس كمثله شيء، هو سبحانه لا يجوز عليه أن يتفرق، ولا يفسد، ولا يستحيل، بل هو أحد صمد، والصمد: الذي لا جوف له، وهو السيد الذي كمل سؤدده، فإنهم يدرجون في هذا نفي علوه علي خلقه ومباينته لمصنوعاته، ونفي ما ينفونه من صفاته، ويقولون: إن إثبات ذلك يقتضي أن يكون مركباً منقسماً، وأن يكون له شبيه. وأهل العلم يعلمون أن مثل هذا لا يسمي في لغة العرب التي نزل بها القرآن تركيباً وانقساماً، ولا تمثيلاً، وهكذا الكلام في مسمى الجسم والعرض والجوهر والمتحيز وحلول الحوادث وأمثال ذلك، فإن هذه الألفاظ يدخلون في مسماها الذي ينفونه أموراً مما وصف الله به نفسه، ووصفه به رسوله، فيدخلون فيها نفي علمه وقدرته وكلامه، ويقولون: إن القرآن مخلوق، لم يتكلم الله به، وينفون بها رؤيته، لأن رؤيته، لأن رؤيته علي اصطلاحهم لا تكون إلا لمتحيز في جهة وهو جسم، ثم يقولون: والله منزه عن ذلك: فلا تجوز رؤيته. وكذلك يقولون: إن المتكلم لا يكون إلا جسماً متحيزاً، والله ليس بجسم متحيز فلا يكون متكلماً، ويقولون: لو كان فوق العرش لكن جسماً متحيزاً، والله ليس بجسم متحيز، فلا يكون متكلماً فوق العرش، وأمثال ذلك.