Darʾ Taʿâroud al-ʿAql wa-n-Naql - Ibn Taimiya - (7/44)

Darʾ Taʿâroud al-ʿAql wa-n-NaqlIbn Taimiya

and the premises that entail it, are not prerequisites for knowing that revelation is true. For, upon considering the circumstances of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, his Companions, and those who followed them in righteousness, we know with necessary certainty that those who believed in the Messenger and were certain of his truthfulness—who, by the agreement of the Muslims, knew best within this community his truthfulness, the truth of what he reported, and its validity—did not base their faith and knowledge of his truthfulness on arguments drawn from any of these premises, even when debating anyone. Nor did they use them to establish a case against others, much less acquire knowledge of his truthfulness only after knowing these premises, which entail the existence of a being that cannot be pointed to, that the Maker of the world is neither within the world nor outside it, and that there is no Lord above the world and no God upon the Throne.

This is further clarified by what we know from the consistent course of human experience. If the propositions through which they knew him to be Allah’s Messenger, truthful in what he reported from Allah, had entailed the position of those who deny that Allah is above His creation—that Allah is not distinct from the world, nor above the heavens; that He cannot be pointed to; that neither any angel nor Muhammad ascended to Him Himself; and that nothing descended from Him Himself, neither an angel nor anything else—then these implications would have arisen in their minds just as they arose in the minds of others. This would be especially so given the multitude of people, the spread of Islam, and people entering Allah’s religion in multitudes.

If these propositions had been firmly established in their minds, the ordinary course of human experience would have precluded their speaking of them, let alone asserting their opposite. And if that ordinary course had required them to use these propositions to challenge what the apparent meaning of revelation indicated, they would have questioned him, saying:

“What is indicated

ومقدمات ذلك مستلزمه له، لا يتوقف العلم بصحة السمع على شيء من ذلك، فإن نعلم بالاضطرار بعد تأمل أحوال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وأصحابه التابعين لهم بإحسان، أن الذين أمنوا بالرسول وجزموا بصدقه - وهم باتفاق المسلمون أعلم الأمة بصدقه، والصدق ما أخبر به، وصحة ذلك - لم يكونوا في إيمانهم وعلمهم بصدقه، يستدلون بشيء من هذه المقدمات على صحة ذلك، ولو مناظرين به أحداً، ولا يقيمون بها حجة على غيرهم فضلاً عن أن يكونوا هم لم يعلموا صدقه إلا بعد العلم بهذه المقدمات المستلزمة لوجود موجود لا يشار إليه، وأن صانع العلم ليس بداخل العلم ولا خارجه، ولا فوق العالم رب ولا على العرش إله. ومما يوضح ذلك أن نعلم بالعادة المطردة أن القضايا التي بها علموا أنه رسول الله الصادق فيما يخبر به الله، لو كانت مستلزمة لقول نفاة العلو، وأن الله ليس مبايناً للعالم ولا هو فوق السماوات، ولا يمكن الإشارة إليه، ولا عرج أحد من الملائكة ولا محمد، إليه نفسه، ولا نزل من عنده نفسه شيء: لا ملك ولا غيره - لكانت هذه اللوازم تحصل في نفوسهم، كما حصلت على أنفس غيرهم، ولا سيما مع كثرة الخلق، وانتشار الإسلام، ودخول الناس في دين الله أفواجا، ولو كانت هذه القضايا مستقرة في أنفسهم، لامتنع فيه العادة أن يتكلموا بها، فضلاً عن أن يتكلموا بنقيضها، ولو وجب في العادة أن يعارضوا بها ما دل عليه ظاهر السمع، لكانوا يسألونه ويقولون: ما دلت