Darʾ Taʿâroud al-ʿAql wa-n-Naql - Ibn Taimiya - (7/91)

Darʾ Taʿâroud al-ʿAql wa-n-NaqlIbn Taimiya

As for the Muslims, Allah has protected them from agreeing upon error. Nevertheless, the consistent course of ordinary events shows that they cannot collude in something they know discredits Muhammad’s prophethood, for only someone who hates him and rejects his truthfulness would do this. We know that the Jews did not agree to strike Moses and reject his truthfulness, nor did the Christians agree to hate the Messiah and reject his truthfulness. Much less could a group of Muslims agree to hate Muhammad and reject his truthfulness. If a group does agree to hate him and reject his truthfulness—such as the extremist Ismāʿīlīs, the esotericist Khazmiyya, and their like—then that group does not belong to those who believe in him. Their true nature has been exposed—praise be to Allah—and their veil of secrecy torn away.

A group may, however, agree upon a statement that implicitly disparages someone whom they revere, without realizing this. This happens among Christians, the Rāfidīs, and their like among the ignorant adherents of various sects. They adopted corrupt beliefs, imagining them to be true, and some of them fabricated reports attributing these beliefs to the Messiah or Alī. They then believed the person transmitting those reports, not because his truthfulness had been established, but because he agreed with their beliefs.

This is why falsehood and misguidance are so widespread among Christians, the Rāfidīs, and extremists among ordinary people and others.

That being so, if these statements in the Torah contradict what reason clearly establishes, attributing them to Moses could only discredit him. It would therefore be impossible for the Jews to agree upon transmitting them from him. If, however, they do not contradict what reason clearly establishes, then there would be nothing objectionable in transmitting them from Moses.

It is thus established that one may not reject the transmission of these statements from Moses as false on the grounds that one believes them to contradict what reason clearly establishes.

وأما المسلمون فقد عصمهم الله من أن يتفقوا على خطأ، لكن يعلم بمطرد العادات انه يمتنع تواطؤهم على ما يعلمون أن قدح في نبوته، فإن هذا لا يفعله إلا من هو مبغض له مكذب، ونحن نعلم أن اليهود لم يتفقوا على ضرب موسى وتكذيبه، ولا اتفقت النصارى على بغض المسيح وتكذيبه، فضلاً عن أن تتفق طائفة من المسلمين على بغض محمد وتكذيبه، وإذا اتفقت طائفة على بغضه وتكذيبه، مثل غالية الإسماعيلية والخزمية الباطنية وأمثالهم، لم تكن هذه الطائفة من أهل الإيمان به، وقد انكشف - ولله الحمد - أمرهم، وانهتك سترهم. وقد تتفق الطائفة على قول يكون متضمناً للقدح فيمن تعظمه ولا يعلم ذلك، كما يتفق مثل ذلك للنصارى والرافضة، وأمثالهم من جهال الطوائف، الذين اعتقدوا عقائد فاسدة فظنوها حقاً، وكذب بعضهم فنقلها لهم عن المسيح أو علي، فصدقوا ذلك الناقل، لا لثبوت صدقه عندهم، لكن لموافقته لهم فيما يعتقدونه. وهذا سبب كثرة الكذب والضلال بين النصارى والرافضة والغلاة من العامة وغيرهم، وإذا كان كذلك فهذه الأقوال التي في التوراة: إن كانت مخالفة لصريح العقل لم يكن في إضافتها إلى موسى إلا بطريق القدح فيه، فيمتنع اتفاق اليهود على نقلها عنه، وإن لم تكن مخالفة لصريح العقل، لم يكن حينئذ في نقلها عن موسى محذور. فثبت أن لا يجوز تكذيب نقل هذه عن موسى لاعتقاده مخالفتها بالعقل الصريح.