Darʾ Taʿâroud al-ʿAql wa-n-NaqlIbn Taimiya

associated others with Allah, while we were their descendants who came after them. We followed them in accordance with the ordinary course of human nature, and we had nothing to show us that they were mistaken.”

But if their innate disposition contained what they had testified to—that Allah alone was their Lord—then they possessed something that demonstrated the falsehood of this polytheism: the affirmation of Allah’s oneness to which they had testified against themselves. If they appealed to the natural habit of following their forefathers, the proof against them was their natural, rational disposition, which preceded this habit inherited from their fathers.

As the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:

“Every child is born upon the innate disposition; then his parents make him a Jew, a Christian, or a Magian.”

Thus, the innate disposition that entails Islam preceded the upbringing to which they appeal.

This implies that the very reason by which they recognize Allah’s oneness constitutes proof of the falsehood of polytheism. Establishing this does not require a messenger, for He made the foregoing a proof against them without one.

This does not contradict His words, Most High:

“We would never punish until We had sent a messenger.”

For the messenger calls people to affirm Allah’s oneness. Yet if the innate disposition contained no rational evidence by which the existence of the Maker could be known, the message alone would not constitute proof against them. Thus, this testimony against themselves includes their acknowledgment that Allah is their Lord and their knowledge of that. This knowledge and testimony are inseparable from every descendant of Adam, and through them Allah Most High establishes His proof for affirming the truthfulness of His messengers.

No one can therefore say on the Day of Resurrection, “I was unaware of this,” or claim that the sin belonged to his polytheist father rather than himself. For he knows that Allah is his Lord, with no partner. He therefore had no excuse for denying the Creator or associating others with Him; rather, he already possessed within himself that which made him deserving of punishment.

أشركوا، ونحن كنا ذرية لهم بعدهم، اتبعناهم بموجب الطبيعة المعتادة، ولم يكن عندنا ما يبين خطأهم. فإذا كان في فطرتهم ما شهدوا به من أن الله وحده هو ربهم، كان معهم ما يبين بطلان هذا الشرك، وهو التوحيد الذي شهدوا به على أنفسهم، فإذا احتجوا بالعادة الطبيعية من اتباع الآباء، كانت الحجة عليهم الفطرة الطبيعية العقلية السابقة لهذه العادة الأبوية. كما قال صلى الله عليه وسلم: «كل مولود يولد على الفطرة، فأبواه يهودانه وينصرانه ويمجسانه» ، فكانت الفطرة الموجبة للإسلام سابقة للتربية التي يحتجون بها. وهذا يقتضي أن نفس العقل الذي به يعرفون التوحيد، حجة في بطلان الشرك، لا يحتاج ذلك إلى رسول، فإنه جعل ما تقدم حجة عليهم بدون هذا. وهذا لا يناقض قوله تعالى: {وما كنا معذبين حتى نبعث رسولا} ، فإن الرسول يدعو إلى التوحيد، لكن إن لم يكن في الفطرة دليل عقلي يعلم به إثبات الصانع، لم يكن في مجرد الرسالة حجة عليهم، فهذه الشهادة على أنفسهم التي تتضمن إقرارهم بأن الله ربهم. ومعرفتهم بذلك، وأن هذه المعرفة والشهادة أمر لازم لكل بني آدم، به تقوم حجة الله تعالى في تصديق رسله، فلا يمكن أحداً أن يقول يوم القيامة: إني كنت عن هذا غافلاً، ولا أن الذنب كان لأبي المشرك دوني، لأنه عارف بأن الله ربه لا شريك له، فلم يكن معذوراً في التعطيل ولا الإشراك، بل قام به ما يستحق به العذاب.

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies