[Ibn Taymiyyah’s Commentary]
I say:
In this passage, he has divided knowledge into three kinds: first, what is known through reason; second, knowledge attainable only through revelation; and third, what cannot be known through either reason or revelation.
The first is general, undifferentiated knowledge that these things which have come into being, and which creatures are incapable of producing, must have a Maker. Yet this knowledge does not disclose His particular identity or His names, for things that have come into being indicate only, in general terms, some unspecified agent.
Likewise, all the other syllogistic demonstrations that are cited indicate only something absolute and universal. A rational, logical demonstration must contain a universal proposition, and its conclusion depends upon all its premises. Thus, if the particular identity of what is being demonstrated was unknown before the inference, this proof indicates only something absolute and universal.
To clarify: if one infers from things coming into being that they have an originator, and from the contingency of contingent things that there is a necessary being, one has established only the existence of an originator whose existence is necessary in itself. This is an absolute, universal concept: conceiving its meaning does not preclude its being shared by multiple entities. It therefore provides no knowledge of that being’s particular identity. Even describing this being with unqualified attributes would not prevent it from remaining absolute and universal.
Those among the Jahmiyyah who deny the divine attributes—whether philosophers, Muʿtazilah, or Sufis—went astray by affirming a necessary, eternal existence, then describing it with negative attributes that preclude its having a particular identity and entail that it can only be absolute. Yet it is known that what is not absolute and universal exists only in the mind, not in concrete reality. Thus, what they have affirmed has no existence outside the mind.
There is a clear distinction between a proof’s not establishing its particular identity and denying that it has a particular identity,