Darʾ Taʿâroud al-ʿAql wa-n-Naql - Ibn Taimiya - (9/53)

Darʾ Taʿâroud al-ʿAql wa-n-NaqlIbn Taimiya

or they follow the approach based on necessary knowledge—as al-Ash‘arī did in his other position, along with Abū al-Ma‘ālī and various other groups—or other approaches that have been discussed at length elsewhere.

The purpose here is not to discuss these questions at length. Rather, the point is that all groups—even the leading theologians and philosophers—acknowledge that what the messengers brought contains evidence leading to knowledge of Allah and recognition of the truthfulness of His messengers. This will be mentioned below in the statements of those who hold that reason can judge good and evil, as well as those of the philosophers and others.

Abū al-Khattāb said:

“Another proof: It is entirely possible for a rational person to reflect that he neither created himself nor was created by others like himself, namely his father and mother. For if they were capable of that, he too would be capable of it, and they would be able to create others besides him.

He knows that they cannot do this, so he knows that he has a Creator unlike himself, who created him and his parents. He then observes His favors toward him: perfecting his creation and placing at his disposal food, drink, livestock, and other things, including giving him power over them. It occurs to him that if he does not acknowledge these favors and thank Him, He will punish him. Once he considers this possible, reason obliges him to avert harm and punishment by undertaking to give thanks.

If it is objected: ‘Just as the thought you mentioned may occur to him, it may also occur to him that he has a Creator who has bestowed favors upon him, yet has no need of his gratitude or of anything by which he might seek to draw near to Him.

He may fear that, if he takes it upon himself to do this, his Creator will be angry with him and say: “Who are you to offer Me thanks and believe that this repays My favor? What use have I for thanks from someone like you?”—or words to that effect.

This would deter him from undertaking any obligation on the basis of his reason.’”

وإما طريقة الضرورة - كما سلكها الأشعري في قوله الآخر، وأبو المعالي وطوائف أخر - وإما غير ذلك من الطرق التي بسط الكلام عليها في غير هذا الموضع. وليس المقصود هنا بسط الكلام في هذه المسائل. بل المقصود أن جميع الطوائف - حتى أئمة الكلام والفلسفة - معترفون باشتمال ما جاءت به الرسل على الأدلة الدالة على معرفة الله وتصديق رسله، كما سيأتي ذكره في كلام القائلين بالتحسين والتقبيح العقليين، والفلاسفة وغيرهم. قال أبوالخطاب: (دليل آخر: أنه غير ممتنع أن يخطر للعاقل أنه لم يخلق نفسه ولا خلقه من هو مثله من أبيه وأمه، إذ لو كانا قادرين على ذلك، لكان هو أيضاً قادراً، وكانا يقدران على خلق غيره. وهو يعلم أنهما لا يقدران، فيعلم أن له خالقاً من غير جنسه خلقه وخلق أبويه، ثم يرى إنعامه عليه بإكماله وتسخير ما سخر له من المأكول والمشروب والأنعام وغير ذلك، كإقداره عليهم، ويخطر له أنه لم يعترف له بذلك ويشكره أنه يعاقبه، وإذا جوز ذلك وجب عليه في عقله دفع الضرر والعقاب بالتزام الشكر. فإن قيل: كما يجوز أن يخطر له ما ذكرتم، يجوز أن يخطر له أن له خالقاً أنعم عليه، وأنه غني عن شكره وجميع ما يتقرب به إليه. ويخاف من تكلف له ذلك أن يسخط عليه ويقول: من أنت حتى تقابلني بالشكر، وتعتقد أنه جزاء نعمتي؟ وما أصنع بشكر مثلك؟ ونحو ذلك. وفي هذا ما يمنعه من التزام شيء من جهة عقله) .