Darʾ Taʿâroud al-ʿAql wa-n-NaqlIbn Taimiya

for two reasons:

The first is that something newly occurring cannot arise from an eternal, beginningless and everlasting cause without something newly occurring. This is a principle they themselves affirm.

We then say: If something newly occurring can arise from what is beginningless, then He can act after not having acted, and it necessarily follows that He knows the things brought into being. If that is not possible, then no newly occurring thing can arise from the eternal, complete cause, and nothing can come into being in the world.

Once the notion that the world is created by an eternal cause without having come into being from it is refuted, it follows that events occur when the cause necessitating their occurrence becomes complete. This happens through the coming into being of what completes that necessitating cause. This, in turn, goes back to matters subsisting in Him and connected to His will and power. He must therefore know them, since this knowledge is a necessary concomitant of His very being, and since they cannot exist without His knowledge of them.

Moreover, events proceed from Him, whether through an intermediary or without one. If He did not know them in the manner in which they came into being, He would not know their complete cause, which necessarily entails their occurrence. Knowledge of the complete cause necessarily entails knowledge of the effect. Thus, if knowledge of the effect is supposed to be absent, knowledge of the complete cause must also be absent. If knowledge of the complete cause is impossible, knowledge of the cause of that cause must likewise be absent, until it follows that He lacks complete knowledge of Himself.

If He is supposed to know Himself, it necessarily follows that He knows every event in the manner in which it came into being, and that He knows every particular, because He is the one who brings it about in that manner—even if this is by way of necessary entailment. For His knowing that which entails something else is like His bringing it about: complete knowledge of it necessitates knowledge of all that it entails, as explained earlier.

لوجهين: أحدهما: أن الحادث لا يحدث عن قديم أزلي أبدي بدون حادث. وهذا أصلهم الذي يقولون به. ثم نقول: إن جاز حدوث الحادث عن القديم، جاز أن يفعل بعد أن لم يكن فاعلاً، ولزم حينئذ علمه بالمحدثات. وإن لم يجز ذلك امتنع أن يحدث عن العلة القديمة التامة شيء من الحوادث، فلا يحدث في العالم شيء. وإذا بطل كون العالم مخلوقاً عن علة أزلية لم يحدث عنها، لزم أن الحوادث حدثت عند كمال الموجب لحدوثها، وذلك بحدوث تمام الموجب لحدوثه، وذلك يرجع إلى أمور قائمة به متعلقة بمشيئته وقدرته، وحينئذ فيجب علمه بها، لأنه من لوازم نفسه، ولامتناع وجودها بدون العلم بها. وأيضاً فلأن الحوادث إنما هي صادرة عنه، سواء صدرت بوسط أو بغير وسط، فإن لم يكن عالماً بها على الوجه الذي حدثت عليه، لم يكن عالماً بعلتها التامة المستلزمة لحدوثها، لأن العلم بالعلة التامة يستلزم العلم بالمعلول، فإذا قدر عدم العلم بالمعلول، لزم عدم العلم بالعلة التامة، وإذا امتنع العلم بالعلة التامة، لزم أن ينتفي العلم بعلة العلة، حتى يلزم عدم علمه التام بنفسه. وإذا قدر عالماً بنفسه، لزم علمه بكل حادث على الوجه الذي حدث عليه، ولزم علمه بكل جزئي، لأنه هو الفاعل له على هذا الوجه، وإن كان بطريق اللزوم، فإن علمه بالملزوم كفعله للملزوم، والعلم التام بالملزوم يوجب العلم بلوازمه، كما تقدم بيانه.

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