Darʾ Taʿâroud al-ʿAql wa-n-Naql - Ibn Taimiya - (1/76)

Darʾ Taʿâroud al-ʿAql wa-n-NaqlIbn Taimiya

about, its judgment rests with Allah.” [al-Shūrā: 10]

And He said:
“If you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and best in outcome. * Have you not seen those who claim to believe in what has been revealed to you and what was revealed before you? They wish to seek judgment from false authorities, although they were commanded to reject them; and Satan wishes to lead them far astray. * When they are told, ‘Come to what Allah has revealed and to the Messenger,’ you see the hypocrites turn away from you in utter aversion.” [al-Nisā': 59-61]

For this reason, the statements of the early generations and the imams frequently contain warnings against unqualified affirmation or denial in matters of dispute. This is not—this is not—because both contradictory alternatives are devoid of truth, nor because of any inability or failure to explain the truth. Rather, such an expression is one of those ambiguous, equivocal expressions that encompass both truth and falsehood. Affirming it therefore affirms both truth and falsehood, while denying it denies both truth and falsehood. Both unqualified usages are thus prohibited. The divine texts, by contrast, are a criterion by which Allah has distinguished truth from falsehood.

For this reason, the early generations of this community and its imams took the words of Allah and His Messenger as the guiding authority and criterion that must be followed. They affirmed what Allah and His Messenger affirmed and denied what Allah and His Messenger denied. They prohibited the unqualified use of newly coined, ambiguous, equivocal expressions, whether in denial or affirmation. They neither affirmed nor denied an expression without first inquiring into its intended meaning and distinguishing its meanings. Once the meaning became clear, they affirmed what was true in it and denied what was false.

The words of Allah and His Messenger, by contrast, are true and must be accepted even when their meaning is not understood. The words of anyone who is not infallible need not be accepted until their meaning is understood.

فيه من شيء فحكمه إلى الله} [الشورى: ١٠] ، وقال {فإن تنازعتم في شيء فردوه إلى الله والرسول إن كنتم تؤمنون بالله واليوم الآخر ذلك خير وأحسن تأويلا * ألم تر إلى الذين يزعمون أنهم آمنوا بما أنزل إليك وما أنزل من قبلك يريدون أن يتحاكموا إلى الطاغوت وقد أمروا أن يكفروا به ويريد الشيطان أن يضلهم ضلالا بعيدا * وإذا قيل لهم تعالوا إلى ما أنزل الله وإلى الرسول رأيت المنافقين يصدون عنك صدودا} [النساء: ٥٩-٦١] . ولهذا يوجد كثيراً في كلام السلف والأئمة النهي عن إطلاق موارد النزاع بالنفي والإثبات، وليس ذلك وليس ذلك لخلو النقيضين عن الحق، ولا قصور، أو تقصير في بيان الحق، ولكن لأن تلك العبارة من الألفاظ المجملة المتشابهة المشتملة علي حق وباطل، ففي إثباتها إثبات حق وباطل، وفي نفيها نفي حق وباطل، فيمنع من كلا الإطلاقين، بخلف النصوص الإلهية فإنها فرقان فرق الله بها بين الحق والباطل، ولهذا كان سلف الأمة وأئمتها يجعلون كلام الله ورسوله هو الإمام والفرقان الذي يجب اتباعه، فيثبتون ما أثبته الله ورسوله، وينفون ما نفاه الله ورسوله، ويجعلون العبارات المحدثة المجملة المتشابهة ممنوعاً من إطلاقها: نفياً إثباتاً، لا يطلقون اللفظ ولا ينفونه إلا بعد الاستفسار والتفصيل، فإذا تبين المعني أثبت حقه ونفي باطله، بخلاف كلام الله ورسوله، فإنه حق يجب قبوله، وإن لم يفهم معناه، وكلام غير المعصوم لا يجب قبوله حتى يفهم معناه.