Al-Ṣafadiyyah - Ibn Taimiya - (2/97)

Al-ṢafadiyyahIbn Taimiya

This is certainly mistaken, for the Essence necessitates the genus of causation, not any particular instance of it. Thus, even if we suppose that It has never ceased acting, bringing one thing into existence after another, none of Its effects would thereby be eternal; everything other than Him would still be a created entity that comes to be after having been nothing, even though acting is an inseparable attribute of His Essence.

Those who opposed the advocates of pre-eternity, in their attempt to prove that everything other than God is originated, thought this entailed that He must at some point have been inactive and unable to act, and that His being a Creator could only be affirmed on that basis. Hence they affirmed a complete suspension of the genus of action, while the first group affirmed the pre-eternity of a specific act. Neither side, however, possesses any proof for its position. The arguments they present establish only the necessity of the genus of action, not the eternity of a particular act or a particular effect. Had their valid evidence really required the pre-eternity of a given act and its product, no contingent events could ever occur—something flatly contradicted by what we observe.

Accordingly, what is essential to Him is the genus of action, not a specific action or a specific product; therefore nothing in the universe is eternal. It follows that there is no eternally completed influence upon any part of the world. Rather, He has always been a complete cause with respect to one thing after another. Each effect comes into being once the causal efficacy is perfected in relation to it, and the requisite for that perfected efficacy is the Essence Itself once the conditions are fulfilled and the obstacles removed.

All of this pertains to an Essence in which voluntary attributes subsist—one that acts by power and will and is further characterized, as the messengers have told us, by loving and hating, being pleased and angered, disliking and rejoicing, and the other attributes affirmed by the Qur’an and the Sunnah. But if there were only a single, unchanging state from pre-eternity to everlasting, and one were to posit an effect for such an Essence, that effect would necessarily remain in an identical, unchanging state for all eternity.

وهذا خطأ قطعا فإن الذات تستلزم نوع التأثير لا عينه فإذا قدر أنها لم تزل فاعلة لشيء بعد شيء لم يكن شيء من مفعولاتها قديما بل كل ما سواها حادث كائن بعد أن لم يكن وإن كان فعلها من لوازم ذاتها. والذين قابلوا هؤلاء لما أرادوا أن يثبتوا حدوث كل ما سوى الله ظنوا أن هذا يتضمن أنه كان معطلا غير قادر على الفعل وأن كونه محدثا لا يصح إلا على هذا الوجه فهؤلاء أثبتوا التعطيل عن نوع الفعل وأولئك أثبتوا قدم عين الفعل وليس لهم حجة تدل على ذلك قط وإنما يدل على ما يذكرونه من الحجج على ثبوت النوع لا على ثبوت عين الفعل ولا عين المفعول ولو كان يقتضي دليلهم الصحيح قدم عين الفعل والمفعول لامتنع حدوث شيء من الحوادث وهو مخالف للمشهود. وحينئذ فالذي هو من لوازم ذاته نوع الفعل لا فعل معين ولا مفعول معين فلا يكون في العالم شيء قديم وحينئذ لا يكون في الأزل مؤثرا تاما في شيء من العالم ولكن لم يزل مؤثرا تاما في شيء بعد شيء وكل أثر يوجد عند حصول كمال التأثير فيه والمقتضى لكمال التأثير فه هو الذات عند حصول الشروط وارتفاع الموانع. وهذا إنما يكون في الذات التي تقوم بها الأمور الاختيارية وتفعل بالقدرة والمشيئة بل وتتصف بما أخبرت به الرسل من أن الله يحب ويبغض ويرضى ويسخط ويكره ويفرح وغير ذلك مما نطق به الكتاب والسنة فأما إذا لم يكن إلا حال واحدة أزلا وأبدا وقدر أن لها معلولا لزم أن يكون على حال واحدة أزلا وأبدا.