Al-Tafsīr al-Qayyim - Ibn al-Qayyim - (288)

Al-Tafsīr al-QayyimIbn al-Qayyim

as innate qualities—for “what is right” other than what He commands, so that it becomes right solely by His command, and no meaning for “what is wrong” other than what He forbids, so that it becomes wrong solely by His prohibition, then what meaning is there in His words, exalted be He:

“He commands them to do what is right and forbids them from what is wrong”?

Does this amount to anything more than saying, “He commands them to do what He commands them to do, and forbids them from what He forbids them from doing”?

Even the speech of ordinary rational people should be above such words, let alone the speech of the Lord of all worlds.

Does the verse indicate anything other than that He commands them to do what reason recognizes as right and whose goodness sound human nature acknowledges? He commands them to do what is right in itself according to every sound mind, and forbids them from what human nature and reason recognize as wrong. Thus, when His commands and prohibitions are presented to a sound mind, it embraces them wholeheartedly and testifies to their goodness. As a certain Bedouin said when asked, “How did you know that he was the Messenger of Allah?” He replied, “He never commanded anything that made reason say, ‘If only he had forbidden it!’ Nor did he forbid anything that made reason say, ‘If only he had commanded it!’”

This Bedouin knew Allah, His religion, and His Messenger better than these people do. His reason and innate disposition acknowledged the goodness of what the Messenger commanded and the badness of what he forbade, so much so that, for him, this was among the signs of his prophethood and the proofs of his mission.

If something were right or wrong solely because of the command, it would furnish no evidence. Rather, evidence for it would have to be sought elsewhere.

Whoever follows that false path cannot establish the truth of his prophethood through the very message he preached and the religion he taught.

It is well known that the very religion he brought and the faith to which he called people are among the greatest proofs of his truthfulness and signs of his prophethood. Whoever affirms that this religion possesses real attributes that account for its goodness and reason’s acceptance of it, and that its opposite possesses attributes that account for its badness and reason’s aversion to it, has closed to himself the possibility of using the message itself as evidence, making it instead solely something that requires proof.

الفطريين- للمعروف: إلا ما أمر به، فصار معروفا بالأمر فقط، ولا للمنكر: إلا ما نهى عنه. فصار منكرا بنهيه فقط فأي معنى لقوله تعالى: يَأْمُرُهُمْ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهاهُمْ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ. وهل حاصل ذلك زائد على أن يقال: يأمرهم بما يأمرهم به، وينهاهم عما ينهاهم عنه؟. وهذا كلام ينزه عنه كلام آحاد العقلاء، فضلا عن كلام رب العالمين. وهل دلت الآية إلا على أنه أمرهم بالمعروف الذي تعرفه العقول، وتقر بحسنه الفطر، فأمرهم بما هو معروف في نفسه عند كل عقل سليم. ونهاهم عما هو منكر في الطباع والعقول بحيث إذا عرض أمره ونهيه على العقل السليم قبله أعظم قبول، وشهد بحسنه كما قال بعض الأعراب، وقد سئل: بم عرفت أنه رسول الله؟ فقال: ما أمر بشيء فقال العقل: ليته ينهي عنه. ولا نهى عن شيء، فقال: ليته أمر به. فهذا الاعرابي أعرف بالله ودينه ورسوله من هؤلاء، وقد أقر عقله وفطرته بحسن ما أمر به وقبح ما نهى عنه، حتى كان في حقه من أعلام نبوته وشواهد رسالته. ولو كان جهة كونه معروفا ومنكرا هو الأمر المجرد لم يكن فيه دليل. بل كان يطلب له الدليل من غيره. ومن سلك ذلك المسلك الباطل لم يمكنه أن يستدل على صحة نبوته بنفس دعوته ودينه. ومعلوم أن نفس الدين الذي جاء به، والملة التي دعا إليها من أعظم براهين صدقه، وشواهد نبوته. ومن يثبت لذلك صفات وجودية أوجبت حسنه وقبول العقول ولضده صفات أوجبت قبحه ونفور العقل عنه، فقد سد على نفسه باب الاستدلال بنفس الدعوة، وجعلها مستدلا عليه فقط.