Majmu' al-Fatawa - Ibn Taimiya - (5/410)

Majmu' al-FatawaIbn Taimiya

they are honored servants.”

“They do not speak before He speaks, and they act by His command.”

“He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they cannot intercede except for those whom He approves, and they stand in awe of Him.”

They claimed that His words, “Glory be to Him,” do not declare Him exalted above taking a son] (*)—based on their corrupt principle that the Lord is not to be declared too exalted to perform any act; rather, anything within His power is possible for Him.

Likewise, they construed the statement of al-Awzā‘ī and others as meaning that the descent is not an act that Allah wills, because, according to them, it is an attribute of the Essence, not an attribute of action. This rests on their principle that voluntary acts do not subsist in Allah’s Essence. If it were an attribute of action, it would necessarily not subsist in His Essence, but would instead be separate from Him.

These people say that the descent is an attribute of the Essence, yet they also regard it as eternal without beginning. They say the same about rising over, coming, arrival, pleasure, anger, joy, laughter, and everything of this kind: all these are attributes of Allah’s Essence, eternal and without beginning, unrelated to His will and choice. This rests on the principle in which they agreed with Ibn Kullāb: that nothing connected to the Lord’s will and choice subsists in His Essence. Indeed, some of them say that He does not speak by His will and power, and that no act occurring by His will and choice subsists in Him.

Some of them even say that the act is eternal without beginning, yet is nevertheless connected to His will and power. Most people of sound reason say that the falsity of this is self-evident to reason, just as they said

(*) Shaykh Nāsir ibn Hamad al-Fahd stated (p. 53): Two points require attention here: First: “wa-shahū dhālika” is a scribal corruption; the correct reading is “wa-shabbahū dhālika” (and they likened that). Second: “They claimed that His statement—glory be to Him—is not an affirmation of His transcendence” contains a punctuation error. It should read: “They claimed that His saying ‘Glory be to Him’ is not an affirmation of His transcendence…” Here, subhānahu (Glory be to Him) is not a descriptive epithet, but the wording being quoted.

عِبَادٌ مُكْرَمُونَ} {لَا يَسْبِقُونَهُ بِالْقَوْلِ وَهُمْ بِأَمْرِهِ يَعْمَلُونَ} {يَعْلَمُ مَا بَيْنَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَمَا خَلْفَهُمْ وَلَا يَشْفَعُونَ إلَّا لِمَنِ ارْتَضَى وَهُمْ مِنْ خَشْيَتِهِ مُشْفِقُونَ} فَزَعَمُوا أَنَّ قَوْلَهُ " سُبْحَانَهُ " : لَيْسَ تَنْزِيهًا لَهُ عَنْ اتِّخَاذِ الْوَلَدِ] (*) - بِنَاءً عَلَى أَصْلِهِمْ الْفَاسِدِ وَهُوَ: أَنَّ الرَّبَّ لَا يُنَزَّهُ عَنْ فِعْلٍ مِنْ الْأَفْعَالِ - بَلْ يَجُوزُ عَلَيْهِ كُلُّ مَا يَقْدِرُ عَلَيْهِ. وَكَذَلِكَ جَعَلُوا قَوْلَ الأوزاعي وَغَيْرِهِ: إنَّ النُّزُولَ لَيْسَ بِفِعْلِ يَشَاؤُهُ اللَّهُ؛ لِأَنَّهُ عِنْدَهُمْ مِنْ صِفَاتِ الذَّاتِ لَا مِنْ صِفَاتِ الْفِعْلِ بِنَاءً عَلَى أَصْلِهِمْ وَأَنَّ الْأَفْعَالَ الِاخْتِيَارِيَّةَ لَا تَقُومُ بِذَاتِ اللَّهِ. فَلَوْ كَانَ صِفَةَ فِعْلٍ لَزِمَ أَنْ لَا يَقُومَ بِذَاتِهِ؛ بَلْ يَكُونُ مُنْفَصِلًا عَنْهُ. وَهَؤُلَاءِ يَقُولُونَ: النُّزُولُ مِنْ صِفَاتِ الذَّاتِ وَمَعَ هَذَا فَهُوَ عِنْدَهُمْ أَزَلِيٌّ كَمَا يَقُولُونَ مِثْلَ ذَلِكَ فِي الِاسْتِوَاءِ وَالْمَجِيءِ وَالْإِتْيَانِ وَالرِّضَى وَالْغَضَبِ وَالْفَرَحِ وَالضَّحِكِ وَسَائِرِ ذَلِكَ: إنَّ هَذَا جَمِيعَهُ صِفَاتٌ ذَاتِيَّةٌ لِلَّهِ وَإِنَّهَا قَدِيمَةٌ أَزَلِيَّةٌ لَا تَتَعَلَّقُ بِمَشِيئَتِهِ وَاخْتِيَارِهِ؛ بِنَاءً عَلَى أَصْلِهِمْ الَّذِي وَافَقُوا فِيهِ ابْنَ كُلَّابٍ وَهُوَ أَنَّ الرَّبَّ لَا يَقُومُ بِذَاتِهِ مَا يَتَعَلَّقُ بِمَشِيئَتِهِ وَاخْتِيَارِهِ؛ بَلْ مِنْ هَؤُلَاءِ مَنْ يَقُولُ إنَّهُ لَا يَتَكَلَّمُ بِمَشِيئَتِهِ وَقُدْرَتِهِ وَلَا يَقُومُ بِهِ فِعْلٌ يَحْدُثُ بِمَشِيئَتِهِ وَاخْتِيَارِهِ. بَلْ مِنْ هَؤُلَاءِ مَنْ يَقُولُ إنَّ الْفِعْلَ قَدِيمٌ أَزَلِيٌّ وَإِنَّهُ مَعَ ذَلِكَ يَتَعَلَّقُ بِمَشِيئَتِهِ وَقُدْرَتِهِ وَأَكْثَرُ الْعُقَلَاءِ يَقُولُونَ فَسَادُ هَذَا مَعْلُومٌ بِضَرُورَةِ الْعَقْلِ؛ كَمَا قَالُوا

(*) قال الشيخ ناصر بن حمد الفهد (ص ٥٣): هنا تنبيهان: الأول: قوله (وشهوا ذلك) تصحيف صوابه (وشبهوا ذلك). والثاني: قوله (فزعموا أن قوله سبحانه: ليس تنزيها) خطأ في الرسم، وصوابه (فزعموا أن قوله " سبحانه " ليس تنزيها. .) فقوله هنا (سبحانه) ليس وصفاً، بل هو مقول القول.