Majmu' al-Fatawa - Ibn Taimiya - (2/32)

Majmu' al-FatawaIbn Taimiya

He also said—may Allah sanctify his soul:

(*)

Section

It may then be said: This also entails that neither of them is necessarily existent in itself, self-sufficient, and self-subsisting. Rather, each depends on another in its essence and attributes, just as it depends on that other in what it brings about. For if each depends on the other in what it brings about and is incapable of doing so alone—as joint agency necessarily entails, as explained above—(*) then either it can possess the power to act independently, such that this is possible for it, or this is not possible.

The latter is impossible. For if it were impossible for a thing to be within the power of one agent and possible for that agent to bring about, it would also be impossible for it to be within the power of two agents and possible for them to bring about. Whether a thing is possible and within an agent’s power does not vary according to whether the agents capable of bringing it about are one or many. Thus, if it is impossible for a thing to be brought about through the power of one agent, it is impossible for it to be brought about through the power of two. Conversely, if a thing is possible and can be brought about through the power of two agents, it can also be brought about through the power of one.

This is clear if possibility and impossibility arise from a characteristic of the possible thing—the thing brought about and subject to power—for its intrinsic attributes do not differ between the two cases. The same applies if they arise from a characteristic of the agent possessing the power. For the power that subsists in two is not precluded from subsisting

(*) Shaykh Nāsir ibn Hamad al-Fahd states (p. 20): This section is extracted from a series of sections found at 20/178. The references in “this also,” “as previously explained,” and similar expressions refer to the sections preceding this one there. Comparing the two versions reveals some minor differences—I have noted those concerning that section in my discussion of volume twenty. Here, the principal differences are: 1 – (2/33): “Thus, combination and joint participation in creation”; at 20/179: “in created things,” which is the more plausible reading. 2 – (2/33): “Even if one of them remains”; at 20/179: “Even if their states remain.” 3 – (2/35): “None of them is, on its own, a subsisting cause”; at 20/181: “is, on its own, a complete cause,” which is the more plausible reading. 4 – (2/35–36): “Rather, it has been said: among created things there can be no cause possessing a single attribute, or no created thing can be a cause on its own”; at 20/182: “since no created thing can be a cause on its own,” which is the more plausible reading. 5 – (2/36): “Their dependence and their being min bad'ihi (from his origination)”; at 20/183: “their dependence and their being subject to lordship,” which is the correct reading. The final fifteen lines here do not appear there. This provides further evidence, besides the differences, that this section derives from a manuscript copy other than that one. And Allah Most High knows best.

وَقَالَ - قَدَّسَ اللَّهُ رُوحَهُ -: (*) فَصْلٌ: ثُمَّ يُقَالُ هَذَا أَيْضًا يَقْتَضِي أَنَّ كُلًّا مِنْهُمَا: لَيْسَ وَاجِبًا بِنَفْسِهِ غَنِيًّا قَيُّومًا؛ بَلْ مُفْتَقِرًا إلَى غَيْرِهِ فِي ذَاتِهِ وَصِفَاتِهِ كَمَا كَانَ مُفْتَقِرًا إلَيْهِ فِي مَفْعُولَاتِهِ وَذَلِكَ أَنَّهُ إذَا كَانَ كُلٌّ مِنْهُمَا مُفْتَقِرًا إلَى الْآخَرِ فِي مَفْعُولَاتِهِ عَاجِزًا عَنْ الِانْفِرَادِ بِهَا إذْ الِاشْتِرَاكُ مُسْتَلْزِمٌ لِذَلِكَ كَمَا تَقَدَّمَ؛ (*) فَإِمَّا أَنْ يَكُونَ قَابِلًا لِلْقُدْرَةِ عَلَى الِاسْتِقْلَالِ بِحَيْثُ يُمْكِنُ ذَلِكَ فِيهِ أَوْ لَا يُمْكِنُ. وَالثَّانِي: مُمْتَنِعٌ لِأَنَّهُ لَوْ امْتَنَعَ أَنْ يَكُونَ الشَّيْءُ مَقْدُورًا مُمْكِنًا لِوَاحِدِ: لَامْتَنَعَ أَنْ يَكُونَ مَقْدُورًا مُمْكِنًا لِاثْنَيْنِ فَإِنَّ حَالَ الشَّيْءِ فِي كَوْنِهِ مَقْدُورًا مُمْكِنًا. لَا يَخْتَلِفُ بِتَعَدُّدِ الْقَادِرِ عَلَيْهِ وَتَوَحُّدِهِ فَإِذَا امْتَنَعَ أَنْ يَكُونَ مَفْعُولًا مَقْدُورًا لِوَاحِدِ: امْتَنَعَ أَنْ يَكُونَ مَفْعُولًا مَقْدُورًا لِاثْنَيْنِ وَإِذَا جَازَ أَنْ يَكُونَ مَفْعُولًا مَقْدُورًا عَلَيْهِ لِاثْنَيْنِ وَهُوَ مُمْكِنٌ: جَازَ أَنْ يَكُونَ أَيْضًا لِوَاحِدِ وَهَذَا بَيِّنٌ إذَا كَانَ الْإِمْكَانُ وَالِامْتِنَاعُ لِمَعْنَى فِي الْمُمْكِنِ - الْمَفْعُولِ الْمَقْدُورِ عَلَيْهِ - إذْ صِفَاتُ ذَاتِهِ لَا تَخْتَلِفُ فِي الْحَالِ. وَكَذَلِكَ إذَا كَانَ لِمَعْنَى فِي الْقَادِرِ فَإِنَّ الْقُدْرَةَ الْقَائِمَةَ بِاثْنَيْنِ لَا تَمْتَنِعُ أَنْ تَقُومَ

(*) قال الشيخ ناصر بن حمد الفهد (ص ٢٠): هذا الفصل مستل من مجموعة فصول مذكورة في: ٢٠/ ١٧٨، والإشارة في قوله (هذا أيضاً)، وقوله (كما تقدم)، ونحو ذلك، يعود للفصول المذكورة قبل هذا الفصل هناك. وبالمقارنة بين الفصلين يظهر بعض الفروق اليسيرة - وقد أشرت عند الكلام على المجلد العشرين إلى ما يخص ذلك الفصل -، أما هنا فأهم الفروق: ١ - (٢/ ٣٣): (ولهذا كان الاجتماع والاشتراك في الخلق)، وفي ٢٠/ ١٧٩ (في المخلوقات) وهو الأظهر. ٢ - (٢/ ٣٣): (وإن كانت إحداها باقية)، وفي ٢٠/ ١٧٩ (وإن كانت أحوالها باقية). ٣ - (٢/ ٣٥): (وليس فيها ما هو وحده علة قائمة)، وفي ٢٠/ ١٨١ (ما هو وحده علة تامة) وهو الأظهر. ٤ - (٢/ ٣٥ - ٣٦): (بل قيل: لا تكون في المخلوق علة ذات وصف واحد أو ليس في المخلوق ما يكون وحده علة)، وفي ٢٠/ ١٨٢: (إذ ليس في المخلوق ما يكون وحده علة) وهو الأظهر. ٥ - (٢/ ٣٦): (وفقرها وأنها من بدئه)، وفي ٢٠/ ١٨٣: (وفقرها وأنها مربوبة) وهو الصواب. وآخر خمسة عشر سطراً هنا لم تذكر هناك، وهذا دليل آخر - غير الفروق - على أن مصدر هذا الفصل نسخة أخرى غير تلك النسخة، والله تعالى أعلم.