Majmu' al-FatawaIbn Taimiya

for it not to exist. They say that it is necessary through another, and they place the celestial sphere in this category. Thus, by affirming a contingent being that can either exist or not exist, yet is nevertheless eternal, beginningless and everlasting, incapable of nonexistence and necessarily existent through another, they departed from the consensus of rational people with whom they had previously agreed. All rational people regard this as impossible. This is evident to sound reason for anyone who understands the true nature of a contingent being that admits existence and nonexistence, as has been explained at length in its proper place.

These philosophers gained the upper hand over the speculative theologians—the Jahmiyyah, the Muʿtazilah and those who followed their path—only because the latter did not truly understand what Allah had sent His Messenger with, nor did they support the positions they championed with sound rational arguments. These speculative theologians were therefore deficient in their understanding of both revelation and reason.

(They went so far as to say that Allah had never done anything or spoken by His will. [Then what came into being did so without any new cause arising, and they claimed that it was perpetually impossible for the Lord to speak by His will.] Then what came into being did so without any new cause arising, and they claimed that it was perpetually impossible for the Lord to speak by His will and do whatever He wills, because they held that events could not continue perpetually.) (*)

Their leading figures, such as al-Jahm ibn Safwān and Abū al-Hudhayl al-ʿAllāf, then adopted the view that events could not continue perpetually into either the future or the past. Al-Jahm maintained that Paradise and Hell would cease to exist, while Abū al-Hudhayl maintained that all movement within them would cease and their inhabitants would remain forever motionless. Some who followed this path claim that this is what reason dictates, and that everything with a beginning must have an end.

When they saw that revelation affirmed the everlasting bliss of the people of Paradise, as the Most High says:

“Its fruit

(*) Shaykh Nāsir ibn Hamad al-Fahd stated (p. 79): A passage was duplicated when the copyist’s eye skipped. The duplicated text appears between square brackets. The correct wording is: “They went so far as to say: Allah had never done anything or spoken by His will. Then whatever came into being did so without any new cause arising. They claimed that it was perpetually impossible for the Lord to speak by His will and do whatever He wills, because they maintained that events could not continue perpetually.”
عَدَمُهُ وَيَقُولُونَ: هُوَ وَاجِبٌ بِغَيْرِهِ وَجَعَلُوا الْفَلَكَ مِنْ هَذَا النَّوْعِ؛ فَخَرَجُوا عَنْ إجْمَاعِ الْعُقَلَاءِ الَّذِينَ وَافَقُوهُمْ عَلَيْهِ فِي إثْبَاتِ شَيْءٍ مُمْكِنٍ يُمْكِنُ أَنْ يُوجَدَ وَأَلَّا يُوجَدَ وَأَنَّهُ مَعَ هَذَا يَكُونُ قَدِيمًا أَزَلِيًّا أَبَدِيًّا مُمْتَنِعَ الْعَدَمِ وَاجِبَ الْوُجُودِ بِغَيْرِهِ فَإِنَّ هَذَا مُمْتَنِعٌ عِنْدَ جَمِيعِ الْعُقَلَاءِ. وَذَلِكَ بَيِّنٌ فِي صَرِيحِ الْعَقْلِ لِمَنْ تَصَوَّرَ حَقِيقَةَ الْمُمْكِنِ الَّذِي يَقْبَلُ الْوُجُودَ وَالْعَدَمَ كَمَا بُسِطَ فِي مَوْضِعِهِ. وَهَؤُلَاءِ الْمُتَفَلْسِفَةُ إنَّمَا تَسَلَّطُوا عَلَى الْمُتَكَلِّمِينَ الْجَهْمِيَّة وَالْمُعْتَزِلَةِ وَمَنْ سَلَكَ سَبِيلَهُمْ؛ لِأَنَّ هَؤُلَاءِ لَمْ يَعْرِفُوا حَقِيقَةَ مَا بَعَثَ اللَّهُ بِهِ رَسُولَهُ. وَلَمْ يَحْتَجُّوا لِمَا نَصَرُوهُ بِحُجَجِ صَحِيحَةٍ فِي الْمَعْقُولِ. فَقَصَّرَ هَؤُلَاءِ الْمُتَكَلِّمُونَ فِي مَعْرِفَةِ السَّمْعِ وَالْعَقْلِ. (حَتَّى قَالُوا: إنَّ اللَّهَ لَمْ يَزَلْ لَا يَفْعَلُ شَيْئًا وَلَا يَتَكَلَّمُ بِمَشِيئَتِهِ [ثُمَّ حَدَثَ مَا حَدَثَ مِنْ غَيْرِ تَجَدُّدِ سَبَبٍ حَادِثٍ وَزَعَمُوا دَوَامَ امْتِنَاعِ كَوْنِ الرَّبِّ مُتَكَلِّمًا بِمَشِيئَتِهِ] ثُمَّ حَدَثَ مَا حَدَثَ مِنْ غَيْرِ تَجَدُّدِ سَبَبٍ حَادِثٍ وَزَعَمُوا دَوَامَ امْتِنَاعِ كَوْنِ الرَّبِّ مُتَكَلِّمًا بِمَشِيئَتِهِ فَعَّالًا لِمَا يَشَاءُ؛ لِزَعْمِهِمْ امْتِنَاعَ دَوَامِ الْحَوَادِثِ) (*) ثُمَّ صَارَ أَئِمَّتُهُمْ كَالْجَهْمِ بْنِ صَفْوَانَ وَأَبِي الهذيل الْعَلَّافِ إلَى امْتِنَاعِ دَوَامِهَا فِي الْمُسْتَقْبَلِ وَالْمَاضِي فَقَالَ الْجَهْمُ: بِفَنَاءِ الْجَنَّةِ وَالنَّارِ وَقَالَ أَبُو الهذيل: بِفَنَاءِ حَرَكَاتِهِمَا وَأَنَّهُمْ يَبْقَوْنَ دَائِمًا فِي سُكُونٍ وَيَزْعُمُ بَعْضُ مَنْ سَلَكَ هَذِهِ السَّبِيلَ أَنَّ هَذَا هُوَ مُقْتَضَى الْعَقْلِ وَأَنَّ كُلَّ مَا لَهُ ابْتِدَاءٌ فَيَجِبُ أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُ انْتِهَاءٌ. وَلَمَّا رَأَوْا الشَّرْعَ قَدْ جَاءَ بِدَوَامِ نَعِيمِ أَهْلِ الْجَنَّةِ كَمَا قَالَ تَعَالَى: {أُكُلُهَا
(*) قال الشيخ ناصر بن حمد الفهد (ص ٧٩): وقد حصل تكرار من الناسخ بسبب انتقال نظره، والمكرر ما بين المعقوفتين، وصواب العبارة: (حتى قالوا: إن الله لم يزل لا يفعل شيئًا ولا يتكلم بمشيئته. ثم حدث ما حدث من غير تجدد سبب حادث، وزعموا دوام امتناع كون الرب متكلما بمشيئته فعالا لما يشاء؛ لزعمهم امتناع دوام الحوادث).

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies