another figurative one.
So tell me, by your Lord—dear discerning reader—could a scholar of Abū Zahrah’s standing, who has repeatedly quoted Ibn Taymiyyah’s own words to the effect that sharing a name does not necessitate sharing the reality, really say such a thing about him? This is made even clearer by what he himself cites on p. 265 from Ibn Taymiyyah’s al-Tadmuriyyah (p. 12), where Ibn Taymiyyah states:
“If it is self-evident that in existence there is that which is eternal, existing necessarily in and of itself, and that which is created and contingent, capable of both existence and non-existence, then it is likewise evident that both are ‘existent’. Yet their sharing the term ‘existence’ does not require that the existence of the one be like the existence of the other; rather, each possesses a mode of existence peculiar to it. Their agreement in a generic name does not entail their sameness in what that name denotes once additions, qualifications, and particularizations are considered. Thus no rational person, when told, ‘The Throne is a thing that exists and the gnat is a thing that exists,’ would conclude, ‘They are identical,’ merely because they share the terms ‘thing’ and ‘existent’. And if it is said, ‘This exists and that exists,’ the existence of each is unique to it; nothing else shares it, even though the name applies literally to both. 1”
Abū Zahrah then comments on these words to clarify them, saying:
“Accordingly Ibn Taymiyyah says in this context:
‘Allah has named Himself the Living, in His words, “Allah—there is no deity but Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer,” and He has called some of His creation living, in His words, “He brings forth the living from the dead and brings forth the dead.” Yet this ‘Living’ is not like that ‘living’, for the word ‘the Living’ is a name for Allah specific to Him, whereas ‘He brings forth the living from the dead’ refers to the created living being, specific to it. They coincide only when the term is left absolute and unqualified…’ ”
So, reader, do you find any trace of the figurative interpretation Abū Zahrah claimed in his explanation of these