Al-Radd ʿalā al-Manṭiqiyyīn - Ibn Taimiya - (293)

Al-Radd ʿalā al-ManṭiqiyyīnIbn Taimiya

even if he still believes that God alone is the Creator of the universe. This was precisely the polytheism of the Arabs: God informs us in several Qur’anic passages that they acknowledged He created the world, yet they nevertheless adopted other deities as intercessors, seeking nearness to Him through them. The Most High says:

“If you were to ask them, ‘Who created the heavens and the earth?’ they would surely say, ‘God.’” (Q 29:61)

And He says:

“They worship, besides God, what can neither harm them nor benefit them, and they say, ‘These are our intercessors with God.’ Say, ‘Are you informing God of something He does not know in the heavens or on earth?’” (Q 10:18)

And He says:

“Those who take protectors besides Him say, ‘We worship them only that they may bring us nearer to God in station.’” (Q 39:3)

A fuller treatment of this appears elsewhere. What concerns us here is that all occurrences have causes, and the motions of the celestial spheres are merely one set of such causes.

Section

Syllogistic reasoning, though formally valid, does not of itself confer knowledge about actual existents.

No one contests the soundness of syllogistic form; what we maintain is that it does not, by its very structure, yield knowledge of things that exist. Likewise, their requirement that a syllogism have exactly two premises—with neither addition nor omission—is baseless. Although a syllogism can produce certainty, that certainty does not, by virtue of the form alone, furnish knowledge of any particular existent. What is attained through it may be attained without it, and conversely, certain things may be attained without it that can never be reached through it.

We therefore say: when the premises of a syllogism are already known, its form undeniably yields certainty. If one states, “Every A is B, and every B is C,” and both premises are known, there is no doubt that this composition gives certain knowledge that “Every A is C.” On this there is no disagreement.

Thus, we are not disputing the validity of syllogistic form, for that is obvious—whether in the categorical syllogism composed of assertoric propositions (the syllogism of inclusion) or the conditional syllogism composed

كان مع ذلك يعتقد أن الله وحده خالق العالم وهذا كان شرك العرب كما أخبر الله عنهم في غير موضع من القرآن أنهم كانوا يقولون أن الله خلق العالم ولكن كانوا يتخذون الآلهة شفعاء يشفعون لهم يتقربون بهم إلى الله كما قال تعالى: {وَلَئِنْ سَأَلْتَهُمْ مَنْ خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضَ لَيَقُولُنَّ اللَّهُ} وقال تعالى: {وَيَعْبُدُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ مَا لا يَضُرُّهُمْ وَلا يَنْفَعُهُمْ وَيَقُولُونَ هَؤُلاءِ شُفَعَاؤُنَا عِنْدَ اللَّهِ قُلْ أَتُنَبِّئُونَ اللَّهَ بِمَا لا يَعْلَمُ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَلا فِي الأَرْضِ} وقال تعالى: {وَالَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا مِنْ دُونِهِ أَوْلِيَاءَ مَا نَعْبُدُهُمْ إِلاَّ لِيُقَرِّبُونَا إِلَى اللَّهِ زُلْفَى} وبسط هذا له موضع آخر. والمقصود هنا أن الحوادث كان لها أسباب وإن كانت حركات الفلك من جملة الأسباب. فصل: القياس مع صحته لا يستفاد به علم بالموجودات. فصورة القياس لا يدفع صحتها لكن يبين أنه لا يستفاد به علم بالموجودات كما أن اشتراطهم للمقدمتين دون الزيادة والنقص شرط باطل فهو وإن حصل به يقين فلا يستفاد بخصوصه نفس مطلوب شيء من الموجودات بل ما يحصل به قد يحصل بدونه وقد يحصل بدونه ما لا يحصل به. فنقول أن صورة القياس إذا كانت مواده معلومة فلا ريب أنه يفيد اليقين وإذا قيل: كل أ: ب وكل ب: ج وكانت المقدمتان معلومتين فلا ريب أن هذا التأليف يفيد العلم بأن كل أ: ج وهذا لا نزاع فيه. فصورة القياس لا يتكلم على صحتها فان ذلك ظاهر سواء في ذلك الاقتراني المؤلف من الحمليات الذي هو قياس التداخل والاستثنائي المؤلف