Al-Risālah al-Akmalīyah - Ibn Taimiya - (69)

hadith describe Him as possessing touch, as do many followers of Mālik, al-Shāfi'ī, Ahmad, and others, though they do not describe Him as possessing taste.

This is because the Mu'tazilite deniers of the attributes said to those who affirm them:

“If you say that He can be seen, then say that all other kinds of sensory perception may likewise have Him as their object. And if you say that He is All-Hearing and All-Seeing, then describe Him as possessing all five modes of perception.”

All those who affirm the attributes replied:

“We describe Him as being seen and His speech as being heard, as stated in the revealed texts. Likewise, we describe Him as hearing and seeing.”

The majority of the people of hadith and the Sunnah said:

“We also describe Him as possessing the perception of touch, because it is a perfection containing no deficiency. The revealed texts have established it. This is unlike the perception of taste, which necessarily entails eating, and eating necessarily entails deficiency, as previously explained.”

A group of speculative theologians who affirm the attributes ascribed all five modes to Him in both respects—as perceiver and as the object of perception.

Others said that these modes of perception may have Him as their object, just as vision does, because they believed that existence is what makes vision possible. They did not, however, say that He possesses those modes of perception.

Most of those who affirm the vision of Allah did not consider mere existence to be what makes vision possible. Rather, they held that what makes it possible consists of positive factors—not that every existent thing can be seen. There is a difference between the two: the latter entails that every existent thing can be seen, whereas the former does not. If the factors that make vision possible are positive and do not depend upon any privative factors, then whatever has the strongest claim to existence and is furthest removed from nonexistence has the strongest claim to being capable of being seen. Others denied, in both respects, everything apart from hearing and sight.

الحديث يصفونه باللمس، وكذلك كثير من أصحاب مالك والشافعي وأحمد وغيرهم، ولا يصفونه بالذوق. وذلك أن نفاة الصفات من المعتزلة قالوا للمثبتة: إذا قلتم: إنه يرى، فقولوا: إنه يتعلق به سائر أنواع الحس. وإذا قلتم: إنه سميع بصير، فصفوه بالإدراكات الخمسة. فقال أهل الإثبات قاطبة: نحن نصفه بأنه يرى، وأنه يسمع كلامه، كما جاءت بذلك النصوص، وكذلك نصفه بأنه يسمع ويرى. وقال جمهور أهل الحديث والسنة: نصفه أيضًا بإدراك اللمس؛ لأن ذلك كمال لا نقص فيه. وقد دلت عليه النصوص بخلاف إدراك الذوق، فإنه مستلزم للأكل وذلك مستلزم للنقص، كما تقدم. وطائفة من نظار المثبتة وصفوة بالأوصاف الخمس من الجانبين. ومنهم من قال: إنه يمكن أن تتعلق به هذه الأنواع، كما تتعلق به الرؤية؛ لاعتقادهم أن مصحح الرؤية الوجود، ولم يقولوا: إنه متصف بها. وأكثر مثبتي الرؤية لم يجعلوا مجرد الوجود هو المصحح للرؤية، بل قالوا: إن المقتضى أمور وجودية، لا أن كل موجود يصح رؤيته، وبين الأمرين فرق؛ فإن الثاني يستلزم رؤية كل موجود، بخلاف الأول، وإذا كان المصحح للرؤية هي أمور وجودية لا يشترط فيها أمور عدمية، فما كان أحق بالوجود وأبعد عن العدم، كان أحق بأن تجوز رؤيته، ومنهم من نفى ما سوى السمع والبصر من الجانبين.