Al-Qawl al-Sadid fi al-Radd ala Man Ankara Taqsim al-Tawhid - Abd al-Razzaq ibn Abd al-Muhsin al-Badr - (80)

Al-Qawl al-Sadid fi al-Radd ala Man Ankara Taqsim al-TawhidAbd al-Razzaq ibn Abd al-Muhsin al-Badr

Before responding to him on this point, we must establish a principle to dispel any confusion that may arise: Allah’s names are both proper names and attributes1. Insofar as they denote His essence, they are proper names; insofar as they convey meanings, they are attributes. In the first respect, they are synonymous, since they designate one and the same Being—Allah, Mighty and Majestic. In the second respect, they are distinct, since each conveys its own particular meaning. Thus, the Lord, the Creator, the All-Knowing, the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing, the One, and the Eternal Refuge are all names of one and the same Being—Allah, glorified and exalted is He. Yet “the Lord” does not mean the same as “the All-Hearing”; “the All-Hearing” does not mean the same as “the All-Seeing”; and “the All-Seeing” does not mean the same as “the One.” This is plain and unmistakable, contrary to the position of the Mu'tazilah, who maintain that Allah’s names are merely proper names that convey no meanings.

When the writer said, “The Deity is the Lord, and the Lord is the Deity,” he did not mean that the two names are synonymous insofar as they designate one and the same Being, Allah. Rather, by saying, “The Deity is the Lord,” he meant that “Deity” has the same meaning as “Lord”; and by saying, “and the Lord is the Deity,” he meant that “Lord” has the same meaning as “Deity,” as is evident from his context.

There is no doubt that this is compound ignorance, for he has failed to distinguish between the meaning of “Deity” and that of “Lord.” Nor has he troubled himself to consult the lexicons and the statements of scholars so that the difference might become clear to him. Instead, what he wrote was entirely of his own invention and imagination. Had he consulted them, he would have found that the lexicons unanimously define rabb (lord) as the Owner who has lordship over all creation and has no partner. As for ilāh (deity), it means the one worshipped, from ta'alluh, meaning worship.

Thus, the Lord is the One who nurtures His servant, giving him his form and then guiding him in all his affairs, in worship and otherwise.

(1) See Ibn al-Qayyim, Badā’iʿ al-Fawā’id, vol. 1, p. 162; and Shaykh Muhammad al-ʿUthaymīn (may Allah preserve him), al-Qawāʿid al-Muthlā, pp. 8–9.

وقبل الرد عليه في هذا لا بد من تقرير قاعدة لإزالة لبس قد يقع وهي: أنَّ أسماء الله أعلامٌ وأوصافٌ١، فهي باعتبار دلالتها على الذات أعلامٌ، وباعتبار دلالتها على المعاني أوصافٌ، وهي بالاعتبار الأول مترادفةٌ؛ لدلالتها على مسمّى واحد وهو الله ﷿، وبالاعتبار الثاني متباينةٌ؛ لدلالة كل واحد منها على معناه الخاص، فالرب الخالق العليم السميع البصير الأحد الصمد كلها أسماءٌ لمسمّى واحدٍ وهو الله ﷾، لكن معنى الرب غير معنى السميع، ومعنى السميع غير معنى البصير، ومعنى البصير غير معنى الأحد، وهذا أمرٌ ظاهرٌ لا خفاء فيه، وهو خلاف قول المعتزلة القائلين بأنَّ أسماء الله أعلامٌ محضةٌ لا تدل على معانٍ. والكاتب حيث قال: "الإله هو الرب، والرب هو الإله" لم يقصد بهذا الترادف من حيث دلالةُ الاسمين على مسمّى واحدٍ وهو الله، وإنَّما قصد بقوله: "الإله هو الرب" أي: بمعنى الربّ، "والرب هو الإله" أي: بمعنى الإله كما هو ظاهر من سياقه. ولا ريب أنَّ هذا جهلٌ مركبٌ إذ لم يميز بين معنى الإله ومعنى الرب، ولم يعنِّ نفسه بمطالعة كتب اللغة وكلام أهل العلم ليظهر له الفرق، وإنَّما كتب ما كتب من بنات رأسه ونسج خياله، وإلا فكُتب اللغة مطبقةٌ على أنَّ الرب بمعنى المالك الذي له الربوبية على جميع الخلق لا شريك له، وأمَّا الإله فهو المعبود، من التأله وهو التعبد. فالرب هو الذي يربي عبده فيعطيه خلقه ثم يهديه إلى جميع أحواله من العبادة وغيرها.

١ انظر: بدائع الفوائد لابن القيم (١/١٦٢) ، والقواعد المثلى للشيخ محمد العثيمين حفظه الله (ص:٨، ٩) .