16
Thus, to suppose that essence exists in external reality detached from its attributes—so that one may then ask whether the attributes are additional to it—is an impossible supposition, and an impossible supposition may entail an impossible conclusion.
It has been related of a group of speculative thinkers, including Abd al-Rahmān ibn Kaysān al-Asamm (1) and others, that they denied the existence of accidents in external reality, even denying the existence of motion. It is more likely—and Allah knows best—that their position was not accurately transmitted, for they were too rational to say such a thing. (2)
Although Abd al-Rahmān al-Asamm was a Mu'tazilite, he was among the eminent and learned, and he authored a Quran commentary. One of his students was Ibrāhīm ibn
(1) *Lisān al-Mīzān* 3/427 states: “Abd al-Rahmān ibn Kaysān, Abū Bakr al-Asamm the Mu'tazilite, was an author of treatises on foundational doctrines. Abd al-Jabbār al-Hamadhānī included him in his biographical classes of the Mu'tazilites and said: ‘He was among the most eloquent, scrupulous, and learned in jurisprudence, and he wrote a remarkable *tafsīr*. One of his pupils was Ibrāhīm ibn Ismā'īl ibn Ulayya.’ I say: ‘He belonged to the generation of Abū al-Hudhayl al-Allāf and preceded him.’” Al-Ash'arī reports in *al-Maqālāt* 1/311 that he dissented from the Mu'tazilites’ consensus that commanding right and forbidding wrong is obligatory—whenever feasible and within one’s power—by speech, hand, and sword. At 2/25, he also records al-Asamm’s view of the human being: “The human being is that which is seen. It is one thing, without a spirit, and is a single substance.” He denied everything except what could be sensed and perceived. Al-Ash'arī further reports at 2/28 that he said: “I comprehend nothing but the body possessing length, breadth, and depth, which I see and observe.” He also said: “The soul is this very body and nothing else. The term is applied to it only to clarify and affirm the reality of the thing, not because the soul is something other than the body.” Al-Shahrastānī reports in *Nihāyat al-Iqdām*, p. [0–9]81, that he held that the imamate is not obligatory under revealed law but is based on people’s mutual dealings. For the biography and views of Abū Bakr al-Asamm, see Ibn al-Murtadā, *al-Munya wa al-Amal fī Sharh Kitāb al-Milal wa al-Nihal*, pp. 32–33, Hyderabad ed., 1316 AH; and *Fadl al-I'tizāl*, pp. [0–9]67–268.
(2) Al-Ash'arī said in *al-Maqālāt*, vol. 2: “People disagreed concerning motion, rest, and acts. Al-Asamm said: ‘I affirm only the body possessing length, breadth, and depth.’ He did not affirm motion as something distinct from the body; nor did he affirm rest, action, standing, or sitting as distinct from it. He affirmed neither separation nor conjunction, neither motion nor rest; nor did he affirm color as distinct from it, or sound, taste as distinct from it, or smell as distinct from it. Some speculative thinkers maintain that al-Asamm necessarily perceived motions, rest, and colors, although he did not perceive that they were distinct from the body. What is reported of him is that he did not affirm motion, rest, and other acts as being distinct from the body; it is not reported that he affirmed no motion, rest, standing, sitting, or act whatsoever. As for those who maintain that al-Asamm had no cognition of accidents (*a'rād*) in any respect, it is reported of him that he affirmed no motion, rest, standing, sitting, conjunction, or separation in any respect whatsoever; and the same applies to all other accidents.” In Ibn Tāhir’s *Usūl al-Dīn*, pp. 36–37, it states: “The dispute concerning the affirmation of accidents is with al-Asamm and certain groups of the Dahriyya and Sumaniyya, all of whom denied them. They claimed that a moving thing moves without motion and that a black thing is black without blackness subsisting in it; thus they denied all accidents.” See also *al-Milal wa al-Nihal*, vol. 1; and al-Ghazālī, *Fadā'ih al-Bātiniyya*, ed. Dr. Abd al-Rahmān Badawī, pp. 170–171.
فَتَقْدِيرُهَا فِي الْخَارِجِ مُنْفَكَّةً عَنِ الصِّفَاتِ -
حَتَّى يُقَالَ:
هَلِ الصِّفَاتُ زَائِدَةٌ عَلَيْهَا أَوْ لَيْسَتْ زَائِدَةً - تَقْدِيرٌ مُمْتَنِعٌ، وَالتَّقْدِيرُ الْمُمْتَنِعُ قَدْ يَلْزَمُهُ حُكْمٌ مُمْتَنِعٌ.
وَقَدْ حُكِيَ عَنْ طَائِفَةٍ مِنَ النُّظَّارِ كَعَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ كَيْسَانَ الْأَصَمِّ
(١)
وَغَيْرِهِ أَنَّهُمْ أَنْكَرُوا وُجُودَ الْأَعْرَاضِ فِي الْخَارِجِ، حَتَّى أَنْكَرُوا وُجُودَ الْحَرَكَةِ. وَالْأَشْبَهُ - وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ - أَنَّهُ لَمْ يُنْقَلْ قَوْلُهُمْ عَلَى وَجْهِهِ، فَإِنَّ هَؤُلَاءِ أَعْقَلُ مِنْ أَنْ يَقُولُوا ذَلِكَ
(٢)
وَعَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ الْأَصَمُّ - وَإِنْ كَانَ مُعْتَزِلِيًّا - فَإِنَّهُ مِنْ فُضَلَاءِ النَّاسِ وَعُلَمَائِهِمْ، وَلَهُ تَفْسِيرٌ. وَمِنْ تَلَامِيذِهِ إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ
(١) فِي لِسَانِ الْمِيزَانِ ٣/٤٢٧: " عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ كَيْسَانَ، أَبُو بَكْرٍ الْأَصَمُّ الْمُعْتَزِلِيُّ، صَاحِبُ الْمَقَالَاتِ فِي الْأُصُولِ. ذَكَرَهُ عَبْدُ الْجَبَّارِ الْهَمْدَانِيُّ فِي طَبَقَاتِهِمْ، وَقَالَ: كَانَ مِنْ أَفْصَحِ النَّاسِ وَأَوْرَعِهِمْ وَأَفْقَهِهِمْ وَلَهُ تَفْسِيرٌ عَجِيبٌ. وَمِنْ تَلَامِذَتِهِ إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ بْنُ عُلَيَّةَ، قُلْتُ: وَهُوَ مِنْ طَبَقَةِ أَبِي الْهُذَيْلِ الْعَلَّافِ وَأَقْدَمُ مِنْهُ ". وَذَكَرَ عَنْهُ الْأَشْعَرِيُّ فِي الْمَقَالَاتِ ١/٣١١ أَنَّهُ يُخَالِفُ إِجْمَاعَ الْمُعْتَزِلَةِ فِي وُجُوبِ الْأَمْرِ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَالنَّهْيِ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ مَعَ الْإِمْكَانِ وَالْقُدْرَةِ بِاللِّسَانِ وَالْيَدِ وَالسَّيْفِ، كَمَا يَذْكُرُ رَأْيَهُ فِي الْإِنْسَانِ ٢/٢٥: بِأَنَّهُ " هُوَ الَّذِي يُرَى وَهُوَ شَيْءٌ وَاحِدٌ لَا رُوحَ لَهُ وَهُوَ جَوْهَرٌ وَاحِدٌ وَنَفَى إِلَّا مَا كَانَ مَحْسُوسًا مُدْرَكًا " وَأَنَّهُ كَانَ يَقُولُ ٢/٢٨: " لَيْسَ أَعْقِلُ إِلَّا الْجَسَدَ الطَّوِيلَ الْعَرِيضَ الْعَمِيقَ الَّذِي أَرَاهُ وَأُشَاهِدُهُ، وَكَانَ يَقُولُ: النَّفْسُ هِيَ هَذَا الْبَدَنُ بِعَيْنِهِ لَا غَيْرَ، وَإِنَّمَا جَرَى عَلَيْهَا هَذَا الذِّكْرُ عَلَى جِهَةِ الْبَيَانِ وَالتَّأْكِيدِ لِحَقِيقَةِ الشَّيْءِ لَا عَلَى أَنَّهَا مَعْنَى غَيْرِ الْبَدَنِ " وَذَكَرَ عَنْهُ الشَّهْرَسْتَانِيُّ (نِهَايَةَ الْإِقْدَامِ، ص [٠ - ٩] ٨١) أَنَّهُ يَقُولُ بِأَنَّ الْإِمَامَةَ غَيْرُ وَاجِبَةٍ فِي الشَّرْعِ بَلْ هِيَ مَبْنِيَّةٌ عَلَى مُعَامَلَاتِ النَّاسِ. وَانْظُرْ تَرْجَمَةَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ الْأَصَمِّ وَآرَاءَهُ فِي: الْمُنْيَةِ وَالْأَمَلِ فِي شَرْحِ كِتَابِ الْمِلَلِ وَالنِّحَلِ لِابْنِ الْمُرْتَضِي، ص ٣٢ - ٣٣ ; ط. حَيْدَرَ آبَادَ، ١٣١٦ ; فَضْلِ الِاعْتِزَالِ، ص [٠ - ٩] ٦٧ - ٢٦٨.
(٢) قَالَ الْأَشْعَرِيُّ فِي الْمَقَالَاتِ ٢ " وَاخْتَلَفَ النَّاسُ فِي الْحَرَكَاتِ وَالسُّكُونِ وَالْأَفْعَالِ، فَقَالَ الْأَصَمُّ: لَا أُثْبِتُ إِلَّا الْجِسْمَ الطَّوِيلَ الْعَرِيضَ الْعَمِيقَ وَلَمْ يُثْبِتْ حَرَكَةَ غَيْرِ الْجِسْمِ، وَلَا يُثْبِتُ سُكُونًا غَيْرَهُ، وَلَا فِعْلًا غَيْرَهُ، وَلَا قِيَامًا غَيْرَهُ، وَلَا قُعُودًا غَيْرَهُ، وَلَا افْتِرَاقًا وَلَا اجْتِمَاعًا، وَلَا حَرَكَةً وَلَا سُكُونًا، وَلَا لَوْنًا غَيْرَهُ، وَلَا صَوْتًا وَلَا طَعْمًا غَيْرَهُ، وَلَا رَائِحَةً غَيْرَهُ. فَأَمَّا بَعْضُ أَهْلِ النَّظَرِ مِمَّنْ يَزْعُمُ أَنَّ الْأَصَمَّ قَدْ عَلِمَ الْحَرَكَاتِ وَالسُّكُونَ وَالْأَلْوَانَ ضَرُورَةً، وَإِنْ لَمْ يَعْلَمْ أَنَّهَا غَيْرُ الْجِسْمِ، فَإِنَّهُ يُحْكَى عَنْهُ أَنَّهُ كَانَ لَا يُثْبِتُ الْحَرَكَةَ وَالسُّكُونَ وَسَائِرَ الْأَفْعَالِ غَيْرَ الْجِسْمِ، وَلَا يُحْكَى عَنْهُ أَنَّهُ كَانَ لَا يُثْبِتُ حَرَكَةً وَلَا سُكُونًا وَلَا قِيَامًا وَلَا قُعُودًا وَلَا فِعْلًا. فَأَمَّا مَنْ زَعَمَ أَنَّ الْأَصَمَّ كَانَ لَا يَعْلَمُ الْأَعْرَاضَ عَلَى وَجْهٍ مِنَ الْوُجُوهِ فَإِنَّهُ يُحْكَى عَنْهُ أَنَّهُ كَانَ لَا يُثْبِتُ حَرَكَةً وَلَا سُكُونًا وَلَا قِيَامًا وَلَا قُعُودًا وَلَا اجْتِمَاعًا وَلَا افْتِرَاقًا عَلَى وَجْهٍ مِنَ الْوُجُوهِ، وَكَذَلِكَ يَقُولُ فِي سَائِرِ الْأَعْرَاضِ ". وَفِي أُصُولِ الدِّينِ لِابْنِ طَاهِرٍ، ص ٣٦ - ٣٧: " الْخِلَافُ فِي إِثْبَاتِ الْأَعْرَاضِ مَعَ الْأَصَمِّ وَمَعَ طَوَائِفَ مِنَ الدَّهْرِيَّةِ وَالسَّمْنِيَّةِ نَفَوْهَا كُلَّهَا وَزَعَمُوا أَنَّ الْمُتَحَرِّكَ مُتَحَرِّكٌ لَا بِحَرَكَةٍ، وَالْأَسْوَدَ أَسْوَدُ لَا لِسَوَادٍ يَقُومُ بِهِ، وَنَفَوْا جَمِيعَ الْأَعْرَاضِ ". وَانْظُرْ أَيْضًا: الْمِلَلَ وَالنِّحَلَ ١ ; فَضَائِحَ الْبَاطِنِيَّةِ لِلْغَزَالِيِّ (تَحْقِيقَ د. عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَن بَدَوِي) ، ص ١٧٠ - ١٧١. .