16
pure and simple(1). This resembles the view of those who say that these names are used by mere verbal equivocation(2).
The root of their error lies in one of two things: either denying the Attributes and going to extremes in denying any resemblance, or supposing that shared universals exist in external reality.
The first is the basis adopted by the Jahmiyya and those who agreed with them in denying the Attributes. They said, “If we say that ‘All-Knowing’ denotes knowledge and ‘All-Powerful’ denotes power, then affirming the Names necessarily entails affirming the Attributes.” This was Ibn Hazm’s basis, for he was among those who denied the Attributes(3), despite his great reverence for hadith, the Sunnah, and Imam Ahmad, and his claim that his position on this matter was the doctrine of Ahmad and others.
His error arose because he adopted certain ideas(4) from the statements of the philosophers and the Mu'tazila through some of his teachers, and he did not happen to have anyone explain their error to him(5). He also transmitted logic through a chain of transmission from Mattā the Translator(6).
Likewise, they said, “If we call one thing ‘existent’ and another ‘existent,’ and one ‘living’ and another ‘living,’ then resemblance necessarily follows.” This is the root of their error.
(1) Ibn Hazm states in *al-Fisal* (2/296): “When we use the words ‘Powerful’ and ‘Knowing’ with reference to Allah Most High, we understand nothing beyond what we understand from the name ‘Allah’ alone. This is because all of these are proper names and are not derived from any attribute whatsoever. However, when we say, ‘Allah Most High knows all things and knows the unseen,’ all that is understood is that there are things known to Him, exalted is He, and that nothing is hidden from Him. It is never understood from this that He possesses knowledge distinct from Him. We say the same regarding ‘He has power’ and all other such expressions.”
(2) (ب), (أ): “that they are said … etc.” The wording in (ع) is confused.
(3) See *al-Fisal*, 2/283 ff.
(4) (ب), (أ), (ن), (م): “a certain thing.”
(5) (ب): “and there was no one who explained their error to him”; (أ), (م): “and there was no one to explain their error to him”; (ن): “and no one explained to them who would explain their error to them”; (ع): “and he did not happen to find anyone who would explain their error to him.”
(6) (ب): “The teacher transmitted logic from Mattā the Translator”; (أ): “He transmitted logic [through] the chain of transmission from Mattā the Translator”; (ن), (م): “He transmitted logic through a chain of transmission from Mattā.” Mattā the Translator was Abū Bishr Mattā ibn Yūnus—or ibn Yūnān—a Christian logician. He settled in Baghdad and died there in 328 AH. He was the preeminent logician of his age. For his biography and works, see Ibn al-Qiftī, *Tārīkh al-Hukamāʾ*, pp. 230–239; Zahīr al-Dīn al-Bayhaqī, *Tārīkh Hukamāʾ al-Islām*, pp. 28–29; Ibn Abī Usaybiʿa, *Tabaqāt al-Atibbāʾ*, 2/227; and Ibn al-Nadīm, *al-Fihrist*, pp. 263–264. Ibn Taymiyya mentioned in several places what he attributes here to Ibn Hazm; see, for example, *al-Radd ʿalā al-Mantiqiyyīn*, pp. 131–132. Dr. Ihsān ʿAbbās states in his introduction to Ibn Hazm’s *al-Taqrīb li-Hadd al-Mantiq* (pp. hāʾ–tāʾ) that this statement by Ibn Taymiyya helped him clarify Ibn Hazm’s words in that book: “The Shaykh said: ‘These are the expressions used by the translators, and they contain confusion … etc.’” Ibn Taymiyya’s statement led him to believe that “the Shaykh” might refer to Mattā the Logician himself, although Ibn Hazm made no mention of Mattā in the manuscript on which the published edition was based.
مَحْضَةٌ
(١)
. وَهَذَا يُشْبِهُ قَوْلَ مَنْ يَقُولُ بِأَنَّهَا تُقَالُ بِالِاشْتِرَاكِ اللَّفْظِيِّ
(٢)
.
وَأَصْلُ غَلَطِ هَؤُلَاءِ شَيْئَانِ:
إِمَّا نَفْيُ الصِّفَاتِ وَالْغُلُوُّ فِي نَفْيِ التَّشْبِيهِ، وَإِمَّا ظَنُّ ثُبُوتِ الْكُلِّيَّاتِ الْمُشْتَرِكَةِ فِي الْخَارِجِ.
فَالْأَوَّلُ هُوَ مَأْخَذُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ وَمَنْ وَافَقَهُمْ عَلَى نَفْيِ الصِّفَاتِ.
قَالُوا:
إِذَا قُلْنَا عَلِيمٌ يَدُلُّ عَلَى عِلْمٍ، وَقَدِيرٌ يَدُلُّ عَلَى قُدْرَةٍ لَزِمَ مِنْ إِثْبَاتِ الْأَسْمَاءِ إِثْبَاتُ الصِّفَاتِ، وَهَذَا مَأْخَذُ ابْنِ حَزْمٍ، فَإِنَّهُ مِنْ نُفَاةِ الصِّفَاتِ
(٣)
مَعَ تَعْظِيمِهِ لِلْحَدِيثِ وَالسُّنَّةِ وَالْإِمَامِ أَحْمَدَ،
وَدَعْوَاهُ أَنَّ الَّذِي يَقُولُهُ:
فِي ذَلِكَ هُوَ مَذْهَبُ أَحْمَدَ وَغَيْرِهِ.
وَغَلَطُهُ فِي ذَلِكَ بِسَبَبِ أَنَّهُ أَخَذَ أَشْيَاءَ
(٤)
مِنْ أَقْوَالِ الْفَلَاسِفَةِ وَالْمُعْتَزِلَةِ عَنْ بَعْضِ شُيُوخِهِ، وَلَمْ يَتَّفِقْ لَهُ مَنْ يُبَيِّنُ لَهُ خَطَأَهُمْ
(٥)
، وَنَقَلَ الْمَنْطِقَ بِالْإِسْنَادِ عَنْ مَتَّى التُّرْجُمَانِ
(٦)
.
وَكَذَلِكَ قَالُوا:
إِذَا قُلْنَا: مَوْجُودٌ وَمَوْجُودٌ، وَحَيٌّ وَحَيٌّ لَزِمَ التَّشْبِيهُ، فَهَذَا أَصْلُ غَلَطِ هَؤُلَاءِ.
(١) يَقُولُ ابْنُ حَزْمٍ (الْفِصَلَ ٢/٢٩٦) : " إِنَّنَا لَا نَفْهَمُ مِنْ قَوْلِنَا قَدِيرٌ عَالِمٌ - إِذَا أَرَدْنَا بِذَلِكَ اللَّهَ تَعَالَى - إِلَّا مَا نَفْهَمُ مِنْ قَوْلِنَا اللَّهُ فَقَطْ، لِأَنَّ كُلَّ ذَلِكَ أَسْمَاءُ أَعْلَامٍ لَا مُشْتَقَّةٌ مِنْ صِفَةٍ أَصْلًا، لَكِنْ إِذَا قُلْنَا: اللَّهُ تَعَالَى بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ، وَيَعْلَمُ الْغَيْبَ، فَإِنَّمَا يُفْهَمُ مِنْ كُلِّ ذَلِكَ أَنَّ هَاهُنَا لَهُ تَعَالَى مَعْلُومَاتٌ، وَأَنَّهُ لَا يَخْفَى عَلَيْهِ شَيْءٌ، وَلَا يُفْهَمُ مِنْهُ أَلْبَتَّةَ أَنَّ لَهُ عِلْمًا هُوَ غَيْرُهُ، وَهَكَذَا نَقُولُ فِي: يَقْدِرُ، وَفِي غَيْرِ ذَلِكَ كُلِّهِ ".
(٢) ب، أ: أَنَّهَا تُقَالُ. . إِلَخْ، وَالْعِبَارَةُ فِي (ع) مُضْطَرِبَةٌ.
(٣) انْظُرِ الْفِصَلَ ٢/٢٨٣ وَمَا بَعْدَهَا.
(٤) ب، أ، ن، م: شَيْئًا.
(٥) ب: وَلَمْ يَتَّفِقْ مَنْ بَيَّنَ لَهُ خَطَأَهُمْ ; أ، م: وَلَمْ يَتَّفِقْ مَنْ يُبَيِّنُ لَهُ خَطَأَهُمْ ; ن: وَلَمْ يُبَيِّنْ لَهُمْ مَنْ يُبَيِّنُ لَهُمْ خَطَأَهُمْ ; ع: وَلَمْ يَتَّفِقْ لَهُ مَنْ يُبَيِّنُ لَهُ خَطَاوَهُمْ.
(٦) ب: وَنَقَلَ الْمَنْطِقَ الْأُسْتَاذُ عَنْ مَتَّى التُّرْجُمَانِ ; أ: وَنَقَلَ الْمَنْطِقَ الْإِسْنَادَ عَنْ مَتَّى التُّرْجُمَانِ ; ن، م: وَنَقَلَ الْمَنْطِقَ بِالْإِسْنَادِ عَنْ مَتَّى. وَمَتَّى التُّرْجُمَانُ هُوَ أَبُو بِشْرٍ مَتَّى بْنُ يُونُسَ (أَوِ ابْنُ يُونَانَ) الْمَنْطِقِيُّ النَّصْرَانِيُّ، نَزَلَ بَغْدَادَ وَمَاتَ بِهَا سَنَةَ ٣٢٨ وَإِلَيْهِ انْتَهَتْ رِيَاسَةُ الْمَنْطِقِيِّينَ فِي عَصْرِهِ. انْظُرْ تَرْجَمَتَهُ وَمُصَنَّفَاتِهِ فِي: تَارِيخِ الْحُكَمَاءِ لِابْنِ الْقِفْطِيِّ، ص [٠ - ٩] ٢٣ ; تَارِيخِ حُكَمَاءِ الْإِسْلَامِ لِظَهِيرِ الدِّينِ الْبَيْهَقِيِّ، ص ٢٨ - ٢٩ ; طَبَقَاتِ الْأَطِبَّاءِ لِابْنِ أَبِي أُصَيْبِعَةَ ٢/٢٢٧ ; الْفِهْرِسْتَ لِابْنِ النَّدِيمِ ص ٢٦٣ - ٢٦٤. وَقَدْ ذَكَرَ ابْنُ تَيْمِيَّةَ فِي أَكْثَرِ مِنْ مَوْضِعٍ مَا نَسَبَهُ هُنَا إِلَى ابْنِ حَزْمٍ، انْظُرْ مَثَلًا: الرَّدَّ عَلَى الْمَنْطِقِيِّينَ، ص ١٣١ - ١٣٢. وَيَقُولُ الدُّكْتُورِ إِحْسَان عَبَّاس (مُقَدِّمَةَ التَّقْرِيبِ لِحَدِّ الْمَنْطِقِ لِابْنِ حَزْمٍ، ص ح - ط) إِنَّ عِبَارَةَ ابْنَ تَيْمِيَّةَ هَذِهِ هَدَتْهُ إِلَى بَيَانِ مَعْنَى مَا يَذْكُرُهُ ابْنُ حَزْمٍ فِي كِتَابِهِ مِنْ قَوْلِهِ: " قَالَ الشَّيْخُ: هَذِهِ عِبَارَاتُ الْمُتَرْجِمِينَ وَفِيهَا تَخْلِيطٌ. . . إِلَخْ " إِذْ جَعَلَهُ كَلَامَ ابْنَ تَيْمِيَّةَ يَعْتَقِدُ أَنَّ كَلِمَةَ " الشَّيْخِ " رُبَّمَا كَانَتْ تُشِيرُ إِلَى مَتَّى الْمَنْطِقِيِّ نَفْسِهِ، وَإِنْ كَانَ ابْنُ حَزْمٍ لَمْ يَذْكُرْ شَيْئًا عَنْ مَتَّى فِي النُّسْخَةِ الَّتِي نُشِرَ عَنْهَا الْكِتَابُ.