16
some places (1). Al-Āmidī criticized (2) all the methods advanced by others except for one that he approved (3); yet it (4) is weaker than the others, and others have criticized it.
These, then, are two issues in the realm of rational argument in which these men cannot prevail over their earlier masters. If they can deny (5) that He is seen in this world (6) only by this method, then their argument applies only against someone who says (7): “He is seen and people shake hands with Him, and similar
(1) Ibn Taymiyya previously discussed in detail, in volume 1 of the present work (see p. 150 ff.), the possibility of affirming temporal events with no beginning. He stated (p. 178) that the perpetual succession of temporal events in both the past and the future was the position of the leading authorities of Ahl al-Hadīth, the leading philosophers, and others. Ibn Taymiyya also addressed this problem in *Dar’ Ta‘ārud al-‘Aql wa-al-Naql*, 1/321 ff., where he noted al-Rāzī’s contradictory positions on this issue in such works as *al-Arba‘īn fī Usūl al-Dīn* and *al-Matālib al-‘Āliya*. He stated (1/379) that al-Urmawī based his objection to al-Rāzī on al-Rāzī’s own discussion in *al-Matālib al-‘Āliya*.
(2) The words “Al-Āmidī criticized” are omitted from (A) and (B).
(3) Professor Muhammad Khalīl Harrās states in *Ibn Taymiyya al-Salafī*, p. 141 (Tanta ed., 1372/1952), that in *Abkār al-Afkār*, 1/476 (a manuscript held by Dār al-Kutub, no. 1954, Kalām), al-Āmidī “countered al-Rāzī’s claim that this problem necessarily applies to all schools by arguing that what is meant by a temporal event whose subsistence in His Essence—exalted is He—is being denied is something that exists after having been nonexistent. As for what cannot be described as existent—such as newly occurring nonexistences, states according to those who affirm them, and likewise relations and relational attributes—these are not properly called temporal events, even if they may properly be called newly occurring. Accordingly, the renewal of relational attributes and states in the Creator’s Essence does not entail that He is a locus for temporal events.” Professor Harrās notes that Ibn Taymiyya responded to al-Āmidī’s argument in *al-Muwāfaqa* (printed in the margin of *Minhāj al-Sunna*, 2/119–122). See *Dar’ Ta‘ārud al-‘Aql wa-al-Naql*, 2/232–251.
(4) (B) and (A) read: “It is.”
(5) (N) and (M) read: “are unable to deny.”
(6) (B) and (A) read: “with regard to the attributes,” which is an error.
(7) (N) and (M) read: “an argument against the view of one who says.”
مَوَاضِعَ
(١)
. وَالْآمِدِيُّ طَعَنَ
(٢)
فِي طُرُقِ النَّاسِ إِلَّا طَرِيقَةً ارْتَضَاهَا
(٣)
، وَهِيَ
(٤)
أَضْعَفُ مِنْ غَيْرِهَا طَعَنَ فِيهَا غَيْرُهُ.
فَهَذَانِ مَقَامَانِ مِنَ الْمَقَامَاتِ الْعَقْلِيَّةِ لَا يَقْدِرُ هَؤُلَاءِ أَنْ يَغْلِبُوا فِيهَا شُيُوخَهُمُ الْمُتَقَدِّمِينَ، فَإِذَا كَانُوا لَا يَنْفُونَ
(٥)
رُؤْيَتَهُ فِي الدُّنْيَا
(٦)
إِلَّا بِهَذِهِ الطَّرِيقِ، لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُمْ حُجَّةٌ إِلَّا عَلَى مَنْ يَقُولُ
(٧)
: إِنَّهُ يُرَى وَيُصَافَحُ وَأَمْثَالَ
(١) سَبَقَ أَنْ تَعَرَّضَ ابْنُ تَيْمِيَّةَ بِالتَّفْصِيلِ فِي الْجُزْءِ الْأَوَّلِ مِنْ هَذَا الْكِتَابِ (انْظُرْ ص ١٥٠ وَمَا بَعْدَهَا) لِلْكَلَامِ عَنْ إِمْكَانِ الْقَوْلِ بِحَوَادِثَ لَا أَوَّلَ لَهَا، وَذَكَرَ (ص ١٧٨) أَنَّ الْقَوْلَ بِدَوَامِ الْحَوَادِثِ فِي الْمَاضِي وَالْمُسْتَقْبَلِ هُوَ قَوْلُ أَئِمَّةِ أَهْلِ الْحَدِيثِ وَأَئِمَّةِ الْفَلَاسِفَةِ وَغَيْرِهِمْ. كَمَا تَعَرَّضَ ابْنُ تَيْمِيَّةَ لِهَذِهِ الْمُشْكِلَةِ فِي كِتَابِهِ " دَرْءِ تَعَارُضِ الْعَقْلِ وَالنَّقْلِ " ١/٣٢١ وَمَا بَعْدَهَا، وَذَكَرَ فِيهِ تَنَاقُضَ الرَّازِيِّ فِي هَذِهِ الْمَسْأَلَةِ فِي كُتُبِهِ الْمُخْتَلِفَةِ مِثْلِ " الْأَرْبَعِينَ فِي أُصُولِ الدِّينِ " وَ " الْمَطَالِبِ الْعَالِيَةِ "، وَقَالَ (١/٣٧٩) إِنَّ الْأُرْمَوِيَّ اسْتَفَادَ مُعَارَضَتَهُ لِلرَّازِيِّ مِنْ كَلَامِ الرَّازِيِّ نَفْسِهِ فِي " الْمَطَالِبِ الْعَالِيَةِ ".
(٢) عِبَارَةُ " وَالْآمِدِيُّ طَعَنَ ": سَاقِطَةٌ مِنْ (أ) ، (ب) .
(٣) ذَكَرَ الْأُسْتَاذُ مُحَمَّد خَلِيل هَرَّاس فِي كِتَابِهِ " ابْنُ تَيْمِيَّةَ السَّلَفِيُّ "، ص ١٤١ (ط. طَنْطَا ١٣٧٢/١٩٥٢) أَنَّ الْآمِدِيَّ فِي كِتَابِهِ " أَبْكَارِ الْأَفْكَارِ " ١/٤٧٦، (مَخْطُوطٌ بِدَارِ الْكُتُبِ رَقْمَ ١٩٥٤ كَلَامٌ) : " عَارَضَ الرَّازِيَّ فِيمَا ادَّعَاهُ مِنْ لُزُومِ هَذِهِ الْمَسْأَلَةِ لِجَمِيعِ الطَّوَائِفِ بِأَنَّ الْمُرَادَ بِالْحَادِثِ الَّذِي يَقْصِدُ نَفْيَ قِيَامِهِ بِذَاتِهِ تَعَالَى هُوَ الْمَوْجُودُ بَعْدَ عَدَمٍ، وَأَمَّا مَا لَا يُوصَفُ بِالْوُجُودِ كَالْأَعْدَامِ الْمُتَجَدِّدَةِ وَالْأَحْوَالِ - عِنْدَ الْقَائِلِينَ بِهَا - وَكَذَلِكَ النَّسَبِ وَالْإِضَافَاتِ فَهَذِهِ لَا يَصْدُقُ عَلَيْهَا اسْمُ الْحَادِثِ وَإِنْ صَدَقَ عَلَيْهَا اسْمُ الْمُتَجَدِّدِ. وَحِينَئِذٍ فَلَا يَلْزَمُ مِنْ تَجَدُّدِ الْإِضَافَاتِ وَالْأَحْوَالِ فِي ذَاتِ الْبَارِي أَنْ يَكُونَ مَحَلًّا لِلْحَوَادِثِ ". وَأَشَارَ الْأُسْتَاذُ هَرَّاسٌ إِلَى أَنَّ ابْنَ تَيْمِيَّةَ رَدَّ عَلَى كَلَامِ الْآمِدِيِّ فِي كِتَابِهِ " الْمُوَافَقَةِ " (عَلَى هَامِشِ مِنْهَاجِ السُّنَّةِ ٢/١١٩ - ١٢٢) . انْظُرْ دَرْءَ. . ٢/٢٣٢ - ٢٥١.
(٤) ب، أ: هِيَ.
(٥) ن، م: لَا يَقَدِرُونَ يَنْفُونَ.
(٦) ب، أ: فِي الصِّفَاتِ، وَهُوَ خَطَأٌ.
(٧) ن، م: حُجَّةٌ عَلَى قَوْلِ مَنْ يَقُولُ.