Minhaj as-Sunnah - Ibn Taimiya - (3/177)

Minhaj as-SunnahIbn Taimiya

The precise details of Allah’s wisdom in His creation and command lie beyond the capacity of human minds to comprehend. The Qadariyya sought to explain divine acts in terms of purposes, but did so by a corrupt method in which they likened Allah to His creation. They did not affirm (1) any wisdom accruing to Him, thereby stripping Him of His power and wisdom (2), His love, and other attributes of His perfection. Their opponents [the compulsionist Jahmiyya] (3) countered them by denying that purposes exist in reality at all.

They likewise disputed moral goodness and evil. The former affirmed them by a method that equated Allah with His creation (4), and posited a goodness and evil that entail nothing loved or hated. Such a thing has no reality, just as they affirmed an explanation in terms of purpose whose consequence does not accrue to the agent.

Their opponents, in turn, treated [all] (5) acts as equal and affirmed nothing that Allah loves or hates. They claimed that if goodness were an intrinsic attribute of an act, its status could not vary. They erred, for an intrinsic attribute of a subject may mean one that is inseparable from it (6). The logicians divide an inseparable attribute into essential and accidental, although this division is erroneous. An intrinsic attribute may also mean a positive attribute subsisting in the subject, as distinguished from relative and relational properties.

Along the same lines, they became confused about the rulings of the Sacred Law, for it was claimed (7) by those who deny goodness

(1) (ʿ) reads: “and they did not explain.” (2) (N) alone reads: “Thus they stripped Him of His wisdom, His power, and His wisdom.” (3) The text within square brackets is omitted from (N) and (M). (4) (N) reads: “and between His creation.” (5) “All” is omitted from (N) and (M). (6) (A) and (B) read: “that which is inseparable from it.” (7) “And they claimed”; (B) reads: “and he claimed”; (M) reads: “and he mistakenly thought,” which is a corruption.

وَتَفْصِيلُ حِكْمَةِ اللَّهِ فِي خَلْقِهِ وَأَمْرِهِ يَعْجَزُ عَنْ مَعْرِفَتِهَا عُقُولُ الْبَشَرِ. وَالْقَدَرِيَّةُ دَخَلُوا فِي التَّعْلِيلِ عَلَى طَرِيقَةٍ فَاسِدَةٍ مَثَّلُوا اللَّهَ فِيهَا بِخَلْقِهِ، وَلَمْ يُثْبِتُوا (١) حِكْمَةً تَعُودُ إِلَيْهِ فَسَلَبُوهُ قُدْرَتَهُ وَحِكْمَتَهُ (٢) وَمَحَبَّتَهُ وَغَيْرَ ذَلِكَ مِنْ صِفَاتِ كَمَالِهِ، فَقَابَلَهُمْ خُصُومُهُمْ [الْجَهْمِيَّةُ الْمُجْبِرَةُ] (٣) بِبُطْلَانِ التَّعْلِيلِ فِي نَفْسِ الْأَمْرِ. كَمَا تَنَازَعُوا فِي مَسْأَلَةِ الْحُسْنِ وَالْقُبْحِ، فَأُولَئِكَ أَثْبَتُوهُ عَلَى طَرِيقَةٍ سَوَّوْا فِيهَا بَيْنَ اللَّهِ وَخَلْقِهِ (٤) ، وَأَثْبَتُوا حُسْنًا وَقُبْحًا لَا يَتَضَمَّنُ مَحْبُوبًا وَلَا مَكْرُوهًا، وَهَذَا لَا حَقِيقَةَ لَهُ، كَمَا أَثْبَتُوا تَعْلِيلًا لَا يَعُودُ إِلَى الْفَاعِلِ حُكْمُهُ. وَخُصُومُهُمْ سَوَّوْا بَيْنَ [جَمِيعِ] (٥) الْأَفْعَالِ، وَلَمْ يُثْبِتُوا لِلَّهِ مَحْبُوبًا وَلَا مَكْرُوهًا، وَزَعَمُوا أَنَّ الْحُسْنَ لَوْ كَانَ صِفَةً ذَاتِيَّةً لِلْفِعْلِ لَمْ يَخْتَلِفْ حَالُهُ. وَغَلِطُوا، فَإِنَّ الصِّفَةَ الذَّاتِيَّةَ لِلْمَوْصُوفِ قَدْ يُرَادُ بِهَا اللَّازِمَةُ لَهُ (٦) وَالْمَنْطِقِيُّونَ يُقَسِّمُونَ اللَّازِمَ إِلَى ذَاتِيٍّ وَعَرَضِيٍّ، وَإِنْ كَانَ هَذَا التَّقْسِيمُ خَطَأً. وَقَدْ يُرَادُ بِالصِّفَةِ الذَّاتِيَّةِ مَا تَكُونُ ثُبُوتِيَّةً قَائِمَةً بِالْمَوْصُوفِ، احْتِرَازًا عَنِ الْأُمُورِ النِّسْبِيَّةِ الْإِضَافِيَّةِ. وَمِنْ هَذَا الْبَابِ اضْطَرَبُوا فِي الْأَحْكَامِ الشَّرْعِيَّةِ، فَزَعَمَ (٧) نُفَاةُ الْحُسْنِ

(١) ع: وَلَمْ يُبَيِّنُوا. (٢) ن فَقَطْ: فَسَلَبُوهُ حِكْمَتَهُ وَقُدْرَتَهُ وَحِكْمَتَهُ. (٣) مَا بَيْنَ الْمَعْقُوفَتَيْنِ سَاقِطٌ مِنْ (ن) ، (م) . (٤) ن: وَبَيْنَ خَلْقِهِ. (٥) جَمِيعِ سَاقِطَةٌ مِنْ (ن) ، (م) . (٦) أ، ب: اللَّازِمُ لَهُ. (٧) وَزَعَمُوا، ب: وَزَعَمَ، م: فَوَهِمَ، وَهُوَ تَحْرِيفٌ.