Minhaj as-Sunnah - Ibn Taimiya - (3/306)

Minhaj as-SunnahIbn Taimiya

For those earlier scholars understood that the necessary concurrence of the two wills would entail the incapacity of each, [just as their mutually thwarting one another would entail the incapacity of each] (1). Some of them therefore refrained from mentioning this formulation (2), because their purpose was to show that (3) positing two lords entails the incapacity of each. If it were said, “Neither can act contrary to the other,” this would demonstrate his incapacity even more clearly.

Others explained this, just as they also established (4) the impossibility of either one acting independently. This may be stated as follows: if two lords are posited, then either each possesses power independently, or neither possesses power except through the other. [If neither possesses power except through the other] (5), this would be intrinsically impossible and would entail circularity among causes and agents. For it would entail that (* each had made the other capable, although neither could act until the other (6) was capable. If each had made the other capable, he would thereby have made him an agent, and it would not be the case that *) (7) each had made the other a Lord (8), since a Lord must necessarily possess power (9). Thus, the one would have made the other capable, an agent, and a Lord, and vice versa.

(1) The passage enclosed in square brackets is absent from manuscripts (N) and (M). (2) Manuscripts (A), (B), (N), and (M): “the supposition.” (3) Manuscripts (N) and (M): “because his purpose was that it was.” (4) Manuscripts (N) and (M): “that and established.” (5) The passage enclosed in square brackets is absent from manuscript (N) alone. (6) The words “the other” are an addition in manuscript (ʿAyn). (7) The passage between the asterisks is absent from manuscripts (A) and (B). (8) Manuscript (ʿAyn): “and one of the two would have made the other a Lord”; this is a textual corruption. (9) Manuscript (B) alone: “capable, a Lord.”

فَإِنَّ هَؤُلَاءِ عَلِمُوا أَنَّ وُجُوبَ اتِّفَاقِهِمَا فِي الْإِرَادَةِ يَسْتَلْزِمُ عَجْزَ كُلٍّ مِنْهُمَا، [كَمَا أَنَّ تَمَانُعَهُمَا يَسْتَلْزِمُ عَجْزَ كُلٍّ مِنْهُمَا] ، (١) فَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ أَعْرَضَ عَنْ ذِكْرِ هَذَا التَّقْرِيرِ (٢) ; لِأَنَّ مَقْصُودَهُ أَنْ يُبَيِّنَ أَنَّ (٣) فَرْضَ اثْنَيْنِ يَقْتَضِي عَجْزَ كُلٍّ مِنْهُمَا. فَإِذَا قِيلَ: إِنَّ أَحَدَهُمَا لَا يُمْكِنُهُ مُخَالَفَةُ الْآخَرِ، كَانَ ذَلِكَ أَظْهَرَ فِي عَجْزِهِ. وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ بَيَّنَ ذَلِكَ، كَمَا بَيَّنُوا (٤) أَيْضًا امْتِنَاعَ اسْتِقْلَالِ كُلٍّ مِنْهُمَا، وَذَلِكَ أَنَّهُ يُقَالُ: إِذَا فُرِضَ رَبَّانِ فَإِمَّا أَنْ يَكُونَ كُلٌّ مِنْهُمَا قَادِرًا بِنَفْسِهِ أَوْ لَا يَكُونَ قَادِرًا إِلَّا بِالْآخَرِ. [فَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ قَادِرًا إِلَّا بِالْآخَرِ] (٥) ، كَانَ هَذَا مُمْتَنِعًا لِذَاتِهِ مُقْتَضِيًا لِلدَّوْرِ فِي الْعِلَلِ وَالْفَاعِلِينَ، فَإِنَّهُ يَسْتَلْزِمُ أَنْ يَكُونَ (* كُلٌّ مِنْهُمَا جَعَلَ الْآخَرَ قَادِرًا، وَلَا يَكُونُ أَحَدُهُمَا فَاعِلًا حَتَّى يَكُونَ الْآخَرُ (٦) قَادِرًا، فَإِذَا كَانَ كُلٌّ مِنْهُمَا جَعَلَ الْآخَرَ قَادِرًا فَقَدْ جَعَلَهُ فَاعِلًا، وَلَا يَكُونُ *) (٧) كُلٌّ مِنْهُمَا جَعَلَ الْآخَرَ رَبًّا (٨) ; لِأَنَّ الرَّبَّ لَا بُدَّ أَنْ يَكُونَ قَادِرًا (٩) ، فَيَكُونُ هَذَا جَعَلَ هَذَا قَادِرًا فَاعِلًا رَبًّا وَكَذَلِكَ الْآخَرُ.

(١) مَا بَيْنَ الْمَعْقُوفَتَيْنِ سَاقِطٌ مِنْ (ن) ، (م) . (٢) أ، ب، ن، م: التَّقْدِيرِ. (٣) ن، م: لِأَنَّ مَقْصُودَهُ كَانَ أَنَّهُ كَانَ. (٤) ن، م: ذَلِكَ فَأَثْبَتُوا. (٥) مَا بَيْنَ الْمَعْقُوفَتَيْنِ سَاقِطٌ مِنْ (ن) فَقَطْ. (٦) الْآخَرُ: زِيَادَةٌ فِي (ع) . (٧) مَا بَيْنَ النَّجْمَتَيْنِ سَاقِطٌ مِنْ (أ) ، (ب) . (٨) ع: وَيَكُونُ مِنْهُمَا جَعَلَ الْآخَرَ رَبًّا، وَهُوَ تَحْرِيفٌ. (٩) ب فَقَطْ: قَادِرًا رَبًّا.