16
None of the sermons authentically transmitted from ‘Alī contains anything from the five principles of the Mu‘tazilah. Rather, whenever any of these principles are attributed to him, it is a fabrication against him. The early Mu‘tazilites did not hold ‘Alī in high esteem; indeed, some of them doubted his probity and said:
“Certainly, one of the two parties (1)—though it cannot be determined which—was guilty of grave sin: either ‘Alī, or Talhah and al-Zubayr. If either one were to testify, I would not accept his testimony.”
They held two views regarding whether ‘Alī’s testimony by itself should be accepted. This is well known of ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd and other Mu‘tazilites like him (2).
All the early Shī‘ah, such as the two Hishāms (3) and others, affirmed the divine attributes and acknowledged divine decree, contrary to the position of the later Shī‘ah. Indeed, they explicitly espoused corporealism, and outrageous doctrines in that regard are reported from them. They claimed to have received these doctrines from the Prophet’s Household (4).
(1) (M) reads: “according to one,” which is a textual corruption.
(2) Ibn Tāhir al-Baghdādī says in *Usūl al-Dīn* (pp. 290–291): “Wāsil ibn Atā, Amr ibn Ubayd, al-Nazzām, and most of the Qadariyya said: ‘We profess loyalty to Alī and his companions when considered separately, and to Talha, al-Zubayr, and their followers when considered separately. If Alī testified together with one of his companions, their testimony would be accepted; and if Talha or al-Zubayr testified together with one of his followers, their testimony would be accepted. But if Alī and Talha testified together concerning even a bunch of greens, we would not render judgment on the basis of their testimony, because one of them is a *fāsiq* (grave sinner), and a *fāsiq* will abide eternally in the Fire and is neither a believer nor an unbeliever.’” See also *Maqālāt al-Islāmiyyīn*, 2:145.
(3) (N), (S), and (B) read: “like the Hāshimites,” which is a textual corruption. What is intended is Hishām ibn al-Hakam and Hishām ibn Sālim al-Jawālīqī.
(4) In *Maqālāt al-Islāmiyyīn*, 1:106–109, al-Asharī discusses the doctrines of the Rāfidah concerning *tajsīm* (corporealism), classifying them into six sects and detailing their views. He then states at 1:109: “They adopted the position of the Mu‘tazilah and the Khawārij concerning *tawhīd* (divine unity). Those who say this are among their later adherents. Their earliest adherents, however, maintained the *tashbīh* (likening Allah to His creation) that we have reported from them.” Al-Asharī subsequently discusses the Rāfidah’s position on human acts at 1:114–115. He states that the first group, the sect of Hishām ibn al-Hakam, held that human acts are voluntary in one respect and involuntary in another. The second group likewise maintained that there is neither *jabr* (compulsion), as held by the Jahmī, nor *tafwīd* (delegation of human acts), as held by the Mu‘tazilah. The third group “maintained that the servants’ acts are not created by Allah. This is the position of people who combine Mu‘tazilism with belief in the Imamate.”
وَلَيْسَ فِي الْخُطَبِ الثَّابِتَةِ عَنْ عَلِيٍّ شَيْءٌ مِنْ أُصُولِ الْمُعْتَزِلَةِ الْخَمْسَةِ، بَلْ كُلُّ ذَلِكَ إِذَا نُقِلَ عَنْهُ فَهُوَ كَذِبٌ عَلَيْهِ. وَقُدَمَاءُ الْمُعْتَزِلَةِ لَمْ يَكُونُوا يُعَظِّمُونَ عَلِيًّا، بَلْ كَانَ فِيهِمْ مَنْ يَشُكُّ فِي عَدَالَتِهِ،
وَيَقُولُ:
قَدْ فَسَقَ عِنْدَ إِحْدَى
(١)
الطَّائِفَتَيْنِ لَا بِعَيْنِهَا: إِمَّا عَلِيٌّ، وَإِمَّا طَلْحَةُ وَالزُّبَيْرُ، فَإِذَا شَهِدَ أَحَدُهُمَا لَمْ أَقْبَلْ شَهَادَتَهُ، وَفِي قَبُولِ شَهَادَةِ عَلِيٍّ مُنْفَرِدَةً قَوْلَانِ لَهُمْ. وَهَذَا مَعْرُوفٌ عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ عُبَيْدٍ وَأَمْثَالِهِ مِنَ الْمُعْتَزِلَةِ
(٢)
.
وَالشِّيعَةُ الْقُدَمَاءُ كُلُّهُمْ كَالْهِشَامَيْنِ
(٣)
وَغَيْرِهِمَا، يُثْبِتُونَ الصِّفَاتِ، وَيُقِرُّونَ بِالْقَدَرِ، عَلَى خِلَافِ قَوْلِ مُتَأَخِّرِي الشِّيعَةِ، بَلْ يُصَرِّحُونَ بِالتَّجْسِيمِ، وَيُحْكَى عَنْهُمْ فِيهِ شَنَاعَاتٌ، وَهُمْ يَدَّعُونَ أَنَّهُمْ أَخَذُوا ذَلِكَ عَنْ أَهْلِ الْبَيْتِ
(٤)
.
(١) م: عِنْدَ أَحَدِ، وَهُوَ تَحْرِيفٌ.
(٢) يَقُولُ ابْنُ طَاهِرٍ الْبَغْدَادِيُّ فِي كِتَابِهِ " أُصُولِ الدِّينِ، (ص ٢٩٠ - ٢٩١) : وَقَالَ وَاصِلُ بْنُ عَطَاءٍ وَعَمْرُو بْنُ عُبَيْدٍ وَالنَّظَّامُ وَأَكْثَرُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ: نَتَوَلَّى عَلِيًّا وَأَصْحَابَهُ عَلَى انْفِرَادِهِمْ، وَنَتَوَلَّى طَلْحَةَ وَالزُّبَيْرَ وَأَتْبَاعَهُمَا عَلَى انْفِرَادِهِمْ، وَلَكِنْ لَوْ شَهِدَ عَلِيٌّ مَعَ رَجُلٍ مِنْ أَصْحَابِهِ قُبِلَتْ شَهَادَتُهُمَا، وَلَوْ شَهِدَ طَلْحَةُ أَوِ الزُّبَيْرُ مَعَ وَاحِدٍ مِنْ أَصْحَابِهِ قُبِلَتْ شَهَادَتُهُمَا، وَلَوْ شَهِدَ عَلِيٌّ مَعَ طَلْحَةَ عَلَى بَاقَةِ بَقْلٍ لَمْ نَحْكُمْ بِشَهَادَتِهِمَا، لِأَنَّ أَحَدَهُمَا فَاسِقٌ، وَالْفَاسِقُ مُخَلَّدٌ فِي النَّارِ وَلَيْسَ بِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلَا كَافِرٍ " وَانْظُرْ: مَقَالَاتِ الْإِسْلَامِيِّينَ ٢/١٤٥.
(٣) ن، س، ب: كَالْهَاشِمِيِّينَ، وَهُوَ تَحْرِيفٌ. وَالْمَقْصُودُ: هِشَامُ بْنُ الْحَكَمِ وَهِشَامُ بْنُ سَالِمٍ الْجَوَالِيقِيُّ.
(٤) ذَكَرَ الْأَشْعَرِيُّ فِي " مَقَالَاتِ الْإِسْلَامِيِّينَ " ١/١٠٦ - ١٠٩ مَقَالَاتِ الرَّوَافِضِ فِي التَّجْسِيمِ وَقَسَّمَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ إِلَى سِتِّ فِرَقٍ وَذَكَرَ تَفْصِيلَ أَقْوَالِهِمْ، ثُمَّ قَالَ ١/١٠٩: " وَقَالُوا فِي التَّوْحِيدِ بِقَوْلِ الْمُعْتَزِلَةِ وَالْخَوَارِجِ، وَهَؤُلَاءِ قَوْمٌ مِنْ مُتَأَخِّرِيهِمْ. فَأَمَّا أَوَائِلُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ كَانُوا يَقُولُونَ مَا حَكَيْنَا عَنْهُمْ مِنَ التَّشْبِيهِ ". وَتَكَلَّمَ الْأَشْعَرِيُّ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ ١/١١٤ - ١١٥ عَلَى قَوْلِ الرَّافِضَةِ فِي أَعْمَالِ الْعِبَادِ فَقَالَ: إِنَّ الْفِرْقَةَ الْأُولَى فِرْقَةُ هِشَامِ بْنِ الْحَكَمِ يَقُولُونَ: إِنَّ أَفْعَالَ الْإِنْسَانِ اخْتِيَارٌ لَهُ مِنْ وَجْهٍ وَاضْطِرَارٌ مِنْ وَجْهٍ. وَكَذَلِكَ الْفِرْقَةُ الثَّانِيَةُ يَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّهُ لَا جَبْرَ، كَمَا قَالَ الْجَهْمِيُّ، وَلَا تَفْوِيضَ كَمَا قَالَتِ الْمُعْتَزِلَةُ. وَأَمَّا الْفِرْقَةُ الثَّالِثَةُ مِنْهُمْ فَهُمْ " يَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّ أَعْمَالَ الْعِبَادِ غَيْرُ مَخْلُوقَةٍ لِلَّهِ. وَهَذَا قَوْلُ قَوْمٍ يَقُولُونَ بِالِاعْتِزَالِ وَالْإِمَامَةِ ".