Minhaj as-Sunnah - Ibn Taimiya - (2/353)

Minhaj as-SunnahIbn Taimiya

And Abū Ishāq al-Isfarāyīnī (1) said:

“It is that which is commensurate with a given place and occupies a spatial location. To occupy a spatial location means that, if it is present in a void, it causes that void to cease being a void.”

Some of them said:

“A spatial location is the notional extent of a substance’s place.”

Abū al-Maʿālī al-Juwaynī—known as Imām al-Haramayn—said:

“A spatial location is none other than the entity occupying it; ascribing spatial location to a substance is like ascribing existence to it” (2).

He said:

“If it is objected, ‘Why, then, do you not say that an entity’s occupation of spatial location is due to an attribute, just as its being in a particular spatial state is due to an attribute?’

“We reply: ‘Its occupation of spatial location is identical with its essence—or is an essential attribute, according to those who affirm states. Its being an entity that occupies spatial location derives from its essence, as does its being a body. This does not vary, even though its spatial states vary through its accidents. If its occupation of spatial location were a property grounded in a cause, it would necessarily be subject to variation whenever its spatial states varied. Since its being a body does not vary, this shows that it is not a consequence of spatial states or of being assigned to particular directions. Whatever follows from spatial states is subject to variation.’”

(1) Abū Ishāq ibn Muhammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Mihrān al-Isfarāyīnī. His biography was given above, 2:296. See also *Tabyīn Kadhib al-Muftarī*, pp. 243–244. (2) Al-Juwaynī states (*al-Shāmil*, p. [?]56, ed. Faysal Budayr ʿAwn and Suhayr Muhammad Mukhtār, al-Maʿārif Press, Alexandria, 1969): “The best account of spatial location is that it is the entity occupying spatial location itself. The meaning of ‘an entity occupying spatial location’ has already been explained. There is nothing implausible about ascribing spatial location to a substance, just as there is nothing implausible about ascribing existence to it.”

وَقَالَ أَبُو إِسْحَاقَ الْإِسْفِرَايِينِيُّ (١) : " مَا هُوَ فِي تَقْدِيرِ مَكَانٍ مَا وَمَا يَشْغَلُ الْحَيِّزَ، وَمَعْنَى شَغْلِ الْحَيِّزِ أَنَّهُ إِذَا وُجِدَ فِي فَرَاغٍ أَخْرَجَهُ عَنْ أَنْ يَكُونَ فَرَاغًا " . وَقَالَ بَعْضُهُمْ: " الْحَيِّزُ تَقْدِيرُ مَكَانِ الْجَوْهَرِ " . وَقَالَ أَبُو الْمَعَالِي الْجُوَيْنِيُّ - الْمُلَقَّبُ بِإِمَامِ الْحَرَمَيْنِ -: " الْحَيِّزُ هُوَ الْمُتَحَيِّزُ نَفْسُهُ، ثُمَّ إِضَافَةُ الْحَيِّزِ إِلَى الْجَوْهَرِ كَإِضَافَةِ الْوُجُودِ إِلَيْهِ " (٢) . قَالَ: " فَإِنْ قِيلَ: فَهَلَّا قُلْتُمْ: إِنَّ الْمُتَحَيِّزَ مُتَحَيِّزٌ بِمَعْنًى، كَمَا أَنَّ الْكَائِنَ كَائِنٌ بِمَعْنًى. قُلْنَا: تَحَيُّزُهُ نَفْسُهُ أَوْ صِفَةُ نَفْسِهِ - عِنْدَ مَنْ يَقُولُ بِالْأَحْوَالِ - وَكَوْنُهُ مُتَحَيِّزًا رَاجِعٌ إِلَى نَفْسِهِ، وَكَذَلِكَ كَوْنُهُ جِرْمًا، وَذَلِكَ لَا يَخْتَلِفُ وَإِنِ اخْتَلَفَتْ أَكْوَانُهُ بِأَعْرَاضِهِ، وَلَوْ كَانَ تَحَيُّزُهُ حُكْمًا مُعَلَّلًا لَوَجَبَ أَنْ يَثْبُتَ لَهُ حُكْمُ الِاخْتِلَافِ عِنْدَ اخْتِلَافِ الْأَكْوَانِ، فَلَمَّا لَمْ يَخْتَلِفْ كَوْنُهُ جِرْمًا دَلَّ عَلَى أَنَّهُ لَيْسَ مِنْ مُوجِبَاتِ الْأَكْوَانِ وَالِاخْتِصَاصِ بِالْجِهَاتِ، فَمَا كَانَ بِمُقْتَضَى الْأَكْوَانِ كَانَ فِي حُكْمِ الِاخْتِلَافِ " .

(١) أَبُو إِسْحَاقَ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنِ مِهْرَانَ الْإِسْفِرَايِينِيُّ، سَبَقَتْ تَرْجَمَتُهُ ٢/٢٩٦ وَانْظُرْ عَنْهُ أَيْضًا: تَبْيِينَ كَذِبِ الْمُفْتَرِي، ص [٠ - ٩] ٤٣ - ٢٤٤. (٢) يَقُولُ الْجُوَيْنِيُّ (الشَّامِلِ، ص [٠ - ٩] ٥٦، تَحْقِيقُ د. فَيْصَل بُدَيْر عَوْن، د. سُهَيْر مُحَمَّد مُخْتَار، ط. الْمَعَارِفِ، الْإِسْكَنْدَرِيَّةِ، ١٩٦٩) : " وَأَحْسَنُ مَا يُقَالُ فِي الْحَيِّزِ أَنَّهُ الْمُتَحَيِّزُ بِنَفْسِهِ، وَقَدْ سَبَقَ مَعْنَى الْمُتَحَيِّزِ، ثُمَّ لَا تَبْعُدُ إِضَافَةُ الْحَيِّزِ إِلَى الْجَوْهَرِ، كَمَا لَا تَبْعُدُ إِضَافَةُ الْوُجُودِ إِلَيْهِ ".