Minhaj as-Sunnah - Ibn Taimiya - (2/354)

Minhaj as-SunnahIbn Taimiya

He said:

“If it is objected, ‘A substance is no more devoid of spatial states than it is devoid of the attribute of occupying spatial location,’

“We reply: ‘We have already made clear that its occupation of spatial location is an essential attribute. An essential attribute is inseparable from the essence, and the essence cannot be conceived without it. A substance’s being spatially located is akin to its being an entity or a thing. Occupation of spatial location is one and the same condition that must remain concomitant for as long as the essence endures, whereas “spatial state” is a term applied to distinct genera’” (1).

He then expounded upon this at length.

This shows that, according to them, occupation of spatial location is not something over and above the entity occupying it, much less a positive attribute. If, by calling it positive, he means that it is a relation to the spatial location, then according to most of them relations are non-existent in themselves even when they obtain between two existent things—so how much more so when they obtain between an existent and a nonexistent!

As for his statement:

“If the spatial location is nonexistent, how can a substance conceivably be situated in something nonexistent?”

The reply is: By saying that it is in something nonexistent, they meant only that it exists by itself, without any other existent thing surrounding it. They did not mean that it is nonexistent while also being existent.

Furthermore, if someone does not know what they mean—whether, according to them, a spatial location is existent or nonexistent—how can he report that they agreed that everything other than Allah either occupies spatial location or subsists in something that does, when he knows and himself reports that they agreed that everything other than Allah is originated? Given this, it is impossible for everything other than Him to fall into only those two classes—either occupying spatial location or inhering in something that does—if this spatially located entity itself occupies an existent spatial location other than Allah, and that location is originated. This is a manifest contradiction, for it entails that there are three existent and originated things:

(1) Most of this passage appears in substance, though not verbatim, in *al-Shāmil*, p. 57.

قَالَ: " فَإِنْ قِيلَ: الْجَوْهَرُ لَا يَخْلُو عَنِ الْأَكْوَانِ كَمَا لَا يَخْلُو عَنْ وَصْفِ التَّحَيُّزِ. قُلْنَا: قَدْ أَوْضَحْنَا أَنَّ تَحَيُّزَهُ صِفَةُ نَفْسِهِ، فَنَقُولُ: صِفَةُ النَّفْسِ تُلَازِمُ لِلنَّفْسِ وَلَا تُعْقَلُ النَّفْسُ دُونَهَا، وَكَوْنُ الْجَوْهَرِ مُتَحَيِّزًا بِمَثَابَةِ كَوْنِهِ ذَاتًا أَوْ شَيْئًا. وَالتَّحَيُّزُ قَضِيَّةٌ وَاحِدَةٌ يَجِبُ لُزُومُهَا مَا بَقِيَتِ النَّفْسُ، وَالْكَوْنُ اسْمٌ يَقَعُ عَلَى أَجْنَاسٍ مُخْتَلِفَةٍ " (١) . ثُمَّ بَسَطَ الْكَلَامَ فِي ذَلِكَ. وَهَذَا يُبَيِّنُ أَنَّ التَّحَيُّزَ عِنْدَهُمْ لَيْسَ قَدْرًا زَائِدًا عَلَى الْمُتَحَيِّزِ، فَضْلًا عَنْ كَوْنِهِ وَصْفًا ثُبُوتِيًّا. وَإِنْ أَرَادَ بِكَوْنِهِ ثُبُوتِيًّا أَنَّهُ أَمْرٌ إِضَافِيٌّ إِلَى الْحَيِّزِ فَالْأُمُورُ الْإِضَافِيَّةُ عِنْدَ أَكْثَرِهِمْ عَدَمِيَّةٌ إِذَا كَانَتْ بَيْنَ مَوْجُودَيْنِ، فَكَيْفَ إِذَا كَانَتْ بَيْنَ مَوْجُودٍ وَمَعْدُومٍ! ؟ وَقَوْلُهُ: " إِنَّ الْحَيِّزَ إِذَا كَانَ مَعْدُومًا، فَكَيْفَ يُعْقَلُ حُصُولُ الْجَوْهَرِ فِي الْمَعْدُومِ؟ " . فَيُقَالُ: لَهُ: إِنَّهُمْ لَمْ يُرِيدُوا بِكَوْنِهِ فِي الْمَعْدُومِ إِلَّا وَجُودَهُ وَحْدَهُ مِنْ غَيْرِ وُجُودِ آخَرَ يُحِيطُ بِهِ، لَمْ يُرِيدُوا أَنَّهُ يَكُونُ مَعْدُومًا مَعَ كَوْنِهِ مَوْجُودًا. وَأَيْضًا، فَمَنْ لَمْ يَعْرِفْ مُرَادَهُمْ: هَلِ الْحَيِّزُ عِنْدَهُمْ وُجُودٌ أَوْ عَدَمٌ، كَيْفَ يُحْكَى عَنْهُمْ أَنَّهُمُ اتَّفَقُوا عَلَى أَنَّ كُلَّ مَا سِوَى اللَّهِ مُتَحَيِّزٌ أَوْ قَائِمٌ بِالْمُتَحَيِّزِ، مَعَ عِلْمِهِ وَحِكَايَتِهِ عَنْهُمْ أَنَّهُمُ اتَّفَقُوا عَلَى أَنَّ كُلَّ مَا سِوَى اللَّهِ مُحْدَثٌ، فَيَمْتَنِعُ مَعَ هَذَا أَنْ يَكُونَ مَا سِوَاهُ إِمَّا مُتَحَيِّزًا أَوْ حَالًّا فِي الْمُتَحَيِّزِ، مَعَ أَنَّ الْمُتَحَيِّزَ هَذَا فِي حَيِّزٍ وُجُودِيٍّ سِوَى اللَّهِ، وَهُوَ مُحْدَثٌ، فَإِنَّ هَذَا تَنَاقُضٌ ظَاهِرٌ لِأَنَّهُ يَسْتَلْزِمُ أَنْ يَكُونَ هُنَا ثَلَاثَةٌ مَوْجُودَةٌ مُحْدَثَةٌ:

(١) أَكْثَرُ هَذَا الْكَلَامِ مَوْجُودٌ بِمَعْنَاهُ وَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ بِلَفْظِهِ فِي " الشَّامِلِ " ص [٠ - ٩] ٥٧.