Minhaj as-Sunnah - Ibn Taimiya - (2/377)

Minhaj as-SunnahIbn Taimiya

And it was said:

“A speaker is one who speaks through his own act, will, and power, and in whom [speech] subsists (1).”

This is the view of most of the people of hadith, as well as groups among the Shi'a, the Murji'a, the Karrāmiyya, and others.

The first group says: “It is an attribute of an act separate from the one characterized, not an essential attribute.” The second group says: “It is an essential attribute inherent in the one characterized, unrelated to His will or power.” The others say that it is both an essential attribute and an attribute of action; it subsists in Him and is connected (2) to His will and power.

If (3) that is so, then as for their assertion (4) that it is an attribute of action, one group disputes them (5) over it. Even if they are not challenged on this point, it may be said: Grant that it is an attribute of action, either separate from the speaking agent or subsisting in Him (6). The former is your false position. How could an attribute be something other than Him while subsisting in the one characterized, or speech fail to subsist in the speaker?

[For someone to say, “Attributes are divided into essential attributes and attributes of action,” while explaining an attribute of action as something separate from the Lord, is self-contradictory. How can it be an attribute of the Lord when it does not subsist in Him in any respect, but is instead something created and separate from Him?

Although the Ash'aris said this in imitation of the Mu'tazila, it is erroneous in itself, for affirming attributes of the Lord while maintaining that they are separate from Him combines two contradictory things

(1) (ب) and (ا) read: “and speech thus subsisted in him.” The word “speech” is omitted from (ن) and (م). (2) (ب), (ا), (ن), and (م) read: “is connected.” (3) (ب) and (ا) read: “If.” (4) Only (ب) reads: “then your assertion.” (5) (ب), (ا), (ن), and (م) read: “disputes you.” (6) (ب) and (ا) read: “Grant that it is an attribute of action—but is it an attribute of an act separate from the speaker-agent, or one subsisting in him?” (م) uses the feminine forms of “separate” and “subsisting” and omits “speaker.”

وَقِيلَ: الْمُتَكَلِّمُ مَنْ تَكَلَّمَ بِفِعْلِهِ وَمَشِيئَتِهِ وَقُدْرَتِهِ وَقَامَ بِهِ [الْكَلَامُ] (١) ، وَهَذَا قَوْلُ أَكْثَرِ أَهْلِ الْحَدِيثِ وَطَوَائِفَ مِنَ الشِّيعَةِ وَالْمُرْجِئَةِ وَالْكَرَّامِيَّةِ وَغَيْرِهِمْ. فَأُولَئِكَ يَقُولُونَ: هُوَ صِفَةُ فِعْلٍ مُنْفَصِلٍ عَنِ الْمَوْصُوفِ لَا صِفَةُ ذَاتٍ. وَالصِّنْفُ الثَّانِي يَقُولُونَ: صِفَةُ ذَاتٍ لَازِمَةٌ لِلْمَوْصُوفِ لَا تَتَعَلَّقُ بِمَشِيئَتِهِ وَلَا قُدْرَتِهِ. وَالْآخَرُونَ يَقُولُونَ هُوَ صِفَةُ ذَاتٍ وَصْفَةُ فِعْلٍ، وَهُوَ قَائِمٌ بِهِ مُتَعَلِّقٌ (٢) بِمَشِيئَتِهِ وَقُدْرَتِهِ. وَإِذَا (٣) كَانَ كَذَلِكَ فَقَوْلُهُمْ (٤) : إِنَّهُ صِفَةُ فِعْلٍ يُنَازِعُهُمْ (٥) فِيهِ طَائِفَةٌ وَإِذَا لَمْ يُنَازِعُوا فِي هَذَا، فَيُقَالُ: هَبْ أَنَّهُ صِفَةُ فِعْلٍ مُنْفَصِلَةٌ عَنِ الْقَائِلِ الْفَاعِلِ، أَوْ قَائِمَةٌ بِهِ (٦) . أَمَّا الْأَوَّلُ فَهُوَ قَوْلُكُمُ الْفَاسِدُ، وَكَيْفَ تَكُونُ الصِّفَةُ غَيْرَهُ قَائِمَةً بِالْمَوْصُوفِ، أَوِ الْقَوْلُ غَيْرَ قَائِمٍ بِالْقَائِلِ. [وَقَوْلُ الْقَائِلِ: الصِّفَاتُ تَنْقَسِمُ إِلَى صِفَةِ ذَاتٍ وَصْفَةِ فِعْلٍ - وَيُفَسِّرُ صِفَةَ الْفِعْلِ بِمَا هُوَ بَائِنٌ عَنِ الرَّبِّ كَلَامٌ مُتَنَاقِضٌ كَيْفَ يَكُونُ صِفَةً لِلرَّبِّ وَهُوَ لَا يَقُومُ بِهِ بِحَالٍ، بَلْ هُوَ مَخْلُوقٌ بَائِنٌ عَنْهُ؟ وَهَذَا وَإِنْ كَانَتِ الْأَشْعَرِيَّةُ قَالَتْهُ تَبَعًا لِلْمُعْتَزِلَةِ فَهُوَ خَطَأٌ فِي نَفْسِهِ، فَإِنَّ إِثْبَاتَ صِفَاتِ الرَّبِّ وَهِيَ مَعَ ذَلِكَ مُبَايِنَةٌ لَهُ جَمْعٌ بَيْنَ الْمُتَنَاقِضَيْنِ

(١) ب، ا: فَقَامَ بِهِ الْكَلَامُ وَسَقَطَتْ كَلِمَةُ " الْكَلَامِ " مِنْ (ن) ، (م) . (٢) ب، ا، ن، م: يَتَعَلَّقُ. (٣) ب، ا: إِذَا. (٤) ب، (فَقَطْ) : فَقَوْلُكُمْ. (٥) ب، ا، ن، م: يُنَازِعُكُمْ. (٦) ب، ا: هَبْ أَنَّهُ صِفَةُ فِعْلٍ لَكِنْ صِفَةُ فِعْلٍ مُنْفَصِلٍ (م: مُنْفَصِلَةٌ) عَنِ الْقَائِلِ (سَاقِطَةٌ مِنَ (م) الْفَاعِلِ أَوْ قَائِمٌ (م: قَائِمَةٌ) بِهِ.