Skip to main content

Full text of "Nature, Man and God in Medieval Islam Abd Allah Baydawi's Text, Tawali Al-Anwar Min Matali Al-Anzar, Along With Mahmud Isfahani's Commentary, Matali Al-Anzar"

See other formats


Tawali * al-A n war min Matali ' al-Angar 


MAHMUD ISKAHANPs commentary 

Matali l al-Anzar f Sharh Tawali f ai-Anwar 








TtiLs bouk ]s prmtrd on arid-fr« paper 

IJbrnry mf C«ragre*# CataLjDgpnsr-iii-Publicn-tioii Da.ta 

Bavdawi. £ Abd Allah ibn TJmar, d. L28G? 


|Taw.ili" al-anwar min maiali' al-anzai. Lnglj.shj 

Naritm, nian and CSud in imdieval Islam : c Abd AILali HayriamH^ [£xr^ Tawali. 1 

al-anwar rnin macaJi' al-anzar, alon^ with Mahmud Istahacii^s commcntLiiy; 

MaiaJi' atanr-ar, sharki Tawali* at-arw&r / ediittl and iranslated by Kdwi» t- 

Calver]ey ? acid Jamcs W r . FoJ]ock_ 

p. tm, — (Wam k ph i losopliy, ihrolo^y s nd science» ISSN 1 6W-B729 ; 

VL 45) 

Inctudcs bibliDgraphical rdeinences and i-idtt_. 

JSBN 900412 IW2J (set i alk. papcr) 

]. iKbun— Dtjctiinca. 2. -Ph-Josophp, Islaniir. J. iKrahauJ, M.Lhmud ibu 'Abd' 

«tl-Rabciian, 1275 or6-l348 iir 9, Maiuli* a]-anz«. Ktiglisln II. Cwhicrlcy, Edwin 

ELLiott- ia«2-L97L III. Pollockjamtt W (|amcs W_b™}, 1*22* IV Titl* 

297.2 ifc-2l 


Die Deutsebc Bihliothck - t IP-EioheitsauAiahiiic 

Nftture, mws and God hi m? di?val hjam / <d- -and trans)- by Ettwjn F. 

Cahm lcy andjarnrs W ft»]lu:k. - .Leidtn ; Boslon ; Koln r Bnll. 200 1 

(litimir phiosi)(t]ay, i]u:ulofy aind sdtnct ; VtiL 451 

[3SN 03 69-S729 

ISBN 90 04 12331 +(vol. 1) 
ISBN 90 04 I U3»2 2 (vnL 2) 
JSBN 90 04 12102 ] (set) 

Ail rights rerCTMsf. Mapart qf this pub&aikui maf b* mpmiwed, trm^lakdt. stnmi m 

# nrtranna/ jjLTtam, _w Iransmitted in suyjhrm $r hy arty jtraoju, eieclronkj 

7ntthamctii ¥ phvtorvt?jfflg* mtmting ot othtrmt^ uitfmtfprm U7tffr/j 

prrmissimjimi t&t ptihtkhw. 

Authm&tiwt tftph&i&ii$j itmsjoi intnTitd trr prtstmi 

use isgrmted bj Iktil prtmded that 

thr &pp#pm#jfa& mt paid dimtl}- & Th* G#pigk 

Ciearance Gmttr, 222 RtiuuwdBrwi, Skil*Ql& 

DtmmMA. 01923, USA. 

/wj £f? subjett to thajige. 



j 11 . TuJ il.J V¥ I L^.l^S^ I J Jl - L ■ %- T iiiriiHiririiiir?riiririiriniirBiririTiiiii B i B iriri! B i"iriirinri «-^ 

Translators* Introduction 


altiiors' introt>uctio.\ 

14 ■ 


Chaptcr I: Principlcs of cpisicmology ».*„..*„„. 

1. "l'hc iwo phases. of knowing: an alteniation 

beiwccn a. atid b. ,,._._. ...... .. 

a. Concepi tbnmtion rcgarriing whai is being 

perceived , . 

b. Judgmrntal as&cnt or disscnt to fcaturcs of the 
conccpt hcing fnrjncd ■- 

r . *............ ....... ----- ....... ...... 

c. Each phasc eitlicr by iiiiuition or by ratiorud 

accpiisition ol~ knowlcdge . 

. I . I i.J LJ I IJ kl I J Ll J LJ ftlil I IJ II LIILJ I J L 

■?- CLa&scs of dc&iitions 

i m i 



liaydawi^ reply to Ra?,i 

■ ■ ■ 


3. Realnies ddinablt and <]cftnitiv<: 


A note iin the translation, its edition and revision .„,„„ xvii 

A note on *Abd Allah Baydawi [d. I3J6?] ,. xxvj 

A tioie nn Mahmud lsiahani (I276-I34SJJ ..„..**. ...„.,.„.. xxxviii 

Kbreword lo thc Commcntary by Mahmud Isiaiiani ........ % 

Koreword to thc Suhjcct. Tcxt hy *Atxi AlLah Baydawi .... 9 

L.t';iliaiii's Commentary to Baydawrs Tcxt begins „,,,„,.„.„ 10 






2. Lojncal rcasoning. che mcans of such acquisition .......... 42 

Chaptcr 2- Explajiatory* T ., r 48 

L Conditions ihat govern a dehnition , „.,...,„„ 48 



VI COPmiNTS of volmmk ONIl 

Chaptcr 3: Argun^ritation ...^,..,..^.^^....^,.^., ...... ...*., «... tt2 

I , KindK of argiimentatioi 1 - „.„ , , - .. 

Analugical dedijctjon 



Tnvt\s1 iyati v« i [iduClion 82 

Tllustraliw ^nalogioal deduirricm ...,. H ».*....i M „.r.. „„„...*„„„. 82 

2. Analogical dcduction in thc syllogism and ita typcs .......... 88 

The hypothctical cxccptrvc syllogism .,.«„.„„« .„*„. »»...... 94 

The caiegorirajl connrrtn-e syNogism anrl rhi 

four fiimrc5 



KigLires 1, 2, 3„ 4; Summary 1 of ngurcs and moods 100 

3, The premised materials of argumeiuation ,,„..,„,„ \25 

Arguincntation struclured oi] taiioiialily proof, 

rheiorie, fallacy .., , , ..».„.. 123 

Argumcnlation structured on atithoritaiiivc tradition IS3 

Chaptcr 4r The disiinguishittg: properties of sound 

myi 1 1— ul J t. CjLiT 1 L-r I L I L J L. i ii iii riiu ■iiikiLiJiiiiiiJ.iJiiiiii.iiiiiiiii iiij i i i i iNiiiiiiiiiimiaii X i-r ■ 

1. Sound logical reasoning yiclds krmwledge *„,** 137 

Objcctions of the Buddhists «...r .................. 1 3-9 

Objcctions of thc gconictricians ., ,„..„,.„ 



(JoroHarics to thc yield of knowlcdgc ....„„„,. J5I 

2; Sound logical rcasoning is snfficicnc for knowlcdgc 

of God t 

3r Somid logicaJ reasoining is obligatory for knowledgc 
of God .........r.r. 


i « i ■ i r ■ 




itotion 1: Uniumals 

Chapler 1: Classihcalion of things known ....,„„. ., 171 

1. Auurding lo ihe Asha 4 irah aiid the Mu^tatilah ,.,„„„„.„„ 171 

2- According to the Hiilosophcrs and thc Mulakallnmm , 176 

Chapter 2: Exisience and nonexis<en<:e ,— .- 180 

1. Thc cunccptioii of existencc is intuirive , , „,. 180 

2, Existcnce is a cornmonaliiy among aJJ existents ,.. 187 


A proof from negatioTi , 

3. is an addition to the quidditics 191 


■ ■■■■■■ 

SpeciaL casc of ihc ncccsaary cxistcnt ._...,......, 198 

Thc philosophcrs* variant argument -.,.-.. 

A trorolIarv ............. 21 ] 

4. Thc Jioncxi5tent is not a ccitaitity cxtcmaily „„„,„ 213 

Argument of the Mu ( tazilah 011 the non-ejustent ,.,.,„„„,„ 217 

5, The aUribule-stule is io bc cx.clu.ded „ 22] 

Chapter %: Qmddity 

I, On the quiddity itself 

r-i + S 


2. Classes of quiddity ..................... 234 

Corollary regarding tlw aimplc quiddi(y .. ,.,.,..,*...„„„,. 239 

Coroliary rtgarding tlie coitip<j>>ile quiddity wilh 
dislinguishable paris 21) 

Corollary rcgarding thc compasitc quiddity with 

intcrpeiictralinc; parts 

3. IncLividuation „„„,„„..„ 

"-- T-5T ■ ■- J -- L- I -- 




Whcther iiidividuation h exis(entia) 247 

Thc philosophcrs' corollary .,.„ r 250 

Chapter 4: Necessity and pussibility, etcmity and 


I ■ I ■ ■ II IIJfcil 11.11 I Mhlh.ll .1 i II.I.IIIIIIIIJ 


l. Thcsc subjccts arc intcllcctual cnritics hnwu; no 

cxtcrnal existcnce , - - — - ~ - . - - . « --,-.,. - « . - - 255 

2, The dislingui&hing properties of neoessity .» ..,..„„,, 261 

3. The distinguishing propcrties of possibiiiiy ................. 266 

Thc possibility makcs a possibk rcality havc nccd 

Ibr a ranse 

- -- i n r- i - Tn r- - - 1 vt r-- -- ■ - - - - -■ -- -- s n r- i -■* ri ti+i + r^ r 


Nrithcr slatc of a possible rcality has priority ..-. 281 

A possibLc rcality 3 s cjristcnc^c- d^pcnds upon an 

cllcctivc causc 

■ ■ 


A possiblc rcality nccds its cifcctivc catisc as long 

as it exists 

■ ---■■------■--»--■---■■■-■----■-■- 


■ i J—b 1 ^ V - 2 L -li I i" J f i pi n i itii i i Mi pi Pi ii i ii ii i • i ii i i rn ii i iii i m ri i p i pi i ii ii pi m i ri i ■• riii i pi i" i ri r* i % LJ ■■ 

3. Tcmporality ... 



Chapter 5: Singularity and plurality 

-- t 


1. On thc real naturc of siiigularity and plundity ...», 300 

Singularicy is not thc opposite of plurality in csscncc ...... 30+ 

2. Classcs of singularidcs * .................... 307 


3. GlajBcs of pluraJily ..»».-.-„.-*-...-.-»*-»»».» * . .„.»„. S 1U 

OltjtHrions regaiding the black/white contrast , ..„ 319 

Sr>ciie corollaries - 

g -. .- i -j -- i.- ia+Bi n ni-ir -Jjr? V 

Chaptcr 6: Gause and eflfect 

h Glasscs of causc .»»..,...- 

I a I ■ i I k I kJ I ■ I ■ I li hl II I IJ II II I II II hll II II I M I I I li kri I I 


2- Muldple causcs and ctiocts „..».-.. *.* ,....*.,... «. 329 

3. Thc diHcrcncc bctween ihe cause's crTectwe pait and 

us luiiiting condition 

. . 


4. Whethcr oi w thing can bc buih recciver and agent 

of causation &iiiiulUtiieously ................ „„.. , ........ 33(j 

Sectum 2: Aecidents 

Chaplcr h GciiciyJ topics 

i ■ i n i i i r i rp i m h i * i n r - i ■ i ■ i ri r B i m r? p" i ■ ■ r • • ■ i ■ i ■! i i i 


1. Thc various Idnds of accnlcntal qualit]cs ., ,r 341 

2. The impossibility of" acd dcnts sransitin^ bimrrii 


■ ■ ■ 


3. Whether an accidcnt can suhsist in anothcr 

■■iBi.aJlliilalBllalalhikiialBilaii ■!■■■ il i I . I k I lllil I I I I lllllll I II I ■ I k I II I II 


4. Whether acridcnts have pcrmanent continuancc .....».»...„. 351 

5, The impossibility of oiic accident &ubsisting in two 

substri-Urs al oiice , r 

|i|piii|iJii r a|i;Bii«|i;i 

■ i 


Ghapur 2: Quant]ty ». 

I. Classes of quantity -~ 

I ■ i ■■ ■■ ki i ■ ■ i ■ i ■ i i ■ i ■ I ■■ ■ ■ i > I ■ I I I I ■ I I I I ■ I I I II II I ■ I ■! in i 



2. Quantity in its csscticc and as an accidcnt 363 

3. On thc noncrxistcnrial naturc of quantitics 365 

4. Tjme durarion 

. .J . . .. L _ I ... ..... . .. ........ . . 3 .. . . a . a . I 3.. .. I.lki III 3.J .. I .1 U I .J L. . .1 .J 3.. . . 


The cxtfrnal csistence of time duration: argumenls 

M! ■■ ■"■ ■" » - ■ ■ 


Thc cxternal raislrnce of limr clunHion: argumems for .,.. 373 

Thcories on thc naturc of (Jmc dunuion , 38] 

...^ mi 

5. Plac:c ;inil void 

. . . 3 .. 3. . . .J..J 3. J J. . -3 . | .. 3 .. 3. . . 

Thcorics of placc ..„....,.,» „„.,. ,«11™ ,., 38"/ 


Chapter 3: Qualky ...„„.»„„.„»»».»■ *...-« ... 

LJi . J.1 uLLTT I J I J-ILL J J. lll.JI II I ■ ILIII LSILI 3.- .. . . I 3.3. .I l— fi-. 3 I. I - J Ll I.IILJ ii J II I I. J II I I I B J II I ■ I LJ lfil ■■ I I.J ■— ■■— ^ 

Classes ofsensatc qualitics „, M . ,. ■„*,+......, ........,.,....,., 405 

l]U.VITL.Y]'& Ol- V()I.T"Mt'. ONli IX 

Touch sensations ,„.,.,„ „., .., ,.., ,.., 408 

Tcmperatutc: licat 


Jl 1- Ll J |.1L 1 tl LUI L • tAjlLI LJI.UJL-M^.,.,,.... . s „- uiuui.juljliii T" J I 

JTTIIJ E Llllll | f -. r-i-i-H^r-i f-w 4l-rnirriiiiririi>iiiii-irir 

IBIf"P" , "!"1"'!"?""**l 


Weighl 413 




' -L Zl .L '. X L L ClLl 4 L L I U J I Z? J I ■ I ■ I L J LJ I I I II H I IJ La J ■ * i ■■ i ■ i ■■ ba I L J LJ Ll I I 1 IJ I J I ■ I LJ L J I I I I X 1J 


Color stretigl]] 

Nnuirr of Hglii , 

■ i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■■>■ ■■ ■■ ■ ■■ *^ | ■ | r « ■■ | ■■■ *^ ■■ ■ ■ ■ *■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■■■fipii ■■ ■■ i *■ ■■ *■ i ai 

,™ ,... 422 

Hearing £eiisations P ....... . r . r 427 

Tastc srnsationa ..... ........... ............ 431 

Sindl sensations „. 


2. Psychic qualitie& 434 

Thc living naturc [or., Iifc and its abscncc| ................... 434 

Corollaries to the mental fomi . ...... ... ............. 457 

The rational soul's four jtages of intellectua] 


Pcrccption and knowlcdgc 


Thc powcr of autonomous actinn and thc wiliing 

tiature ..... 

»-- ■ -4 - 

.. __ . 


Pleasiir^ anrl pain are sdf-evidcni coticcpts .-.—,,- ..,..,., 46<J 

Hcakh [ind illncss and rdatcd cmotions ..,.. 474 


■ ■■■■■■■^■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■^■■-■■■■■■■■■■■■«■■■■■i 

!J. Qualitics spccihc to quantitir& 

4, of prcdL^positioii ._._„_ .._.._. 477 

Chapier 4: Accklei.ts ol relriiaon 

■ — m 


1. Whcthcr iliey appcar 3n eictcrnal existcncc 479 

2. Thc tiisc of L placc-whcre + 

■■.■■■■■■■■■■ H 


Gradual motion-change in quanttty-. qua3iey. 
position and placc-whcrc 

1 tiU 

Gcncra] tactors ncccssarily invo!ved in grariual 

X J J V" * J»V "■ ■ ■ ■ J 1 -U I I ■tV' r«iririP aia i Ba " a i a i*irpi B irii a iriririiri lal "iPir^r"i a irirripiriMrM -^ ■■-' \J 

Types or Ebrce required io makc gradual 

motio-i-changc necessary *.............-. — -..-.,.-., ----.-... 506 

Whcther quicsccncc occurs whcn straight-lLne 

motion changcs dircction, .._________._ ...,.._................. 510 

J. Thc casc of chc adjunctivc rclationship ._____,__. 512 

On priority in thn arijunctivc relutu»iship 518 


Scctuw 3: $ttbst&7ice.i 

ip^p^i^iriMr^iimiPir^iriPiiiiiir^i^niMr^irip? i"!"!^"!"!"^!!!?! 


Chapter I: Bodies 

1. Dcnnition of a «budy* „.„ ,.,.. ,.„.. 323 

2. Leadiiig doctrinal theuries on thc parts of a body 533 

Thc Mutakallimiin argument that a body is a 

nomposite of iiidivisiblc atomg ................ 534 

The phiLosophers* arjgpmenls against che compasition 

of bodics from atoms „..., , 54 ti 

Thc philosophers say a body is a continuity in itaclf 

and divisihle without limit 553 

CoroJUrica to tW philosuphers' doctrine of a budy 558 

3. Clas&es of bodies ...... 571 

Simplc bodicd cricstial sphcrcs 571 

Gorollarics to thc exislcnce of thc sphcrcs: thcir 

ethcrcal narure 

■ I ■ I M »■ ' ■ ■ !■ I !■■■■'■'■'!■■■■■■■■■■! • ■ ' ■ ' 

Corollarics to ihe ^^islcnce of the sphcn-s: moiion 

in circular rotation ...,*.*.................. .......... ......... 


Simple bodied rdrstial orbs are fixed in the spheir* . lM 

Simplc bodicd dcments: fire, air 3 earth, wawr .,„... .„.,„,„„ 593 
ComjK>sitc bodics are rnadc irom ihc clcmcnts ............... 

4. Bodics as icmporaJ phcnomcna 

. .^1 l II.IILILJI,IILJLJI . I L I I 4 I J I . 1 


ITieorics of thc philosophcrs on cosmogony '603 

Argiimeiits. for the tcmporal nature of bodics .*.<.... 61 1 

Bodics would have been qufescenl JT they harl 

bccn prcscnl in pasi etcrnity ...» , 611 

lkjdics arc possible realitic-s and are caii&cd ..„......* 620 

Bodics art mseparabk* JVorn temporal phenoracna ._„ 524 

Aigurncnts against the tcmporal naturc of bodiea. ... H 625 

5. Bodies as hmitcd cntitics 

-- --■- ■ -- 


Ghapler 2: Incorporcal substantial beings 644 

1 . Classcs of incorporral subsiantial bcings „„„,„„ 644 

2. The intelieets of thc cclestial systetn , 64fi 

Inteliccts of thc cclcstial aystcm transccnd thc 
Linutations ot mattcr 


3, The souls of thc oclcstial system .«„„♦„.. --+ 661 

4. Thr incorporcal naturc of human 'rational schlIs' ........... 6&6 


Reason providcs cvidcnce of Lhe rationaJ souTs 

inco L^porcal naiure . . ... , ..,...,_. 667 

The lational knowledge about God is not 

divi&ibk as rnattcr ........... ....■„■.. 6G7 

Rational souls can perpcivc contrarics 

sirnukaneousK 1 

i n i r ' ■■! n f i i r i 11 n rn r ^- | u u ■ ■ • ■■ » • p- i ■ 


Ratir>nal souta co»^ceived a* maceriat bodies eouid 

not think frccly 673 

Rational souls can comprchcnd inccUigibles without 


■ -- ■ -t ri r- a - ■ -- r- ni n r* L - ■ -i m nri^^l -t r« s - rri i ■ *■-- _■ A rr *■- 8 ■•_ tJ ■ J fl -- r- ■ - ■ - J 


Rational soute conceiued as rnaterial could 

uoi pcrtcivt Lmhcrsals .... ... ...... 679 

Tradicion providcs evidcnce of the rariona. soul 1 

incorport:»E natur e ... ^B l 

5r The tcmpordl nature of nicional souls „... - fi84 

6. The rational soul/s linkagc lo thc body and 

^OYcni-incc witliin it blM 

Powera of ex[crnal prrceprion 

i - ■ r - i 

Sight ., 

I i i 

i rr 

i ii ii iiiaiiiiini ii ii i i i ii ■. i ii i u i i li i ii ii n i i i i j i ■ i ■ i i ii ii 1 inri!"ii iniii 




t .:n3.:l i 

" I 

1'owcrs of iiitcrnaJ pcrccptioii 




Coordination .. .. .. . .. .. »,« .. t ... ._ ._ ..... ... ._ ....... 

Irnaginatiion .__._ p4+ ._ „_.___-..,. 701 

' - u ' '■-^ iriiiinriiiiiiiiiiiiiriiiiiiiiiiiriiiiririiiinr H iiiiiririi"ini B iiini B i * \f -H 



■ ip.i. l .^faJl.l.i..l.AIII II JkJl.lhJl.UJI Jl.i.l. UMillUl.lhJkJidl r v^ I. 

Mcniory - ... .....„„.» 

Exccution ... _. .. 

Powcrs of body motion-change thai arc whmtary 

■pCl J P w I '■ 1L L vJ T '■ iipikii iiiiniJi Jir ii iiiii jiiii iniiiiiuiiiiiriiiiuiiiii 


Powcrs of body motion-changc that are naturaJly 


■ i bpI i «1 ph! i ■ i p. pi i b i pp i pb ■ a i i ■ i a i ■ ■ i ■ « i Jiii ■ ■ ■ ■ i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i ■ i i ■ iai jipIiii ■ i h-i i -m i ■ i u i 


7. Thc pcrniancnt surviva. of ihc rational soul altcr 

rhe body\ death P .--. .... P 716 



Section l: The essaite qf G&d 

Chaptcr 1: Comprehensivc knowledge about God ................ 727 

]. Invalidation of circular and inttntte scries arguments 727 

2, Pronf for rhe exbiten.ce of ih*-. N^^s^in' E;* isi < ■ mt 740 

3. Expcrieiitial knowledge of Cod"s essence 744 

Chaptcr 2: (Jualitics not propcrly attributablc to God .„ 749 

1. Exclusion of rescmblance between God's reajity atid 

any otlier being 

■ ■ I 

I ■ I 


2. ExcIusion of corpurtaJily and rcjponalily .-..- -*,. 755 

The argument orthe corp<irealist& 758 

3, Exclusion of uiuon and. jncarnatc indwcllmg »». ,». 761 

4- Exclusion of ttrmporal phenomena firom subsistcncc 

I X X ^-J tJ kJ. kihiiiiiiiinifaiiiiiiihii.jiiiiiiJidiiiiii>«iaiiiiiiiji . ■ i. ■ i ■ iiiihiiiuiiikji ihiiiiijhii ■ K * r 

5. Exclusion of scnsatc qualilics 

I I L I ■■ I ■ I ■ I 1 I I 4 I ii k I I I I I 1 ki I ■ 1 ■ I I I HK I ■ I li k I !■ I ■ I 


Chapter 3; Doctruie ot die divjne singularity „ 7M 

I . Argunicnts of thc Musiiiu philosuphcrs and of the 


i ." I ........ 1 l .... . ..III. ........ 8 . ....... ...... 


Section 2; The ottributes yf 6W 

Chaptcr 1: Establishcd attributcs, ibc basis of God^s acts .... 803 

I. God's. omnipotcncc in aulonomousi action . 803 

l)i\ine onwipotcnce relaled lo some problems ol" logic ,„,, 812 

Ood's omnipoterKe in Hiilonomous nc.uwi is ov<r all 


siblc rcalities 


2- God's cver-present omniscicncc Wl^ 

An argument at variancc 


Coroikuy 1: God ijomprehcEida all iniclligibles 842 

Coroliary 2: God's Tnowlcdsje* and "power* are entitics 

distinct from Hi:ni&clf „* ....... ................... . .... 848 



3. (iorTs living nalurr 

4. Gods will 

I ■ I ■ 8 


GodTs will is. not a temporal phcnomcnon ..,„.„ . 8/j 

Clwpter 2: Oiher attributes, not the basis of GodTs acts ,.., 

God's spoken word is triiLl 

....... 3 - S 


■ r i r* ■ ■ • ■ t r ■ r 

3- CrO(fs immnrtality 

4. Oihrr itmi al-Ashtari namcd auribiiles 

r- i «°? 

5. GodTs pniduction of hciug .,.,.„„.„ ...., 

6, GotTs beatihc yjsibiliiy to believeis in the hereailer 

Mu c tazilah an^imtnta at variancc ...... r.„ 

Stttitm 3: The aW. qf' God and tkt acts qf mattkind [by top 

L. Oii ihe acts of maiLkind , 

Mu*tazilah doctrinCj lu Autonomy :: in human acts 
Asha^irah docLiiiie, "Gcmipulsinn* in human acts 
2. God is Lhe agency that willa moral phenomeiia in 

all creatures ,., - 

3. On predicating thc good and the hrinous 

4. God is undcr no obligation whatsoevcr ,. 

■ B ■ mW 

% GkkTs acts are noi based on hiclden. purposes 

6, Obligations. imposed are God'& notice to humankind 

oi u final life cva!uation 

I I I I III I L . . 

I . I L I I I I . . . II llllllll 

■ i 11 ri i i 

■ ■ 

■ i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

- I ■■» r 

..... i 



1. Cotfs hraring and sight 879 

2. GocTs sprech . 881 








■ ■II II 



Stttiott I: PmpketHmod [by topicsj 

1, Mankind's need for the Prophet ,. „.„„,-..,„„, „„ 

2. The po^ibility ormirades [in psyehology and religion] „ 

3. The prnphcitiood. of thc Prophct Muhammad 

Refulation oi" the Brahmans' doctrine on the intellecl 
Kciiitation oi' Jtrws" doclrine on the Mosaic I^aw 

4, The blamc lc^s i ]. ss oi ' the prophets .„„„„ „,,,„„ 

l p T1in 

Blamdcs&rLcss ls a psjx:hic posscrs&io]! prevcntin^ 


# .. 

5. The prophrts are superior to the angels 






■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ a 



ti. Thr sicnis of divinc _avor |erven tn saints and , . - .„„ . 1023 

Seetion 2: Tke resurrettion assmthly nnd tM r&ompnnsi [by topksj 

1. Rcjtnration pt~ the uanighcd noiKKisrcnt „„„>.+ 1027 

2. The Resumection Assembly of human bodies „..„.„ 1036 

Whdli^r thc body's ntoinic particlcs actually will bc 

annihilatcd thcn rc&lorcd . .■*.*„*■*....„ — „■**..*.■■*. 1042 

3. The Garden aud rhe Hre . 

1 04-3 

Thc Gardcn and thc Firc arc crcalcd cnlilics .*.....■*■.»■* l()4fl 

4a. The Mi^ta^ilah on reward and puni.shnwnL 1052 

4h. The AshH c Lra.h oti reward au<\ piniishm^nt: „„„.... IOG-1- 

5. Pardon and intereession fbr thcwc guiliy of thc 

drcacHul grtrat siiis tll „»„» ..»„ 1073 

6. Ccrtainty ol carncd torment m the gravc 1078 

7. Other tradirionaJ doctiines 

8. Thc terms Taith 1 and 'eridcnlial practicc' in thc 

M L J_EL. JLr U.. 1 I.ULLL UIJ IJ I.I1IJ IJ LJ Ll I B J ^l |ilJ LK.| ^^ ^l |.^XIJ.|J IJLb J fa I S.- I ■ I BJ Ll |JXLJ LJ LJLL I . I KJ\ J J. 

■ -«... !-*--■-■..-. .*»-■-■-«■.!««■«!■ 


Sntum 3: 7he supttmt teadership of the Mus&m commumty /h topicsj 

L Oji thc obligatiun to appoinl a suprcmc lcadcr ............ 108*J 

The Suj-iii Asha : irah argiuncnt u\' human iradnkiijri] 


■i""r"T*T ,, r-'-inn!-"""iPirTf TPTn — r" ■■■" r - T"inr-! 

I (lflfl 

Thc Imamiyiih argurncnL of thc divinc bcnevulcnec .... 1093 

2: Thc attributcs of an Imani 

■ .Jka.aJ !.■■.■.■■ i ■ ■ i ■ i ■ i >■ i ■ I ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ LIJ aJ LJ I ■ i 

Rlamclessness not a prcrcquisire 



3. Criteria to be met in appuinting an Irnaiii 1 101 

4a, Thc rightful Imam aftcr thc Prophct: Abu Bakr in 

Sunni doctrinc 

i. i i.i.. 


4b. Thc rightful Imam aRcr thc Prophct: € Ali in Shi r ah 

doctrinc 1112 

5-, The excellencc of thc Cornpanions ,,... .,...<,„,,.„„.. 1133 

Table of Romanization ....... «.-»..—»■«.■„ ,.,.,..,. ,..*.,.. 1137 

Gbssaiy , , ... 1139 

Tllustracioiis tt> Book I, Section 3 1 149 

Bibliography , .. 1 157 




This page intentkmatly hft blank 




L Iniatidation of ' cinuiar and infinife s&ies arguwnts 

Baydawi said: 

L 315, T I5L 

&, Circalar argMHail [is invalidj h beeause anynnc \v5th obvioLu tntel- 
ligcncc would bc ab&olutety ccrtain thac tht- ■ of an effirctivc 
cause is antectrc^nt to the exi ste tice oi~ its dfcct. Thus, if somc thin? 

^■"T ■ mm ^Br^B - m ^ tb mm ■ m ^■""T ^mm ■ m ■ 

were to produoe an eflfect upon ns uwn antecedem cause then ihe 
iitipliccition would be that its own e*i$Eence had piccedcd iueir by 

two stagcs, wliich is iinpo-ssihlc- 

b. /fl/r?j?> .t™ argyrrmtt is sctrn to l>c invaHd Rnom two aspeet». 

1. Thc lirst [aspcct] is that if causcs wcrc lo be anangcd in 
an urilimitcd scrics., and if wc wcre to as&umc two groupSa onc begin- 
ninq from a particular ctTcct and Lhc othrr T 152 Irom thc cflcct 

wbich prcceded it, both olthem contiiming on witbout limit, and i( 
the second ['longer* groupj should bc futly aligned with thc rirst by 
superimposition trom thc detimitation poinl [mcmioncd|, thcn thc 
lesser one would be the samc as the greatcr one. But if jlhc sccond 
Monger" group] should not be exaclly aligned, 1-336 the impli- 
cation k thal it w-mjkl be cut ortj. and chen the [*shorter*] one 
would be greaier ilia.ii the second by onc stagc, but [thc [Irstj would 

be Imiiicd atso. 

2, Thc sccond [aspcct] is that if thc tntality ol" [aJJ] rcalitics 
pnsgihlc »honld he arranged m an Lmlimited scriek, [the totality| thcn 

would have nccd for every single one of [the realilies po.ssible], and 

thus [llic tocn]it> r itsc]f] would bc a 'possiblc ruality 1 ha\ing nccd for 

a cau&c. But thc causc [nccded by the totality] would be neithci 

[thc lotaltly] itself nor ^'ould it he anytbing that had entcred into [thc 
totality]* for [that causc] may bc ncithcr a cause fbr itsclf [aa thc 

totalityj nor ibr [thc totality^aj own causcs. as in that casc it would 
not bc an 'indcpcndcnt causc' fbr the totality. Thua |thc indcpcndcnt 


cause] would bc somcthuig cxtcrnal to [thc totality]; and somcthmg 
external to [llic trntJLty of] all th* rcatities possiblc omriol itself 1« 
a 'possiblc rcality 1 - 

Lct no onc say that thc *cflcctivc causc T [of this totalily] H r ould 
be [its| untts thar are without limit. [This is bccausej if what is 
meant by th*- **flftctive cause' shonld b* the tntaJLty a* the totality 3 
then thal wuuld bc \hf tolahly itacKl But if wliai is Tncant by [thc 
fc efiK:tivr tause 8 ] should be that the cffective causc would bc cach 
unitj rhcn the implication would be thai there wa§ a joining together 

of [many] indepertd^nt causes' to produce a singte effeci, which 
would be impossiblc^ as in that casc thc cffcctivc cause would have 
hccn wkhm ii&ell" and this we have invalidatwL L 

b(ahaiii says^ 

L 316, T 152, MS lGla 


Aftcr [Baydawi] Hnishcd Book Onc on Rcalitics Pogsible, hc bcgan 

Book Two on Realicies DMne, seuing it Gorth in ihrcc Scelioos: I. 

The essence of God, 2, The altributc& of Gud; 3. Thc atts of God 

and thc acte of inankind. 


Jn Section 1 [Baydawi] sets forth thrcc chaptrrs: 

L Comprehensive knowlcdgc about God4 7 2. Qualitics not prop 

erly auribniable to fJod; 3- Doctrinc ot ' the Divinc SiDgularity, 4 

1 Hcrc ai ihc cnd of BaydaivL*5 [Bk 2 r 5 I, Ch. 1] Topk L a puhlbhcr^ «rnr 
Ls Ibirnd ici printed Ara.bic «iiticms- BaydawTs Topic 2 f Tmof fnr ihc EjckChicc 
i>l" ihe Necesaary EitisUrit 1 *]» raiiipri&ing L 316:7-14/1' 1 52:7-1 3^ was mistHke-nly 

cti|hm3 in at ihh poitn (eviH*iilly From si comiimJOWS MS of the Byydawi tcnl) by 
thc sc:ribc of tKc liihograph cbrlition [LJ, and rhc Tn.iflLa.kc wn fbIlowcdi by ihc <-daior 
and typ-r^ctter nf T. To concct this rrror^ thc cditors af boih «Ution* rcpcAWd lVua= 
passagc in Lls prajwr planc lbllaaving JaCahani^ c^mmcntary an Tupic l &t L !!'il/ 
T 155. The l>peset cdiliuiL [T] h-iis thc whole passu^ jBaydawTs Topic 2| cor- 
reody m m placc. But the scribe of L in rniJdng hl* copy» topicd only L 316:10-1-1 
id. its proper pkcc at L 32 L omitting L 316:7-10. 
E [fi dliai AlJah ia c ala"]. 

J [f| a|-*j|m bihi]- 

* [fi al-tawhTd]. 



Tn Ohapter 1 [Baydawj] seta forth three topics: 1. InvaHdation of 

cireular and inrtnitt scrics argumcnts; 2; ProoT for the cxistcncc of 

the Nectssary Existcnt. 3. EspnTicntitil kiiowlcdgc of God^s csscjice. 5 

L . Inmti/Jatwn of ciradar tmd trtfiniie series aigummts 

a, C&Ktilar arguRiĔKi} — which is when thcrc is depcndrnce of onc 
ihing (L) upon anothcr thing (2,) th»| tn turn depends upmi che for- 

mer (L)- to onc or more stagcs, — stands iiwalidated becausc anyonti 

with ob\ious intcUigcncc would bc absolutcly ccrtain that thc cxist- 

ence of an cffrrtivf: r.ausc precedes th^ existcnoe of its effhcti For ii 

a thing were to produce an effect upon ita owri antecedent eflective 

causc, then the iniplicaiion woold be that it had cxisied prcccding 
itscli" by twn or more jEtaces. And if a criven thlne wcrc to producc 
au effect upon its owll cficctive cause, ihen it woukt be antecedcnc 

to iis own efTectivc cause, and as its eflective cause would be |alreadyl 

something antecedcnt to itsctJT, that givcn thing would thcn precede 
itsclC because the anteccdent of an anlecedeut io a given thing woiJd 
ateo be an antecedcnt to that. thing. 

Let no onc ask [as a hypothetical cascj wliy ir would not be admis- 

sible that there bc cwo givcn things, L 317 in which a) the quid- 

dity oi eacii of them would be the eftecttve cause for the esktcncc 

of the other„ or in which b) the quiddity of one of ihein woukl bc 
the eFFective cause for thc cxistence of the other, with the exUrence 
of the second bcing thc cause tbr thc cxistciice of the first; thu.s, 
cach ot thcm would bc an cftcctivc causc lor tJic cxistcncc of thc 
othcr, and there wouJd be no implication that a given thinc* would 
he. ant^cedent 10 Lf4jclf, 

We holdj in such a [hypothcticalj casc, that there would be no 

circular argucnrnt. no tJiing would precede itself, sincc no 

tliing would prcccdc somcthiiig anteccdcnt to ilself. The existenoe 

■:jI liiilh ihfsc Iwu givcn 'Jiing:-: wuulrj \.w: ;i$ cllecls ol thc rpuHilily 

of tJic othcr, on thc first supposition; and the cxistencc of thc hcc- 

ond Lhing would be as tlie eilett ol" the quiddity of thc lirst thing,* 

» [<i ma c rif a t. dMuhij, 

h I*. witli T GJliming Lt, iiis* fc rtA thr. daiise H Oii ihe SA^amd suppmLiiini'" rr?dIlnc^aIllJy , 

7!iO 2, SKtrilCJN J : CHAITJiR 1 

with (lie exislcnce of ih^ firs( dermiig from ihe exifiic*mT <>f ttir sfi> 
ondj [both thcir cxistenccs bcingj ori thc stcond supposition, Gur 
di&cus&ion bcrc is on 'circuLar argiimcnt\ not on anytbing clsc\ 
Ftirrhcr> k would not be .adnii-Sicblc ior a -quiddity alonc withouc 

[possessmg its own] esdscenee to be the eRectiw rause of some [other] 

cxistcnce, [This is] bccausc wc know as an imperativc ncccssity that 
the cnusc of an fother| cxistent must itsclTbe an ■existenf l antcccdcntly 

to thc cxistence of its cffect. 
Objection has been raised 8 that 

I . if by thc antcccdcncc of an cfFcctive eausc to ils cflccl thc 
jneaning shoukl be that |the causcj has nccd for |the eilectj. then 
we do noL g^ant M.S lfilh that a given thing (a) having need Ibr 

a sccond thtng (b) that nccds a thiird iliiug (cj would itsL'lf [&) be 
|idcntical to] the sccond thing having a nccd (bj for that third thing 
(c)r [This is] bccause, if that should be thc casc, then the ejtistencc 
of the givexi thtng having [he n^cd 1)1) wonlri he impossible when- 

ever thc seoond thing needed sliould exUt, (b) and the third thing 

— nccdcd hy thc sccond thing having a nccd (bj — shoutd not cxist 
But ihac is not the casc Jcontinucs RaziJ. For if wc wcrc to assumc 

the exisieiKe of the proKimate cause of the effect, together wiih ihc 

nonejdstencc of ihe remute cause, then the efTect would exlst of 

ucccssityj othcrwise* thcrc wnuld bc an impliut rctardation of thc 

eftcct from ctie proximatc ca'use 5 wliich wou3f! be inipossihlc. However, 

2. if by the antecedence of rhe ertecthw cause co its effcct th<* 

mcaning ??houid be soTiicthitlg othcr than tliat tlierc is a uvax[ for lt^ 
thcn ccrltdnly you [who arc dispuiiiig with R^zi] would havc lo givc 

h^tt, AooordiiLK. to the MS ^nd MS ysirrett SBSHa, ^ wcU as u^irig it coawiily at 

7 MS gl: [le.J in ]ȴ [bi-al-dhat]. 

Nntct hcrc a varialinn m thc texts: T ihowa bc^h preccdLng noun& as 'an cxis^ 
Tpnt' piUat nl-m awjlJd ynjib aii takun ma.wjiLdah]; L omtts nhc lcltcr [mTm] fmm. 
thc ^cond nouH, rcadbng [HujAdahj; thc \1S rriids [iELat »L-wujfid yajib an caJdin 
ma\yJLKbh] r but the ftra noun rcvcals chc sha.daw -af tht lcltcr [cnTm] whcrc tht- 
scribc scrapcd away thc rnk; MS (r^rrcti 989Ha is Ihu sam-c w T. 

9 M.S gl: By tlw worthy Imam Fakhr al-Uin Ra^i. 

L 317 gi: thU iibjcctioii bj' chc Imam [F.D. Razi] Ls- qiiotcd hy thc author of thc- 
Ssihai/ whcre hn- says, fi! Thc Imam objccted to thcir ductrinc that anything that is 
ccHidiliuiiSi] ujjon someLtiLut* elsc lilint is oondiliuiial Ls iwi 1 "!!" i?ujjdiuonal. [R^AiJ *si<l 

ihat che pmximate causc wwild be suAkitnc for the exUtcnce of an eJKct, even if 

id W€fC assiimed that Lt* enisicasce mari' iuvcssary thr cwiaiience of the Hlrci bnt 
]lo icmocc CAusC CJU.$[cd. So tW cffcct rcally 13 Mrt ccmdalional upon ihc rcmotc- 
CSu^Cr Tlnis, he iinii^-rs.lcKMJ ih»I anyching condJUonal upnn soni^ihing ebc that is 
ci.jibftiiinnal would ncc nccrpssarily br sqmi fc Lhiii^ i:4jiiditional ■(sctEl" 111 


|us; atid lLazij, a r.larihr ation oi JantJ inibrmation about your] con- 

cept of itp 50 thai wc might considcr im validky or iis iewalidlty, 

An ubjeclion* hcrc is that wc do rroi graut ihai iln- premise is 
lalsc, — narndy a our statcmcnt that the cxistciu:r of ihc giwn ihing 

having thc nccd (a) would bc impossiblc whemrvtT dicrc should cxisi 
tbe second thing needed (b) and there should rtot exist thc chird 

thjng (c) n«dcd by thc sccond thing having a nced (b). 

[RazTs| slatement is thac il" ws were to as&umc the existcncc uf 
the prwumate cause of rhe eflect togeLber with Lhc nonexistencc of 

\hr remote causc. ihcn the eJTect wuuld exist neces5arilv- 

But our [i.c-, Isfahani"s] posirion 3s that wc dn not granl ihis. 

[Krizi s sJ s.tatrmr]it is that ochcmi^r. rhcrc would bi' aii 
retardation of ihe elTrrl from thr proximatr cause.. 

which vrc flsfahani| say, **Ycs, [it woukl l>e implied], but why 

have you [Lc? che objcctor to Razi] said that it would bc impossi- 

We? For the prostimate cause ts not che complete cause of an cffcct 
but part of iu and 31 would be adrnissible for an effect to be retarded 

from a part of the coniplclc causc. 

This lfl is not a direct line of rcasoning., bccausc evcn 5f wc were 
lo grant that the pmximate cause is. a part of thc conipletc causc. 

nevertheless U is the part that necessitates the elleci, a* there is noth- 

ing intenTicdiate bctwccn it and thc rcali&ation of thc clTecL Ihns, 
it is not possiblc for thcrc to bc a rctaidation of ihe cflcct. fmm it 3 
this. fact hring rteilved from Ehe impossihility for thcrc co bc vari- 

ance between a prcmise T 153 and ifs- conclusion. 11 
It is endrely right to take thc position that, 

1. if thc meaning of [Raji^sJ statcnicnt — that dic cATcct would 

cxiat of ncccssit> r if tlic cxistcncc of thc cAcct 1 ^ prosimatc cansc wcrc 

assumed alraig with ihe nonexistrnce of the remotc caLise, — is that 
ihe effect wotild exist in che very nature of the case, then that mcaii- 
ing would be inipossiblc. Indccd, thcre can be no implication from 


' MS gl. ['Ilsis k] ia rebintiaJ ot [R^r*] siaicnicnt, "Guc thac ls rw>t thp casc." 

Thc passagc hn-giiiniiiii, wLth thc pn-Yinus qb}ccliOfi attributcd tjp I ,l, .D. Razi cnay 

cnd with this kilbeT ohJBCtkiii, oiit ccmtcmporar^ with Razi And rclatcd by hirtt. 

Such « rei*dUjig wouild Itt ilnr pcnoriftL pratiuuiu in iliis teuei i>l>jecut>n, e-g-, * i w? nK 

bcing thc obj«t4ir ^ttid: "mir stacjrmcRc"" rr-Iiirring to RazL. Thc diaJcsguc Ibllamng- 
may thrn Ijc intcrprclcd as brtwccn bikhan] in tbc firsl pcrsun, thc ■objeclor lcl ihc 
^rcund pfraon h and Rbzl in ihc third pcrain. 

" MS k1: ITiat ia, it admits that thc cfFctt m;iy vu,ry from part of dic complen? 


11 MS gl: A* aii aiiMwer lo iJie scaitTiteni, "IJ whai b mcAtit..." tic. 


assuming the existence oflhe proximate cau&e logelher wiih. thc mm- 

cxbitciicc of thc rcinoic causr iliai thc cJTcct woulri ncccssarily havc 
cxistencc in thc vcry nalurc ol" the casc. Thc dlcclls cxishrncc in the 
very naturc of thc case would bc implicd ncccssarily only if Lhe prox- 

imate caiise wcre to he an exiatent pnaent in thc vciy naturc of thc 

, L 318 and our assumption ihat thc proximatc causc would 

have existcnce doea not imply that its existence wouid be withln the 
veiy natune of the Purther, 

2. if what is mcaiit by [Razi s s quotcd statcmcrntj is that thc 
cilcct would [cvcnj havc cxislcncc- on liic hypolhe&k that thc prux- 
imate causc wcrc to have exislcncc Louelher wilh the noneststeiire 

of the remoc-e cause, ihen we would noi grant any iKce^ity to it om 

that h^^pothcsisi cither, bccausc that hypothosia would bc irnpossiblc. 17 

Thm it is admissiblc that thcrc would br no neceissity for the eATecr^s 

existence, on ehat impossible hypoihesis. MS 162a 

However> cven if its ncccssity 15 werc to be ^rantcd upon that 
hyputhcsis, nc% r crthcless thcre cart bc no implic.cT.tion: from this that 
the given thing (a) having a nccd for a sccond thing (b) having a 

need foi a thbxl thing (c) thercby would tiol [itself ] have a nrrd for 

that samc thing in thc v«y naturc o£ ihc casc. Thal implication 
would hold only if that hypothesis should bc an actual tact iri thc 
vcrry nature of thc ca&c; so thCTefi>rc ihis would bc impo^iblc 

Our discussion on thc invalidity of circular argument is in regard 

to ihc vcry nalure oF thc casc, [and is] tiot mercly an assunicd 

b. Injinite seritt arguimnt> — narncty, that thc two accidcntal qualidcs. 
of causc anri cttcct may bc arrangcd in a ranking orrirr 1+ in a sin- 

glc scries finoni a spc:cified eATcct and on without limit," — startds inval- 
idated from two aspects, 

L Thc- first aspcct [showin^; thc invalidity of infinitc scrics argu* 

ment] is that if causes should he arranged in an unJimined serieSj 

and if wc wcrc to assumc two groups 9 onc bcginning froin a spcciticd 

12 MS gl: ihr ^sdsi^nc^ of thr pmMnialr- cauic df[wiiris iipi>ii ihc rrmo*C , and Lf vA\al is twing - dcp<mdcrf upcm werc noncxlsti*Jit, LhaL which is <lf!pc:iirii- 
cnl ivciuld [icK cxi£t. 

14 L, thĕ MS and MS Gantlt 989Hs nrM w «i in rAtlking ordrr^ [yaiar5qft J ]. 

llic AdS iw* a gkss: ,L i.e. ? arr^Tiged in orckr" lya^rrtctAbj, whilc ihe Camu \1S 


£:£fcct and thr otheir ("rom ihr t:ffi:cT pt ti tding it a wilh buih [groups] 

oontinuing on wuhoui limii, and fhen if the second [ should 
be put iiilo aJigmnrrit by superimposition with the firet from thc 

poinl of lirniiiidoci, 50 that tlre bcginriing of thc secoiid group wouldi 
Fu uver tlre spc rilicd cffrct wliith is tlre begiiirihig of the first group, 
thrn thc shortcr one would bc ctjuaL to the longcr onc?. But if dae 
second group shouid not be Hilly ali^ncd with the (irst group 

supcrimpo&ition in thĕ manner mcnrioned, thcn thc iniplicarion would 

be that the s^eond group had beeti c.ui ofl", (hus miplying that it was 

limited, while the Pirsi group would be longer than ii by onty onc 

stagc, so it also would bc lirnitcd. 

a} An objection rnight bc raiscd not granting that if the &ec- 
ond group should not be liiEly aJigiied wkh the first group by supcr- 
imposilimi then fh* implioirioti would l>e that ihe seeond grotip had 

been ctu ahort, sincc it is adniissdble ihai the lack of alignmem woukt 

bc on aceount of our inability to cstimatc thc supcrirnposiLrum for 

tt> e^timate the supetimposition of an unlitnited [group) upon an 

uriJimited [gruup] is impussble. 131 

[Anochcr objcction might bc raiscd] also that thia irtlpos- 
sibility would bc infcrrcd only from thc totality [of thc two group^], 1 * 

for it is admissiblc that thc totalicy would bc impossiblc but that 
cach of its parts by itself would not to be impossiblc. 

c) [And anoiher objeciion mighi. be raised] also that this 

[impussibility] would bc inconsistcnl with 

lemporal phenomena 17 having no bc^inning point^ and 



rational souls, for both of thcse [cnrity groups] are 
without lirnitj according to thosc who spcak of supcrimposstion s IH and 
thc ar£pjincnt conrinucs about ihcmJ 9 

IJ| MS glt: Rcntusc cEtimadon [wshcn] is a coiporca] pawcr in hcing limitcd and 
11r.iL jkbk" to pcrarHT what is unlimitcd. 

13 MS yl: ^Vhich is i<* asumc two serics, oiic oT whicL bejjice froin a Epccitka.1 
cHcrl aiwi \\vc olhcr from thc cficcl which prcccdcs l!., twth of Lhcm coaurminj^ in 
scrks inHiiiidy, ^iih mpcrimpositioTL in thc way mcn.tioncd- 

17 MS i^L: i.c, [suuh. usj ihc movcii}C[its of thc ccLcsliid sph-crcs, 

'' MS gll: I.r. r Lbt': pJrikwcjpLiA-ni. 

ra MS 15L: Tlua is bccaust w-c nuiy a.ssunic twu scries uf Eiumbcrs, onc of which 
iticreastt lu aib iiitlnii.y iind iK-t: mlicr ieiciv;l»!4 10 \% ihuuNind of sittli [ii-ilimUwrsJ, 

Thr-Li thry are superimpo^d ojk u|«m il"!" «*flier so thwi ilu- bcguuung of th^ longw 

anc "ia i^xa€!lh r on thp: hejjnntiitic; ql* iho slioncr i>nr . T"he logical drc3Lh;.rion wrjuld 
bc thc sanic, cvcn thou^h bMh acrics arc inftnrtf by nccr adty. 


a)-a. Tbc answcr to thc fir^t objcrtion is that our inability 
to csrimate tbe supcrimposition dors. not prove that thc siipcrirnpo- 

sitton is irnpossibJe; for ii U actmissibie that we may be unablc 10 
csiiTiiate iht superimposition, but that thc sup^rimposition may stili 
bc possiblc in accordanoe wich an assurtiption of the rtason. We 
may a»ume ihere i» a sijperimpo&uion here, and we n^d not be 

drvertcd as to wlicthcr thcrc is iiiabiliiy or ability to ratimatc: thc 
coinci.(fcnrc- So wc say [in amwcr] ihat if tlic Kuptrimpo&itiun assumcd 
should bc possibk MS 1 62b and the seconri graup should bc f "ully 
aligncd with thc first ? thcn the impliralion wnnlri bc ihat the lcsscr 

and tbc grcatcr are cqual, whidi would be iitipossiblc. Rut if thc 
stipcrimpositiun should not bc possiblc and the sccond group should 
not bc (utly aligned with thc first, thcn thr causc for thc lack of a 
fittcd supcrimposttion would hc only thc disparity betwccn the two 

groups. 20 Indccd, thc impossibiliiy of ihe supcrirnposition of Iwo 
groupsi rcpresenting onc species of quantit\% naniely, numbcr, would 

be only on acuount of the disparity, and that h L 319 imperative, 

The answer to ihe secoitd objectton ia that if the com- 
bination [of thc two groups of cntities] should bc an inipttssibility., 
thcn it would havc to be that onc of thc parts [of the combinaiionj 
would be an impossihility; and the assumption |witli cach pait] would 
hc that etthcr another of the remaining parls ia sutt:eHsfully reaU 

izcd, ai or [thc irripossibiUty] is in [the combjnaiion] itselE, In lliis case 

hcrc cach part of thc combination is not an iTTipossibility* assumin 
that the rem?iining parts are successtully Thus ? one of the 

Parger] parls would be an impossibility in itseir, while each [smaller] 
part of thc combination would be in kself a possibility, all except 

for [hc si/rics [or 3 groupj it^lf being unliinEliid- ThefcfO"n; r ^ti utiIitti- 
itcd scrics would bc an inipossibility 3 and ihis is thc goal of thc 

c)l)-a. As for [the awswer to the third objcctton 3 first part] 

thc inconsistency — with an arranged order ol thin^s tiint arc not 
exiscenl in reali(y 3 as molion*r.hange that has no heginning point, — 

would m.K entcr [tlic ajrgurncTit], b&uause a series as sudi wouhl tiot 


MS gl: Xot by rciwn of m\T injbility to ^stimatt llit suprrimpusLtLD-n. 

fil L 319 gl: Aa in thc casc of [totall blackrtess and whUcncss. Thrir -rastrnce 
logcttier in «nc b<Kly is imposaibk, bttauSe Otie of Lhe Wo would bt impuL^ibk 
assumiii^ tlic rcality •:■!" lh*i uthcr; wlu.ieu«s fc for ejcyiMplt,. is impusaiblc ussuinin^ 
ihe realiCy' of blackn-eSS Lcl ihe body. 


cxisL Riithcr, thc cvcrlasting fact is chat what docs cxist 5s but onc 
of |the scrics*] parts, and rn superimpo&e [all| its parts jat once] 

woiald not be conceivable al all, 

c]2)~si, Similarly, [thc answcr m ihc ihird ubjcctitm, sccund 
part, is that] thc inconsistcncy — with an unlimitcd numbcr of things 
cxistmg togcthcr but having no arrangrd ordcr dcrivablc from thcir 

linkage together in cxiema] existeiioe — would not enter [the argument]. 

In thc casc of chings in an arrangcd ordcr 3 if thcrc should bc 
superiniposed upon a part of the cjreaier group &omething n in its 
sajne degree, then il wonld he impossihle for anothcr part to bc 

superimposed on it, rather, th«- other part would be superimposed 
on somclhing else, 23 Of coursc, there would be left over some part 

on which nothing would br supcriniposcd;. and as it would nol bc 
in an arranged ordcr this left over would not be conc.ftivah]e. and 

*o the proor would not be complete m &uch a case. 

It has bccn shown in what wc havc sct lorth that thc proof by 

mperiniposition wouid be complete only in the case of things that 

wuuld bc cxistcnl ai! in a singlc tiinc duralion and thal would havc 
an ordcr of natural placcmcnt^ as thinp that acccpt altributcs 
togcthcr with attributcs» and causcs togcthcr with cBecte, and [thc 
proof by supcrimposkionj would not bc compktc in a casc whcrc 
onc of these two condilions 25 wnuki bc mi&sing. 

2, The second [aspwi showLng the invalidity of infinite series 
argumeiu] ii ihat ilie surii lotal of all thc rcalilics possihle arraiigcd 

in eui unlimitcd scries w r ould bc in nccd for evcry singtc onc of [thc 

rcalities possible], and thus thc totalily itself would be a possible real- 

ity having nccd for a causc. 

a) But that cause may not bc thc totality itscll, bccausc of 
thc impHOssibility of a thing being thc causc of itscli; othcrwisc, thc 

imphcation would he thac thc thing was prcccding itsclf MS- 163;i 

Nor may [that cause] be any one T E54 of [ihc toial- 
ity^sj unitS;, because thc totality should not bc rcquired by any one 
unit to bc ncccssarily dependent tipon sonic other unit, 

c) Nor may |ihat causej be something thac has entered 

wilhin thc totalily, bccausc w r hat has rulcrcd within thr totality may 

21 MS gj: Sirh m the fir?t part ar the sectmd gnmp. 

" T complcmcntSi rhc scn^C hy ^ddutli; 'plac^mcnt' fwa<l*f]. 
** MS gl: I.c.;, an arraLijjcd ordci 1 anU actual csuistr-iicc. 

736 fl< srcriON i^ ciiaftt:u j 

not be the caiuae of itseir nor [the cause] of its wm eauses. Thus a 

whatevcr had cntercd within [thc totality] cuuld not by itsclf hc an 
iridcpcndcnt cause of thc totality, bccausc just as thc totality would 
be dcpcnding upon [what had cntcrcd]., bo it would also bc dcpend- 

ing upon the causcs of [what had cnrered]. r rhcrefore, rhc [needed] 

causc of thc totality would bc external to thc lottilit^^ and cach indi- 
vidual part of the totality could not possihly occur apart from that 

cause that ts esaernal to it. If the should be oiherwise, then a 

portiion of [the totaJity] would have no need for the esteraal enlity; 
and the esttcrnal entity by itseif would not be the cause of the total- 
ity, but rather, it wuuld bc togcthcr with thc tausc of that poriion 

[olthe totalityj having no need for the external cntity. Uut thia [rea- 

soiiingj is contraTy \a the hypothesis, 

d) Nor may that cntity extcrnaJ! to thc totality of ncalitics 

possible that are arranged in an unlitnited scries. be itself [merely] 

a possiblc rcality, but rathcr t it woutd bc a nccessary bcing in iisclC 
|This isj because, 

1) if it should be [mcrcly] a possible reality in itsclf, then 

it would have need for a cause, and then the totality of possihle 
realities arrdnged m au iniljmiled hypoihetical series would oot bc 
a coinplete serics. [This isj because of the inherent nrcessky for [the 

cxternal cntity] and its causc to preccdc all the parts of the hypo- serics, bccause jthc exLcrnal cntityj and its cause thcn would 

bc [merely] a part of thc whole totality. But this [also] would be 
contrary to the hypothesis;,. 

2) But if it shouM bc a necessary bcing m itscli* then by 

iiiherent nece^sity k wouJd be L 320 one end of the 

series, because it would be bound in witli thc scrie^ Fnr if it should 

bc in the midst of thc scrics then the implication would be that it 

was [mcrclyl a causcd effcct. But this would bc contrary to the 

assumption, And if it should be hound in with the serics but is not 

in thc niidst of ii, then it would coiutituie one end, and so rhe series 

would bc terminatcd by in And thcn thc scrics would bc iiinitcd a 
although the asjiumptio]! was that it was uiilimited. llius the non- 

limiution of rhe seties: would be tnip^iUHhle. For if an assumption 

diat Komeihin^ had oct:uticd ihould logically imply that it did not 

occur^ theu (he occurrence of that thing would be impossiblc. 

Lct no onc say that thc effective cause of a totality would he its 

individual units that arc unlimitcd in numbcr. Our [Istiliani] j>o&i- 
tion is thac, 


a) if what cs meanc by the 'uniLs, being the efTeclive cause 

should be the whole in i rscl f : then thac would be the same as the 
totaJity itsclf, It wuuld be impossible for ii to bc the eflective cause 

oE ihc totahiy bccausc of tbc impossibilky for a thing ru bc the 
eilcrtivc causc of iLsclf. And, 

if what h mcant hy thc 'units being thc effcctivc causc" 

should be that each one is an cflective cause, then the implication 
would bc that thcrc wouki bc a joining togcthcr of independcnt 
cffccUvc causcs to producc a sinjric cti^ct, which would bc impossi- 

ble, Further, the implicatioii would be that ihe efrective cause for 

ihc wholc series would bc somcthing that had cntercd wilhin it„ aiid 
ihat wc invalidatcd. 

1) An ohjcctian has bcen raised [as a questionJ, ifby thc 

'causc 1 you mean. the whole. simi of thhigs of whic.h every single one 
verifiab1y has nccd for [ihis causc], thcn why would it not bc ctdiriis- 

siblc for aU thc units togcthcr a& a wholc MS ]63b to bc thc 

causc of thcmsclyc*; or f if by the 'cause' you rnean an agent, then 

why would ii not be admissiblc for a portion of [the unitsj 10 be 

an agcnt? But as ibr [ llaydawi^] -slatement that whatever ha& entered 
within [a totality] cannot bc the cau&e of itse!f nor of its. own causes, 

that much is srranted. 

i . 

Then JBaydawi*»] statement is that the faclor that has entered 
within [the totality] may not by iteelf be Lhe csusc of ihe totality- 

Our [Isfahani^] posiiion is that thLs would bc impossiblc; but 3 it 
would bc admi&slble for the emciing tkctnr by itseH' to be the causc 
of thc uniility, if by the *cjause' the meani ng should be tlte 'agcnt*. 

-&. Thc rcsponse [to this objccting qucstion] is that 

what is mcant by thc "tau&c 3 is am independent cause 1 , 86 thai is^, an 
cndty that Ibr its own eJERcacy does not need an assisiant rliat was 
not part of itsclf- For thc indepcndent causc in ihis sensie:, 5t would 
be absolutely inadmi$$ib]e that it be the units t]ii:niselves 3 because an 

independeiil cauac would liavc to bc antcecdcnt to thc cilctt. Nor 

woultl it bc admissiblc for it to hc any onc of thc units, bccausc thc 
eBicacy of cach unii would depcnd upon an assistatit, not a part of 
itscir Nor would [tlie cause admissibly] be some porrioii of the units, 
becausc a portion 1 s [tunction asj causc would bc morc appropriately 

H ' MS gl: [Trt.J in ils ULli\iLy; ihcn thc prool" wouLd bt coniplet-c wiiLL-uut jm> 
vidinp for rhc olrjeL:ui>n. 

738 a, SEtmox i, chapter i 


an indeperLclent cause, because the eflicacy of the poruon would be 
by a&sistance from the portiori^ causc that *vas riot a part oi ii5clf 3 

lei contrast to ihc dBcacy of it&df aa cause. 

Furthcr> on thc as5>uinplion that what h mcanl by thc 'causc* 

would be ihe l agent\ it would not be admissihle for a portion ot 

[the nniti] to bc the agent, because the Imlcagc of rhe totality to 

cach purtiun is stich that the unils subsisl in [thc portion] on an 

crjinality, so it wonld not bc morc appropiiate that onc portion of 

thcm be an agent rather than artother portion, from tliis. stan 

But u would be more appropriate ihat the causc of cvery portia 
bc thc agcnt rathcr than that portion, bccausc thc units subsist in 
thc poruon 5 '* cause [as sccn] firom cwo aspccts^ thc onr bcing bccausc 

of [the cause] itsdC and thc orher being because of Jthe cause'sj 
edcct In ttiHi case s B thcre wotild be a refutation of what has becn 

said to thc clTcct that it would bc admissiblc for what succccds the 
lirs-L el1e<:t and on withnut limits Lo be a cause in iiew of rbt- 

that if [the suceession] were rualized then thc cotaliiy necessarily 

would bc rcali/cd, Bccausc it is not suiRcicnt^ if a thing is to bc an 

;nt caiise h L 321 thac mcrely chc cffcct be realized when 

thing itself is realized For if it werc to be a&*umed that [the 
was a causc 7 then [in turnj its own caust would have the 

causaltiy more appropriately rtian the thing itseir on account of what 
wc have alrcady mentioned. 

2} Another objccdon has been raised that the umts would 
eiiher have to have a single esistence in aridition to the [separaie] 
cxktcnc:cs of thc partSj or tiiat thcy would not. 

If it slunild be thc iirst altematiw, thcn wc |lsfahani| do not grant 
thac it would be inadmissible for Lh* H units in their rotality to he a 


[Baydawi's] statemcnt i* that this woutd imply that the thing [in 

<jucstioiiij was antccedent to hsclf. But we say that wc do not grant 

thaL. That would bc implicd only if the units» aa tKring cxislcnt in 
a singlc cxistence ? shnyld he the causc of units as bcing the same, w 

which would be impossihle. But it would be admissible for the units. 


MS gl; L*., 1'roiii (Ijp n(hiii][ii.mtiI of Slibsisl^niCe- 

w On th* assunipTion dhac wKat is m^ani hy tK^ 'caus^' b thnt whir h fi>r iis owti 
rfficacy has no Twcd fcjr an asHssacit not a part cHT iuirLf. 
n MS gl; Ijc.j ihc CEtusr of a sicigle rtridiBional e^istcrnDt. 
141 MS gl: Lc.j is hrini; c^cisttnC in one ttbtcrttit. 



MS IS4a as cach of thcir parts is- an esistrnt havii)g a special exis- 

lcrncCj. to be a cause of units as exi*Ecnl3 in a singlc exktcnce addi- 
tional to ilie [indivi<Jtia]] exi&tences of the part*- Thus, the totality 
of thc iiTiits^ as bctng existcnts 3 would bc: Thc caiase of the *:xiatence 

of the toulity ass a whole. 

If it shuuld bc thc scccmd altcmati\ r c, [in thc objcction abc>vc 9 i.e., 
that the uniCs would not havc to havc a singlc cxistcncc scparatc 

froni the parts" individua] existences], thcn we tio not grant that :in 
that casc [ihe ioudiiy] would be 111 need of a cause. That would be 

iniplicd only if 1l shouid havc ati odstcncc diiiercnt from thc [indi- 

viduaJ] rxL^ictict-5 of (he pai ts ; and ibai 5s noi ihe casc 

2)-a. The answer [to thc objection] is that the [tndivid- 

uittcd] units 31 as such arc dilTcrcnt Irom cach [complctc] cntity and 
thcir existence is diJlercnt from thc exL5tence of each complete cntky, 

for their eacisrcrice is itself [identical toj the exist«ru:es of the pai% 
and ihcre irs no doubt at all thnt thc cHstenocs of the parts is diJTijrcnt 

fnom thc cmlcncc of cach tomplctc cntity, For T 155 thc cxis- 
tcncc of cach complete cnrity is the part that giv« siibsistence to 

the exi&tences of the parts, and diHcrs* 1 Irorn all of ihem. But [the 

complctc cntitiaj in thcir cxistcnccs havc nccd for each onc of thc 
parts; and what has nccd Ibr somcthing elsc is a possible reality,, and 
thus would have a causc. 

But it would nol bc admissible for the cause of the existences [of 
the coniplete eniilics] to bc the inrli.viduated units ihetnsehcs ai exiat- 

cnts; othcrwisc 9 thc implicarion would \w. than a thiug would ncccs- 
sarily prec:edc its^lT, which is impossihlc. Nor wouki it hc [admissihle 

for t]te cause of thc existences of thc complcte cntities to be] some 

factor cntcring within thcm, bccause it wonld bc morc appropriate 
for an entcring factor assumed to he thcir cause t ii % it should bc thc 
causc for thc indi^iduated units in their cntirety.. 

rhereforc, it has hecn detennincd that jthc agcncy supporting the 

wliole serieis ol causc and cfTcct] would be an cxtemal and ncccssarily 

^T ■ 

"^ MS gl: l ? jkch fjni: ol" iImt indivL-dijaTkms [afrShd] P 

** MS gl: r.c. assuming that «he gingLc unics dlo- not havc an ckUicjict in addi* 

(ion tt* thc exis4.ent:r of thr parLs. 

M L 32( .gl: By a diffcrcnce chat is on account of thc rc-latioTiship jha%l.hf% r a}i| 
,ii id ilir.- Inpr:il TOiisi.di. , r;i.^L>n fa!-i'i,ibar| ;nid tht piiiera] ■st<ilr f<iJ-i jmJil^ :nd tlu 1 

dciail fal-fjilsil]. P(ir ihe diflferenrx: U no^ bcr^TC^ ili^ Lv^o extsrcnce& c^ncily [1m-^1- 

dhlt} buc in l-uspcal cpnydcratLon, for thc nd^Ecnce df ibc totaljt^' t& ru>t a sin^lc 
chiii^ additLUTi^il Iq ihc c\iBtcncca. of thc parts. 


existcnt bcing, with whoni the 'iiiiliniitcd serics* wrauld terminate, as 

we have set Forlh- M 

Baydawi said; L V2l [i.c, 316:7-14], T 155 

2* Iboe/jhr tfi£ fxisUnce qf thc ^ecessar? Ktistmi 

Two rcasuns prove IIis cxistence. 

a. Thcrc is no doubt at all about thc existcnce of a teniporal phfi- 

}, Every tcmporal phcnumcnon is a possiblc realiry 3 oihcrwisc, 

it would iiot bc noiicxistcnl at onc timc and csistent at another 


2, Every possible realily has & cause, and that [chuscJ ineviuibly 

will br cithcr a nercssary reality, or somcthing tcirninating with [a 
ncccssary realityj, bccause of the iinpossibility of both *circutar' and 

Hnfinite *e* arguments- 

b. Therc is no doubt at all about thc esistcncc of an cxistcnt 
entity. Indocd, 

1 . if this should bc a neccssary rcality, thcn that would bc the 
2ogicaJ goal of the pcxjof demonstrajion, And 

2. if it should be a possible reHlity, ihen ii would liavc a itcc- 

rssary causc cithcr as its bcginning point or as an intcrmcdiary, 
Let no one nbje-ct that, if [thc possible reality^s caus^| sbould be 

a necessary reality, then [the possible reality**] *existence T would be 

Eornething additional [to its c quiddicv ,! ]v as has alrcady bcen shown 

m thc body of this book/' | Thi* 1% becaLisc| thcsi [th^ posssble rcal- 
ity] would havc nced for its csscncc ? which [thcn] would be the 

*cause T for [thc pos&Lhle reality's *ex!stcnce'[ eiihcr directly in oon- 

tact with or entirely disiinet from [ita lieingj). This implies that its 

'cssunce* togcthcr with its 'cxislcnce' would prcccde both [the pos- 

siblc reality*s] L cxistcncc and ita L po3sibility\ according to our cxpki- 

acriwi a.rgi]m^ni 4 migh[ wdl ba.vr bren ^Kpcctctd amtiijig th^ carlicr [opirs on "^togi- 

c-ikl reascyning^ Thrir placcmeni hcre m Ik*ok 2 ''KtaLiiic! Di™ic n is thus a re^icw 
&tid ip.aff\mm\k\n of ihrir $rgnific:djice 3 bec^u^ tbey pnecedc imrnediately (h? im- 

pcirtant aascrrionA uf thc faiih. Baydaui is j?ivinjs; a&s-urancc co Imitant bdicvers a& 
wcll 4Lf oppcir.cnts tba( his loming lcctum will havL- in [hcm nro dnrious or Aimsy 
^ 5, In Ikwk ], ScciiarL I, Chapicr 2 K Topic 3. 


nation ihat [tliis] *essence 1 ui icsclf makcs [thc possible rcaility^s] '«ti&- 

ccncc 1 ncccssaiy, apart from any rcicrcncc to ils ""cKistejice' or E non- 

exiscence\ M 

Isfahani says: 

T, 32 1 : T I55 h MS I64a 

2- ProofJ&r the mstence qf th? J^iecess&ry lixistmi 

Twy pugical] aspctts indkatc [thc esdstence of thc Neocssary Existent] , 

onc bcmg with rcfcrcncc to B temporality\ ihe othcr wieh rctcrcntc 

to l possibilify\ 

a. Thc lirst [logicalj aspcct [indkating thc craatciicc of thc Nccessary 
Esi&tcntj is tliat there Ls no doubt m the case of the exi&tence of a 
'temporal phenomenon), evt:ry tcmporiil phenornenon bcing* a *pos- 

sible reality\ Indeed, if every ternporal plierioinction should nut bc 

a possible reality, iheii it woiilti not ta a noncxisteiit at onc tiinc 
and an cx5stcnt al nnothcr time; but such a conclusion is obviously 
false* Thus, every tcmporal phenomcnon i.s an exLstcnt ailer having 

not been [such]> that is, afler having bcen noncjd&teni aiid then 
bcconaing «dstcnc, and by ncccssity it is noncxistcnt L 322 at onc 
timc and cxistent at aiinther time. 

An exp!anatiou of the logic uscri lir-re is (hat if [ihe temporal phe- 

nomenon| shyuld nert bc » 'reality possible', ihcn it would bc cithet 
sornetbmg 'necessary in itselP or 'Lmpoksibic in itstlP. This is bccause 

w L 32] gl: The Philosophm' meihod tti proviiL# the rat*L«riGfr of the Nwcssaiy 
Etisccni b: There k m doubc at all *Lb*m ihe tsjaience of amv tiu&tenc. If ihai 

jhouM be the ikertHary eusleiH, then that wuulcl 1.h: the goal ol Uac proof. If Ihai 

$houLd he a j^issible,, then there must bc some canse which caused its ^st^nte ro 
hi* prcfcrable to us iioncvisi;en« (or which mscle it esist raiher rhrui co»ctnue ikw> 

cxt5tcnt). \Vc thcn transfcr chc aj^uJuciat tn i-t- Thcn would io^lc^u , ciTh^-j' thc ciarcuLar 
arpiineiil or thc inf]nttc scrics ir^umcm, bo-th of \vhich a.rc impmsLbJc. Or, wc cnd 
up wich tJie Nece&sary Existcnt, whith ts the intcndcd goal of tlie dcmonatmtion, 
[Thc prooJ" &rth* mm] t KCOrdijig lo ihe Mu.liikalLLrri:un, is thal (he crL-aUun of 

the world has bceci (jroved. There is no doubt at slt abcirt the eausience of a tem- 

pnra] phcticunrnnn, ^nd ewery tempo^dl phewnicnoti twc^aril) 1 h;as ;i cause that 
produccd it. Theii cithcr cLrculir ai^umcni o-r uifinnc acrics ar^umcnt ix<u^s, both 
of which sire impossjblc; or thc argumcnt cnds with thc Etcrnai Onc that hai no 
necd of a cansc in liic first casc which. u whal i.s m*:ant by ilie Neccs&ary rixkrt-iLL. 

ThesG twu mcthods arc baucd -on the imjioBybility of thc cxistcnce csf both thc 
pO**iWe rculity and thc tcmporal phenommon withcHJt a causc that give£ thc-m cxii- 
tern-Oj and u-n thc knpossibiLLty of circuJar and inimitc serics ai^umcnts. [3 rom 

MaqttAtif ti!-Ftii#MJkk t by al-GhaaHtli.] 

742 '2, sectton r, r.HAprPR i 

orthe necessity to rcstrict evety conceplual understancGng to somc- 

ihiilg that is citJicr "possiblr*, ur 'neccssary 1 ,, or "inipussiblc** in accor- 
dancc with a propcr division fof rcal conccptsj/- 7 lf one 5 * of the thrv.a 
stiould bc cKcluded» thcn thc dctcnmnation would comc to onc of 
thc othcr twc And if it should be somcthing 'uecessary 1 MS H54h 

thcn it would be always cjdsteiK, or ific should be soinething 'irripus- 
slblc' ihen it woiild be always noiiensteikt; olherwi&cr, ihc revcrsc 

would bc implicd. 329 And if it should bc always- cxistrnt or always- 
nonettistcnt, thcn it would not he nom:xisten! at one time anri c:xis- 

teot at another Therefore it h established that evety teniporal phc- 

nomcnon is a posstblc rcality. 

Evcry possdblc rcality has n causc tliat by ncccssity is an existcnt, 
and that existent causc must cither hc a ncoessary reality in itsclf or 
tenininate in a neccssary reality, ['ITus is] [of the fact [hat] 
circukTr argument and rniinite scries ajgument arc both impossiblc. 

b- The second [lo^ical aspcct indicatin^; thr cxistence of die Neo 

cssary Existent] w is that therc is no doubt at aLl ahout the cxistence 
of an eaisienl iliing. That e..xistent [tliingj tlicn would be cidicr a 

'ncccssary realiLy* or a ^possiblc rcality^ bccausc an cxktcnt must bc 
compriacd within thcsc two caicgorics in accordame with a proper 
dkision [of conceptsj. So ? if thar cxistcnt should be a nrccssary real- 
ity ? then that would Iw the desired logic^l gnal [of the argument]- 

But if the existcnt should be a priss-ihle realicy, then it wouhl liavc 

as its [cxistcnl] causc a ncceasary rcality cithcr as it& bcginning or 
as an intcrmcdiary. OtlnrwisCj, thc implication is that thc argument 
would be eirher circular ar an inhnke series ? and the invaJidation v\ 

both of these has preceded. 

** MS jjl: This is judgrrnrnt by nei^ation bctwccn two prc^pcwiitions as» lo their 
trutli wr rkbily, ?ls wIhth w [LumbtT h ciltier cvt'n t>r iidd. 

'* L H22 gJ: CJndcTstand th.aL somr- pcople atTarni tlic uempwid <nnginitkm and 
tbc possihilily of thc unwerse, thcn thcy prc>w thc cxi5ten<:c of chc Makcr, may IIc 
be prjiscd irwi ejcaJrcd. This is ihc m.cthcjd i.vhtd] thc MutakzillLmuii and also sotac 
philosoplicrs usc. 

Gdiers Lcikc into considLTatiocL Lltc cirtumrtancc of cKislcncc and prm-^c by logi- 
tal nNLsuiiing' |bi.-al-rtH7;iur| |thc uniwn* 1 »] txi5Leri4.i:, that it is cilhcr [KHrcssrtry, or 

posable, upon ertablishmg iJie eAtsience oTthe Necessa^- Eadsient. ThU Is ihc mcihod 

whkh ShayJdi Ab« *AIL jib» SiuaJ uscd in liis bodk;, til-MtiraL TJw Aulhur Jhm 

Islkhjmij rpfftm*d fcr> rhe firsr nifihod as [ilij Ihi* firsi re;igon, a.rvrt rhc seoo*id a^ [in] 
the scc:ond. j From the iShiM W^r/A^] 

"** MS gl; [f [IsTaharaJ had sikid |at ttte he^inni]]^ of TopLc 2] that thc socond 

reason w« wtch reference to £ exisif nce% ic w-outd hate been beiter. 


Lcc 110 onc object by saying thac it wouJd bc Lmpossiblc for thc 
[eujtent] cause of a 'possible rcaliiy* to be a 'necessary reality 1 eithcr 
as its begirioing nr as aii inieimediaiy. [This k] betau&e if the cause 

of a possiblc rcality ihould bc a ncccssary rcality, then thc [catisc^] 
*existenra\ would he. an addition/ 1 according to the prcneding dis- 

ciissioRS, namely, that [ihe cause'sj *existenoe' wonld he a lactor 

additional [to ihe quiddityj both in a [HKsible rcaliiy and in a nec- 
essary realiiy. 42 

IhcrcrorCj ii thc L cxi5tcncc* should be a factor addcd [to thc pos- 

sibto realify p s. *quiddity'j, then [*cxistcncc' alsoj would tic a *charao 

reristic* of the [possible realjty's] 'es&ence 9 , and a 4 characteristic l> needs 

an csKcncc^ thc csscncc beirig som^thing othcr than fthc charactcr- 

btic], Thus, 'esisterice' needs somcthing other than itsdf, and ewry- 

tliing nccding soincthing clsc is a ^possiblc rcality*. 

And, cvcry possiblc rcaiily has a causcr^ sc> thc causc ol" Lhis jncw 
cntityj, whethcr is L exisicnce* or a "possible rea]ity'J woulci bc cithcr 

"directiy contacting |its efleet|\ that i.% [the cause would be] eithcr 
'itself ' or one of its 13 altributes, or [ihe cause would bej 

scparatc [frum its efiGbct|\ ihai is 3 [thc causc w r ould btj scmicthing 
othcr thaii itscJT or onc of its attributci, 

Thusij, if its causc should bc in direct contact with [this ncw cntity], 
thcn the irnpKcation would bc that [thc causc"s] esscncc togcther 

wkh its cxistcncc would bc antccedenl io [the ncw cntity^s] cxia« 
tence. And chis fact wn ukl imply |eiiher] thal the entity in question 
would l>e precedan^ itself if [its] anlecedem exisience &hould be idcii- 

tical to [m] subsequent existence s or liiat [tlie eniily in que»tion] 

wOidd bc an cxistcnt twicc over a if [its antcrcdcnt and subscqucnt 
cxistcnccsj should nol be idcnticai; but this would 1>e imj.x>s&iblc by 
necessiiy. But, i!" its should he somethiug diMincily separate 

[from this new enikyj, Lhen the implkation would be thaL the fc nec- 

cs!>aiy r rcality* would bc a L possiblc rcality*- Howcvcr, this [an^ummij 

h contrary to the h^p-othcsis,* 1 

1,1 The MS iilone of soucits. usd sidds h^rr; "tu ihr cs^ , in-t j " 1 p.U^dl > iiit]. 

+v ' L 3122 gl: In che book : * |precedinK| ti-xi, the topic m ejiisieiice [i.e., B&ok 1„ 

Scciicm 1^ Ghapict % Topi<" 3] ? thcirc ai-e prooia aisdicaiirig lliaL [Cac(]- Thus- [thc 
causc^J cxjsccnce would be an accidcntal n^iallly of ite "c^mce". 

* MS gl: I.t, ckT thc cspcjkc^s [wii] atrnbnrc^. 

11 MS gl: Brcausr a ^neccssary raalEty 1 ip. onr thc csscnci! ol" which rcquiT^ lts 
oavn cxi5tcncc. [This is] in conirast co a % po.ssiWc r^aJity^ sincc a possiblc re-ality is 
on-c- ihat docs noL rcqLiirc cither tt5 dwil cxistcncc or its noncxis[cncc. 

744 2, sfction i. criAPTER i 

Our [Fsfahani] position h that vre liavu cx[>lainnl how [thc Ncccasary 

tud&Eent^] essence in itseli ncccsaarily rcquircs His own jspecihc|; 

i:xistence» withoui rcgajnd for [any other kitid of ] rxistexit:e ur rion- 
cxistcncc, Tlius, liicrc is no miplitation that exisieiicc prccnks itsclT, 
or that it would bc an cxistcnt twi.ce over, assuming its causc to bc 

in diroct contacL 

Thc truth is ihat thc |spcdfic| of [God Most High] is. 

idtiiuical with Himself [i.e., His essence], and so it does not need a 

'causc 9 ; thus thc objccting argumeut falls apart. 45 

Baydawi said; 

L 322, T 155 

3. Exfwitniial knowkdge qf{rfd J s essmce 

The doctriiic of the phikttuphers is that human abiliiy is noi suiTicient 

to [gain] expcricntial knowlcdgc of [GocTs] essence. [This k] because 

His csscnce is neilher conccivabtc by intuition nor receptive to a 

delirniiing delitiidoiij sinre any minposilion within Himsdl" is excluderl. 

On that account when Moses 1 * was asked about [GodJ, hc replied 

hy statmg [GodPsl propcnics and liis attributcs, but [Mosc*] was 

considered insane, L 323 Then [Moses] spake of [divine] attributes 
that are more clcarly apparcut sajririg, 

"Pcrhaps now you will undcrstand?" [CJi^an 26:28] 

Furthcr> [Lhc philosophcrs hcld that] descriptivc dchnition dbcs 
not pimide mfoi'matinEi ahoLn |(jod^| realicy. Disagreeinjj wilh |thc 

philosophens], the Mulakallirnun rejected any restriction [upon human 

kndwledge], and tricd lo conviiic:e [the philoaophcraj that the rcal- 
ity ol" [God] Most lligh is an incorporcal caistcncc, atid that this 
[exist^iLeeJ is a knownble reality. 

** MS gl: Becausc thc objoctLng argumcLit i& bascdl on thc premiAC chai ^ws- 
rence" 1 is ftnn~iechmg addiikmal in tht Nrcettary KadRtcnc. [N.B., ^hsolujtct exiiRii*nc.c 

H addtod; specdlac e^istc-tioe !s not. Ed-] 
* I, omit» any formuk *ftcr Mcj^ 1 namc; T and th^ MS add, ^Pcaoc uptm 

liim*' [ £ alayhi aUsaUm]. Baydawi bricBy tdatca Mobcs- 1 cncounLtrr with Pharanh from 
SuraiL 26 JiiJ-Shudra*] and cnds wilh a quutiidkm fro]n it. 





L 323, 1 155, MS 165a 

3- Experientiai knowiedge of 6WV essence 

Yhe dortririe hrld by thc philnsaphers, and by a]~Ghazali firr>m among 

us, and by Dirar frcjm thc carly scholar*, is chat human abiliry j$ 

insufficicnt to fgain| ati cxpcriential knowJcdgc of thc csscncc of 

[God| Most HĔgh. [This is] liccause an expcrirntial knowtcdgc of 

His essence vuould be either by way of imuition, or hy way of log- 
ical reasonmg, arid both of thcsc [ways of biowing] would be im--aHd. 

Thc first [altc rnativc, by intuition] is invalid bccausc llis csscntc 

i5 not jomething conceivab!e w T 15o by intuition, and this is the 
consen^us [of scholaisj, 'llie se<x>nd [ahe niau 1 ve, by logical reason- 

uigj is invalid bctausc knowlcdgc dcriv«i froin logical rcasoning 
comcs cithcr by way of a oYlJmiting dchnition or oi' a dcsrriptivc 

dchnition, and both of thcsc [dcfim ttons] would l>c invalid P 
a, A dcliTTiidng dcrinition would be tnvalid bccause [God*a] esscnce 

is not ncccptivc to dclimitation, bccausc such a dcliiniting dcnnition 

would appiy only to something compositc, as you havc lcamcd, and 

tomposition Ls ejtcludcd fiom Him. 

Foi that reason, 5 * when Pharaoh 5L asked Moses t |>eace upon him, 

about thc rcality of [Godj Mo*t High> saying, 


And what nnay be |this| 4 Lord of thc worldsT 1 [Quran ^6:23] 

for the ^w^iion, "wbai" chtj b<: only a quesric»i about tlw; reality — 
MoseSj, pcace ujh>ii himj rcplicd by selting ftjrth [what are GutTsJ 
prupertics and His altributcs., -saying, 

"Hc is thc Lord of the hcavcns and ihc carlh and all that is 
bctwccn them, if you mea.ii to have &ure knowledge." [Qiir*an 26:24] 
[Moses.] tlid chis m ordk-r to call act-ention to the fid that tbe real- 
ily of [God's] cascncc may not bc kiiowr] rxuq>l by drdaring [whatj 

arc givcu subsistcncc by HjitIh as thcrc is nothing that givcs 

subsistence, since in Him tlieme is no com])osition r 

+ * I.t^ tk»e Aaha - srah. Thr MS vow?Ls thc namc ^i [aJ-Gha^aJT]. 

MS .lt' 

l.e- t thc [carly] Mu^taaihih. 

l.c, it ]fl iii>t a tact k^ov¥dl>lc [ma^lOm) hy mtuiik>n. 

I-t, hctaiLsr knuwlcdgc- fflf His ^s^cncc does ncrt comc thrnugh dctlm- 

w MS gl 

" MS gl 

LiitLg dcfiiudon.. 

5 The scijbc o( L irnachicneiitly ^TOte hcT-r. fc: Whrri Cod qucsliom*d Pharaoh, 
\[si«es"; T has concctcd thc mistakc. Itaydam supplLcs a^ commĔnt^ry fin 

die Oin^anic statcmcnts to ELLJ out thc actiun^s narradw. 

746 a, section i. ciiapter j 

Rut Pharaoh had not brcn alerr to ihc point of what [Moscs] 

said h so then 

tL |Phara.oh) said to thosc [^athcrcdj around him, *Do you not 
hear?"' [Qur J aji 26:25] 

"I askcd about ih« real tiatun." of [hi.H Gnd], bul he auswered by 

dcclaring [what arc] His attributcs; his answtrr docs nol <rvcn fit the 


MoseSj upon on him, did not tiy to cxplain [to Pharaohj 

his imstake and his igtiornnce, so he spoke aboiM [G«xl *] attributes 

that wcrt morc plainly apparcm, "saying, '[God] is yuur l*>rd and 
thc Lord of your hrst anccstors/" [Oiir^an 26:26] in ordcr to aJcrt 
Pharaoh to his mistake. Still [Pharaoh) was paying no atrentio-n, but 

considcrcd [Moscs] demented.. for as God Most High recorded, in 

telling what Pharaoh did, "Hc said Jto Moacs* companionsj, l Your 
apostle who was s*nl lo you is clearly insancP" |Qur'an 26:27 1 

Tlicu Moses, peac:e upon him, spoke of fdivinel atiribuie* that 
werc still inore deariy obyiousj and he hinied ihat the quesrionmg 

about [God's] "rcaJ naturc 1 was not thc dignilicd perseyeTancr' 2 [that 
would bc shown] by people of imdligcnce, when hc said [to 1'haranh], 
"[God] i* the Lord of ehc EiLS* and thc West and all that is butween 

tlicni; rn:iybf now you om undirMMTid." [Qnr*an 2\>:2?i\ 

b. Rcgarding a 'dcscriptiYC dehnition 5 ,. it will nol 
mation of [God's] rcality. [This is] bccausc what is knowablc about 

[Godj, cnay He be praised and exaliea\ is eithcr 

1. negative predicates, — as when we say rhat Ue is neither a 
body, nor a subslance, nor an accittent,,-' and [we know that] His 
rcality is sin^ulariy dincrcnt» such that ail clsc bcsidcs it is rcjcctcd^ 
from [His reality]; or 

2. adjuiictive predicaies, as when we say that He is all-pow- 

criiil and all-knowing. There can bc no doubt at all that His essence 

is siiigularty diAerant fmm these thin.gj, 

3. What is knowable about thc *power or f iori Most HLgh' is 
thiac it is 'a factor tlm Jws che necessary elTicacy in a<:tu«lity Tor 

wliatcwr is right\ w llius ihc rea] naiure of tlie d power [orGodl* h 


The st:ribc of L wrocc, l% door H [hab], tRSirad *>f ,,l pmc\ r r;araiicr^ ,i [da^Ls], 
" MS gl: ikcaiae Ebegalion h a relauonship bctwccn a it ality and, wliat k ochcr 

rlsaji jt, iJlC nelaiion-ship tHung .mnjcrhing nih-r-r rhan iher dinigs chat arr rrPatrd. 
rr * [muswkirrL lil-ta J UiTr bi-aJ-fi*l ^ala J »bfl al-sihhah]. Cornparc ihig a rcccnt 

yijylysis [Kictuirt] M FraiVk, /fr%r uwf Ihrit Awiiwto, p. L^, Tcchnical Ttrnis 


unlmawable., but what is know^hle MS lti5b of it is no morc than 
this. ncccssary [eHicacy]. 53 

4, Ukewise, whai we may know aboul the 'knowleclge of Go-cT 

i:, no iMOir [luiii iliMi ii :i- i \h\\o\ wiiii : h juEjgruirnt a:id p ; jV-i i 

tainty rnake neccssary in actiudity. Thc qutddity of that [particular 

givf!n] divine knowh*dge L 324 is ditterent trom this Iparticular 

giv<*n] eJYect, and wh?ii h knowable [to iis] is no rnore than ihis 

Thus, it k madc clcar that thc rcalirics of thc attributca of God 

Most High arc unknowable to us. But even on the assumption that 

they conld be known, still knowkdge of an attribuie logically do^s 

not rcquire thc implication that [our] knowlcdgc is. of thc rtality of 
thc snbjcct who is characterized- Sincc an inductive study ol how 

attributes are ascribed has tndicated that we know nolhing about 

God Most High cxccpt prrdicatcs that arc ncgatiw and adjuni;Live, 

and [aincc] il lias bccn cscahli&hed that knowlcdgc of thcsc logically 
does not require ii kriowkdge of |Hisj rcalily ? it is thencfore estab* 
lished [say the pMlr>.sopht , rs] that vve do noE know the essence oi 
God Mcttt High * 

Ho\vlvxt s thc Mutakaiiimun disagrccd with thc philosophcns and 
rcjectcd thcir rcstrictionS) not grantin^ [to thcrn.] that the path of 

ljidex™Arabic\ Albany: Statc Univcrs]ty of Ncw York, 15701 of the concept of 

powcr in Istamic iheology: "thc powcr of autociomoui action.^ 

** MS gi- I.t., (he fact th<u it bas nce^sary cflic5icy in actiKility for whfttever b 


* Thi^ dnririnc was hetUI liy iJm; aiicwni GmA philubnphcira,. who aTrribuLral d.4:icy 
to variuus abstrai^. cntitics. I-accr thc^ dorlrinc was brou^hc into and bM^ainc a part 
of (rrrck-spraking 1 Christiaji thcoLi^y, as shown by thc- quoTations from ihc "carJy 
Chumh Kathtrs 1 prcscntcd by Morris S. Scalc m his Alu&hm thioiogy, a tiudv $fQri~ 
£Fis mih Tt/htner tv tkc Ghurrh Fat&fn 7 pp. 58 ff. [2nd cd.. rcprinlcd I9fi0. rrom tht 
Londnh: Lii^ac cditiou-J Tlw nociort tlisii fc Otxl is [c^trLtiidily] unknowable iri Him^]f : 

is rdkcced in thc in^riptioTi iti Atl^ns that wjts read nnd cotamented im [Acts ctf 

ike AfK»tli^ 17:23] hy rh^ Aposclc l^ul of Tarsu^ [Agnwto (heoj! i: [A]^ir forJ th^ 

unknowablr God." Th? ^\postle Paul 1 * commeni^ app<'ar to cootradicl thc scatc- 
mci))9 commg irom the fc eaify Chun:h Fsuh^in\ which indircatcs that rhere prob*- 

bly was somt contrc^crsy. Alsn mhtic ^arJy and contnwrrsial Miiatini ilicotogians. 
Iicld vicw5 cinljod"ying thb dncrrinc. Scalc [op, <:k., p. 5fl] writcs^ ^[P.D.] Uazi says 

djat Dirdr [Lbn 'ArarJ l^Umged. w the MuLL^iilltmiin who bctkvtd, ::s did ilie Grttk 

ptLiJojsophcrR;, Ltidi tiod^a. rnw: «^enre w&s nnknnwn. 1 " Jowf vsan K$s merhriona thai 
Dinir stirred upj opposilion whcn hc distinguLEhcd botwnNm GocTa [anni>ya| and 
Ilis [mahiy>'i]. i.fc, Hls c cDdsl:cncc" , Buid His c quidcLity^ Thc probJcm is thal ttic 
'cshtecin: 1 CAn. br kno^n, but it is nol » cLcar in trying" to know thc ^uiddity 1 . 
lEii-I-2-Mppi.. *.v. "Llirar b* *y\mr. h>- J. vswi EhbJ. 

Noce h«w Thrti KAydawi and IsJahtuii are (peakinj! rif []. <j«d"s. ^cssenc* 1 . Hut 
Jiirar was ^K^ki^ i>f [mahTyah] s the *qukldjily^ and prt.sumii.bly Ra^i was abo. 

74R 2, secjiion i, ciiaiiilk i 

cxperienlial knowledge h resiricwd [only] to intuilion and lugical 
rcasoning. [Indccd, thc MutakaUimun hold that] it is admissiblc [also 

ili: ijiaiikind] co have expericnual knmdcdojc [ot"God| by inspiraLtoii 
hmcI by tbc dcansmg atid chasrcning <>f tbe soul from blamewonhy 

characteristick TJie Mutakallimun tried to convince [the philosophers] 

that thc reaiity of God Most Iligh i& [ihat of] an incorporcal cxist- 
encc, 5 " a rcality knowablc to chcm by intuition, 

Rut the truth i& ihat the strongly held conviction [of thc Mutakalli- 

mun] k not esatdy coirecc. [This is because]' the 'realiiy' [or, 'es&eiice 5 ] 
ol" [GodJ Mo&L High^ in thc vicw [of thc philo&ophcrs]^ is a 'spccLEc 
Rxi&icnce\ while thc cxistencc that is knowablc h [general, or] "ahsoliite 

cxi&tence' 5B th*u is a qualifying acctdent of L specific existence\ And 

so, from knowlcdgt uf ihc <|ualifying accidcril thcre c:an bc no kriowl- 
edgc infcrrcd about thc subjcct who is qualificd. 

** MS gl: [I.e.,] eaustence abstnictcd frnm thc cjuidctiry. 

u [<-d-myad d-khasjs] — "speciRc CJustem-e 1 . "ITiis t«m has botn 5 HLnslarrd also a* 
^praper c jcjjsiti L-ut 1 ■" Sec ,[7fa /Wauj; /W,, al-Jarnt^ d-AproA d^/i^raA, p. 23 1, 
"Glos*ary of rerm^". l>an*U'tert by Nichotas Heer f Alhany: Siarc Uiuwiniiiy of Nfw 
York Prcss, I97&| " 

[H]-wtijQ<l 3]-rtui c trtm huwa ai.wujud al-mu^q] — "Ihe eai^rna: rhat is ^ow&Wc 
Ls ihe alwoUiTe (w generalj rxiflifflce," 

Baydawi sraid: 

L 324, T L56 

Chaptee 2: Qualities kot Properly Attr i rut able to God 

1, Exc(nsion ofres^mbknce hei&em GWj reaiity and aay &tfier tmng 

The first topic is that thc rcality [of God] docs not re&cmble [ihat 

*>f] any othcr bcing. 1 If thc casc should bc othcTwise, thcn 

a. if thc ncccssary causc tbr this distinction from any otlicr bcing 

should be [GckTs] own essencc^ then riic implication is that thcrc 

would be a prelerence wiihoiu m agent of pretonce. Or, 

b, if [tlie neccssary causc for this distinction] should be c other* 
than [God] 7 and if [that ^other cause] &hotild came into direct con- 
taci [with God : s cs&cncc], thcn thc dLscussJtm wtiuld return to [the 

iirit altrmariv€]„ and thcn thc argumcnt implicidy wonld bc an ciuBiutc 
sciies. Or s 

c. if [the nerassary causc of ihis dUtincUon] should b« something 
entirely di&tinct [IVum GucTs esserjcc]» ihcni thc Necesiary Eu-MrtU 
wonld have necd wiiliin His own identity for a separately indopou- 

deul cause, and ttma [thc Ncccssary Existcnt] would be [inrrely] a 
po&sihlr rcality. 

[jct no one say that an attribute that can bring about a distinc- 

tioti thruugh its own cssencc would rcquirc [anything"] to bc inadc 
spcciJic ibr it^, 35 do a 'spccilic dillerencc 1 and a L cause\ bccausc 
[such a distinguishing attributc] would be the cllcct of |its own] 
csscnce, and thus would not require an indhiduation of fitsp cause a 

aa iti the case of a genus and its eHect, If the apparent situation 

should bccome that, [iiamdy t ihat an attributc wuukl rcquire being 

itittdc spccific for its own cs&cncc], then it would bc admLssiblc that 

the conconiitarns of like tliinga mmually ahould e>ccl\ide one another. 

The caiiy Mutakallimiin held that [God"&J csscnce is thc same as 

all othcr csscnccs i]i che fact of ite heing an e^scncc^ sincc what is 

1 L 3IH gl: l.e., thc quiddiLy [iriShT^iih] «if Gucl MihA High diikiU fn>nl ihc: quifd- 

dity of Ilu CTcaturcs, hccausc of His orwn sp^ _ ific csscncc [dhitihi al-maJdiyusah] ? 
CKrt. bccausc of Eomc attribuLr addJiLLonal [10 Ilii quiddity.] TTiis is thc doctruic hdd 
by Abu iLl-Husan id-Ash^ari and. Ahu al-Husa>Ti al-Basri, God^s nueicy upu-n ihcnL, 
iiiid i.L is thc f3ncferR!d ductrine. \truni thf IIaditJn\] 

750 2. SMrnON I, CHAPTtR 2 

intcnded by this [statcment, L being the same as othcrs 3 ] is [that GocTs 
essence should be} an rntity that va]idly may be comprehended and 
reporied upon, Thb [^mneness 5 ] is a commonahty, and the asptcts 

that indkatc il to bc a commonality in k cxistenoc* also indicatc il to 
bc a commonaiily in 'csscncc 5 * 

Bul [the Mutakallimmi sakl that His e.sscnce] is dif1ercnt from 

thcse [other csscnccs] in the "nccessity of its cxistcncc* and in its 
L omnipatcncc n and = omniscicncc\ accordin^ to thc majority [of the 
Mutakallimun], and [also] in the c fiilh attributc-state'^ accoiding to 
Abu Hashiin [aJ~Jubha 3 i] . 

Tn our [BaydawTs] view 3 the coacepi of thc 'easence 1 is perhaps 

accidcntal to the cntity of which it is affirmed to }*e truc. But a 
commonality in accidcnts. does not require that there bc any com- 

monality or mutual resembEance in the subscrates. 

The philosophcrs havc hcld that Hig csscncc is- idcndcat with His 

[absolute, or, gmcral[ existencc. which has commonality wiih our 

[absolute], but it k distingutsht h d from our [spectfic] exifr- 
tence by its abstraci incorpurealiiy, and by thc fwt that it is tiot 

accidcntaJ to any other than [God]. This topic has bccn prcscntcd 
Jin fu.ll] earlier, 3 

Lslkhani savs: 

L 324, T 156, MS 165b 

Chaptkr 2: Qi:ai-iT[f.s uot Pkoperly AitrehtjtablEi to God 

ATter he fitiished with GhapGer 1 he began Chapier 2 o» thc qual- 

itics not properly attribtitable to God. In it he sct forth fivc topics: 
L Exclusion of rescmblance bctwecn His rcality and any other being; 

2. Ĕxclusion of corporeaJity and rcgionality; 4 L 325 3. Exclusion 

uf uniun and mcamate indwclljng; 4. Exdu*ion of temporal phenom- 

cna firom subastenoc in His rsscnce; 5, Exdusion of sen&ate ^ualilics. 

' IsJahani cxpJaim in hLs commcncar^' what thk meani, in the dMtrine c( Abu 

H.ii.-liiin M!vl hii, i;-i E ;l<^iLn.ii x. Th' hhh .-lU.rib^U^-^isUc i^ '■:liv-riiv\ ;!-H ii k -lu- iK ! t> 
CS$ary c^lisc ol^ Ttynr i.rthcT ;'dirribut-r:-fltati?& 1 namdy, 'po^&nssion oi" a livitig naturc p B 

''oinnbKJcncc 1 , l onmipntrncc r 1 and fc c:xkLcnliality h . 

} Sor ihfi nrtes lo the conresjMinding; sccrscm Ln Isfahajn"s camirbtntaiy. llic car- 
licr pr«enution was tn Book l ? Scclion ] T Chapter 2, Tapic 3:2. 

4 r rhe MS aJone of scumes uscd giws fihe sccjuence is ifc rL^r>nalit>' and ccnpo- 
^eaUtv.' ,,, 


L &x£iumn of mern&tanw &ttut€&i God*? reality and atty aj/jw im^ 

The first topic is that thc rtEdity of [God] Most High dots not rcscm- 
blc any othcr bcing; that is lo say s [His rcalkyj in its total quiddily 

has no corcinicinality with any othcr bcing., [This is] bccaLLsc., if His 
reality should rescmhk [ihal of] any other being, then the factnr 

by whkh cach of thc two [natures] would bc distingijishcd from thc 
othcr wouJd be boih excemaf to their realities- T 157 in which 
ihey have the cornmonality, and adjoincd 10 tlicm, 

a. Now, lf thc ncce&ary causc — of thc factor by whkh thc Ncccss&ry 
Existent thc Most High i& distinguishcd from a bcing othcr than He 
but that resemhJes Him shouJd be HimaeJI",. 5 iJien ther^ would bc 

aji iniplicit prefea -ring without an agent of preference^ becauwe His 
essence would h\: similar to [that ofJ anothcr bcing. Thus, if [His 
cssenccj should bc thc ncccssary causc of a factor spcciikally bclong- 

ing to [Himscirj, wirhout regard for [that of] the other although 

they bolh would be thc samc in reality, thcn this would constitute 

a prcfcrring without an agcnt o.f prclcrcncc. 

b. Or, if thc ncccssaiy cause — of the factor by which [God] is 
dktinguished fram another being— should be something *other 3 ihan 

Himseir and if that *olher tieces&ai^ cause' shuukl cotne inio direct 


contant 1 with Hiinsd^ then this discussbn would rcturn back MS lS6a 
to that NiontiguoLis othcr ncccssary causc', in ihat if the necessary 
r.ausc of that cnntigunus olher slioulri he itse3f, thcn there would he 

arl iittplitit prcfcrriiig without an agcnt of prcfcrral s but if it &houki 
bc anothcr than |that conciguom othcrj. chen thc discussion wotild 
rcturn hac k to tJiis [acconri] other ? and the argumcnt would. iniplic- 
idy be one of an infinite series- 

c. (>r, if that otlwr entity, the nece^sj-jr) 1 cause of the factor by 
wliich [God's cssence] may bc dislinguishcd Jrom [anuther bcingj 
sliould hr cntircly scparatc and distinct [from God a s c&scncel, thcn 
ihc Nccc&sar^* Existcnt would havc nccd boih in llh own identity" 

and in His individuation for a scparately iiidcpcndent causc; but [in 

that case] thcn thc Ncccssaiy Exbtcnt would be [nicrcly| a possiblc 

realtty. and this woiild bc contrary to Uie hyjioEhctid 

E 1" \k'k fjr>7;l]^ aloru* aml apparrntJy in a mi^takcn rcprtLtkm from. thc fol- 
lowing ] S ii f ^ ackU hcre |mumSdiiLah]. 

.VI S gl. ]n itial ii tt^julJ h<: onc of thc attributcs of thc Ncccssiry' RxistcnL 

752 2 F 3F.CT]OM ], GllAPTER 2 

Lei rio one thiiik ihaL aii attribule, something that in itself rauses 

ii distincticni/ wculd rcqtiirc thal its owri spcciCication should bc for 
ihc. csscikc of [UodJ Most High. — flndccd|, the csscncc of |Cod[ 
docs not [mcquire that spt.cLlkationJ so as to imply a prdTcrring with- 

oul an agent of prelcrral.. nor does anyonc other than He but in 

dircct contact [with Him rcquirc thc spccification] 50 a% to iniply an 

lEiiinite kiws, 6 nor rioes on.p other than He hut enili+.-ly separate and 
distiriel [rcqujrc the specLNcatiun] so as to iinply ib heing a pussi- 

bk\ jAnd lct no onc thinkj thal ttiat [rcquircnicnt] would bc likc 
thc 'diHcrcncc* and thc 'cause', for thr l diflcicncc : ol itsclt" requirt\s 
that it be spcciiiic to a portion of ihe specics undcr the gcnus, and 
noi lo any oihcr porliuriSj* aml ihe ' 1 of ii$elf 10 rcquircs di;n ii 
be specilit: lo a given cllcct, ralher than to .nomething elsc. 

Our | lR.fahani 1 sJ doctnnc h that sur.h a |distin^viishiiig| attribute 

ivould be the caused eHect of an essence, and thus it would be sub- 

scqucnt to thc individuadon of thc essence., &incc an cflcct ncccs- 
sarily must bc subscqueni to thc jndividuation of iLs canse, white it 
does not require thc hidividuation of its causc, as with ihe genus 
and the effect. And as the genus h an eflect of the diHerenee, 11 

does noi rcquire thc mdividuation of thc diHcrcnoc which is its cause. 
Likewise,, as Lhe ciHcct is &ubscquent to thc iudi\idua.lioii of its cause,, 
it does not rcquirc thc iTidi\idualion of its causc. 

[Baydawrs] position is that 11 if thac [kind orsynTaclical autonomy] 

wcrc admissibk;, that is ? if it wcrc admis^iblc for the attributc, bcing 

an cffcct of thc csscncc^ to rcquirc its. otati spccificarion [to the 
cs^rncrj, thcn ii u-oulcl br admis*i r nk for ihc concomitams of Eike 
[hin^s to e.xclude onc anothcr. 

1 MS gl: M4!anmg, wiLhcmi an Lni^mmJiiiry. 

Fi L 325- gl: i\r\ oJrjcciaon might bc raiswi not granting thr necE&aiiy of thc iiiAnLtc 
scrics, and quc*tioning thcrcforc why k wouLd not bc admis$ib3e that soLwchuig 
oihcr LhiTi thc csstncCj Jianitly. ihe suttrLhuiu^ ihoukl hc prd^ritbLe a.s tJic lactor 
LlLat cliistiiikgui&hca thc quiddity, m ttuit thcn Lhr LnJinitc seric^ would n.o-1 IbUow, 

Uur [lsftilirtni?] pusLiioo ili-tn wotdd bc that un- Ihis 3iip£>o$iui>iL ihe drtubr hi^lh 

uiirnt would t>f Lmjdirit, which woultJ also hr invalid. [Jtdjii ih^ Jir^ny] 

* Such iis a rdtiuuaJ hurru^i hnn^ fid-iLa(ic|]j lur <fxaniph , I whu of hictisdr is 
spccirk* IO Llffcr puTtion OtaC is ici iriitTl AlhLMig tlic HriirnaJSs wlnch h m A ftiTi.11 5, iri spitc 
of ihi 8 fii"L ihtU ihut porlion and Othin ]^avc ct|uaUty ki thc quiddily [mAhijTih] . 

!£ MS gl: I.e., wiihoin aci iniermt-iliajty. 

11 Thc MS artd MS Garrem tMS9Hrt adJ here. "hb po^iiH^n a^ fq;iw|ij|iiV|, bui 

li is nr*t ,1 wtrbnirim qiLP>i«; 11; is omirred iri L & I'. 


Such a conclusion would be ohviousfly fa]sc, so its prcmisc would 

hc likewise 12 The Jogic i« use here is that the actrihute (a) making 
ihi; dbtinction and rcqumng thc speciJkatiott wmild be a mncomi- 

lant of thc cssencc» 11 but thc iUtribute (b) distingriisliing thc trni.ily^ 
[an attributcj that is othcr chan [thc Ncccssary Existcnt] yct cqua.l 
to it in thc totality of it£ rr;dity\ — would bc a concomitaru of thc 

cssence of that other entity, and the iwo [distinguishing] attrihutes 

would mutaJly exdude ottc another s so thcre would be an implicit 

mutual exclusion L 326 among llie concnmiiants of Jikc things» 
If aji obJ£rtJon slunild be raised that the faclor hy whtr.h |the 

Nccessary Esistcnt] is diHtiriguishwl from auother being would bc 

"egative iri quality, nsmcly, [thc doclrine that GodJ Ls thc Most 
High and llicrc h no othcr than IJe, 11 thcn ihc rcply would bc that 
the negation of thc olhcr [sccond beingj would not take place until 

after thc eaistenoe of [that] othcr had come about Tn thal case, the 

Necessary Existcnt wouid achicvc llis own [distmct] idcnrity [only] 
aftcr 15 the ejristence of the oiher [beitig:] had come about, and tbus 
[the Necessary ExistcntJ would hc [nicrcly] a 'possible rcality\ 

Thc eaiiy Muiakalliniun hcld that ihc cs&cncc of [GodJ Most High 
is likc othcr csacnccs in ihe fact of its bcing a csscncc, sinoe whai 

h tneant by essencc is somcthing that may bc known and reported 
upon_ lf: NoWj this mcanint; is a commonality among [God Mcist 

- 7 MS ^l: Lc, Hm ilie «Hence shoukl rcciuire l>eij]|? mwck $pecific, 

:J \1S gl; l.e. t rhe eswiKt of"the Necrasary Kicistetit. 

+ MS gl: This poitu pequines considerauwj- 

IJ MS $\ Not belore, ainc-e tbeir would l>c rto disuiiKuisEiing factor Ln ic^ ihM h, 

in ncgacLng Lhf! otber, 

:t MS gl: Thc- carly MutakallimiJJi taught that thc csscncr of [God] Wost lligh 
rra:mhlr*p aU ■dUipt csejcticps in its cswntiaJity nxnl rralit\', but diffrFs frorja aU iither 

r$acm:es iti having- Ibtir 'ariributc^uu^: neoeaiiy, liie, oarmisnipnc 1 ? nnd nmnipn» 

tpnr^ ihat ]a 3 thp \i\nn\ qualiries of brring nccesj.ty 3 of hdng a luir.g tiaiHrc, and 
ha\iLig tnov%]cdgc and poy^?r in complclcntss arc ihoRc taught by Ahu ( A1j al- 
Jubba 1 ]. Bu.1 Abu Ilasbtm. [saidj, fc, Hc k distinct from aJJ uthtr cfacnc:^& in ha\in.g 
a iittb 'attribuLc-stiLc^ whi<:h ia tln- Eicassary cauic nf thcse -crtlicT four, uncl I have 
f<il]rd it thc qua]ily nf "■dj^inity*/ 1 [From Juijani^s Sharh Mmtwqif a! Ifi.] 

Updn miewnp thc torrcspondiriB passagc in. Iji^s Mamaqjf fp- 269]j IGpetheT 
with thc arcuunts giverL hcrc crf BaytbLwi, IsTabani, and Jurjani who was Iji's com,- 
Tn^nUiLor;, wfr otit obscr\ r c that duc tu thcir closcncsss in timc and subjrtl cEiall^r. 

and dLi* 10 th? iacr ihAi hJahAtii aj3d Iji arc both Rawbw-Ts scudenis "remowJ by 
amr. stajjc"",. I) Baydawi givcs rbc basic Eact^ in ooncisc foim; 2) lsfahatu's commcnts 
wlarRc urpcm Baydawi, but thcy arc [oosd^ organi^cd; 3) Iji l^-ts a fcw tnurc Dicts 
rhan Haydb^i, but is siiniLar iti style ;ind muBt dcpend Oft him; Atld. 4) jiirj^ni^ 
commciica,^' ctilargc& upon Iji. and rcwmblti Isfahaiii in ^iNing thc %3uYve facts hut 
in more cl«>5**y organiicd fofroat. 

754 a, EEcrnoK i. chapter 2 

and othcr csscnccs. so thc csscncc of [God] MS 16Gb would 
same as thc othcr esscnccs. Also, [the early MutakalLimun 
llie reasons that indicate the commoiialily of *existenoe* 
[alsol mdicalr the commonHlity of V-ssencc* f in that wr say that wc 
are certain of ihe cssence of somctJiing, yct wc arc hcsitant as to 
whcthcr it would be a ncccsaary cxistenL or a sLib&taricc, or an acci- 

dent, and so wc a essence into [eithcrj a necessary ejtistent,, 

a sub&tancc, or an accicknt. 

So it is csiablishcd that [GocTs] csscncc ia kikc [that of any] other 

in thc fact of its bcing a easencc, but it diflcrs ffrom any other] in 

thc ncccssity of, in pcrtect omnipotence, in perfect omni- 

sciencc, and in ihe c fiftli attributc-jtate* according to Abu Hashim 

|al-Jubba f i] s this [fifth attributc-state] being 'divinity\ which is thc 

neccssary cause of [thej four [other] attribute-states [aJready men- 

tioriedjp nariiely, posse&sioti of a Iiving nature, omiiiw:icrtce 3 omnipo- 
tcnccj, and cxi^tcntiality. 

Our author, [Baydawj], God resJ his sou! p 17 hdd that the concept 
of an cssencK is perhaps accidental to the entity of which it is aATirttied 

to be true, Howe^er, :i curnuionality in atddentaJ qualitk-s dws not 

rs:qum- nnltiLT ;-l Ccjinmoruilily ;n:;icnig ihi* siili.slralrs nr iheir rnutual 

nLiscrnblancc to one anotlicr iii rcal nature. 

Thc philosophcrs hold that thc 'csscncc* of [God] is thc samc aa 

His ^[generalj absolute] existence' IB which participates as a com- 

17 This formula «lin L: (r-hj, m T: [Rahamahu AlLih ca'ala*)) is not Lu thc MS 
or MS GartTtt M9Ha. Cnnepi^bly^ JkTahjtni here C4juld be indicaring: ihc recency 

ol" M&ytUwr* dsaih, ihr r^jwi^d dancs of whtch are yarirriialy Lj^ied Jrom 1?86 to 

l!^Lfi. Sqc. fhr Pieia^*! uote r>n Raydawi for Lnfbimii[sou suppornng tUc. laic daihe of 
7J6/1 3 1(>. If ? a? h prohahb, Isljiihani in Caim wrcice this cinmmcniary for aL-Malik 

aJ-Na^Lr Muhainmad heginning nut long ali^r 7S2/1332 wheti hi* md t^. king [fk:e 
th^ Prcfsu5R nair. on Isfaiiaj3iJ ? thc slow lravL-ling finaJ ncw of Bannilawi^ dealh in 
TabriK would sdll bc classrd undcr "rcccnt ^[CC^Dlog)■ ,,,, 111 thc minds of" \IusLim 
scholars. Isfahdn[ htrrtauLl" died in 749/1348, 

To bc sure ? wr adniiL there ts also a gcnllc _\rabic imny in this use of ihe for- 
niula^ since la^ihani lncrc b sanocrthinK away a smaJl trror oF Bayda^i's judRmcnt. 

13 MS & Objcccir>n k&a been raisp*l thAt [his is mn correti, fw th-e doctrinc of 
ibc philosop^crs is ihai Ilis qui<Jdlcy is jdontical lo Hi$ 'spwjic e^Utenw 1 fayn 

wujudihi aJ-khSij;, this bcin^ thc subsiratc for thc [^cncralj ■L t xiilcncc whkh is ibc 
cummoriiilrty, [N B- B«r thi* tremr conuradk-W ditr g-encral undcntsnidĔng of th-c 
philowphcr? 4 jKisltion-] 

Nasir al-Din Tusi (T&Mts d-Muhwsal, p.. 1551 rcpom Ibn Sina's positioaK . , * ,|F ni«c 

quiddky of God is llir uimr: lls rhi- [Ujh ^ttn«:raJj i:sisl^ni"<s 3 [mihiyssl AlLah najs al* 
wajud]. 1 * 


monalky in the cxi&tence of the possible realii.ies , i Bul (ihey hold] 

that His s essence* 3 that k, '[what tiiey eall general] esciitence 3 , is dis- 

tmguished from [GcrcTs] quiddky ]J by its abstrattiem, and by the 
ab&cnce [of any c^nmplca] of its bcing an accidcntal quality to any- 
thing clse. As a statcment cxpounding this has just prrceded thcrc 

13 no nccd to repeal it r M 

Baydawi said: 

L 326, T 157 

2. Exehi5ion ef corportatity and regionaUty 

[Our p-osition in this. topic] is iti contrast to [the doctiines of] thc 

Karramiyah" and of the anthropomorphisis, 22 

\\c hold ihat if fGod] were to cxist within Sttrnc pHrticLilar rcgion 
and within somc particiilar spacc, thcn eithcr Hc would he divia- 
ble and ihus he a hody^ and since every body is a composiie and 

is temporally originatcd^ according to thc prcccding discussions, the 

Ncccssary Existent wtrnld bc a composite and tcmporally originatcd, 

and it would bc contrary to our hypothesis; or He would not bc 
d.visible and thus wouid bc an aiomic parijcle, which would bc 
impossiblc by comensus, 

FurtJiermore s if [God] were to cxist within a parricular spacc and 

___^^_ m 

r? MS gl; Tlit' eustencr of [Gtid] is ihc 5eudjc as His quiddity [mahiyah], as h 
ihe ttocrrirte o( llic Shaykh lai-As^aijJ^ Abu al-Husayn [al-Basrij and thc phiJoso- 

phers; or p ic b an addMun tti it. && i* ihe doctrinc of dic majcnity uT ihe MutakalliiTiuii; 
and U is eiche* 1 on an rduality with tbe tJtLstenct of the po&ibk rcaiitics ot "u is 
dMcrent. Fn thc scctLpn [ofihis woik] cfii cbe univ^?^ub {Book U Secrwn J p CSiapccir 2, 

3:2f| :* &uiFicicric trcatm-cnt fof chi^ pmbl-CJii] haa prcccdcda 50 thcrc is no 
mejiniiig iii riL-pmiiiing it dl. 

K Iri ihb prcscnc discussi™ l^alj^ni iiiilwitunatdy Fails to make plain tht diITnf noe 

bctwoen 'spcclllc exj3teii<:(:", wliich ooii«iiin.*s the esseiLce 1 of (^nI ihe Nevfiasary 

EKistent, ajid 'ahsninr^, or g^H^ral^ rai^encc 1 which Lh rhe oomniona|[ty arnong all 

cx35[cncs ? this lacccr "gctncwl c«i«cncc* hcmg ac^idenusJ to [God^J "-SJKlHic «daiCTCC^, 
Thc two r]oss« in the MS citcd in thc no«lts sbove <iemonsLraic (hc ease aud frc- 
qucnty oF thc confusk>n among thc succfissive schol&rly H^iwir* of lUe MS a-i to 
ihe tcrminokM^y and conocptSi prcacnccd. In oontrasi, t^mparc TsCahatu 1 ^ clcar treAt- 
mcnt in ihc conclutdon i>i" CHaptcr I abovc H and the longcr di&c:U9sion in Bwk l f 
cited iii ilK' prtcedin^ note-. 

21 &w chr iiL*ryssioci of clii- io[Atii>n$iiip of thc Karrjmiy^i iw lliis in thc aiticte 
\Jlah." by D-B. MacdomJd tn Olc En-|-] and 2, and in chc S&uttet /■fs^|tf/r^w«ifjfd ^/ 



22 S*C che dLstuaswn cif thc relaLiunship of thc ajithropcjm-nrphiHbi to Lhis in die 

^licte ,h AHah" by L. Ganiei in EnJ-2. 

75fi 2 3 5F,mON T, CHAPTP.R 2 

a particular region., tiien Htr wouJd bcr limitcd in imporLaiicCj aocord» 
ing to preccding distussions, aad whiic His importancc was bcing 

dciermined He would stand iti need of an agenc for indi^idiiLLtion 
«irnl |>referral [for ctxiateiicc], whidi would bc impo&siblc. 

Iislahani says; 

L 326, T 157, MS I&6b 

2. Exclusion of corporealiiy and rtgiGn&litp 

We hold^ that God Mosl Hagh does not eacist in a body, [this posi- 

tion beingj in conirast to the corporeaJ^Ls nor doe* He «rist m 

somc panicLilar regiori [oTthc uiiivcrsc] > m contrasi to thc Kamtrriiyah 
and thc anthropujriorphi&ts* 

You should know that all thc corporcaliscs arc agrccd tbat [CJod] 

Mosi High exists in a pajrticular region, but ihe Kammiyuh,** thc 

disciplcs of Alimad Ibn al-Karram M vary somewhat Irom ihetn. One 

of them> rjainely, Muhammad Ibn al-Haysam, 26 said thai [God] Mmsl 

Hjgh exisu in a pariicular regjon abovc ihe thronc, this rcgion being 

without Urnitj and ihc distancc bctwccn llim and the Thronc al&o 
is witbout limit, although somc of hia colleagucs hcld the dialaiice 
to be limired. AH of thcm excludcd from Him |anv considcration of I 

■ ■ ■ m I r 

five of the [direniional] rejgions 27 wliile allirrning with rclranentt. 1 . to Hirri 

on)y [dte rcgion] "bcloW*, whieh ta thc placc for ariy othcr bcing. 

Thcsc coUcaguc& of Muhammad Ibn al-Haysam hcld that llc cxists 
on His Throne, as did the other eo^mnealists, some of whom hcld 

; : - "Ilit- VIS ;u-.I MS Gamu 989» w omil Lhtr imrtKliiciury, J \V e huld" [Fa-iLaqQr. 

M MS g|: Whu are amwig i.hc corpDt^iilist*. 

^ I.e.p AIjli "Abd ALiJi Miidukitnad Hxi K^itatEi; ct En-I-2 art. "Karnuttiyy-ah™ 

hy C.B. J-Si^-ywprch, snd SJjal^rasuinrj Mwkm $&U mti Dmim h cr foy A-K. Kmi 
and J.G. Hynn, p, 92. 

K L k T deaiiy point ihc leuer H $ad h making it uito a ,% P*dP\ buE the MS 
do«s not. 

?7 M-S gf: NarnHy, abowe, [t> rJn* righ^ to rhe left ? befiwer, and Miind. 

w MS "6(>ti gl: Tk3i; U, in thc pattcra of rtiankinirl [Ay 'al^* 3ftrat zUsn$!lnJ. Their 
cvT.dcncc is drawn froLV: thc word of Him thc Most HLgh, ,fc God crcatcd Ad^ru in 
hiu pattcm =, l . [khaliirjy AHah cs^Sla* Ad^in *a.1a fc surwihi] arid ihcy asscrt that th^ 
pronDun rcirra to Gud, but thc truc situatlon is that it is not acccHndtn^ to chcir 
a5&crtion. Thc pranoun rc-fcrs to Thc Adam [ijc., 'mankind^ c£ in Hcbrc^: ha- 
adain], with its TiLCiinLri^ bcing that God crcatcd AdiLm |thc individual] upon thc 
pattcm of him that was Jalrcad^ 1 ] linlted to His [di\inc| bio^v3cd_i^c in ctcrnity. 



that Ilis cxistence |on the thronej was according to a pattern, 

L 327 ancl ihat Hc came atid wcnt * 

[Baydawi],, our author^ prcsentcd thc argTjmcnt for thc cxdusion 
of any rcgionality [Irom CjSodj but not chc argurncnt for thc caclusion 

of corporcality. [This was for two rcasons] „ bccausc to cxcludc rcgion- 

ality implte* the cxdusion of"corporeali(y, arid because the argwncnt 
For the cxclusion of regionality bidudes exdusion of corporeality, 

Tf you undcrstand this, we nriay thcn statc our position that if Gud 
Most High should cxist in somc rcj^ion |of thc univcr&c| and within 

a spacc, then either He would be dKisibk and thus be a body, — 

but sincc every body is a composilc and a tcmporal phcnomenon 
according to precedirtg djscussions^ T I5fl the Necessaiy Existeiit 

would be a coniposite and a teinporal phcnomenon, atid this would 
be contrary to ihe hypoihesis; — or Hc wuuld riot be diraible, ajid 
thua He would bc an aiomic partidc^ which wuuld bc impossiblc 
MS l6?a by consenaj*- 

Kurthenrncm:, if God wcre to exisc within some particular region 
[oF the uniwrsc] «rid wiihiti h partkular apacc, thcn He would bc 
limited in importancc, But this conclusion is ^aJsc^, so the premisc i* 

likcwise* The logic in use here is benause of what has preoeded 
regarding the limitalton ordimensioiis, Th* condusion would Ik lalse 
because the deieniiiriation of His importancc by that [standard of] 
imponance wotild bc as a [merc] possiblc reality having nccd fodr 
an agent of spcdfication and prcfcrence : which would be impoasibic. 
Thcy J -' could oh[rr.c that thr ageni for specitkanon anrt prriercncr 

would be the esseuee of [God] Mnst Hisfh, which wuuld not be 


But a t>etter statement [of the rebuttal] would be that if God Most 
High should exist within some parriiciilar regkm [of thc universe 
;jTid [williin a particular| space„ thcn Hc would bc acccptant of di\i- 

sion and of various shapcs and of varions statcs of being, namcly» 
niotion^ resl, joining togcthcr Etnd scparation. Bnt all of that would 

bc impoasiblc as thc prerogativc of the Neccssary Existent cEie Most 
Hieh, aince the nccessilv of His existence cxcludes all thcsc tliines. 



MS 1^1: On tti-c bjLiis ai ihe ^rarl of [Co<]] Most IligK : "Whcn yonr Lord 

tOrnts, wHjIi liw? atL^cls in rank upun ranJt." [Qtrr T aii ^^22] 

w MS jl: l.c, the corpcn-ealisrs. 

758 a. sEcmoN i, cuaptkr 2 

lbvdawi said: 

L 327. T 158 

7he argttTRml vf the corporeaHjti 

[The GorporcaJistsJ havc prcscntcd an argumcnt on the basis of 
both rcasan and traditional authority. 


a. As to reason., they argue from Iwo aspects. 

1. The iatitition of reason obaervcs thal of [anyj two existcin 
things onc ciihcr must bc llinctioning within thc othcr^ as arc a sub- 
stancc and its t]uatity, or be distinctly *eparated firom [the ocherj 
in regionaliiy [jihah], as are the heavcns and the carth. But God* 

praise bc to Him s is not a subscrate for thc univcrsc. nor docs llc 
inhcre within it> so Hc is cnbrcly dktinct from it in rcgionality, 

2. A body requires hoi.h a parncular space and a particular 
region, beeause of the fact that ic is self-subsistent God, praise bc 

to Him thc Most Higb, has a comEnonahty with [a bodyj in this 
fact, and thus Hc also has a conimoiialiry with it in rcquiring the*e 

two factors. 

b. As to traditiona] liuthority., thcrc arc vcrscs [of Qur'anic Scripture) 
that givc infonnation about llis c oiporcality and His rcgionality. 

Kipiks to the c&rporeathts 

a.l-au Thc reply to ihe first point [of their argument from 

reason] i& that such a HrnitarioTi [of refcrcncej is impossiblc^ and 
intuition is obscnrant of the disa^rcemcnt among intclligcnt pcople- 

a.2. a, [The reply] to the secotid point [of theii argumcnt irom 

rcasonj is that a body rcquircs boih (aclont [i.c^ a particular space 

and a particular rcgionj acrordiog to [the demands of| its own 

specitic reaJ nature. 

b.-a, [Thc reply to dicir argument froni] vcrses [of Qiir*anie 

ScriptureJ is that thesc do not contradkt inldlcctual assertions that 

not acccpt a plaiii intcrprctatiort. Thcrefore^ thc knowlcdgc [thc 

vcrscs] contain either is committcd to God Most HisTh, as was tlie 

method of our predecessors, or it k given an jnteipreiatton such as 

thc fu]iot [^hir^anj cornmciiEarics havc rctordcd. 


I$fahani savs; 

L 327, T 158, MS lG7a 

Thosc who assert that God Most High cxists in a [partic ular| rcgion 

aiml in & [particular] spacc havc prescnted. ati argument on the basis 

of both rca&on and traditional auehority tt> thc cffect that Hc thc 
Most High does indeed cxist in a pardcular rcgion and in a par- 
ticular space, 

a. Thcir argumcnt from rcason is from two aspccts, 

L r ITic tirst aspcrt is that imuitwc rcason Qh&erves thaL with 

any two given exislent$, one of the two ciithcr miist l>e liincrioning 

wirhiri Jlic olhijr. sn that li rcfcrci:c"f:; lo om: of :1 ^tti wtnikl br ;i wf- 

crcncc tu thc othcr, as rn thc casc of a suhstsince and its ac c :idcnt, 
whcrc thc accidcnt inhcring in thc suhstancc liinctions within it eo 
that a reference to the substance is the sanic as a rcJcrence to the 

accidcnt; or one of the two L 328 must be distinctly separatcd 

(rum thc othcr in rcgion, as arc thc hcavcn and thc carth^ and just 

as God Most High is not a substrate for the universe nor does Hc 

inhcrc in it, Hc is thus distinctly separatcd froin thc univcrsc in 
Rrgiunality. 31 

2, Thc sccond aspcrc is Lhat a bociy rcquircs a partic ular rcgion 
aud a particular spacc bcr.ausc qf the fact that it is an cxistcnt sub- 

jtisting in itselt. Now God, praises to Him thc Most High T has rom- 
monaLtty with a body in the fact of being a ■dT-subsisting odstent, 

thusj Hc ivould havc commonality with a body in rcquiring a par- 
ticular ,spaec and a particuiar rcgion h and thcrdbrc^ ITc rxists within 
a particular space and withiii a particular region. 

b. And thcir argumcnt from traditional authorit^" is that thcrc are 
vcrscs [of (^liur^anic Scriptune] thac givc inibrmation about His cor- 
pK>rcality and llis rcgionahly^ such as arc thc [Ibllowing] statcmcnts 
of [God] Most Iligh: 

"And t]ic hcavens a rolled up bundlc in His right hand T \ [Qur*an 

39:67] and 

". . , I havc crcatcd by my own hands"^ [Q^ ^8:75] and 

■^ 1 MS gl; lliws \\w N«cssaTy EMsu-nt exiscs in & particul&r repoin^ whif:h war, 

thc god qf thp [corporejilisis*] argwmem. 

31 Thc MS quotad<in incliick s alw ttu: pfq>osicion and f>cr£onaJ pronoun prc- 
^.t-dirtg ihcse wt>rdE-, c, to what n flL-maJ. 


"Thc liand of (Sod U above their hands 1 *, [Q4R:10| and 


iH Thc 1 Onc in forfiial audicricc cnthroiied", [££20:5] 
and othcr vcrscs. 

JtepHts to tke wpareaiists 

a.l.-a. The rcply to thi- iirst aspect of the argument from rea- 

son is in rcjccting such a limitauon of rcfcrcncc_ Wc do not grant 

ihat for eveiy giwn two estisietus one of iliem either must be func- 

tioning within the otliLT., or bc diKtincdy scpninitc fram it in rrgioir 
[This i& hecau&c] it would bc adrnis&iblc that [thc hrkt onc] should 

l>e distinr.Ely scparatc from fthe aecondj in bcith csscnce and in real- 
ity but not in r Further, [ihe reply] is that the observa- 
tion of intuition is rcjcctcd hcrc brcausc of ihc disagn^metit among 
intctligcnt pcoplc about this inattcr. 33 Indccd., if MS I67b inti> 
itive reason should obserue chat for cvery two existcnrs one of therm 

inevitably would be either funciionine; within the other or would be 

disrinctly separatcd from it in rcgion^ then thcrc would be no dia- 

agrccment ahout [the rnatter] among intelligem people- 

a.2.-a. Thc rcsponsc to thr second aspcol [i.if ihe argnnicTir 

frorn rcason] is ihat a body rccjuircs a particular space and & par- 
ticiilar rcgion actording to [the dcrriands of] its own spccitic rcal 
nature; but Gort, may He bc praiacd, has no commonality with [thc 
body] in iis own specifi.c rcal naturc, and ihcraforc, Hc has tio com- 

monality with [the body] in rcquiring a pankular sp;u e and a par- 

ticnlar rcgion. 

b,^a, The reply to the argumcnt [from tradirional authority] bascd 

oii the vcrses cpiotcd. |isj that [they] are receplive 10 inceipretatiori 
bccau&e thcy do not appear to contradict intelleciual agsertions lliat 
do not acccpt * plain interpret»tion because of tbetr own cogency. 

In such & Casc [of reccpti^ity 10 intcrprctalioTi] tlic ktiowlcdgc ion- 

tainert |in thcsc vcrscs] cithcr 

L woti]d be committed tn Gori Most Hi^h which was the prac- 
dcc of our precteceisors. and [chis] is the doctrine of tho&e who rnake 
it a duty to wait upon God according to His word, *For no onc 
know^s how to inrerpret [Hiy word] hni God,,-", [Qur'an 3:7] or 

2. il ^cmjl':] )n: :--ivrn ^21 u\liz |jcri;^ii jf.i rirrs irdms; Lu lln mrllun] 

of thc cxcgc(t^ r and [accordiTsg to] ihc teaching of somecjTie favrn- 

** \1S g]: l.c-3 abouc whirthcr Hc the Musl Higjh ckjsLs in a rt^LjioA and a platc. 


ably attachcd to His word, 34 £ \ - . thosc who are finnly cstablishcd. 
in Jcnnwledge 11 [Qiir 3 an 3;7j 5S [i.e PJ knnwlcdge based| upon Gnd. ITie 

various intcrpmations arc sct forlh suid tloscly studied in thc Jullesi 
commcntarics [on the Qur*aii|. 

wi said: 

L 328, T 158 

3. Exctuswn of imton and tftt:{Wti$te indHWthyg 


a. Union. The hrst [of these two conccpts of accidcntal ^ualitits^ 

'union', is excludcdj because if [God] Most High should be untted 1 

with any othcr bringj thm ii both [cndlicsj should continuc on as 

41 L and T: [<atafa]; rhc MS atxt MS Garrcit U«9Ha: [ya^taT]; abo ai gLuss in 

MS Gajrett %9Iia: [maW^* 7 ]- 

H The MS nJone has droppcd che phraj*. 1 "an knowlcdl^-c" from tht Qur a art quot£. 

M 5« thc artidcs "Hu]ul n by L. Massi^nun/G.C. Anawati and *iHi(tad H by 
R, NkholsDn/G C. ArwwaLi in Lhr En-I-2. BolIi arlidra indicatt thrtl tlit LwO krms 

cwrlappwl in meaning w as lo be pracrically gynonymom, anri rh=n boch termi 

refcnrcd dircctty to thc doctrinc of ihe Iwcarnation a$ thc eonccrpt bcing Tejccted 

by Muslim scholara. In ihe fim article 14 sect* of 3wfe are also Jisterl as holding 

YanoiLs ccmf*pft of 'indwelling', 

In the choicc crf which JEngJish word would bc mort appropriacc r.'\ Translacincy 
thc Arabk word [hululj, wc havc to considcr thc foirc of tbe two Hatcmcnti which 

J) H Muslii3i auchuj^ namudJy cuJJ thc ChriscL&n doctrioe orthe lncamaiiiuo LljuKdj, 
althnijgli Chrisijan aJutlkjr* sprak of [u^ntiu*]. [tajassudl, and ^Uo of [LtCihaud]. 191 

[Quniitd. fmni Ma^signon/Anaw^ci. article "HwJAr*-] 

_; "k caniiot hc t£» oltcii said that dit Lctm [huiQiL| dacs not mcan incamadon 
in thc Chrislian scnsc. 1 " [C^joccd from J.W. Swcctman, /jiajw arui CkmMa Thnstiogp, 
?L l, v. 2, p. 9fl. (thbs toL publ. in 1S17).] 

P rh«dbrTe a ihe study in hand b)' Bayda^i. as wtll aa ils commtcLtajy by Islahani, 
i* spcaJdng about "incarnation 1 - — but onh 1 iaj thc scnsc undcrstoud hy thcsc MusJini 
iiulhors ■ whcn thc tcrm |h.Ldul] ls uscd. Thc- JBayda\si/Isfahajii contcpt of ^incar- 
UHl.Lu-n 1 is nol dic cocicept of 'incarnalicm T ^irt thc Chriitiaii scnsi r ". !Now, jusl ra 
ilic OOiKCpLiH bthind 'indwdJing 1 ytrid 'uniOlf beuacne neariy Syiionynaou» Jj i \h£ 
uaage of Musliim m liola^» *ci ^Iro ir apjwari diac Ihr nicini.-^iLs n>f "'iiLihsrJLmg" and 
'icjcamaiion 1 had aLso bccomc synrmymous, bcLcLg rcjcc:wd ai a sLcigk- idca. 

As co thc pracdcal mattcr of thc Enghsh triiiisJadGn;, l^ro^Hsur (^al\^rl<:y hdd 
decided b* usc ^indwdling 1 for |huliiL], but was undcddcd bct%vccn idcntLty" 1 And 
'union 1 for EJtdliad] K and Swcciman aJbo hy.d rcLOininended th<- term 'u3dwt1l!^lg' , 

to bc ggcd as. t\\c nnranijig cif [hululj Th-e Kditor iher?fo^ belicvw that ind^hn^\ 

but qualifu;d by tht* adj^riw ' ijic.di i iai r: : , shmjJd hfi nscd to transUcc Baydawi^s and 
hrahiinrs thought and wjrLtLng. b [r.camatt mdwclling\ thcn ? should tranarnLt thc 

intcndcd mcariing mosT clearty and corrertjy, This pardcuJar problcrn in cransJa- 

tion bctLwecn Janj^uagea and faiihs is a dSN'mma ttf tiu^ a^^n^st d<'i;ri^ u in ihf hii- 
tfny of tnt-cr-faith dialoguc and pnkmia. 

762 a P section t, ciiaftfr a 

two cxistcnts. ? thcn thcy still would bc two, noE oriCj but if it should 

be blhcrwis£ [i.e.> than ooiitinuing a& two esdttems], then either the 
two of thcm wouid not bc unitcd» but rathcr» both would bccomc 

non^isistcnt and a Lhird cntily wouid cxisl s or unc of thcm would 
bccomc noncxi5tent, and thc othcr would rcmairi. 

h. Imamate mdwelting. Thc sccond [of thcst accidcntal cjualitics, 
iiiCHLiciate inclwHlin^, h excludedj, because as an intellectnal conoept 
it invulvcs ihc aubsistenee of one enslenl in another existent by way 
of suhordmatian, and this would bc an untcnablc doctrinc regard- 

ing the Neeessaiy Ex]st<*nt* 
Thcsc two doctrines [of ^inion' and 'inearnate indwdling*] are 

rcportcd as bcing hcJd by chc Christians and by somc of thc Suh 
groups.. Nq\%\ if thc mcaning intcndcd |by thcsc pcoplc] is what wc 
have set forth ? thcn its corruption is ohvious. But if thcy mean somc* 
thing other than this, then a conception of it must bc presented to 
bcgin with s in ordcr that an asscrtion of judgmeni regardiiig it mighi 

arise cithcr in atHrmation or in cxclusion. 

LsiUhiuH says: I WU Wl T ]38, MS |fi7b 

3. Exclu$ion of unian omt incamate imkuetkng 

a, UniotL *Union* is. [the conccpt of an accidemal quality] where 

a singlt entity that has h»d being in ii.s mvn ideniitj,- then it becomes 

i 3fl 

anothcr cntity. TThis is thc undcrstanding of [unionj in iis c rcal scnue*. 

What indicates that this wouid be inipos&iblc is thc lact that if thc 
Necessary Exisceni should ^unite 5 with somc othcr bcing, and 

L if both thcsc beings should eoritmue after ihe union as two 
ejdgtenis, then thcy would sriJl hc T 159 two diatinct cntitics, not 
onr ? and ihis would esjclude the union; but 

iii thc aam^ wwk ati<1 loc&tltiJi |t3t%itm,Jy dted; 

K i1iC kkn of in<lv^dling was ait^c.lcwl fr4im ilur Aland|H)inl of an An.siocrliaii ocm- 
rcppoii flf *suppaidtum. fr [mah:iljj" d — i.c. C!nd could not hc ccmtiKiwed as siihsbtiiiL 1 , 
]ii a '•uippiKurnm*. — H . . . wh^rris che Chrtadan chrolngjas is as concrmcd Id 
dcny (kar (ind t>c cnniaiHcd ui a £U]^pcKiiujm a.s any MusLim." 

A * Sec thc di3curs.sion of thc! various lyp**s of unic?n uridcr 'ntdT and "mttaplwri- 

cal\ in thc aforeitwnnioned anicJe, - Ttdtiad"\ in die bti-I-2 by L. M^^ijsnon and 
C-0> Aiiawaii. 


2, if they should noi cotitinue as. two existent$, then [ugainj 

thcy would not bc united. [This is] bccausc in that casc cithcr 

a) boih o! thcm would bcctnnc rio[iexis(eni and a tliiid entity 

would cxistj thc [hrstj two not bcing 1 unitcd bccausc a noncxiatcnl 
may not unitc with a noncsistent; or cl&c s 

b) if one of the two should be nonexhtent and thc othcr 
continue [as an exi$tent], and 

if the nonesistent one should btcome ihe second and 

thc onc continuing |as an cxistenl] [should bccome] the first. thcn 

[again] no union would be realiaed at all, and 

2) Lf the nonexistent one shouJd be ihe firsl and [he one 

continuing [as an cxistcntj [should bc] the sccond* thon likcwisc no 

union would he. realined at all, bera-use in eithcr case 1 1; or 2)] the 
firsL [ac:cua]lyj woukl tiot have bccome thc scctmd, but rniher ihe 
hrsi would have bccn noncsistcnt. 

An ohjcclion has bccn raiscd not grandng" thac if thcy should btr 
two cxktcnts then thcy would not unite. The exclusioii of + union' 

would be tiiiplied only if tliey should be two existents having two 

[disparatc] cxistcnccs and indi% r iduation&, 1 and that [union] would ber 
impos&iblc. Indeed* it wouki be admissihle Ibr ihem to hc two existcnts 

having a single [common] existcnce and a ainglc [eommon] indi- 

viduation, aa in thc gcnus and diHcrcncc. 39 

Thc rcsponsc [to this objccuon] i^ that thc singlc cxistcncc arid 

|:i:-| ^uigSc indiv[:duaCLOJL w]viih H itie iwo |dhpai^lc| cxislcnts a.nd 
[thcir] two individuation& would have bccome through thcir mutual 
union^ MS ]f>8a wonkl he either 

aaj onc of thc hrst two cxistcncca [prcviously sepa- 
ratc] and onc of thc tirst two individuaticins s or would bc 

bb) some third existence and a (hird individuation. 

Tl ihr jirit [altc[Tiadvc \^\ should hc imc;. llcrj :l wrjuld bc impticd 
that onc of thc two was ncccssarily annihilatcd^ and thcn it would 
bc implicd that chc union was noncxistcnt. If thc second [altema- 

tivc (bbj should bc trucj^ 1 thcn incvitably cithcr 

** -MS gl: For \hty m are dilitirKtic iri rssrao<r hiit itntrecl in rsisccncr:, ai k 


*L4T haw the duaJ [adLultuiyn]» hiK ihr MS ^rhi MS Ganx:(i 9ft»lla Juve 

thc angular [aiLadhij. 

il MS gl: Ijc., lhc csigccncc of sornc third thing. 

764 u, spjgtion i^ chapter 2 

cc) botb oi" the first two existences and individuauons 

would continuc [as rxiMcntsJ» or 

they would not. 

llie firsst iiLternaEivc (y.c) would make it netessary ihat one crmty 

be an exjstent haviiig two miitually ditthitig existcncc& atid rwo indi- 
YicluHiinris.,* 2 which would bt- absoluldy imimstihlc, »tkI ihc second 

altcmatrw (ddi would makc it nccrasary tliat cither 

ee} onc of thc two cnritics would bc annihilated and 
on^ would become an existctit havinsr two cxsstences and individu- 

cttions. or 

ihat boih would bc anmhilated and some third 

enlity would come inlo being. 

Of thest latter two aiicrriatiwjs ihe tlirsl iee} b hnposaible, 4 "* and 
from the accond (ff j thcrc is inferrcd the exdusion of thc union. It 
is not possible that the two eidstcnccs and thc tVL r o individualiom 
»hoiald unjte; otherwise, tt would he implied ihat the eHistence and the 
individua(jon would bc two CTdstcnts," wliith would bc impossible-* 3 

b. Incamate indutelting* Thc sccond [accidcntal quality|, namcly* 

incarnale iridwdling, is excluded because the inteilectuaJ concept of 

it is thc suiijiijiicncc nl" onc csUtcnt \n anothcr c.xi*leiu by way of 
subordination wilh thc condition that fldf-siibsj&lcnce is impossiblc. 
Incarnatc indwclling in this sensc cannol possibly bc ascribcd to God 

Most High» 

Thc position hdd ["in thcsc conccpt*] of ^union' and Hncarnatc 

indwclling 9 is ncponcd to be held by the Chrisnau& and by some 

Sufi [MLLslim] gmups. 

B MS $- One of ih? twr> having .% rommonality and thr nriiHr heitig sj>*N-ifi<-. 

4: MS iH: iloeaysr ii would ni:ro^rair lnjth \'tc i":iiriL , rli;tin;j nt iho hypo^hcsb.. 
namclyp thc union, and thal ihc sccond entity shmald h* an «dslcnt twicc. 

** MS g!: Bccawse a iniitm wt>uld bc bas&d on ew$ienre> wcordLti^ty wich whst 
y»u liavt learcird to Lhc dtect i]iai a ■lon^KLMent nuy ^oi uniLt wich ^Ejmeditng 

■e]se a bc il ari exisieni or %i iionexiNi.ent. 

w MS gJ. &ecause accordmg io [owr opp^mpncs] hoth «riateiKe? and indKddna- 

tiou aff manc]^ of iho inldlcct rw>t having concrctc esistcnr.c. 

w HS gl- Be& Cod Moai High ia sclL-5ubsds4cnt [qa T im bi-dhatihj]. 

Kcviciv also thc complcmcntajry argumcnt retatcd by Swwunan Lhat is givrn m 
thc notc to Baydawi % s coi-i«pondin^ tcxt 4tbow; K The id«t <uf indwclling; was aituckcd 
Llrom thc standpoLnt of an Art&toteliinn conccpLiLni ur WpposLtum"'", — Le^ GcmJ could 
nut bc tonr.-riv«l as subsistiiiR: lcl a suj.ijiilwiluai, — w - - - wherras the CliiisLi-itn ihc- 
iJoBian is. a*; iriuuh ccmttfni«l Lr> dcn> ihat Ood -can bc conuintd in a ^pprriicijm 
is any MualLm.' 19, [J.W. Stocctiruui,, op. cit., Pl I, v. 2. p. l JB.] 


1, It is reportcd of thc Christians that these are their; 
a) I hc Three Hypostascs* 7 bccamc a union of thc Faihci\ 


Son T and Spirit of the Holy One; 

b) The hurnau nauire of ihe Mcssiali and |his] cfivine [naturc] 
bccarne a uiiiuii;** and 

1 he ■T.rcator [Most HighJ was incarnatcly indwclling ici 
Jcsus* peac:c Ihi upon him_ M 

47 i[iil'Aqai!iini al-TTidaihahJ MS gj: Bring ihe plurai of the ttrrm [uqnumj,. & 
Syriiy.: wurd mruniicig & chlrAcitrnTLic [ur, aurtbulej, AJw^ in un* cticury it is *the 

subsisient principle' [liuwu id-ajl] :?so transl&wd by R.K. Ok-eHey, Le-, Th^ wrm a.s 

a noun, ralher thnci adjcciiyi:, uut inerdy a charactcrisric]. 

Writm fixia« bolh ChrialhuiUy aud Idani havc suggcstcd varicvua ahgeratt terms 
fiir thr tncfcividLial liYpostases* as a b-rieJ aHrchnTi shnws iTyllowing iht? tradilional 
tenns and ordcr): 

a„ ]5fahanj's Itsi gjvgn al»vc — EiktenjCc, Knqw3cd(c ? Ltfe— is thc sarae as that 
Riwii by Tahanawi Ln hks Kashshqf islikh&i a^/Suuw f- Dirlwuny of Tcthnical T&ms} a 
Wk Anisbed in II 58/1745 [En4-2, s.v. c Tahanawi w by R/ScHhdml; 

b. Yahya ibn 'Adi (aj>, SM 9H); "tJw Hjfe disUiM-tiou uf Lli* pmuius [ol" ihe 

'Jriniiy isj hy [rhp relarionships i>1"] pacemiry, filiariutL F and pTtHa^sdcsrL." R.H. D^'VdJvt! 3 

Th* Apalogttk Wtilutg\ afV$hy* 1 &$ r ^^"i p. 134-5 
c EUyya nf Ni.^bU (a.D- 1005- 1049}: Esscnr.c,, Wnrd, Spirit; 
d GhasaJt iA.p_ LOMHIll]: [ c aqf Jntdlrel, [*aqil] JnLcUigeimc, [ma'qiiLryah" 


* [Riilj al-Qudusl NB. thLs h i-tawd m ih* Ibrm of an Adjnn«ive rebrion. 
MS gl: TJiiit is 4 lirc 1 [or^ riic Iiving nature] [al-Jpayiah]- 

w [Al-iiasijLl (liit M-rasiiih^s huiTian nature) [MS ^l: Tliai is., thf huiUdti body oi 

JesusJ w»d |i'-i-Eshcn| (his dhHne nawre) "became * utuoB" — 

MS glosse$:. 1, Thrti: i$v [berweetl hUJ humanity and divinicy. 2- [That k, widi 
his| spiritua] [naturcj |rQhaniyahJ. $. That is, with ihc csscncc ofCjad! Mosc High. 

M Scc aho ihc discusslnn of thcsc copLcs in J . W. Swcctman^s Islam and C&risiuur 

7SK?ftgjF, rap. pt. lj v, 2, pp^ fl9 ff. In addLtiotl^ dit s unpublislitd disscrtations Ijy 

Peter B. Dughrarnji [in 1970] on ttic Ccpplic LhcolugiHEi, Abu Ishac| Ibndiini Ibn 

Al- l Assii,L [d. 1260],. and by Robcrt H. I>o-ahr [iu I973J «jii [he ChrurtjauL logkiaji 
and iraiLili^Kn , Vahya ibn *Adi ^-B93— 974J p-reseni rhe writings oi iwo ol" ihft Ipad- 

ing ChristLans in ihc on^oin^ <kbatc 4iwl dialogue, 
A scrija of g]osscA at L 3^3 ftitloH* : 

a. Thc Chhslians gay that chc McsAiah is tw^ substanccs [jawharanj. a divinc 
snbstancc [l.ahutr|, i.c. rcJaccd to ih-n Lord [al-Rahh), and a hucnan substartcc 
|nSstitl]-, L.c.;, rclatcd tn the incarnatc indwcLIing [hului]. Thcn thc two snbscanccs 
unitcd. and bccamc thc Mcssiah. (From "M H J In thc MS thb. plos ts nearly idrn- 
liujil^ cxcept for the sccoud l substance ? : 

w . r ,and a hunnui suljstain-e, llint i^ reUced tO minkind [al . kh»U[j . . , 

rtic MS kIohs U Accriliiuird r:Lrjirly to Jurjani^ comtttctiLtai -. uu Jji"s ^■orl^ JttarA 

b. 1'hey say iha( th-c- Messiah has two sLibttances,, divine |il»hF| mmM liuin^ii,^, Aiid for ihac re<i£Oii thtre Lssucd tiom hitn divine acis, such as th* pn> 
dur.don [Lkhtisra^ of physkal objtc^ [al-ijs&ni aiid tht gi^ing of 13 fe io she dcad, 

and also human acis, mch as e-aring and drinUng, erc [Fkmtii ^he &Ait'jjn 

c!. ?Mjirnc crt" chcm say iliac the diwniry ik wiih ths httmantry as the ioul is with 

thc human body. It is iaid ihu[ the Word somctitnc^ w» inrroduced mto [qad 

766 12, StCTiON I, CIlAPJtR 12 

2, And of some Sufi groups it is reportcd chat thcsc are their 

i 4 


a) When a mystic coracs to thc cnd of thc highrat of his 
spiriiuLil s>lages thcn liis }>ersom\l identity becomes ejctinguiAhed, and 

the existent person becomes God in aoliuide, This degiee L 330 
L3 the annihilation [of personaJ selfHconsciousiie$.s] within tlic divine 


h) Cod Most High is uicarnatdy indwclling in [individual] 

Now. ifby *uriio«i s and Sncarnate indweliing' [itie dhristians and 

somc Sufi Muslim groups] mcan what wc havr sct Rjith, thcn thc 
cotmpuon of [rhis clu&ter of ideasj^ is obrinus» But if they mean 
by it something othcr than this, then a eonceptton of it must be pre- 
scntcd to be-gin with^ in otrder thal an asscrtion of judgmttic rcsjard- 
ing it might ari&e eithcr in cxclusion or in aAirmation., sincc ncithcr 
the cxclusion nor thc alHimation of it is possiblc until a conccption 

has been (brmed of what is meant* 

udakhaLi| ihe Mcshly bdcly [ja&u]], and iherc Hnikl i^sue twom hLm rruiradĕH 
{khaivariq itl-^adaij, suth as thc gtvui£ life to (he <fcad aik! (he henling of (he one 

bnril blind [mU;^-i.iIi ;»id ihe Likr ..I lli^-si-. ;v,rm l-.r::i^ |lbr WrtrillJ wiju"i! Lr;i,ve 

hira, and iheri pains and crouWrs and more (han tliwe ^oukl fiLl him. [From thc 

.Shank jWd^asid [fl/-Fdtur/i!A tit-trAaz$li/hy Mas^ud ibn TJmar al-Tafta&anL.) 

d. Thc Ghristians havc taken rhr posticm ihat God Must High its one substancr 
of three hypusEases |aqa.itun] t whith are exis[enee |wu]fid]* kiH^edipr Pilrti] aiid 

the bving natiim: [ijayat] s and wh3t:h are reler-nL'd Uj by Eherti as $h*e Faihcr. ihc 
Suti and lh* Spirit df thf Hdy OtLe, <w, 10 be mwe precise, what they say is & 

L HoJy S[iirit ? [rdtiiui q-Qc3sii»J . Tbey rtican by the "subsiancc" a sdf-iHhsL5ibig emity, 

amd by rhf: L hypoKradi$* [al-ui^nnmj an attiibutc [sLfahJ. Bnt to p<ssit [ja'1] chr. onc 
a$ thrce is cirhrr j^norancc, or k 35 an inrhnalinn gq crctat the attributrs as ihc 
e*icnc:f iticLf. Thdr limLcsnj nf the doctrinc to ""kno^cdnc" and c \iic\ \%ichaut the 
'pnwrtr r c»r anj-lhLn^ cla* b only nwne 11^10171111»!. It Lk aa if they posit L pnwcr' as 
dcn^ing Hrom ^Ktc 1 , and "hr.arinj' and 'aght 1 from 'knowLi^dge'. 

Thcn thcy aay that the Word, \vhich is the hypostaais of knowledpt:! unired with 
the physicaL body f JAsad] of ihe Mcssiah *™i diHolved: in \\ [(adhaw%\-4iibar:] i) by 
way of Wctuiing^ ^s mii« irt wacc^ ^w-ttrtling to [lic Mdkitra (al-MjLlkaT^h], or bl 
by way of irradiation [ishrarj, as ihc sun shancs diLou^Ji a amall %vindow (kuwahj 

upon erystal [balliir]. according to thc Nestorians, or c) by way of trAns&rmation 

^inqil!ah] to fleih and Hood wlterdn the Drvine [al-llah] become d"ie Messiah, aiccord- 

inG; to the Jaoobites. ["aJ-Talia^ani, c*p. ciL] 

-' Tl^ singular pmnniin wonkl indicate thar thft twtv. "unicm" acid 'inrarnalr 

incKvelJjjig\ arc sr-cfcarrcd 10 a$ a Mnglc idca clLwcr- ktahani^ ]m of topics at ihc 
bc^nrung of chaptcr 2 namc^ ocily 'uiuon' as thr third cxdu&ioLi; chus 'incamatti™' 
woukt b* a oorotkry wd n .icsd as [jiracticaily] synartynLmisi wich (hc ckcIuiM 
\irtjoiV, Thds U JiiiTher <"-vLdcncc of thc matcrial c,ivcn m ihc F.n-l-2 articJcR on 
M Iiui^dT ? and «HuJur died abow. 


Baydawi $aid: 

L 330. T 159 

4. Kutuswn qf Umporal phtnomaia Jrom subsistenct in Gvd 

IJnderstand Lhat the attributcs of" the Creator Most High may bc 
dividcd into: 

a. depcndcnt adjunctions having no cxistcncc arnong the iiidivkl- 

ual cpiiddities^ cxamplcs being thc dcpcndcnt linkage of [GodY) 
knowlerige, power and will, which »rc [allj changeable and intcr- 

changeablei and 

b. rcal cntilics, as arc thc [divinc] knowIedgc 9 power and will 

themsclvcs, Thcsc arc etcrnal and thcy ncithcr undcrgo changc nur 

are they interchanged, in contrast lo the doctrine of thc Karramiyah. 

Wc h»ve the Jbllowing rcasons [in suppurt of ouj doctrine]. 
1 . r llic f irst [rcason] is. that a change iti | Grod*s] attributcs ncc- 
cssartly wonld bring abont a passiviiy in Himseir, whirh would bc 

!ir Thc sccond [rcawjiij is- tliat anyihing that i& propcrly attrib- 
utabic to [GodJ is by common conscnc an attributc af periccrion, so 
thal if Hc should bc devoid oi "itj, Hc would be dcficicnt, which 

woukl bc impossible, 

3. Thc third [reason in support of our doctrine] is that if it 

should bc valid for [God] to bc de-scribcd in tcrms of a temporal 
phcnomcnon, then it: woulri have been valid for Him to be dcscribcd 
in terms of it from all etemity. [This is so] hccause, if His essencc 
should be Mcceptaiit of a temporal attribute, thcn that recepttwty 
would bc cithcr a concomitant of Himsclf 9 or [thc cxplanation for 

it logicallyj would termmate in a concomitaDt reccptivicy T in ordcr 

to argument in an inhniie series; and thus [the temporal 
attribute] would noi be separable irorn Him. Also, the validily of 

thc aLLribution wouki dcpcnd upon whcthcr thc attribuLc had valid 
cxi.ttcnce, in che samc wsiy a rclationship h dependcnt upon tliat to 

which it is rclated. Thcn-by the ecsistence of a temporal phenome- 

uon wouhl bc %ralid for cteniiiy s which is impossible. 

So it is csiablishcd by ihis (rcasoning'] Lhat nothing ctcrnal inay 
bc charactcrizcd by tcmporal plicnomcna. And this may bc imcrted 

by contrapoBition^ Lo [say that] nothing c haractcrizcd by tcmporal 
phenomena would be sternaL 


aI-i\{u*}Qm iiI-Fahaf\f]i-lS-i\xriLd W<ihfaah, quodi]g from Ta f Tifiit aE-lurjanL 

7ftB 2, 8ECTION I, CHAEHTiR 2 

4. Thc lourth [rcason &upporting our duclrinc] is. that a) if thc 
lactor that would rcquirc a tcmporal attributc should bc [God^s own] 

essence* or aomething concomitam to Himsdt, then there would be 

an impiidt prclcrring without an agcnt of preferrai on the part of 
onc of thcsc two admissible cntitics. But b) if [tiic ncccssitating fac- 
tor| should he another temporal attributc,, thcn argument in an 

inhnitc scries would bc impltciL And c) if it s-tlll should be sonic- 

ihing else, then the Necessary Rxisieru urould need a separately inde- 

pcndcnt causc for liis attribute. But all of these options would bc 

An ohjcction rmild be raised whether, although indccd (Godj Mnsi 
High dues not show passivity to any other ihan Himsdfj it woukJ 

not bc admissiblc for His csscncc to rcquirc succcsiyc attribuccs cach 

of which would be conditioned upon thc ces&arinn of the otber, or 
would bc spccitted for a time and siatc of its own due to the divinr 
wiira linkagc to it„ [each attribute] dilTering from those that had dis^ 
appcarcd. Thus. His pcricction would bc continuGus., and thc poa- 
gibility of His heing <jualifi.ed hy |a tcmporal phcnomenon], as 
quctlificationj wuuld depend upon [the attribute] being a possibil- 
iijy -^would icioi bc bcforc it would becume a possibility, 

Ar^ummt qf tht /utrramipak 

Qn thcir part^ thc Karramiyah pre&ented iheir argumrtnt ihat: 

a. [God] Most High was [yi m.e time] not [he agcnt for lltc estis^ 
tcncc of thc uruYcrgc, thcn Hc becanie iti ageni; and 

b- Subsistenoe of thc ctcrnal aLtributcs in [God] is validatcd by 
[lie absolnte naiurc of ihe Fact that. thcy are [only| artribiircs and 

causal factors, — because eternity fe a privative eniity that may not 

propcrly be. part of a ncccs^itating - agcncy, — and tcmpora] phcnom- 

ena have a niciimonality with [thc cienial attribaces] in that absolucc 
lact, so thcrc woulcl Ijc vididatiun for ihelr subsis-tcncc in the cssence 
ol" [Cod] . 

'l"hc rcspt)nse [lo thcsc ar^umcnte] is that the changc woulr. bc 
Ln thc adjunction and thc dcpcndcnt linkagc, not in thc attribute. 

Ki.jrthermore, the agency validadng thc subsistcnce of thosc actrib- 

uict would bc thcir own specific realiiie& Or ? perhaps 'eteniiLy' would 
be the prccondiiion [fbr drcic validaiion] L 331 while 4 tempora]- 
ity* would be chc impossibilit> : [of itj. 


Isiahani saysi 

L 331, T 159 ? MS I68a 

4 r Exdus?on of temportil f.rfmwmeHa Jrom substetenw m God 

You should uridcrstand that an attributc characicrizirLg an cntity 

would bc |one of che IbJiowing' typcs]. 

a. [The a. typc of aitribute] would bc crnbcddcd in thc cntity 
qu;ilifitd and would not rcquirc that it bc adjoincd to T 160 somc- 


thing cIkCj, as blackncss is to a body T as well as shapc and beauty 
h. Or, |thc h. type of attrihute} would he crmhcdded in ihc entity 

qualiftKd and would rcquire that it bc adjoined to sorncthing else 

Thcn ihis ktttcr [sccond typc] is subdividcd into [thc following kinds]: 

1. [A b~l. attributc] would not changc whcn thcrc h a changc 

in thc entity to which U is adjoined, an eaamplc MS 168b b*in 
the power to impkmcnt motion-changc in a given body. This kind 

is an attrihute emtieddcd in the cntity qualified by il, and linked 

;HljijncLLvely to sonne uniwrsa] factor sucb a-5 thc powet to imple- 
mciH moUoii-changc in matcriiil budica, in whatewr manncr it may 
bc^ by a ncccssity both basic and csscntial. 

[For cxamplc]: in this syslcm a stonc. a horsc and a trce would 
Ik: includcd, but in a sccondary raanncr. Indccd thc linkagc of par- 
ticular adjinictions jo the power to implemcnr motion-change in a 

given body would not be a linkage that was concomitant to [the 

powcr] . Fur cvcn if ori^inatly thcre had been no stonc on the sccnc 

nf possibility and no adjunction with ilie power 10 rnove k had ever 
oonie aboutj stitl thai circumatancc would not dcstroy thc fact thnt 
tlkc power [of itself| would bc ablc ro movc a givcn body. The 
po\rer would not changc if thcrc siiould bc a changc in the cir- 
cumstancts of Ehe tliings that are th** ohject of its pow r er; only che 

cKtcrna] adjunctions ^vould change, The reason. for that 5 * is that thc 
power re^uires- that an adjunction to aoiiicthing univcrsal bc of a 

necessicy that is basic and eascnlial, and [diat an adjunctionj to thc 
particutars suhs-umed tinder diat uniycrsal be ol a secondary 1 n^ces- 
siiy, nnt essential, but on account- of that primary uii]versa]. Thc pri- 

[nary uiaivcrsa! Miith which thc powcr is linkcd cannot [pos&iblyj 


Thr \\S aiMh m ihs rrii^gin, a> i!" k hnti buin %kJp|j?d h\ ibt scribcj ,§ «gli- 

ncas^, whiLc MS Gacrra 9B9Ha han fhe suctt" aJililki" m m ir>terILri<:*r ^luss. 
Hl MS gl: I.C-3 ft*r thr lari of a changc. 

770 2, SEcrnoN i, cskapter 2 

chanec. and for this rcason thc pawcr docs noi chansrc with it. As 

Rjr the particulars, they may change, and by their change ihe par- 
(icitlar accidetita] adjunctions iinked with them changt- 

2, Or, [a b.-2. sittiibiitc] would ckangc whcn thcrc is a changc 
in the objpct to which it is adjoincd^ an exainplc heing* knowiedge. 

This kind is 

a! an. aUributt* embeddcd in thc knuwcr who is quaJificit 

it is. linked adjiiiictivciy to what is knuwabk, and 

ii changes according 10 any chasigc in what is knowable. 

[For cxamplejt thc knowledge [at first] is that Zayd does not csist, 

but thcn whcn Zayd is crcatcd, it bccomcs chc knowlcdgc that Zayd 
docs cxist, so both thc rclationship of adjjunction and the knowled^e 
liiaL is adjoiiiwl changc togclhcr. It is Lhc luiuwkdgie abuuL a. givcn 



thing that makcs thc adjmiction to [thc thing] spccific«dly its own 
50 much so that the knowledge* adjoined to a iiniversal caoial fac- 
tor wonld 1101 thereby be arieqiiiite [to 9erve] as the knowl^dgc of 

a panicular, Rather, the knowledge ol a [changed] result would be 

rcviscd knowlcdgc that would imply a rcv5sed adjunction, and a 
rcvised structurc ncwly madc for thc soul would be an adjunction 
ncwly and tpccially madc [for it] + unlikc thc formcr knowlcdgc, and 

uiilike the stmcture of ks [previou»] rcality. But it would not be Bke 

thc powcr [i.c^ to implcmcnt chan^c] that is a singlc structurc hav- 
ing a vnrie<y of arijunction*. 

c, Or, [a b.H3L attribute] would not be embeddcd in ihe cntity 
qtialified btit it would requirc bcing an adjtnu;i to soincdiiiig clst:, 
as a thing [may reqtLire] beitig to the right of or to thc Ieft of [some- 

5i MS E[lr Tliis b banrd Ofj (Jic duccrine o( ihc pJiik^ophcre cu ihc f(fec:( chal 

knowl^lsc ii a iewi fer a pre&ently oxisung form [al-fOrah al-ha^ilahj. "l"he aidjjunc- 
titm of cvery Fomi b^lorij^ specificaUy to that fcr wliich il i$ ihe ronii, iitid ihe 
fonn-l>r4rrr uiU L-lianjge wli^n [here is a diange lei tlmt Form, whkJi is km>w3alBe. 

I rt contrasr, ihe- MurakitllJmhiti my rh;ar knowl^lg^ is a u-mi Fc*r a aingli" alrrihutr: 
which is linkr-d to thc kunwahlcs. li ckics noi sncrcasr aa thcsr incrrasc, nor cknrs 

it chaiigie as thcsr thsirtgr. Thp incrcasc and chun^c bclwng orily to the adjunction 

atid the Jicikci^e^^ as m the case oF power, 

* Clomparc otir mlc rhat cvciy Eiibject of an acdw %t^rb [fiFil] must bc ln th 
non-inyidvic casc. The knowlcdopc adjoincd to a uniYcrsal cuusal Ikctor would not 
bc adcqualc thcrcby to scrvc as thc kni.^vledjge of a particulTir; diat if ( » [EjcRcraL] 
knowleds^' ahoul Zinyci [woiiJd not a<kqua.tct)' «yvcr tiic circurn^Lance] of Zayd's 



thing clsc|. w This typc |of attiibutc| is an adjunction solcly 
trom [ihose with the adjunccions of] powcr 5 * and knowlcdgr.. 

The [b. type] ol" aunbute, incUisive uf bort) h, L aud b. 2., [those 
adjoined to power and knowledgcj is ;j structurG cinbedded in the 
cnlity quaEificd and having subordinatc tu it an adjuriction thai is 
^ilher a concnmilant* or a propcrty.* 1 So the nhjccl qualiticrf 

thcse two [typ<?s, i.e., thc adjunctions of power and of knowledgej 

posscsscs an adjoincd &tructure, w and Ls not somcthirt^ having an 
adjunction snldy** 9 L 332 

lf you have undcrstood the [brcgoing} then lct us return to our 

review of whai Es in ihe text [of Bayd;wi's book]. 

We hold that thc attributcs of thc Crcator Most High and Holy 
may bc dividcd into: MS 16ya 

a. [dependcnt] adjunction** 4 which have no cxistenee among thc 

indjvidual quidditic&j [ bcingj thc linkagcs of powcr, knowl- 

edgc and will, and indeed, thesc linkages are solely attributes^ 16 " 5, hav- 
ing no exi$tencc amoiig ibc individual qmdduie&, and thew adjiDKtiom 
are changeable &nd intcrchangeablc; and 

b. rcal cntiticSj [cxamplcs bcing] thc [divinc] knowlcdgc, powttT 
and will thcmsc1vcs. Thcy arc etemal, and thcy nckhcr undcrgo 
changc nor may thcy be intcrchanged. 

[Gnr doctrine] is in comrast to the doctrine of the Karramiyah, 
for they grant the admissibility of changc in [GocTs] attributes. 1 * We 

havc the (bLlowing reasons in support of our doctrinc 

* 7 The M*S wiid MS Giumll SW9Ha vary trom L and T, iTradiiig, u as your lxing 
to tbc ri^hi uJ""" [mithla kdWEiaka yamfkiwj.. 

M MS ifl: namdy, Liit srcondi lypc [i.c.. t 2a) abuwej. 

M M5 gb Namcly, ihr rhird cype [i.c^ 2b) abowj. 

w MS gjoescs; L l.e.j iri ihe radjutiotlon of| power; 2. Ak thr adjurictiuri of puwer 

ei MS gJ: Lc» in chc [adjwntlionj of hnawled[>;c. 

w MS gl- Whal w mt^nr by wmelJiinp pti&etticLg m adjoin^d Mri«-rijiv » thc 

^ 1 MS gJ: WhJch wwUL be «he fwrth lypc li.e- ? c. J9ibovej, 

M MS Garrert 989Hji adcb herc: adjuiKtions "soldy" [ida£^i mahdahj. 
H T irtcorponuts tlic phrasc "solcly attnbutcs" [idaEar uEat m-a,h«iah] Lnto ttw: 
TOtr- whilc L inrik&tcs llial ihi i.^rm ^clribuK" ts tn rhc lcatl of snmc manii$cnpc-i. 

Thc MS and MS Giimu DBSHa lack such iriclicaiion. Ikr^ MS Garrctt <JS!)Htt 

hnf thc firsl prcdicatc in ihe sirtgular: Ihcse linlmju^s arc ^soLdy ait adjuncticm."' 

* [1-*.| itimcj ihat aic rcal enlidcss, ha^ing stibsastencc m thc csscncc of [Cod] 
Mosi Higli 

772 2| &ECTEON I, CHiWTOL 2 


1 . The first [reasoil divine aiLributes do not changc] is that any 
changc of His attributes would ncccssarily causc passivity in Him&eH'. 1 

hecause what governs His attributes is Himscir Now a change in 

the resuH of a ne-cessary cause will indicate that there is a changc 

in it£ ncccssary causc [itsclf], bccau&c of thc impoasibility Ibr thc 

necessary eause af sonicthtng lo remain [as it isj when the thitig 
itsclf is excludcd [froni remaiiung as it is]. 

2. Thc secumJ [rcason di\inc allributcs do not changc] is that 
cverything propcrly attributablc to thc Crcator is an attributc of pcr- 
fcction. w [That is so] hccau&e it is. impossiblc to attribute to [God] 
any attrihutc of iniperfect]on, by con&ensus of all ihinking peopsc, 

and .so if Hc were devoid ocf somr anribute of pericction, Hc woukl 

bc impericct, which h impossihle. 

3. The third [reasori divinc attribuies do not changc] is that 
if it should bc valid for [CiadJ Most High to havc somc tcmporal 
phcnomcnon a* an altrihticc, thcn it would have bcen valid fbr Him 
to havc har| h .a* an atitrihutc from all ct^rnity, 

f r rii»i w so] because 3 if [Oud**] essencc should be acceptant of a 

tcmporal nttributc, thcn His reccpti\ity to that tcniporal attributc 
wouid bc onc of His own concomitants^ or [thc Jinal cxpJlanation 
of ] it would tcrminanc in a concomitant rcceptivity- And that is 

bccause, if His receptivity to ihat temporal auributc were not one 

of His own concomjtants^, or it did not tcrminatc in a concomitant 
n^ 7 thcn the rcci.privhy of ihe essence tn that tcrnporal attrihiite 
would be in an aocidental rale, and dms [by ihis altcrna(ivc rm-ans] 

thc csscncc would [MitlJ bc^ acccptciilt "f thal rctc-ptnity. So if [thc 
cxpkuLdtiun of thc tausal chain of this at:t:cptancc of thc accidcnt] 
wcre to lcrminaic at somc othcr concomitant rcceplivity ? liicn that 
woulri bc tJje goa] oJ" llie anrumcnt Bul 5f ihe explanalion of il 

not terniinat^ at a concomitaiLi r^ccptivity p ih-en the aigu* 

nicnt implicitly would bc circular or in ari inHnitc serira f both of 
whirh would be impossihlc, rhcrcfor-e^ thc racepmit\ r of |God^] 

cssence to that temporal attribute woutd either have to be a con- 

m MS gl- TTit- ]jHSsii>i(y of Himscli" is inipossiMt; b*csusf this wciuld irtiply cli^t 

tlie cswicc oi" (iod wouid Iw! ihc causcd cffwt of anochcr than EIc, a.nd tliis L^ 
indc-pd JrnpoE5ibLe. 

,rS MS gl: Not one of llis attributes is a trmporal pheTUjmroon.: othenitise, He 
w^DtikL havc h«n withuut it beforc its orir^nadon. 

ei L and the MS show- a Eiascnline prcfix for the vtTb, whilc T stwws u fcmi- 
ninc prefix. 


i:omitant of [GocTs] esscnce, or it would havc to Tcrminate at a con- 

comiuiru mecepti 1 . iry r Moreovcr f if thc rcccptivity of rhc csscticc Ibr 

thai tt-mpotal auribute should bc a concorrritamt of Hiniself or shonM 

teimincitc at sottic concomitant roccpdvity, thcn that Tcccptivity wcmld 

be inscparablc from thc csscnoc. So it would bc valid for Him to 
have beemi eharacterized by a temporaJ atcributc from aJl cternity. 

Furthennore 3 valid chancieriseation of thc essence by an attribute 

would dcpcrnd upon thc vaiid existencc ol" the ailribute, bccausc thc 

charactcrizatioii of the essencc by an attribute is a rcladonship bctween 

thc essencc and thc attributc. and the rclationship would depend 

i]]inn thc rvku.-ncc of ?he two thiiigs co bc rclaJcd. Thus. a valid 
rharactcrizariciTj of thr csscticc hy ?hc attributr wnuld dcpcnd on thc 

wilid existence of the attribute, For indeed^ the validiiy of the depcn- 
dem Tactor is bastd upon thc vaiid existciicc of the facior depended 

upon. ThcretbrCj [according* to this argumcnt], it would havc bccn 
vatid for a tcmpoial phcnometioii to have ejdsted chrough all ctcr- 

iiity pa&t. [Bui] tliis wuuld be an ictipObsibility, MS 169b becausc 

'ctcrnily past a is an exprcssion for cxcluding thc principte of a bcgin- 

ning, while ^temporal ori^inauon* i& an expression For the ccrcainty 

of thc principlc of a bcginnmg, and joining thosc two togcther woulri 
be impossibic, 

Thcrcforc ii is establishcd that no ctcrnal cntity may be. charac- 
tcrizcd by a tcmporal phcnomciion. Tliis may bc invcrtcd by con- 
traposition to the proposkinn chai no entity characteriKed by tcmporal 

phcnomcna 3 "* may be eternal. So» if God should be characterized by 

temporai pheisomcna. thcn Hc would not bc L 333 an ctcrnal 
bclng. But Hc is an erernal bcing; tli^mtore, He may not be cliar- 
actericed by tcmp^.iral phenomena; and (his is dtc goal of iiie argu- 
ment. Thc deinon&lrauon of iJiis argumcnl is cortipleie cvcn wiihouct 

T 161 preseming thc contraposition. 71 For if « has been established 

?u In rlw: rwo 4(jncrapo5cd propnsirions boih I. atKl T show "'ihinga [^mpnrat^ 
fira to bc- Iti ihc sjingulai" thc-ti iti iIk- j^uial. In thc MS thcy arc cormriJy bcich thct 
^litlc. and iji the sin^ubi 1 , whilc in MS Gatr^tl 4A!4Hj. thc^y an L ihr- samc: bul m 

rhc pJwral. 

* 2 MS gl: AsEnming thai (hc: dninruistrarion witht?Mt prcseming thc nontraposition 
i$ Oitkred on the fbrm ol" tht! (irst E^nre, in contraat Lo whal wuutd fcw thc case Lf 

it wcw iti\rr(ed a for iheti ic would bc mtkitti on lIil- ibnn of liic secmd Bgiire 
thua: God .Mosc Iligh is un sc^rnal ciitity; No- cnij^y cltaractcri^cd l>y tcmpiiral phc- 
'nuincna is dernal: which produccs: God Most High may not bc charactcrizcd by 
lCrn|Hn<-J phcnomrjna. Thc conclLLsaoci [aJ-istnitaj] in tbc Jirst figurc is prcfcnibk to 

thac ici tfcn5 «etoiKl Ti^iiR- 


that no ctcmal cntity niay be charactcrized by a t^mpnral ph-c- 
nomcnon, then it has been escahlighed that Cod Most High may 
not be characlerized by a tempoaral phenorntnon. 

Objcction. i& raiscd that [to say] "a valid charactcri^ation of the 
csacncc by thc attributc"" 15 not the samc [111 meaninel as Tto sa 

"ihe vafid esristence of the attdbure" of itseir Tlm> certaimy as to 

one of thcm wuuld uot imply thc ccrtainty of thc othcr." For the 
rneaning of a valid characterization of ths esscnce by thc attribuie 
in cternity past is that, if thc attribute had been of itself a reality 
possible then the essencc would havc been acceptant of it^ [a mcsui- 
ingj that docs not rcqmre thc attribute to havc bcing as a valid 
cnrity in itaclf t w 

The reaponsp [to this obj-ectionj fo that there is no disagr-eemeiH 
about the fact ihat valkJ charackerization *s not the same as thc valid 

rxistcj]tc of an attributc But [thc altributc^s] vaJid characterisation 

dcpen-ds upoiii iis valid exi3tence, hecaus^ valid characteriaatHWi would 
dcpcnd upon its bccoming rcal, and its bccoTning rcal would dcpind 
upon its valid cxistcncc. Ti 

Anothcr objcction could bc raiscd that a valid charactcrizacion by 
jthe attribuce| would not depend upon its |ownJ valid existence. For 
the surc oertainty of the origitiation of an objcct of power from the 

mipotcnt One depcnds only upon whether the object of His powcr 

has existcncc by itsdf.' a But if thc csistcncc of His objcct of powcr 

should bc imposnblc by somc hindrancc or by the ccssatton <>f somc 

condition, then ihat circuinstance would not impair the YalidiLy of 

an originaiiou with Him, 

4- The lburth [rcason divinc auributes do not chansrcj 76 b thac 

a) ii" thc agcncy necc&sitating a tcmporal attribute shouLd bc 

[GckTs] own csscncc or something in llis own conconiicaiits^ then 

iherc would be implied a preferring without any preferring agent. 
[Thia isj bccause thc rclatiunship of tlie cssencc and its conromi- 
tants to thp occurrencc of a temporal ph^nomenon at that pnecise 

moment or at one preceding it would be equaL For just as its occur- 

?J MS r1: Najudy, thc va3id cxLs.i-c-im- of Ltic atwihuw- l>I itsclf. 

'* MS i»2. Sci ii would uoy Ijc va!icl co pudic t!acr t , xt^l■e , lwx , < jf u tccnpo-ral HUribinc 

jn creniiry paac, 

^* MS ^L: So k woliIcI imply thc c^ktmir.c ot" iht tcmpcirsl atcrihutc m cicrnily 

M MS g' = ^Jtrt upon its bctomtny rcaLi^cd. 

,!> MS gl: \l.e.] 7 indicadng that Hc thc Most HL^h may not bc- charactcrizcd by 
tcmporal phinLomcnA. 

£KjALrnES NOT PROPERLY ATTRlHUTABLE TO OOD 775 ac thai precise moment woukl l>« admis»i.b]e, so its. onginacinn 

at a momeiu preceding ihat would be adtnissible; and thus its. orig- 

inatiou at tlitit prccisc inuiricni would bc a prefcrring uf oiic of ihc 
two admi&siblc momcnts without an agcnt of prctcrral. 

b) And if the agcncy noccssitalitig a lemporal attributc should 

be an.olher lempora] charactpristk:, then we would transfer the dis- 
cussion lo the ageucy iiecessitating that tcmpora] characieri-stic, and 

thcn an argumcnt in an infinitc scric& woulri bc implkit. 

And if ihe ageney necessitaring the temporal attrihute 
should be neither the essence of [God],, nor onc of His concomi- 

tants, nor anothcr MS 1 70a tcmporal attribiiEc» thcn thc Neccssary 

Existcnt would nccd, ibr ili& tcmporal attribute," an indcpcndcndy 

separate cause," But each of these optiotis 7 * woukl be impossihle. 

f Baydawi] has made critical obscr%ations upon cach of these four 

rca&Qnb; w ' 

L a. Although ihc. doctrinc 15 that God Mosi High docs not 

shuw passivity to any other than HirnstlTj still thc latk ot pussiviiy 
bclbrc any othcr docs not imply that a change in HL& attributcs 
would bc inadmhsiblc. For it would be admi&sible: fbr Himsclf to 
rcquirc succcssive attribuccs whcrcin each of them would be condi* 

tioncd upon the cessaiion nf rhe othet\ Thus 3 He wouki not shnw 
pa&sivity io another dian Himself f but rathcr His passmty would be 
to His own cssencc, For thc agcncy ncccssitating thc originacion of 
an attribute after the cessation of another wouid be Himself, and to 
prevent showing passUity to HinisclT, according to chis argument, 

would bc irnpossiblc. 

2.-a. An objccrion coulri bc raised that although fhc siatrawmt 
thrjt. everythiug pnoperiy artributable to Him is an attribute of per- 

fcction is granlcdj. an imjiossiibilily is pktccd bcfbrc ihv opinion ihal 
if He sliould be devoid of [an attributc oJ pcrtcction] ihcn Hc would 

bc dcficicnt. 41 But bcing dcvoid of [that perlcction attributcj would 

7? MS gjr Le., Tor His cliaracieri^atLort by a terriporsil aitribmer 
•* M$ gj: Thai, fHe Hirnw]f woulrt b* wten.-l.yj w posable rcaLUy. 
™ MS gl=; Tlic$e bettig prererenoe wjlltoui aii ^gp^jt ot jjj^Jtrrnce, aiTgum-enl Ln 
aji inAnLtc scrics, and tlw iictd for another c-jub. 

** Ba.ydawi's tcxt d-c^s not Jiavr thcsc cjhicr^arioTia m it. TTicrcibrC;, aEccr tht writ- 
kTl tpUKC hacl lyrrn pri-.«nl«i, rhey mnst comc fTom oral tommrriis at tihe cluse of 

ih« Secrurn:- Th^ss mmmenTA were fi^ociY5ed oilliw by lslali?rii , $ ^aiher, a* Baydawi^ 

nrgiHc^r^cl atudnnt, or by thv. jiinior Islihaiit hcaring aiid ahsorhmg iJic Irtriure in 
his Jather^s shadow, a-a an ycsirc^i&Lcred studcnl. 

hi L gl; Bccauw pajssivity ixi this sen&c ivould Liot bc a concomitiicit of niaucrj. 
but ralhtr ii wuadd bc 31 pu£Sivity tward aELothtr;, and here thaL ii not thc c-y.9e, 

/76 2. SH.TIttN' I, (.IIAPTEK 2 

bc a deBcieTiry only LF a vaiikhjrig attribute L 334 wcrc tc> havc 
no rcplacing successor. And if [thc vanishing attributej ahould have 
a repladng succpssor^. Lhen no delicicncy would be imp]ied> f"ur ir 

wuukl he rtdinissibk- T<jt Hcrris4:ll! to H^cjuire £ iJCCessi vc iitiribulcSj owiy 

one of whkh woukl be sporihed Jbr a [partkular] ume and tir- 

cumstancc through [its] linkagc with thc divinc wiH [for itj at that 

time and circumstance, and [*»ch aitribute| woukl be successor to 
one that had vanislicd Thus the [divine] periection would bc con- 

tinuoti5* ,z and maintaincd among thosc succtssivc attribLucs. 

Lct no one think that cach onc of tho&c succcssive atliihiilcs. would 

have to be an attribute of perfection because, upon 03 ihe cessaiion 

of a preceding attribute^ a dcliciency [i.e.j iti God] would bc implicd 
on acoount of His bcing devoid of some attrihutc of poriccrion. [That 
is because] we hnld ihat it would be admissible thar rhe status of 

the attiibute as being an attribute of perfection should be condi- 

rional upon the coniing of that parricutar timc spccihed for iL So it 

may not be inTetred that, if the essenee should be devoid of chai 

parlicular attribuLc upun thc cessation of its fassigncdj liine P ihcn it 
would consritutc a dcRcicncy. The result of this rcasoning is tiiat 

cach of the suc<cssivc atisibuics would bc an uttributc ol" pcriccLirm 
only at the [ime that is Jtpccilied for it> and it would not hc an 

[rittributej of periection at the ceR&ation of its time, but rather, the 

pcrieclion [attributc] wotild be the subsequ^nt aliributc and [God] 
thcn would be charactcrizcd by thc Lattcr. 

3,-a. An objection could be raised niaking the logical scquence 
hcre iiripossiblcj. not granting that if it shoukl bc valid for God to 

bc characterized by a tcniporal phcnomcnon thcti it would havc bccn 
^'alid for Hiin to havc bccn charactcrizcd by it from all ctcmicy past 
For a sincc the po^sibility of charactcrizcition by a tcmporal attributc 
would depend upon «he [very] possibihiy of the leniporal atiribute, 

thcre would be no possibility of characteri£atian 

tcinporal attributc prior to the [vcry] possibility of thc tcm 
attrihute, because of the inherent impossibility of something dejwnd- 


cui having priority ovcr that wluch il ctepends upon ? aud 

M L gl: l,c„ His ftssftifif!f wt>uld bc chajaf.irrizfd by an attributc of pnrtMtlnn 
without thK nKnd Ehr a icparacc cau&c-, 

&i L readi M aftcr H [ba £ da zawalj: T has a typographical mi\up, rcadinj [n-*-dl: 
whilc both itic MS and MS Garrrtt 969Elii read lt M the Umc aF rinda" zmSS[. 

u MS gj: Lc-j thc po.sLbiliLy nr Lhe remporal atttibuie. 


h) th^ possihility of the temporal attribute would not have 
been r*alized in tlic eternal past* MS t 7CJ1j becatLse its possdbility 
would havc hceii tonditiona.1 [cilhcr] upon the extiiuiion of ihe 

aUributc prcccding it„ or upon somc particular timc or tincumstance 
through thc linkagc of thc divincr will to [thc tcmpora] altributc] at 
tbat particular rime. 

4-a, An objection eoulri bc raised that the agency necessirat- 

ing chc tcmporal aliribme would bc an agcnt of ircc choice, and so 
an implicd prefemng of one of t ■ i * r two a ih [limes of oct:ur- 

rence] wnhout an agcrit of prclcirnrc would bc irnpossible bticause 
of thc admissibility that thcre bc a linkagc of thc [diviiic] will to a 
particuJar timc as an agcnt of prclercncc. 

Argument of Karramiyah 

TIjc Karramiyali argucd for thc adniEsibilily of tlic subsistcntc ofa 
tcmporal attributc in thc essence of God Most High a thcir argumcnt 

havjng iwo points: 

1 . Thc lirst of thcir two poinls is thal [Godj Mo&t 1 iig^h was 
oncc not the agent [for rhc emstence] of the universe, ffi this being 
ncccssarily implirit in die fact thac the universe is a tcmporal pheuom- 
cnon; thcn IIc hccame the agent ibr it. Now f this [divine] agcncy ts 

an altribute for ihe attinnatioii of estistence, so iliia fact requires die 
subs&tence of this iempond attribute in ihr esscnee of God Musl High. 

2. Thc sccond of thcir two points is that il is valid to hold 
thal the etcrnal attributes in thc ^sraence of |(lod| bc*cause of 

the absolutc lact that they arc altributcs and causal encities, not 

becausc thcy arc etemal. Indccd, 'ctcmity' docs not aflcct thc valid- 
ity of charactcrizing the essence by ctcrnal attributcs^ becausc it is 
a privative entity and [here] that is a term for the abs.ence of any 
prcccdencc by something else. Now, chc validity of [aji attribiite^sl 
characteriaatioi] is an existen(ial l^ctor, T 162 and so a piivative 

cniuy cannot bc purt of somcthinjj that rcquircs an cxistcntin.] ^actor.^' 
Fnrthcr T tcmporal attributes have commonality nrinh ctcrnal attributcs 

in [the very fact of] their being aitributes ancl causal emides. Therefo»e, 

temporal attributes rnay validly [bc hcld to] subsisl in thc csacncc 
of [GodJ MossL Highj L 335 bccause they have LdiisJ conimonality 

w MS gl: [I.*], iri eicrnily pasu 

Hf ^IS gl: Namcly 1 , thc yatkUty of ch^ir^ccr 

77G a. SEcnoN i» chapter 2 

witli eternal aUnbute^ in [Lhe E rolc of characterkatioti 1 ] that requires 
ihe va.liiiLly of their sijhsistence [as attrihLiie*].. 

l.-a. Tlie respwue tu die first [point niade by the KarrainiyahJ 

15 chat chc changc would bc in thc adjunccion and in thc dcpcndcnt 

Lmkagc, Dot in thc attributc* Thc Jact ihat [G(xl] is thc agcnt [of 

the ejdstence] of the uniuerse h an adjuncrion w and a linkage] to 
jl^ [an adjunction and linkage] which were made acddentaJ to the 

[divinej power* subsequent to thcir not having bccn accidcnlal to il 

2-~a. The respnme to the second [pnint of thc. Karraniiyah] 

is thal the agency giving validiry to the subsistence of those eternal 

attributcs* was their own apccific realitics, or [r_m the othur handj, 

it may bc that ctcniity was a condilion for thc validity of tlic char- 
acferizafion_ Eiemity, although it is priv_iave, admissibly may he a 
comdition, bccaiLW* 1 a privative factnr aHmissihly may he a conrii- 
tion for somcthing positiyc. Or a pcrhap_. tcmporal origination is a 

laaoi prevencing the vrjidity of thc r.haracteri^ation. The truch i^ 

thcrc is no validiiy for ihe subsistence of temporal phenomena in 

thc esscnoc of [God] Most High, The rcliabk fictor in this. mattcr y - 

is thc proof dcmonstration preventing changc from beitig attributed 

to Hini bccanse of thc impossibility of it bcing passively acceptcd in 
the essence of 

"''Hini who h exalted so very far above what thcy &ay*\ — wrong- 
docrs all! 9 * 

Ravdawi said: 

L SS5, T 162 

5. Excluswn ofsmsak quatitie$ 

Thc eonscrmis amoug diinking pcoplc h that [God] . Prai&c to Him 
rhc Most High, is not (>m a who would lie descrihed propcrly by -col- 

48 MS gh Tht aftjwncri(?nsi havft no i^Lctmal exis[ene:i! ? so ic is not inipli^d chat 

nti Aitribulc of ' cxincncc k gcneratcd in thc tsscncc oi' God \tost Hi.nh. 

w L#, F thc wnLwcrse, ai thc anrocctlent is so indicaicd in thc MS. 

w L and T have u altiibuie M 111 thc sLngular, while ibr MS and MS Garrett 9S?lHa 

havc tlic Lerm iri iLmt plund T whicli Tils lhjft tunt^it oF ihe pre^ious reltre-rnre. 
'" MS gl: ALltmuKh aa obj?:ciioci could be raistd lo ttK aisiiLTiption Lhat cccrnity 

is privative; r^LJier ? it wcmJd bc thc rm;ation of a prcvious non-eaist-ctKC-;, aisd so 

would bc a positivc certainty [thubilij. 

** MS 15]: Le-> in che latk ofvAlidiry fw rhe swbyi^ence oi (empor»! phenoniieriiA 

in the- eswn£c of [God] Mosl High, 

* A p^rcifilii:iNie of Qurttd I7:43„ in. whbch blah^ni add* 'Nyrongdocrs aD"* [al- 
^SlimiinJ *o fi.ll ouc the mecer foI!Qwing th? wrb ihat he changes iJito the singnlar. 


ors 3 . lastes or odors, nor docs 11? find cnjoymcnt among acn&aic 
plciisiircgT, as indced., thcsc arc conscquent to having a human phrys- 
ical con&ritutirm. 

Howevcr ? the philosopher* havc macte intell«ciual enjnymeiu admis- 

siblc [For attribuiion %o Him], They hold that anyone who think* 

thera 15 sorne periectioti in himsclf would rcjoicc in it, and thcre » 

no doubt that [God^] pcricction h thc grcatcst of ali pcricctions., so 
it is not at aJl remote [to inler] that H> wuuld take rldighc in it. w 

Isfahani says 

L 335, T 162, MS L70b 

5, ExcI«sion ofsensate qu<aliim 

Thc conscnsus aniong thmldng people is thac He wha is to be praiscd 
and cKalted may not properiy be described 91 by colors, tastes, odors 
M.S 17 la or scnsate pleasurra, for thcsc thing^ are all ■consctjueiit 

upoii thc human physkal consiitution^ whirh is a manncr of" csi&- 

tmce tliat originatES iri ttme lirom the mtcraaion of thc clcmcna; 

but G*k1 Most Iligli h far rcmovcd from [any sucli] corporcahty 

and COTnposition. 

The Imam [lakhr al-Din Razi] hcld that whal is rcliably ccrtain 
in thc doctrine thac |God| does not have aitributes of color, tastc 

or orior, is the fact chat it is the consens.u*, w [He went on to sayj, 

"Our colleagues [of the Asha*irah] hold that coJor is a gcnus. under 

which arc [scvcral] spccica^ no onc of whkh in rclation to anothcr 

is an attribute of perfectioQ 3 nor m relaiiun to aiiolher is an atlributc 

oFimperfection. Likewisc^ thc powcr ofagcncy doca noi dcpcnd iipcjn 

thc realization of any onc of thc-sc [spccics]. That bcing sOj, a dccision 

44 BaydaAvi 1 and Islrihani ^rirj- iiim, f'i>l!i;rtv Fakh,r ;ii-l>in aURajti m ihig ropic S4-4- 
Ra^i^s Atu/uisutt 9 p. lfiQ {L323 a.h. rcprinc cct.). 

64 L 33 j e^ (thc aamc siIoh is abrk^nd in thc MS): Thitikin^ pcoplr ar^ of a 
cons^nsu^ thiit Hc dic Most HLgh mav not bc char-actcLii^J hy scnulc acddcntal 
quLiliiiLT- whcthcr thcsc arc of sin cstcmal or an tntcrcLat s^nsc, as Jie jjcrccpLian 
oF Ui5tt\ coLur and udor, iind absoLutdy ncrt by pain. Likcwisc- ic ii with scnsate 
pleASnte, ajid with elII thc variou& cmotioniLl quaJil3cs [al-luLy(iya.t EJ-na&anLyah]. 
sucli as r^EKOT [hiqd|. ^jrro^" und fcar and thc likc. Thrsc art ali co-nscctuent up&35 

thc humaji constiuippn whir.h makc^ coraposLLtnji a n&OWity, hy| whSch eKJCludcs 
ncccwity as bcing css-rntial [al-wujub al-dhatE]. [From L ^iizanis conuncntaiy 011 

w MS gl: For Uie crmalJlulion i* iivcuTLceivabte rMtjn Ju ihc borty. 

^ - " MS gti T.r_, chft cimscrrtsua nf chis Mnslim wniimuniity [ijnmnah| rhac rh^se 
iti« arc to bc CTtcludcd Iroiii llhn. 

rf MS ^L: [E.g.,J blick. whitc^, rcd and ycllow. 

780 2„ SECTION I, GHAPrER 2 

Eo asscrt the eitistcncc of ortc of rhcm wpuld not bc preterablc Jo 
that of anolher," anrii thus U oiight to l>e that none of woukl 
be asserted to exist." 

Theii [Rar-i] iaid, **Sonic one inay raisc thc gucstion^ l Do you 
claini that nuiie of these is to be prdcired to anothcr in thc naturc 

of thc casc ? or in your own rnind and thnujjht? 1 Thc first altcrna- 

it not Ijc admissihlc for thc quiddity of [GotTs] essencc lflf * to rcquirc 

somc particular color, without the 'rcasnn why* of that nerc^ity 

heing known? THe sccond altemative is grantcd., but it implies 
ihe absence of any knowkdge on our part about that partkularity. 

As fhr it bcin^ noncjristcjit in itscl^ 301 that is not implicri." 

An objection lfl2 15 raiscd, "To hold fast to consetisus in matters or 

the intellect would bc propcr in cases of necessity, but what is rdi- 

abJy certain at tliis poinc is that it would not be admiss-iblc for [GodJ 
to be the substrate ior accidental qualitie&, ber.ause oi the impossi- 

biliry of passivity in Himscltl 


[Razij gtat*:d L 33C lurther^ "All are agrccd upon ihc inipus- 
sibility of pain [beiug an attributej; |IJ,v intellcctual plcasurcs thc philoso- 
phcrs hdd to bc admisnhlc [as. attributcs]> ,w whilc thc rcst dcny thcm-" 

[Razi's collcagues) have argucd lflT that plcasure and pain are con- 
scqucnccs [eithi: 1 1 of a balance^d physical eomtimrion or of its inter- 

nal discord, lomething inconceivabIe cxcept iji a htiman body. But 

this. is a wcak argumcnt^ lflK bccausc it could bc objcctcd that if it 

should be granted that a balancecl physical constitudon would I.w 

w Of the two EtaaMncnts quoted frnrn Rapj^a &i -Muhasttl [p. I Ĕ4J, rcprint of I3j!i 
a.h, «L) Jic fij5C oilc ncar ttir tnd: rciLds, ^pn^CTab]*.' lo » sccond" [awla* min A- 

thabii]; the MS rcadaj ^urcrcrablc to ancKhtT" [mici si]-ba*dl ; MS Oarrctt 9B9Ha 
agrCTs with L : : m:l T i[i r«ftding % ^prdcnOjlc tw iIll" rwL'" 1 [min aJ -1 >ft^ r] . 

'«■ [matiiwt dhauiiij. 

|C1 MS gl: [I.i:.j thtf parti^iiliir coJof- 

lft hcrs qLtntci Nadr al-Dm Tusi"> nhscraatian on Razi'a preccdsng r r ;a t 1 -- 
mcni from CotnmrnTan" oti thc A/mho.t^ :p. 1.60, notc 2, 1323 aji- r^yriaic. 

I0 ' MS jl: Dnrausc havLiig passhity [hcfr>rf- snmr. othcr fanrcrr] would hr pmsibU: 

only in rcjpard ?o nuLtrr, according to ihclr dDctrin^ biar dic Crcaror is far abffVTc EhajL 

lQfl MS gl: i.c ts All thinkiTiK pcople, 

105 Rj^ls Ke*[ [AiiiAAjrjdi 1 , p- 160] i^ik, IL che impoA^iiliTy o(" *en«iw piiin [Iwirt^ 
attributcd] to God Most Hi^b . . . H 

,fe L, T -iLnd tht (tro MS suutow usrtl rcad, "(hc phiJosrjphcrs hokf to bc admissi- 

blc :j s wliilc thc A/ttfc^vfli tcst [p P 150] rtads, "ttie phdlosuphm havc a^irttd [as trut]." 

Ja ^ 'ITi* Atukahmt Il-sI here b^ "We ho-ld \\m |Usl« lu)| pli-imre aiitl paisi . , " 

m MS gh BecauBe of the admi^dbtlity of ihete brimg ^riurlier n^wsoo Rkt the 

*ffect f other ili^n the liisr otie, 


thc nccc&sary causc of pleasure, ncvertheless, the exclu.sion of a sin- 
^le [secondary] cause would not imply that the result would bc 


"What k rcliably -ccrUiin hcrc [ Razi continucs] k that if that [qttitf- 
ity of ] inteUcctTjal dclight should bc somcthing ctcrnal, and it should 
call for thc actual maldng of im somcLhing that could bc cnjoycd, 
then |(J(kJ| neressarily would have had to he an csdstential cause 
for what may be cnjoycd cven bcforc Hc brought it irito cxi&t€Eice, 
bccausc thc agcncy calling for it to come into existencc would bavc 
hccn itsell' an existent prior to that, atiri nothing prohibats this T but 
for something to be cre-atcd prior to its having been crealed would 
bc impossible; but if [thc qualiiy oi" intcllcctual dclitjht] should be a 
tcmporal phcnomcnon^ thcn [God] would be a substratc for tcm- 
poraJ phenomena." 

"The philo3ophers ,l(> hold that aiiyone who thinks that there is 
somc pcricction in htnisclf wuuld rejoice in it, whilc anyoric who 
ihmks iJiat there is $ame. imperfectJG-n iri himsill would be pained 

by it. Nowj therc is no duubt at alJ that thc pcribcliun uf [Gudj 
Musl High MS I7lb is thc grcatcst of all perTcitions- and ihal 
I lis knowlcdgc of I lis pcricction would bc dic most subJimc knowl- 

cdgCj, so it is not somcthin^ rcmote [to infer| that Hc would takc 
dciight in [thc prilcction], and that this [knowtedge] would prampt 
the grcatcst of a31 joys. 1 * 

[Of the preceding Jinc of argumcnt] Imam [RaziJ stated, "To this 

thc rcply 111 is that it ia biYalid* by consensus of thc Muslim com- 

rnunity. 1 * 112 In truth, 113 there is no doubt al all that pleasure and 

pairtj being consc^ucnces of the human physical constiuLtion, cati- 
not possibly |bc attributcdj to [GodJ Most ttigli, Lct us considcr 
thc statcmcnt [just quotcd] of Imam [Razi]: 1M 

,ry M.S gJ: IjC., caiiRtng ii ii> r.xm. Hm ,^ iiYinor v:iH^rion in trsis -nccurs: I-, T 
and MS Ganrcit 9a9Ha ml p {diHyah ib 5 al-^I al-mLjLtadhdliah hihi]. The MS 

aml the Aiuk&ssal tcxt rcad, [. . . ila^ £a"L . . .j. 

110 Thc quote or paraphrasc of parts of Ra2i'a Mukisia! tcxt b ccHiiinucd hcit 
by lsfaJiani. 

MS iji: [Ra^i is| rricrring Lo thc philosophcrs'" aigujrur- nE maldn^ intclLKtua] dclight 
iidrnisBLblc of attnbudcm to thc Crcatm Mose Ilicjh. 

Ml MS gl: Lr. f m ans%v<-r io ihe dc^irij]^ of lttf philosoph^-rs. 

s " MtAassal (p. 160). Thc prcccdiJig pa.ra.gra.pti is clnacly paraplirascd from thc 

same loc^duii. 

1 ' 1 . 33Ci gl: "llie toJIowing i& by [IsCi]iai]iJ iiwf cocEutM-rLiaUjr, 10 ili-e end of dic 


,M Si>e the paragraph heginning r, \Vhai is «liatily cettain . - / 

782 2, SECTION 1, CHAHliK 3 

If diiii [qi4ciLLty of JnlcUei-tutd] deligliL should be soiuetimig eteriialj, and 

Lt should call for d.e actuaJ maJdng of somcthmg thai may be cnjoycd, 
rtien [GodJ would ncccssarily havc had to bc an odsicntial t-ausc Ibr 

whal may bc cnjoycd cvcn bcfore He bruught it mto cxi5-ience ? hccausc 

die agtncy calling for it to comc inio cjdstcncc prior to that would 
havc bccn itsdf an cxistcnt, and nothing prohibits this. 

This statorneru \\\\\M hr valiri otiL\ il' whut muy b;- -."njriyi-cl wcrc 

due to Hb mnking. And on the suppasition that what may be enjoyed 

would. bc duc to His rnakirLg, [the statcmccii] would thcn be valid 
only if the agHicy caJling ibr its crcatiort 11 * were somcthing cnrircly 

new atid cliiTeretu from che agcncy caliing for the ddight., 116 or 3 if 
the agency talling for the creaiion of ic were also eiernal,. but not 
adequate for thc crcation of h excepi after the cxistence of wliai 

may bc cnjnywL But if thc agcncy -calling for thc dcJight should bc 

identical to the agency calling for nhr: creation, then the alhremen- 

tioncd succession would not bc irnplicd. m Arid thc praof prcscntcd 
does not iiwalidate pain, as thcrc is nothing caLIin^ for it, so this 

succession again would not be iniplicd. 1 '* 

Moreovcr. thc phitosupherA 11 * do noi hold that [God s s] ktiowledgc 

of His [onvn] pcricction neecssarily products plcasurc; for it ia not 
trucj on account of its rcquircment that His knowicdgc is thc maker 

of the plcasure and His csscncc thc acccptor of it. Thcy do not hold 
such a doctrine; rathcr a thcy hoid that thc plcasurc in thc rcality of 

[GodJ is idcndcal with His knowledge of His peHection. 

Kurthcr, to repcat thc statcrncnt tliat joy and pain lwl arc iwo cnli- 
tics that the knowlcdKe of perlisclion ajid impcd"ccFion makc necea- 

MS $: Thk i5 a criiical chaltengc l>y [Istahani] as coni^ciiutoi co ilic Imam 
[Raa, lbUo'r\-*c1 Ijy (hree ifnra'C chalLrngr-s]. 

113 MS g]: I.r., |lhi i dgirncy ralliji^ tur\ kJic toriunfl into rxkslrf*DC of whan inay 
bc cnjc*ycd ? ai |hc will f>f Cod Mos^ High. 

,,e MS r1: I-p. f whaL calls for thc- cause ia difTcrcnt frcnn whai calls for chc rcsult. 

117 MS gl: NampLy, lis Iklili; hrmjghl Lrsio rxiKLcncc heforf Hc would havc pro- 
duced iL 

,,a MS and L 336 rJ; Lc» ihv \>rwA' nrsuliiug Jixim the wiilence mtnuoned 

dkws not in^lklacc ihe occnrretio** -nf pain with iiod MohI High, sitn + fc ihi* pain han 
nothlnR Lhal calk for thc makiiiK of iu so the succcsskitL doc& not takc ^aiLe as it 
did in ihe caac of pLtasurt. 

M * MS fij: Thus k aruoihtr criticism [nf RaaPs ^rgunwnc]. 

,x MS gl; Arnjiher (3rd) crilitism |j>f R:i/ij- Thi- jti-nijronc ol" thc nouns fc, joy and 

piiin* 3 in tbe MS and MS ("JarreK MfiWHa U WLnwcd hcic. [«arallrJing \l*-. souitc 

i>l' i-iu.h. I. iinrj T rcad, ^pain and jpy" 


sary m ihe reality of [Ciod| Mosl High \$ not prntilablej 321 becausc 

He i*i far ahove sudi passivitiiy. And holclimg fasl lo ihe ttmsensus 
of the commuiiily would be uselul, if tli^r^ shoukl be 110 T 163 

mtrmkm o| an applkation of ihc two tcrms, plrasurc and pain, to 

Hinij. bctausc tio atiribulr uiiHccunipaiiiGd by dic pemiission of the 
divinc law may bc uscd io charactcriz^ Him tlic Most High. Bul in 

che sense which the philosophers claimcd, no consen.sus exisi^. Ihe 

eaduaion of pain from Ilim needs no cxplanaiion. because pain is 

che perception of somethinsr incompatible, and there h nothing at 

all incompatible in [God] the Mosl High. IM 

m MS gl: B«auac tnuwkdge wiih [die phibsaphers] is idcnikal wiih rtie cssence. 

IW lo hU Ahlwwl (p. 160) R«?t di-ir-inses imellecTiial p&in arid pteanire Kgaid- 

Sng ihcir acoq>TabL|iry as r-andidatcs ibr beiiig appLirtl. CO Gtti as cKaracteriHica,. or 

aiiribiMes. Hna. a v*cak arguincnl: they urr buih rwopjiwcs as deriv&[ive$ of a 

huirtan 'hatonced constuucHHi 1 which is cu[R-dv&bk only io a human body. 

ihcre is grnrrsil agrocmtni ihat pain with ns rwgativt origin aiut swssociaRoti^H 
nor. poeibLy bc aMribm^rJ lo God. Bui a* for ibe *atkKfflC[ion of inicllcciiial plcan- 
urc, 'tht phjlawphcn' appmvc of it. RazL poinla -nuE. liic logitid Langlt of conlradkticms 
suuh appimul bricLj^Ti cm ( «md Khiil idcu. is hn-ally rrjretiid. Rit?i htre dues not jl&m*" 

■nyojie as l™ng atnonK the w philo&ojjht'rs : . Bm Ibn Sina looms Jjarge in ihis biui- 
gmund becau&e oi"hfcS laiiie an<l hi? teachings. In his hook f al-ldwr&i uw-al-TMbih&tt 
m thc sccrion 011 ihc. I Jtjiih Topic [na^u|> n. . 3, |jp. 359 ff.) ll>n Stria di&cusse* 
dic dcgrccs- of bcaiituck thjl ralinnal hci^gs m&y tLiid ftflcir dcath. Hc bcgjns thc 
aubjccr. by 5Ĕatin.R ihai God'g pJeasurable *.iLrisiiirtUin with H]msrlf ia thc mttiA majes- 
ric intdlciitiial ^plcasnrc in an objcct 1 " that in c«-incdvablc. This is bricfly dcvdopi^d. 
thcn thc cIcjjitcs of human intcllcctua] sa(3sfaction ai r c lisied. Tbc 1cxt soon 
mo\ f C5 into thc Ninth Topic dcalLii^ with myyiucal rspcricrn v. 

In oLhcrs of liis wririjispi ILscl Sina must ha\"c bccomc morc sprciiic ^lsout thc 
■MEribuiiLjri ol" iniclhxtu^l pain *jt i^^asure to Cod, *s F.l>. Rari has a diicreet 

awajmi^ss r>J" rhis Tahix* *ubj^i, pr^siamahly lis bru4t.'hvil liy H>n JJitia, I1>ti Jjina waa 
a rathcr goad ItJ-tndan, and hc had foJlowci1 whcn: his logic lcd him. But hc had 
lo stop thc proccEs of his ihou^hl (a) pTcsumahly hccamc ol" its drift in thc dircc* 
rion oF st>mc ChrLstLan thcoloKka] s.talcmcni:s about sudcring and dic imma- 
ncntrc ul" Cod, ^nd (b) bccaysc hc lackcd two things, namcly, {1} thc approvin[E!: 
L L'Oiiseiisus uf ihe [i,e,i hu uwn rditdoLis] com^ , BU^1t>' >, and (2) dic 'pcrrrri&siijn [to 

airribiiT« L pkai\]Tie 1 And ^'wr Eo Cod ^ith an apprwing ju-t%iienc oF th« e^eci*- 
iors] of ihe [IslamicJ <fivine taw\ 

\VL[hin tht* teligLous cm'iixjcuneiil of thc Middlc East in BaydawTs day durre v*^h- 

D^niKsiiiHitSi, l»th Muslitn and Tion-M^slim. diat hcld do^itia^ contTadiaing iho^ 

of Islam. In spiic of rhis, chcsr nT^anij.ations mjiirusitned thcir f>wr hctkdb and wcrr 
rcbliit'!)' Frcc to hvv imd worship indcpcndcntly of thc majoritY* popularion. Such 
a plorjJiry of bde» aisd imi-liit^p iUturaUy cons.titut)ed an onedtdg initant W lh.OU|^hl- 
fuf peoplc cn cvcry camp, and much paricrtctr yjid jTuilual coJcrancc wcit jiccoaRary 
in thc cBSbrt to prcscr^c social pcacc. Intc rjpoijp and interfaith ^om-T-rsarions occuiTcd;. 
but any gc«al of proc^Tcss in mulual undcniJLandLiir; among thrm sccmcd co rcrnain 
Ln tht hiizy distance. 

Baydawi said: 

L 337, T 163 


1 . Argttmmts af' tht Aiuslhn pkHosophtri and the Alutakallimwi 

The phibsophcn> argue ihat 'necessary existcnoe 9 constitutes ihe 
essence of [Cod]» So, if [God] should havc commonatity in thi* with 

any othcr beLngs, then He would be distinguishcd fram thc olhcr by 
individualimi, ajid coniposition would bc implkit. 

Argummih- of the Atutahaitimun 

i. II" we should postulate [the escistence of] iwo deittes„ theti all 

thc possiblc rcalitics would bc on an equal basis in relation to thtsc 
two [dcitics|. Thus, not a onc of [thc possibJc rcaiitics] would cxist 

1, of tiie impossibility of having a preEettirig wiihoui an agent 
of prtferencc and jbecause uf 1 

2, the bnpo&iibility of any joitung together of two effeccive 

c-auscE for a singie effccL Furthcrmorc s 

b- Tfone of rhe two deities should will that a particular body be 
in motion-change and, if it should be possibk- for thc othcr [dcity] to 

will that [that partictilar body] rcmain at rcstj thcn lct that bc thc 
assumprion. Thcn in such a casc> [thc rcsuJtJ would bc that cither 

L whai rtiey hoth desircd [in commori] would happcn, or 
2- what they bolh desired [in common] wonld nol happpn ? 

both of thcsc uptiuns bchg impo^ihle. Or, it woidd be 

3. that thc rcsult dcsircd by onc of thc two would occur by 
\t$$\t\ implying the impotencc pf thc [sccond dcity] ^ or if that rc&ult 

should be impossible, then 

2, ll prohibiting impos&ibiiiiy would be ilie will ol" riic sccnnd 
[dcity] t which would impiy thc impotcncc of thc first [dcity], Btit 
[in both of thcsc oprions] an impotcnt agcnt could not bc a dcity 
1'urthcrmorc, ir is adniissiblc to hold fa&t to thc [doctrinc of thc 
di\in>e singularity| through the prools coming from authoritativc Ura- 
ciirtoii, as [these proohl a:r not -ic m!1 d^p^ndrnt njMin \\he di.irtritte : : 

itsdf 1 . 


I$fahani say&: 

L 337, T !&3, MS 171b 


1 , A tgtmmls ftf tke MtLylitn philowf>herx: F. D. Ra^ jV_/J. Tmi, 

atjd Ibn Sma 

The philosophers argue from a) ihe fact that there is no other 


Necessary Esistcnt than thc [divinc| One to b) the fan that "neces- 

saiy c^istcncc' coristitiLtcs thc very 'cssencc 3 of God Most HighJ 

If any othcr bcing shouldi havc commondtity with Him in nccjK*- 
sary existcnce, thcn [God] would be dLisdnguishcd from that othcr 3 

l>y indi\4duaiM>iip 3 M5 ]72a ci»d [so] conif)o$ition would be implicit; 

thus He would bc [merely] a posstblc rcality, but this would be con- 

trary lo the hypothesis^ 

An objection is raiscd that thia r«quircs considcration, because to 

bccome disringuisbcd by indiiiduadon would not ncocssitatc any cumr 

position in the quiddity. The rcsponse |to the objectioji] i& thiit our 
author ccrtainly did not claim that becoming distinguishcd by indi- 
Yiduation would neressitate composition in the quiddity; but he did 
daim that there would l>e composition-* And that is tru<% l^cauw 

1 L 337 qt: Since if [neccssary «Lslcncc] shcmJd be jmmcthing additicHial [tu thc 
essaice|; then it wmild be ^merdyl a possiblc reahly due its [ch-pcndenc] neeci For 
the cssclkc, and ihen from the ^possiblc 1 nature of [thia] necessicy iht impht^Ltiuci 

vvou3d bc draivn that liw Neccssary Ebd&tcnt wai [thcrcly; 4* posibk' realiLyj, a$ you 
haw undcrstood! btu diis wcnild tw eomndry to (he hyptKh-Eas. [From MbrTs i:^m- 

mrnlary «i BaydaWs TflBwm/^| 

2 L 337 pl: It sbauld hr undcnlood thal lliia argunient is onc dc\'kcd hy thc 
aulhor [BaydawiJ. The aTgunLif[LL of thc phUusopliera ou ttL^ divine sicii^iiirity is 

»r>L [his orK 1 . hut rbilher theinE is tbal slJ if the ciiuse ['ilbiii] for Lhe 
of ihe N^cessilr>' EMaSLetlt should be His Own. qin*ddity [rtij4hi.yfth] lh*«i ihert wihiM 

be no neceasity 1« His. own c^isiencc oihcr iluin that [«tusc], and b) it [thc cauv] 

sh^aM l>c «oieHiing mher than [His <wn. quiddiiy] Lhtcn. tbe Ncrcs»ary EsisCcni 
wrHaki h»vc m-i^ in Kis iihflivich^ti)»n for same ot^wr bcing, but *hs& **iuLd bn 
impmsLWe- ThLs ^in^ of rcasoning] ia morr narrow [rcaditigi ahsar] ihjui that of 
chc aythor, hft:ataj*c to bc <!isiingui*hr«t hy indi^ndjuatio-i^ would noc mak compo- 
Eilicm neccssary in thc [di.vLiic] qukkijty U.ietf. [*Ihri, op. dt.] 

s MS gl: Bccausr cir Lhe pruiiibition aguinsi. duality lUhnaynJyah]^ abng with 
chcrc h^ing a crniinionaSLC)' in ih<- [<Uvinc] quiddi|y wiihout any disdrjpni^hing - by 
irtdividuadon vvithin die tndi^iduaJ naturc of c-adi of thc partkipants. 

4 MS ifl: This argument is IwLsed on the fax:t that lh<: ^CL-ectssity 1 b a L terliU[ity 3 
|lhuhuLiyah], in onier ihat its h«np tluc same as the quiQJdLLy might hr reali«d 

1 MS gl: ATwolutely. 

786 2, SEGTH.5N I. CHAPIT.R 3 

if some olhcr being shouid haw commtmality with [God] iti ncccssary 

cxistencc, 6 and thc necrasary cxistcnce shouJd bc thc samc as Hiznself, 

thcn by imperative nccessity [God] wouki have to be distinguwhed 
by an iiiditiduaiion chai tvou!d be «omething additional to ihe net- 

sssary existen.ce itaelT, Moreo^er, in tliai case, the individuatcd n«> 

cssary cxistcnt would includc tvvo cntitic&> thc ncccssary existcnce 
that is the sanic as Himself, and the individuation that would be 

additiona] 10 [the nece&sary exi&tcnce], arid it would not hc admis- 

sible for ihc causc of thc indhnc-iiatbn to b<" TlirmdP or a con- «f HimscH; fbr if it wcrc othcrwisc 8, no pairing would bc 
rcalized. Thus 5 iGod^sl indkiduation would be duc to somcthin 
othri" than HirciseU" and othcr than the concomitant of Himseif, and 
He would )x [merely] a possible rcality; but this would be cuntrary 

to thr hypothcsis. 

Fakhr alDin Ra,zi on the doctiim o/ the 

diome siNgularity L 33 7 ? T I63 s MS I72a 

The Tmam [F_D. RaziJ stated in his explanation of rhe doctrine oi 

tlie diiine singiilarity- fo)lowing the tnethod or the philo^phcrs: 9 

t+r rhe necessity thaL is in the essence |of GoriJ may not he a com- 
mon.ility bctwcen two etititics; ocherwisc, it would bc diangcablc 

according to thc tactor by which cach of thc two would bc distin- 

guished from the other, and ihus each of the two would be a com- 

|K>sitc of that in which thcy had thc commorialily and ihat in which 
thcy diffcred. 

^Now, if there should not be any inherent necessicy between the 
two parts fe then their joining togccher would be thc effcct of some 

ft MS g]: A^ a. rcsult Llir^rc would bc a connjosition impliciL in thc individua.l 
nuturr: [huwryah] of^iit]] uf diem, cif llw: cocitEiirjaulity irt ihc quiddily and ilin dia- 
tiTiKuiihicip indi^kiu-iiUUiTi; Lnu ihis wuuki Kk l irni^s-silJr, smce il wi.wlil icnply tlial 

Tit'illiCT onc of thtm wuuld btr ncccsHry, and tln.' >iissuiiiptiun is c-y«i™r)' to Lhai. 
7 MS gl; OditTwiw, tlLtrt wiild bc a pn. B fcrricL}; wiitwui y jjreJ^rring 3-K C111 ^ " Cl 

* L 337 g]: ISrcausc i.n thac ca^r thei€ would hr implirdi ihr roiriijion of thc 
spcci« to our- Dcidiyidua], buc thc assumption ls Lo the contrary. Wc havc said that 

iFl« apec^iH is reMrict^l io an iiicli^idiJAl • :■ j i t y hp^.aust il" riw; indi^icJuaiian 5n due to 
Th^ qiJtrlrlLty anct th^ q»idktky ia in alJ mdividluab of thai *p«:fcH, ttu»n it wcMild 
requht or.Ly onr indiyiduaticui, and thus thr implir.adon would bc chat thcrc wouJd 
bc onjy onc hidiinduHi of ihat spcrics. [From. thc Shark Saha^i^] 

* [aJ-lawhid] Dcictrinc of thc 1 divine .sing , jla.rity , J Thc roUowtng text Isfah^ni qucrtcs 
nrariy wrbiitini froan Rasi^ MuAassal [pp. 60-69, Cairo ]323 4 rcpricitcd ed.J. 


indepcndcntly scparatc cau.SC;, and this would bc contrary to the 
hypothcsis. But* if thcrc should bc an inhcrcnt nccessity bctwccn thc 

two. and it" the individual identity 10 should require the ncccssity,, then 
thc nccessiLy would be the cffccl of anotlicr bcing, and this .[also] 

woukl bc contrary lo lhe hypolhesis. But, if the necessity ptselt] 

should requirc that indwidual ickiitity, then evcrylhing ^uecessary' 11 
would [itscirj be idcntical with [God tlie Nccessaiy Qnc], and what 
would not itsdf bc [God thc Ncccssary Onc] would not be 'necessary'- 

"An objcction to thi& 12 b that this- argumcnt is bascd on [the 
prcmise of ] necessity bdng a characteristk sign of establishcd cer- 

tointy, but this is invatid r [If it werej otherwi$e ? then it would bc 
etthcr mteinal lo dic quiddily 13 ur extensal 10 it, 1+ L 338 boih of 
which arc invalid bccaustr of what haa prcccdcd. [This is] bccause 
if [thc mcessity] shnuld he a sign of certainty, then it would be thc 

samc as ;-ill ilie r^sr ©r the ^uiddhies in its. [signifying generalj rer- 
lainty. but ic would bc diticrcnt from them n in its particularity [i.e., 
of reierrncel- Thus its existcnce p.e,, as a general certainty] would 

be something other than its quiddity [i.e,, as a particularity] P And so 7 

a- if it should bc ncccssary to dcscribc its quiddity [as a partku- 
larity] by its [g£Ticral] csistctioe, thcn for that ncccssity [of dcaerip- 

tion] chcrc would bc anothcr nccessity and so on endltssly; 1 * 5 but 
tx if that Sihould not he nccessary, then it would bc jmcrely| a 

possihle realicy in its essence, 17 The Necessary Existent in Himself 

would lx u thc mosi adrquatc one tu Ijc u pnssiblt 1 reality in Hirn^ll^ 
but this would bc contrary r to thc hypothcsis. 

"Morciwer, [the objection conttnues, Imam Razi's argumetu] is 

based on the [prcmisc of thcj indivLduadon being anadditional char- 

actcristic sign of cstablishcd ccrtainn^ but this would bc invalid. And 
again, MS 172b thcrc would bc anothcr objcction in that thc 



MS pj: I.e. 3 chc tLidividualion- 

MS g|: r.c 3 that is ?xisLent lei the concr-cLe. 

MS j$i l.c-j Eti Llic [doctriiK' <uf i\\v\ Imam |RuxL]. 

gl: TTius iitlplying cornposittttii. 
MS fil: TTius imj>]yinp Uiat Uie rt&ccssaiy cxjiltm wcnJd bc A possiblc. 

MS gl: ].e., jii ihe feci ihat its ^tmmy w<*M be on «coimi o( ita pwl- 


14 MS gl; B^tause Oiis may bt: iiitenrcl from liis sLakraent,. "OJi^rwiw, it winaltt 

bc diangcaible «wCM^in.g w (Iip IkiMor Ijy which rach ol" Lh-e Yw wouIJ l>r disUci- 

guishcd Irotn. ch^ DLltcr.''' 

IT The MS alh>jie of sr>urce$ tiscd tnnics ri iti it-s/Flis meal-^Bcnpc 1 * [U-dhlcihi], in 
this ;ind in die foHowing insfea.Ticf- 

7fiR 2, SEmiON l a CHAPTER 3. 

Neeessaiy Existent k like the possible reality as rcgards the capac- 
ity for Saristcnee^ but unlikc it as rcgards 'neccssiiy^ so [GckTs] 

'necessity* and His *existence* are two ditlerent ihings." 

notcs hercj: Either a.) there is no Lnheretit nece-Ksiry 

becween these two c^ tegories---wliich is impussible, for otherwiscs, 


it would be valid that cach bc scparated frnm the other, and thus 

possibte ihat that ^ejtisterLce' be separated from ihe 'necessiiy*— -bul 
anydiing ot ihal sori coutd not po&sibly bc a *being ntcHsary 111 

itseiP, or b-J thcrc would bc an inhcrcnt ncccssity bctwccn tbcm. 
but also a prohibilion against cither of thcm having need for the 

olhcr, fram the impnative prohihition against the circular argument 
hcre P Furthennore, there would be a prohihiLion againsl thc *extjf- 

tcnce* making a rccjirirrrncnt of thc "ncccssity"; othcrwise, cvcry cxis- 

tent wnuld be something necessaryj which i.s conrraty ro the hyporhesj&, 

"Thcre is no othcr reply 1 * lo [thcse Gbjcttioiis] escept our posi- 

tion that cxistcnce is prcdicatcd of both what i& ncccssary and what 

h possible in a merely verbal commonaKty™ And if that is so, then 
why would it not be admi&ibte for 'nece&5ity , iti \i$ eascncc to be 

prcdicated of both the neccs&ary cntiries" in a verbal commonality?" 

j\"asir al*Dm lnsi comnmtts on Rad ? s 

L 33tf t T 163, MS 172b 

The author of thc Taikhii al-Muh&ssaP* statcd: 

"If composition is implied by the assnmption that ^nccessity 81 would 

be a comjnonality becween the two [neoessary esdstems], then [Imam 

!i MS gi: l.e-j if k wrrr rurt imj]oss.ibk\ 

" M;ih;ini resuTBJrs th-r <|«nr.:.i:k-m Fn>rr R;mx \fmajmu p. 63. 

M L 338^ n. 5 & M* g>L IF il wert sHKhcthiilg predicated in h itierdy vrrbid shat* 

lqg, thcrt 31 wrjpiJd admisiil dc Fur ihe "eKisLtriCf " ol ilue Newssary ExiitetU iu require 

^rteoessS^p bm nat for aIJ tbe resc of thc «ttaent ihiug^ 90 it ^ould jio? be jjjipHied 
rhac e^^ery eidsteni ih&ng wuld bc wmeching neces^r> s . WlKTe [Bjivd;iwi| ^ys^ 
"Then why wouht it not be admL-jSiblc lor 11 to bc w , w , cheie is y tefui.aHori of 
r,his repty fi»rti che suiiKJpoim of chc ^ttesiiwicr. He mcans iJi^c iF ili.e sharing ol" 

thc! rxis4jc-jU thLtigs in chr 'cxi5U fc n<:fi' is mertly vcrbal ? then why wMJuJdi k not bv id- 
mbsibk for thrrt tw br a atiLJiriiip Ln iht fc Ti*!«:KS5ity s that ls rnrrcLy verbal, und lhi fc n 
eiu <^jiiipOHii<»k wuuld hr irnplird ni>r Hnythiug yo« have rnrrLUoricd- [fn?r» T^nr?\ 

*' K-azL'H iwit para^raph [iiOit quotrd htTc by [sEaharii) ^spticitJy namc^ thc cwo 
rt ncccssaTy [cxisccnt5| s ' aa thc Ncocssary [EjdHcntJ in HittiscM" an-d thc ncccssary as 
CMsticip throiisj;h anothcr lal-^jib ba-al-dhat wa-al-wajib bi-al-^haw].. fR:Lzi, -rjp. eit.., 

22 MS glcs«^: l. Khavb;|ah Ny.Hir [^U-Din Tuisi]. 2. Iu riiisinK au ohjcctmn. to th^ 


Razi] &hould havc rcstrictcd himsdf to that, sincc hc had rnadc it 
ctear that every composdte is a possibk reality, "lTien aftcr that [Razi*s] 
statement is that if the indhidual identity should require the 'nccca- 
sity* then thc 'ncocssity 1, would be thc cfifcct of some other en.ti[y, 

and this would bc contrary to the hypothcsis. But this requires corh 

ddcralLan, bccaus-c contradiction would esisl only if thc Ncccssaiy 

Eristent werc the effect of soint^ other, not [if] thc ^necessity 1 [were 

thc cffoct of anothcr]. w But if [Godsj indjvidual idcntity rcquires 
His 'iiecessity^ and His "ncccssity 1 Ls in need of His. idcnrity,. thrn 
the jmplication would not bc that the idenhty is thc eJTcct of an 

other bein^. Ralhcr, the implication %vould be that thc identity h 

not a ncccssary cxistcnt by itselT; it is a ncccssaiy cxistent only through 
having an attribLice 24 that iis own ?: ' essence requires. 

If [Tmam Raai] had sakl a* the beginning* 6 that *necessity' h an 

attribute, — dncc, apart froni what it qualific§>, thcnc is iio neoessity, 
T 164 and thns. [thc dTcct] h rhe eflect of some other [cntity|,- 

he vvould have secured his objecL And the objection [that was raised] 

against [thc imarn], that thc 'ncccssity 9 woutd not bc an 'cstabli&hetl 

tcrtainty^ would bc invalid according to his doctrinc. Indccd^ [ncees- 


ai ty] is thc oppositc of nonncocasity* 7 of which nonc^istcncc is pird- 
icatcd, thus existence is prcdicated of [the *necessity i ]. l, * ; 

[Razrs] statementj that if the neeesshy should not be a necessary 

otisttnt thcn it would bc a possible reality^ and thc Nccessary Esdsient 
in Him&rir would be nhe most adequaie one to hc a po^iblc rcal- 
ily s is a rcpclilion of whcit has bccn said bcfbrCj aiad a discussion 29 

IslAhmli nuYr lilloCcS nearly ^tbaiiin itum Tusi^s 7tftfAw" ai"M^f*i?:^i h pritued iti 

itK low« part oTiln- pag» of Ra%¥* MtJmsnl, prp, 68- 6^- 

2? MS tfJ: Sn lL may bi fc J^an]<:J fnwn dhis Ingiral rpa^nning [nazar] tJsat tht ""iiec-ra- 
sily 1 is ruinr crthc:r than the ^cs^^nc:^ 1 , 
u MS gl: Narrwly, thc ncccssity. 
^ Ail \iS syTnbol Lridkalcs tht idenLiCy as antccpdrtut. 

w MS %fc I.e., ici ihe rust (jitrL ol" ihe lcnanis rcRiLadort^ riArtiely, where hc $&*& 
\.\m if ihe iiidkidual klentLty sJinutd «quire ihe iwoe^ity [kien ihe necessiiy woyld 
be 0i<? elTecu of ari ocher. 

fl? L tbliowed by J' ie^ds w ii i^ tbc opehksllc of noneunenoe 1 ' [iiiiiaJiu mql4 al- 

la-wujedj, ihc ajinxedcnc of "iC* bcing ^nci^^siity.*' l"he MS and M& Gamtt <l8!>lla 

hoch rcad M . . . opp<iRLtc «f nonncccaiirty" [al-L&-wujia.b]- Tlit radicr frcqucnt usc hcrc 

of [wujud], [wujQl>|, |wSjib| £tnd [wijib al-miju.d] in v.ur]riry; rebLlLO^slLLjjs lwvs iend*;d 
to llu?" cr-iilLiskm ut iioLh sjt:rihr and resuler. 

*" ,VfS gJ: Lc.j of Ch<: nrt^sad^. uid thtTclbrc ir wouki bc a sipn of cHtabJished! 
ccrtainly [thubuti]. 

M MS gl: Thit L3 [spakcn by] Kaslr al-Din Tusi and [rtfers to hds Etalcmcnl,] :i Bul 
this rcquircs considcraLiofi n bccausc ccmlradicliorb wuuJd cxtrt only if [bc Ncccsiary 

790 5> SECTION ]. CHAPTER. 3 

of it has prcccdcd. Rcgardingf thc counccrobjcctjon co thc cffcct that 

the Necessaiy Exiscent is likc the possible reaJity in having the capao 
iiy (br eKJsicnce, we have showii that the commonality oCthcse iwo 

:in 'oastcncc* is not a matter of gcncral agrccincnt.^ L 5J39 Thc 
|] sheker MS 173a Lo which Jlmam RaziJ (inally mcwed^ — 

namely, that necessity in its essence is prcdicated iti a merely vcr- 

bal curriTnonaiity of botb thc "two ncccssiiics^ — docs noi savc him 
fram thi& pcrplcxity, for in his cxtrcmc pcrplcxity hc docs not coni- 
prchcnd thc iniplicatioii to which his words lcad, and hc is. not awarc 

of the contradirrkm and thc necessary con5cquence in ihat which K 
does not relieve hlm from his peiplcxity. 

Ll Imam [Razi] should havc said^ as ochcrs of thc philosophcrs said, 

k It ij impo&sible for thc Kccessaiy Existent in Hmi&eH to be predi- 
catcd of [the "two iicccssitics 5 *]/ 3 bccausc tlicn Hc wouid Ikt cithcr 

a. an ^csscnce' for them both, or 

b. acddcntal to chem tonlh, or 

Cr an ■«sse-ncc 1, lor one nf thc tivy stml accidcnia] m the oclwr, 

1 if Hc wcrc lo hc thc L csscnoc* for both ot thcm^, thcn thc 
spccihc quality by which cach is distinguishcd fnom thc othcr would 

not l>e internal to thc ^ncccssity 3 which is the causal factor common 
to botli; otherwise, there would be 110 distinctjon, and [ihe speeHY- 

ing quality] would bc cxtcmal ajid adjoincd to thc eau&al factor com- 

mort to bolli. 

L ir tliis 54 were in bolh of ihem, thcn each would be a pos- 

ablc rcidily whtrciri it was an cxistcrLt dLstinct Irom thc other; and 

Existcnt wcrc ih-r e-ffwt of somc odhcr, no4. [Lf J thc "^ncctsaity 1 [w-crc thc cffcct of 
du othcr]. w 

H MS jj[l; Buither, il Ls a nialtcr of analosjy. 

Jl Lc, the tw^o tiKes^ry eiimetits; a) thc Nccessary Onc., ain F-xi?tcnt in and 

ihrough HiinscLEi ?ind bj tht necc^r>'/concrctc r an cxistent in nnd thn>ugh juiothcr, 

Tlac iranslatiim liJtuws [lic MS whidi n fc *cfcf, "tln." Iwo Eni^wLtics" [aUwujiiljyiytij, 

iilrhoi Ri>tfc L and "l" read, "ihe two esisterites" |ftl-wuji"jdaynj. MS (l-*rteCT JWSHa 

ri^adR;» ,,: the twp n«:cRBary cxiALcn& M [al-wftjLhayn| ? which agrrra wtth Tusi^s texc 

in the 7h0Au fp- 69] Lhat is bcing qiLD*cd hcrc, and in turn Tusi"s form aKrcc-s- 
wth Rsi7:i ? t usaj^e [p, 69] , See rnwĕ At RazL ? 5 ]aat quOied paraKrSph twffort Tusi ? t 


w MS gh Nam-cly, thc statcmcnt that (ht oomnionality ot cjdgicncc is oot a mat- 
lcr of gcncral agrccmcnL 

H L and T rcad ? "thc tvm" [al^iihna^-n] , whilc thc MS and MS G<Lmtt 9A9Hli 
rcad;, u two"j omittin^ thc dcHnitc artick. 

u M5 gl: Lc. tht cxtcrnal and adjcnncd [spcdijpinK - qualicy1. 

lX)irfRiNE OF iHt D1V1KE lilNGULAKllY /*J| 

2. if it were in onc of thc two, ihcn that orte would be a po*- 

siblc rcaJity. 

(b) w If [the Ncccssary Existcnt in Himsclf] shuuki bc accidcntal 
(L) co boch olthcm, or 

(2.) ro onc of them, thc n His nwn auhstrate, in itselt" would 

rnn b« J ;i ucfcss;iry c^isUTit, 1 -" 

"Lct no one sav ihat thc Ncccssary Existcnt in Himseir h only 
ihc causal tactor that ig common. 37 This i.s becausc wc havc madc 
it clear 18 that a causal factor^ having a coirnrionalily would not ejtisl 
rxtrrually h in view of its having commonality whcrc Lhcrc is no spc- 
diying agent to renruwe the cnmmonality. 

"An ohj<!Ction might he. raisKd that the .sj^cilying agency^ Is a 
cieg"4tive enlity a* cach iaf the Iwo [i,*?-., lypra of uecessary exislenls] 
is madc spccitic by not itsc]f bcing thc othcr. Wc would reply to 
this [objcctionj that thc ncgativity oflhc [mutual] "othcr" wuuld not 
comri about until after the exisience of the other one should have 

come about; and at that timc each one would be its owi indhid- 

ual sclfj, after the «ristencc of the othcr had takcn placc, and so cach 

of ihem would be a possible reality. In this [conclusion the argu- 

menl] is now yiHlicienl," 41 "* 2 

Lfah hii prcscnts an asp-cct of thc argumcnL 

Anoiher aspect [of tbe argumenLj that indicaies the exclLLsion of any 

assoeiatr: [of GwlJ u chal llie *pedJic csisteitcr of an essence that is 

t:haractcrizcd by csscntial ncccssity is nut a comrnorLality bctwecn 

^ MS gl: BccauK,. regarding ihe Neces&ary £xj&(ent in HmKcir, Hi» nccr*sicy 


* Tusi outlincp undiLT points 2, and (2.) tbc Tmplkiitions of ttit tliird ciplioii "Rw 

%huiikl \\wv rcierukHwd- 

57 MS ^L: H^ heiti^ ont n h^\.-iiig ]n JTim no cwnpodtion. 

w TuaL"s tot^ sn ihc T^Mu t-cpcb, [li-^ma bay\,imiSj. Thig shr^rt form ia vari- 
ausby nuidtliicd Ln i\\$ oditiiig: L aiidl T — []i-'3nna qad bayyanna]; MS — pi-*anna 
naoul qad hayyatiuij; MS Garrelt 1J8!^Ha--[li-- K anna naLju.1 iMiyyanna]- 

L 339 gL: Hccausc a causal facn>r having commrinaliry wauJd bc a uni.vtrsal: 
and no uiuvcrsal, stricdy as a unK a crsaL 7 odsta in thc concrct-e cxtcpf in adjunctiun 
with somc inda^idualcd ctitsty. [Fmm iJus Shaik 7aqrit\ 

1,1 MS tj;]: Thc :qKcif>in^ ajprnt wcmld be extelTla]l>■ cxixlcnl aud withuul cocrt* 
pnsirinn (ieC4U»e O^' ic* ^^Hng a ncgai|iv« entity. 

+l XJS ^lnssrRL I. Recansc o.arh nd 7 theni^ ftir in cKT^ma] r-Msccncc, ncecb thc 
^pircihration by which it dJHcTs fr-cnn thc othcr. 2. Lc. ? sulTicienc) 1 in etahlishini; 
hi? ckhirri. 

H Twsi adda Ln hi-s TflMr> ^-A/hAchm/ (p. 69): "for chis gual ot ihe ai^uinwt * 

792 % SEtmoN i. chaptkr 3 

two, but rathcr it i& onc f;ind it ix a] reality* lndccd,. if [that spedhe 
CKistcnce] should bc a commnriiLlity bKtween two, atid 

a. if [thc spccitic csistcncc] should bc thc complctc rcality of thc 
twoj thcn thc spccific quality by which. cach of thc two ia disrin- 
giiishcd from che othcr would bc cxtcrnal to ihcir johit rcality which 

is the coniuionalily belween them, and [the specihc quality] woulcl 

bc adjoincd to thcm; but^ 

b, it" [the spccific qwa!ityj should be in hoth of them, then each 

of them, as an esastent distinct from the orher, would be a possiblc 

rcality, 11 and so ncithcr of thc two would be a ncccssary cxistciit. 

Purthcr* 44 thc &pccific qua]ity ol cithcr onc of thcm would not bc 
a concomitant of thc [totalj rcatity as. such by inhrrcnt neccssity: 

otherwisc, any renlinaiion without [thc »pecific qualiiy] *ould be 

impossiblc, so whichevcr had the specific quaHty would atill have 

nccd within that spcciik cjuality for somc othcr agcncy» and thus 

would noi \yt a nece&sary extstent. 

Mc>rrc>vrr : \i' i:iv v\m-r oJ'thr spcrihr qiutJ:ty ^hrmlcl br llir r^rncc 
as such, thrn only one li.e., of ihe two neccaaitics] would exist 45 and 
it would havc been sperifk in quality MS 173b prior to that other 

kation, since the cause would necessarily be individuatec] and 

p&riici]larrzcd hefoic rhe cAit .1. Thus,. ii would have another jjpeciJic 

quality, and thcri thcrc would Im- cithcr 

a. an implicit circular argumcnt^ or onr in an iniinitc scrics, or 
h. a need by one of thc two within its. own parbcularity for thc 

other, which would imply that it was a possible rcality. 

And if the cause of thc spccific quality should be thc othcr^ thcn 

its being a posdble reality would be implied. L 340 

11" [the cause of the speciSc ^u.aJi^]-" shouJd bc som^thin^ intemal 47 
to che rcality of both of them, cheti tlic iniplir.ation would be tliat 

13 MS si: Bccause t-suth oT lliem, Ln view of ics beirig djstinct Froni the Mhrer h 

toould havt need for an Agency cxternal to ihc tolal reilaiy c( ihent boih. 

** MS gl: T.e.j, if llwt 5|jcct[Li" ■C*xbLetK-e diaracteriacd b^ usKccitiiil rictcssity vi«te 

(0 hr a iiLmimonaliLy btiween rwa,. antl [5f ii] ww. 10 \& thr tmrij^lew ne^hiy of 

rT_&, and [5f ii 
haHiy ol' uic"h 

boih of them, thcn tbe spcdfiL- ijn-ility oOith^r oru* of them wonSd not be A con« 
coniiitant of ihc [twnplew-J ^t alUy a.i aucih, ochcrwijjc, rcalL/^cion ^ould bct imprw- 
siblc withDut it; buc [thc lact is] it is WHncthinc^ prcscnt withiai chc othcr. 
,: " MS gl: Sincc ihc causc ia> single, and i-ts dFfrct nwesaarily waiLld Yx ^ing^e, 
* L gl: Le.,. specific eu^ctioe iKac b characicriscd bf> r an «se:ntlaJ necrsdiiy [aJ- 
wujub al-d.h5.rrj .. 

,? L gL .■YssLLniiiig a) rhat it is a cnmnu^ciaitLty brLwccn two, but b; ihat it jh cmt 
thdr total rcality. 


botb of thcTTi wcre conipoundcd of what has cornmonaliiy arwl what 

has di&tinctiun, which would bc imposgihlc» 

]f [thr causc of the spcritic qiial]ty| s-hrmld t>e etttemal to holh of 
thcm, and il~ k should not be acddental to hoth qF them, thcn onc 

of the two would not be the Nccessaiy Existenk 

If [thc caiisc of thc spccific quality] ahould bt' accidcntal to both, 
thcn, sincc cvcxy accidcnt has nccd for its suLbstrate and cvcrytbing 

a substrate is a possible re&lity, the N r ec«sary Exi8tcnt tt 

would not bc a ncceteary adslciit. But this is contrary to the hypotliesis. 

Mort:ovrt, il woulrl ]\v iniplicd 1 ' Lhat t-dch oi ihcm waukl havc 

hoih cjiiidcjity and existjHice accid-ental 10 fct. 3Q Thf;relbre# one ol" thc 
two would nnt ht a ncccsssuy arislMit,, becau^e 7 as you havc leaiited 
rcgardiiig thc Neccssary Rjri&tcnt, ncithcr cKistencc nor qtiiddiiy are 
[prcdkatcd as bcing accidcntal] to [God]. sl 

Ibrt Sina m tfe dwtrine &f ike dwiw 


L 340, T 164, MS 173b 

Another aspect of [the argumetu expounding] tlie doccrine of thc 

divine singularity is in thc [logicalj mcthod of the Physician-Plulosopher 
[Ibn Sina]. It is preccdcd by thc statemcnt oftwo premises, 
a. Thc (irst of the two [prcmiscs] is ihat two ihings rnay diffcr 

1. in logical consideration,. as„ Ibr exaniplc* a thinkcr and thc 

object of Hioughi, wliercin (he ihinker rnay ihink nlwut himself; and 
thcy niay also diJTer 

2. in thcir iiidmdual ■cpidditics, Thc two things tliat dUTcr in 

thcir inriividua] quiddities may havc agreemcnt 

&} in somc acddcTitaL quality, as this [particular] sub&tance 
and this [particular] accidcnt [having agrccnicnt] in existcnoc [Le,, 
as thcir common accidcnt] 5 w and thcy may haw agn^cmcnt 

bj in somc cntity that givcs subsistcncc to thcm both» ~A$ 
Zayd and *Amr |having agrccrmcnt] in [thcir mutualj hunianity. Thc 

4F " MS gl: Nicndy, ih-e spccilic cxistrcict B c:hiir<Ltttrizfd l>y n-cics^iiy. 

49 MS ^: Otj ilue assumptkm <*i [~he «mse of tLc specific quatity] bei]]g iieekkmal- 

50 L und T h ive cht- pronoun in "ht duad!„ indicatiiig that «ustencĕ is acc:ideiv 

tal tmpreciaely "(o chrinn boih r rt Uui (be -V<S atid MS Gamett 9BSlla rc&d !fc to it H 
[laha], spcciJying thc quiddity as thc suhrtratc of cauatcnoc. 

bl L gl; But rathcr^ Hia «risunct cnust be idcnticaL with Hia ^uiddity,, actordirig 
[r> ihcir prisitjon, [From thc SS^r* TApir] 

>7 MS e;l: Hcrc iJae dualiry Ijctwrcn ilum is a^ a Uijjical coridJdcration; tJLhcr^ise, 
tbc two of ikrni arc oor: ching. 


two that diitcr in their indhidual quiddidcs and agrw in an euthy 

giving them both subsistence, by inbeiept necessity wtil inducte iwo 
factors whicli would have joined 53 logether in each of them: Lhe linst 

of ihe iwy Iwhig th±il in whirh ihcy dilTcr, and thc sccond bcing 
ibat jii which they agrce. Now, thcir jcjiiiing tugrthcr is cirhcr 

1} 011 ihc basis ol" prohibitiog any scparation from onc 

of the two &idc*H thb bcing a 'concomttancc*, or 

2) on the basis of admitting a scparation, thls bcing an 

'accidcntal inherencc*. 

(I) ^Concomitance 1 ine^icably is either 

aa} a case wherein that in which the two (hat agrcc 

would bc conconiitant to that in whieh dicy ditiEcr,, so diat Ibr thc 
two diffcrcrLt cntitics thcrc would be a singlc conconiitatiL, and ihis 

would be sosnething undeniablCj as a jkiug nature wouldj be a cxm- 
comitant of both speaking and nou-spcakhig Ikiiig brings; or, 

bb) [a casc whcrcinj that in whkh thcy dillcr would 
be couramiTaut to that in which they agn fc e ? so that a aiiigle entity 

would havc as concomitants two ihings both different from and oppo- 
site to c»L-h othcr, H"d this woiJd bc somcthing dcniablc; as, for 

cxamplcj it would bc lmpossiblc for a .I5ving bcing to bc both spcak- 
vng and non-spcaking ai the sainc timc, bccausc of thc impossibility 
of thcrc being opposition hctwcen two concomicants of a single cntity, 

an -opposition that would necessitate 44 a mutual exclusion between a 

concornttrtTit and the conramitnnt^ subslraLe. if T 165 

(2) Accidcntal inhcrcnce is eithcr MS 174a 

cc) a case wherein ihai in whirh ihe two Hgrae wmild 
be accklenlal to lliai in whieh they difier, and this wuuld bc somo 
ihing imdeniablc^ as ihe existcnce that becoTncs uccid«Lt»l to ttiis 
particular substancc and t\m pardcular accident whcn thcy are dcs- 

ignatcd as L this pardcular cxistcnt 3 or *that pardcular existcnt 3 ; for 

w T and rhr. MS icududr ^had 11 " or, *Svouk| ha^TC 11 " (qad. . .] whib: I- oiiiiLs [qaucl]. 

hi L foUovrc:d hy T supplk-s thc word "0J>po5ilJClll ,|, as sourcs nf thc rt^utrcmcnr;, 
but the MS aiid MS Garrett 9991 la rcad, "ics rajiiiremcnt 1 " []j-iaulzamLhi]- 

45 MS glos5cs: 1. BccauK to cxcLudjc dic corkconiitant wauld ht [likcwisc] tq 
epcludc thc wbstrntc/host [wt ihc cocKonLLLanl] , frorn tbc inhcrcnc impmsibility of 
ite bcicig scparatcd F"rc?iTi thc 

2. Bccauec a conjtomitnnt to anoihcr concornitanl would [again] bc a cDEiccmd- 

lAlit [in ahulher »Kpci"l]i LiS iht ■upposadoci wuuhl l>c CdittorciLLanl to [ctLhcr] ocic o( 

di-e cwui upposiH^i aiid ii wouM alsn» be ctrncorultsimi ":o che antjstrMe /]]cmc; so buch 
thp opposiTkin Aitd the muiual eKdusion ■.■nuW [simuJiaiKmwly] bc cotwomicatii^ 

of thc^ $uh9lra.t«/hfOatr 


'exisie]K:e > gives *ub_sisieno:e Lo hoth of them as heing ejri&tents and 

it is to thcir two csscnc» which complctdy diffcr troin 
each other. Or_ [accidental mhcrence. ia 

dd) a ease whercin thai in which they diffcr would bc 
accidental tt> that m which Ehey agree, and this would be mmething 

undeniable, as thc humanhy that becomes the substrate For this or 

thiit [individual] whcn cach is dcsignatcd 'this parttcular mHn' or 
'that pariicular man'; lor humanity give:5 mhwajnncc to both of thcm» 

and it is the substrate for the indhriduality of nature by which they 

difTcr from onc aiiother. 

b. The second of [Ibn Sin;i T s] two [preniises] h that it is admis- 

sible T- 341 for the quiddity of a thitig to be ihe cause for one 

of its own attributes, as the dtiality that is the cause of its own everi- 

ncss of numbcr. and it is adinissibk for an attributc of a tliing to 
bc thc causc for another of its attiibutc3 7 such as whcn thc 'diHcrcncc' 

is the cause for a f properiy\ as rationaluy i$ for the quality of amazc- 
ment- and such as when one properly is thc cause for another prop- 

crty, as thc quality of h for the abiltty to .augh, and 

such as when an aocident is the cause for [anotherj accideni, as 

bcing ruddy is for bcing hcalthy. 

But it is not admissiblc that an attributc, namciy. chc '«datcnce' 

of somc [concrctc) thin^ should havc bcing by rcason only of [thc 
thing'sj quiddity* which is not cxistcnce. or by rcason of somc other 
attribiite." ["ITiis is so| hecause althongh a cause rnay prcoede [ats 
eAiict] within eTcistence- it dcH:^ not take priority in having existence 
ovcr 'e^istcncc* nsc\L All thc rcst of thc attributca haw [thcir] csisi- 
cncc only by rcason of thc qtiiddity, whilc thc quiddity has [its>J 

existence by reason of *existence f itseif. On lhai account ic would bc 

admissiblc for thc quiddity lo be thc causc for thc rcst of thc attrib- 

uccS;, and for onc atiribulc to bc the cause fbr anothcr^ but ic would 

ciot be admissiblc for any oi thcm to bc t]ie cause for "esristcncc 1 .^ 

Now if you havc undcrstood dni^, then we will statc our posidon 

chat it has been estahlished as certaiiUy that: 59 


'" MS [bi-sabab rnahiyatihij: L iuid T [bi-salKLlj ^J-irLatuyalil. 

37 Roman^.i^l: |!a yajnz m yakDu al-$ilkh aliacT hiya aJ-wujad lil-shay 1 innaiiia 
hiy^ l>i-sahab al-irnahiyah allair Laysac hirya al»wujQd aw ht-^Uahi ukhra 3 ']. 

w Ibn Sirta':s iwo- pi^jnLw w hU ar,gunueiM on the ■dticiruie of tJw divinc singu- 
]arity may be found in his d-Ish&r&t m^ii-TMbikat* vol. J. pp, c i8 31- 

^* MS gl: In chc ujpk tm. tltr bivalijdaiJon of ar^timr nc by ibe inAiiite scrics^ 

|Bw?k 2 Y hm L Chapter 3, T.ipic: 1J 


a. A neccssiiry existent k an cxistent; and 

b. jA necessary existent] is ihc csistcntial causc Ibr a possibie exisl- 
etit; and 

c. fA necessary ejusient] is the existentia] cau&e for a thing only 

if [the esJsieiitial cause] has been individuated; because an entity 

that ia not indivdduaicd may not have cxtcrnal exist«ice, aitd aiiy- 

ihiiiE not havinij extemal existcnce could not possihly bc tbc cxis^ 
tetuial rause for something e!se; and then, 

d. If ihc individuation uf thc necessaiy cxisltiit is duc to this fact, 
thai i^ to the fact^ thai it is thc nccessary cxistcnt 3 and it" its indKidu- 
ation is the &ame as its heing the necessary eKistent., then there would 

be no other neccssaiy existcm, which is thc goal of our argumccu, 
e. Birt if the individuation [of thc neccssary exi&tcm] should not 

bc duc to that fact s ,M namcly, that it is thc ncccssary cnstcnt, and 
if its individuaf]on shouki not he ^uch, namcly, the same as its being 

ihe nccessary odstentj, but rather [the indhiduation] should be due 

to aomc other factor, and [if] its individuarion should bc somcthing 

other than it* bcing the necessary exi$tent, MS 1 74b ihen ]the 

nctcssary cxistcnt] would bc thc cauacd cffccl oi somc othcr bcing, 
[Wc hold this to bc truc] for thc Ibllawing rcasons: 

1 . If thc necessary cxistcnt should t>c concomitant to its own 
individuadon^ thcn ncccssary cxistrncc ,ia would bc ccmcoinilant cithcr 
to thc quiddity of sornc othcr bcing, or to an attribute of somc oLher 

bcingr This is bccause if Ehe individua.rion w<*ra somethiEig ocher than 

the necessary existent, tben it would bc cither a quiddiry or an 

attributc of a quiddity. On both assurap(ions s thc fact that ncccssary 

existence would l>e concomjtant to its own individuation would imply 

that ncccssary cxistcncc would be concomitant either to the quid- 

^* L and T: [i&'ayyunuhu dhalik li-annahu]; MS and MS Garrctt 939Ha: 
[ta. r ayyu]3uhu li-dhalik, ay f Ji-aniiahu]. ITic parall-cl stairrnjHil ihat f^Ucws is in thtr 
second fbnn. 

ai MS gjL: ]--c. K if its individuauon wtt* iioc the same :w Lu beins r,, »f neoess^ny 
cKJsitnt^ but nuhw ftncrthcr ihan [God], theti ih<- indiwijtijicion wouSd be eiiher 
;n:cirk-[Lud to it, or ooncoitLJuuu to \l or -a wibstrate fo* it fas nocidrm]., or & sub- 
sn-itte Jor ti: [as concomicantj, On :lII £bur assumptiora the impii^aiion would bc 
Uhm the iitct&s&p? exi.$tL-ric ™ld bc a caiascd effecf, but ihis condiwioii is fa!se- lf 

it is fal»c liiat itB ui{iK]<iuadQri b not thc samc a*. its bcsng chc ncccssary existcnt, 
thnrL irt has hccn cstahltshcd as -ccrtain that it is the samc as its bcLn^ ihc n«cs- 
sary" c-xisttnti and ic is rnDt mulnplt "ITiks is tlic ytwtL cf tlic arn^unLoUt. 

* He? re [MS 1 ?41>: 1 ; Lp 341 = 15; T I &5; 1 8J *nd ici *ucc wiling J wal iy i^ in thi* 

ai"gunwnt ? "I" jtnri MS tiarrirLt yBriHa nriid, "tKCjcsu&ry cxigLetlctf ?, [aJ-wujud al-wajib]; 
whilc ihc MS r^ads, "^hc cxistcntc of ttic nccrsary «dslent" [wujiid al-wajib]. 


dity of somc- othsr being, or to an attribute of sorne other hcing, 
which wuuld bc impossiblc. Thia is bccauscr thcn it wuuld bc implicd 
that the existence would b« caused either by the quiddicy of some 

other being or by some olher aitributc [ilic qukklity] ttiight have, coiicuniitance bdwccn ihc rwu lliings [i.c, tJic ntces&ary 
existence and iti own indiridiialiort] wouJd not bc realkcd unlcss 
thc Substratc of thc or part ol" it should be cithcr a 

cansc or an effeci correspondiiig to ibe cotKomitant or part of it,. 

or they both 63 shouM be the cHcctt ofa sitigle caust% 

Further 3 assuniing that thc ncccasary csisttcncc is concomitant to 
im [ownj indkiduation 7 ir thcn would he impossible to be chc causc 

of [its own] individuauon, since a cause must beooine individuated 

prior to an ciTcct, and it woutd bc impossible for chc ncccs&ary cxis- 

tcncc to bccomc indhiduiued prior to its own individuation- On both 
thc latter asmmptions, 64 namely, 

a) that the substrace or the coiicomitant would be the cause 

ol the concoiniiant or part of its causc, or 

b) that thc Kub&tratc of ihc concomilant and th^ ooncomi- 

tani would both be the cJlecis of a single cause, L 342 the irnpli- 

cation is ihat ihc Tutott-ssary cxistt'T]t wuuld bc ■* causcd-eAcotj whioh 
is impo&siblc. 

2, If the neccs&ary existent should be accideutal to iTs own inrii- 

viduation, then aU the more appropHately it again would be a caused- 
ertcct 6 * This is 

a} bccausc whatcver « accidcmal to a thing stands b need 

of tliat thing^ and whatcvcr standa in nccd of somethin^ elsc is. itsclf 
a cau-sed-ctiect, and 

b) becauae if thc necessary existenk should be accideiital to 

ihc indivtdualiun ? thcn. :t wonld not bc thc causc tbr its own icidi- 
\iduation; fj4 ' othcrwise. it would be concomitanl to iL and its indi- 

viduation wouEid ilit-n bc c>o atc^unt ol" »; otJicr beiiig a/ul ii^ 

61 NtS- fl: t.e, ? (hs subsl-rarc u-r thc corK-oFiiLtsint ^nd ihc concomitajit itwir 

** L and T road, ["a]a j al-taqdfr&yr» al^kbirayn)r MS GarreM WSHa mds, L a 3" 
taqdTrayji sd-akhirayji]. Thr MS rfads 3 [al^JA^dtlra.yii. al-aklilrj <erowding che dgn 

of thc duaL in abo\T thf lirit word j.nrl ontLtiing; ic m ths sccond;. 

61 MS ^i: [.e., «s was the casc lci thc othcr rwo supposistions. 

* Het¥ in Oif MS [f. 1 74fc: L3J thr jnislabcnly iciEtits tht- dau5c\ u since 
llic Cfti«4C mu3t btf iiidi^iduuCciJ^ [3i-an3ia id-^illuh yajib an i: ayyaii]^ hining stipprd 

yji^id iiiadwrtently lo the ni?xt Dccunrtna 1 oPthL" phrase c, cansc o-riia own iridi\idu- 
9ri<iin 1 3n and cupirdl th<r iuLbwui^; d^uise. Thcn whcn hc c-umcs to tht propcr post- 

don t»r ilic;- skjppeii pUrdhsc [f. ]74b:l5] hc inscrLs it but wiih a pru>nourt fli-ai]nahiij 

798 2 P giF.cnc>N i, ceiaptor 3 

nccd wuuld. bc doublcd, sc> all thc niorc appropiiatcly it would bc 

3- If th-c ind]viduaricin slutuld bc concumitant to thc ncccssarv 

cxistcnt s thcn [thc ncccssaTy esistmt] again would bc a causcd-dHcct; 
bciausc it k not adniksiblc that thc ncccssary cxistcnt bc che aiu&c 
of its owii indi\.icJijar.iion :r since a cjiusc must bccomc indi\iduatcd 

prior to an eflfect and it would bc a.n irnposslbility ihat ihe existcn.ce 

ihat is ncccs&ary should bccome individuated prior to its own indi- 

viduabon» Thereibrc the individuated necc-Esary existcnt would be a 


4. If thc individuarion should bc accidcnia] to thc cxistcncc 

that is neceasary^ then [the ncceHsary cmtenct:] again would hv. a 
caused-elle^:L This is ta«:aiis£ 

a) it is not admissSblc l"or thtt Tieccssa]'y t-xister>ce to he tlie 

cau&r or iis own indtvidua[ioii; olherwise, it would Ur impticd llial 
it prcccdcd its owil individuiUion in [thc prr>ccss of] indi^iduadon, 
frpm thc inhcrent ncecssity for thc causc to prcccdc tlic effect in 

individuation; atid 

b) it is not admlssiblc] for thc indhiduadon to bc thc causc 
of itr* own subslrate; otherwise. it would be conromita.nL to il and 

not an accident. MS J.75a Thu*, ii would he detemwied ihat tJie 

ncccssary existcnt ihat had been individuaied would be Ihe caused* 

effcci of somc other being. 

1'urthcrmorc, it would not bc pHJssible for thc indhidualion to bc 
accuicnlal to the neoessary esdsience as a gcnera] nature_ M r lTi^refore ? 

k woulri be acdricnta! lo ii as a naiurc tliat i* not generaT. Theu 

thc case would bc eilher 

1) that that [spccilicj naturc* as s.ubstralc Ibr thc indi- 

vidua[ion, would bc made spcrihc by that sanic individuation which 
is aouidental to it, or 

ictstciid of thc noun. L and T aloiig with. MS GArrett 9B9Ha 6o m< have this 


c Here iii tlie Rjiarth Alterciaiiw oprion, [L 32+:7; T 165:30; MS 1 746:171 

LjT and MS CarretC ftflflHa i^ad., *'thr f!Kis[encp that is nec-cssary'" [aUwyjiirl al- 
wajibj- In thc pncccding thrcc altcrttaliw opti-nng, in all tbur sourocs uacd,. thc tcim 
h ch<: nt!t:rssa.[y ™stcnif r i.s in. thc prrjtaxis. It appcars cvidcnt ihat this variatinn dws 
rg4 ch^JLgc thc hasic mranin(f and anjumcnl. 

A few lincs ahcad [L 3241 J l^ MS L75a:2) thc MS rcads. "chc oeistrucc that 
b ncccs*Htr) ,7, : , aprccinR viith thr othcr sourccs^ 

M MS gt Bi« raLhcr, 4^ a speciTLC naUun? [^bfah kha^h], 


rhat iliat [sp-ecilic naturcj would tx- mado spccirtc by 

thc causaiion of somc ochcr indi\iduatiorij which at Tirst madc il 

spccific T and then. the ffirst] uidividuation became accidental to it 
alier it had been inade apecilic. If ihe [alternalive should be 
comttj, thcn that causc would bc tht causc U>r the spc^iiic qualification 
of ^omcthing whoso own csscnce ncccssitaces its existcnccj which 
wcuki bc ampossihli!. li' the accond lallrrnative should hi! correctj, 
thcn the argiimcMit on the previous individuatif>n would be Hke the 

oii thr indivk!uiitioii ihat i% a uan&cd-eHR.^" [ , ,,y 

Kollowing thc inyalidiition of thcsc four [numbcrcd attena; 
dikisions,'" T 166 whirh aJl rlrrive from thc [prcmise that] thc 

individuack»a of the nettssary td&tent would be soinething other 

than ils bcing thc neccsscuy ojsteiu itsel^ il i* spcciiically delermincd 
that 'being the in.divLdua.tinn ol rhe necEssary exis.tent 1 is the same 

as L its being the Necessary EsdMrni itoelP. Thereibre, the Nccessary 

Exis)cdt is [uniquclyj Onc, aiul iliis is thc goal uf dic argumetu. J 

2. Aigumenb *ftf*e Mvtekdiimm L 342, T 166, M5 175a 

Thc MutakaJlimun argucd in rcjcction of dual dcitic*., basing dicir 

argtimcnt on two reasons: 

** Aftcr thc fwo prcnn.scs harvc becu statcd and cKpLaicnccL, Ibn SiLia distusRcs :i 
main pmposiriom of his argument, namrly: "A njeccssjiry cxialcnc is Ihc «ristttilial 
causc for a thLn^ only if dw cuRtcntiaJ cause has taetn indmdualedi . - ." In chc edi- 
\±mi of his fl/-/jri i 47d > f ii-fl dJ Tnnbiimt thal is prinlcd scnccnce by sentmcc aloni^ with 
Nasir al-Din TusTs commcn.tary at thc bottom of thc pagcs, this basLc propnsitLon 
runs from wl. 3, pp. 42 46. 

1,1 MS gl; \amrlry; L) ihc nrrc^Ksuy csislent bring" concocnititnt la thc indi^dua- 

tiotu 2) |i.e.p #3 in lEic i«tf tlic corttraiy of #1; 3; |Le.> #2 In the tesij Uie neo> 
esyini 1 exi«(em boing actideiual tu ihc tdJi^jduaiiciEai 4) tbu ODiUrinry of #3. 
71 ln haR \vrictcii scsiemwt* on thtr Docirine oi" che <liviiie slngLiUmLy BAydawi. 

prcscntcd a hrief summary of thc th™ry of chc pJiiJciAophcra and thAt o( the 
MLLtakaHimun. IsTahiini^s conimissiori is to expand on thcse and lo c.vplain thcm. 

"li..- in:iM I-j.-. irlii i:in <ii|i<.ii-l> l,b ] il .: I : ihr>|: I i^rs i- ]l:-n Sr-i wh-.M EuLi.i-:;,il 

rciionLng JnllHenccd chinkci^ in Kljkdj^ as i^d] as iht Mjddle Eaat. A brief buf 
most hi-l]ifiil stndy nf Ibn Sini's doc^rine of God i* clae follc>wing: ^Mr^mw^ /Vjf 

oflht Hasieiwi nj Corf fli fl JV££<zs44trily- Exut6^ Bfiittg'\ by HcHjrrt Ar. Da\iH,-:cir:, in Itlanuc 
Ptuhsophk&i Theol^\ cd. by Parviz Morcwcdcpr, pp. L65-1B7, (Slndic^ in IsUmic 
l*liilottophy iJind Sriencc). j:\Lban.y, Fs\Y_: Stal^i- Uni™rdty of Xcw York Fr-css, [c, 
1979], l^Grssor Davidson dcarJy dislingubhcs bcnrccn the cosmolngical ilchJ thc 
ontologicaL ar^umcnts about the cxistcncc of Ciod, and L>ctwrrn many tcrms tbal 
are passed ovlt tou- ofw:i] wiLhout "a cUrar idca of ihcir mcaciin^- A lcw cxactiplcs 
:n/-: 'KttcssiHrjr txi^Uiii". : 'KerL^iin" in HLmscir, ;uLd : KL-ccasaiy Ujiroui^h iuiother 


a. Thc first of thc two rcasons is that if dual dcitics^ sbould hc 

as&imitfi then [allj realiues possible woukl he on an e<]ual basis 

bcforc thcm 3 i.e., all realitics pussiiblc wotild bc objccts of powcr in 
relation to e*t:h of thc hvo s sintcc tbc caiwr of bcing objects o.f powcr 

is thc [fact of bcing a] possiblc realiiy, Boih impossibility and ncccs- 
sUy makc it iinpo&siblc lo bc an objccl of powcr^ 75 but possibility is 

a char&cteristic having a. commonality among all rcaJitics possihlu. 

Therefore, all rcalities possiblc would be objccts of power for cach 

of thc two> and in turn cach of thc two would havc powcr ovcr all 
lealilies possible. 

1. llius. not onc of ihe rcalities possiblc would cxist; because 

if any of the reaJilics possible were to esisi^ it would then he a case 
of neiiher ol" ihe iwo jdeiliesj being the elleciiv£ cause^ or of one 

of llwm heing" the effectlve cause and not L 34^ the other, so 

there would be ai] implied prcfcrring without any prdcrring agcnt. 
(This would bc so]- cithcr 

a) on the assumpcion that onc of the twn deities iwould not 
be the efieciive aiuse, bccaitse thai would iitiply a preferring for onc 

of thc two opdoiis that a po&siblc rcality has |i.e- t to bc an eaiscciit 
or a noncKislcnt] uithout thcrc being a pieferring agent; or 

b) on ihe asumption. Lhat the efiĕctive cause would be one 

of the two [deiuesjj, since the possible reality in quesUoti wuuld be 

related to each of thc two deities equally, its becoining actual througb 

onc of thc twO;, but not ihc other, would bc a ca&e ol" prrfcrring 

without a preierring ageni. So it would be established rhat, if any 
possiblc rcnlity were to cxist on thc cwsuniption tliat ncither onc of 

thc two dcirics would bc the cffcctivc cau&c o.f it, or that one of chc 

two would be MS 175b the ertecpvc cause of it hur not the other, 

dcfiiiablc H (p. I7li; hui aic Krcutcly clcirifxd. in llicir uiiAK. 

A ^uLuubk fciiiure in lIh? AdkU? is iJi^ iiill ciuukm oP Khc sotjr^s itl lbn Sina's 

writingii for his lenrn and pos.iiicnis, His It&ar&t is cbe kasl owripi^liciisiye "f his 
books on thb subjcct^ but IsRihiini doubtle^. wcmld h*ve had acces* to alJ c ■ l " Ibn 
Sijia-j wridngs. Tb* padiion$ of eai her md laccsr writm 4\rc rcl^Li^d to Tbn Sdn» 1 * 
theory. TK^ prowH af &bsc raciiop J-tid 'm md result is to bc s^cn in ihr rtbcussinD 

of 4 ]ndlirvkliiatLr>]i' > , a.i w^U is Ln. thc pcrlintiann nf <cinr.i-pf chal ls striv™ fc*r in. fiajn- 
lre; thc ^doctrLTic of thc di\iiic *.ingiJarity' ! - ITic conccpls of "cu.Mrcssily 1 and 'attual* 
ky' arc studicd stdc by mdc 3 and prosidc thc 5ludcnt wtth Lniportanl insights. wttho-ut 

clos-inR thc subjcit. 

w MS r'I: I^., Ijotli ^xHtii^ c^cnplrtdy rinpi>wercd |<|iiilimn 4 5ila 3 al-lcaTniiil]. 

n Fol]^w--ing ^he i<-mi. of lhft MS And MS Harre» JMJJHJ.a. The »cri1>e oJ" L has 
crowd^d rhc cndinsj r>f ihf word [maqdftrlyah| upward Litto a tnplc linc 3 *o it 
cAn bc rcact as [maqdyr;iyn] ? as thc tcxt of T rrach. 


chcn implicitly it would bc a casc of preferring without a prcfcrring 

agent, But che condusbn is false, because of the ampossibilicy of 

there being a pre Ccrring without a preferring agent, and therdbre 

ciut [a singjLe] onc of the iralilks possible wotild exisL 

2- rurthermore., if eadh. of the two deitics should bc an cflcctive 

cau&e for [the possihlc nialityj, llicn there woukl be ati implirit join- 

ing togelher o!"uvo iridcpeiLcltini cflTcctivc causrs to protlucc ati efFert 
thal is singie in iiidmdualitY, 74 so not onc of [ihe re^litics possible] 
would exist. Thra, it would br cstabHshed as a fatit that on ihe 
assumption ol" chcrc being dnal dritics not [a singkj onc of thc rcaJ- 

ities possible would exist, Bui this conclusioo is falsc, so the prem«e 

is likewisc, Thcrcfore. the Dcuy k Orot\ and iliis is ihc goal of thc 

h. The secontl [reason of thcr Mutakalllmun supporiing the rejec- 

tion of dual deities] is that if wc wcrc to assume the cxistence of 

dual deilicHp and if onc of the two should wiU thc motion-change of 
ii givCtt body, and thc othcr should wiU it to rcmain quicsccnt. if 

that wcre possible — aJid lct u$ assume that to he the, ft>r with 
any posuble reality posited to he a factual occuiieiice therc would 
be no irTbplication of its impassibility, othcrwisc, it would bc somc* 

ihing unpossiblc!» not a possible rcality— thcn [oric of thc folIowing 

wouJd bc the cascj: citbcr 

I r thc will of eadi of them would bc achiet-ed, so thc une body 

would be both inoving and quicsccnL which would bc impo&sihlc, Or 

2. ihcre would bc no achicvcment of chc wiJJ oi" cither of thcm s 
eo thc 4mc body would bc ncithcr mo\in^ nnr quiescent, which would 

be imjMsssiblc, or 

3, the will of onc of th.e two alonc would bc achlcvcd 3 ihus 
irnplyirig thc iinpotcncc of thc sccond/^ 

lf thc impotcncc should bc irom ctcrnitv past, thcn it would bc 


impos&ibiet since impoience h conceivabk r only of whai has valid 

existence,- 6 and thc cxistencc of a crcatcd bcing in ctcmity past 

would \k impossible. m thc impotcTice of the &e<:ond [as a cr^ated 

■^ 1 MS gloss«: L Thii would bt inyjLlid, accordarjp to our cxplana.don. of thc prr> 
hibiMon ajpainsc one thirtg Iwirtg the objeci orpower of tww ui^-nts uf pcwmr. 

2. Buc ltl thc cau &f an «'llect thac would be one in species [naw c ] k would be 

admiiTsiblc (car two lndtprtKtcnT ^HwJriw causea 10 he joined cogenherp betause iT 
wcmld bc adniissiblc ft?r o«ic of tlie two to be an c^iecu^c cw^c with one Ln<livid- 

ual and thr ochcr with anocJhcr irLctividuai, che vno pni1i%idual$) bcing one m s|>itic5. 

?s " MS g 1 ]: TWh drws nr>T imply pc:rfcct powei\ so h-r would h* no <jteit>'. 
^* MS r1: Fn ctcrnity.. 

802 2, &rcrcoh> i, chapter 3 

being] in eternity past wouM be an impo^ibility. And if [fbe hypo- 
thctical sccorid dcity] shuulri be a ternpural |jhenontcnun, ihcn ii 
ako wouJd bc Lmpossihlc, bccausc this would bc conccivabJc only if 

it had had [divine] power in e&emiiy pasi and chcn li& |"c:iivine| power 
had ceased. But ihal would tequire the cessation of some [entily] 

cxistirLg from eternity past, which would bc impossible. But if it 
should not bc possiblc for the [accond dcity] to will che givcn body*s 

4. tlic iinpossibilily of ii would be the will of the [firsl dcity], 
and thc imputcncc of [tlic sccond dcity] wonld bc implidt. But 11.0 
impotcnt bcing inay bc a dcity, on account of what wc havc sct forth. 

Moreovei\ [the concept of dual deities. is rejccted] since ii borh 
[deities] should have power ovcr all objects of power, and if it should 

bc valid for whocver had powcr to cxcrtisc Jiis powcr t thcn it would 
bc valid for this [hrs-t dcityj to activatc motion-changc if it wcrc not 

for the [second dteity]. And [it wouJd bc vaJid] for the [second deity] 

to aciivate quiescence if it were not for this [first dcity]. As long as 

thc finst of thc two [dcitics] docs not intcnd to activatc anything» 
thcn the second will not be troubled by the other^s. intention to acti- 

vate somethitig agamsr him. Biil the precedence of one of them over 

thc othcr h not rnore appropriale thaii thc contrary. So, i[ wuulri 

bc impossihle for the purpusc of onc of thcrn to bccomc a hindrancc 

prcvcnting thc other fram ha_ving his own purposc. 

Kurthermore, in establishing thc doctrine of thc divinc singularity, 
it is adraissibJe fo hold fajt to rhe evidence lYom authoricative tra- 

diition^ 1 bccausc the valtdity™ of thc iraditiona! cvidcncc is not dcpcn- 
dent 7 ' upon thc propo&ition that thc Dcity is Onc. M 

77 L $4:5 g|: ThLs m-cans that holdttK; laaL to tradjEioual ryidenc*? in «rdiying rh^ 
■c-xi&tcrKC of the Ncceasary Existent would not hr. admi-ssible Iwcaiise of tht implicit 

arRiirnent ici a. cincle, But in «r[if>'P"S ihe docnnne oJ" rhe divine iinpal^rity it h 

aritnbisable becaiis^ llic walidiry nf th* 1 : [radicioiial cvkl^Liri! is Tior dripn-ndrnc upon 
[thc. doctriru* nf ihc divinc 3LLiguLarih, r ] huc upon thct faci that thc Apostle waa tnist- 
woithy iit what h-c: said. [Frnm thc Sharh Tagrir.] 

^ JmIS and L ,gl: Sinctr ihe truth of tbe U a a<tiLLnna] c\idcnce [sihh^t al-naqltyaL| 
tkl-ienda Lipoci Llie fi«ciua.l i.+Trainiy flf ihe NecH^yiry lCsisL^tiu tiot uijciii His rjtLiiy. 
[PrOiiij upw cit j 

lrj MS gjl: Ru^ier, iliey Arc dr?pcndcn( upon ihe veradly &f ihe Apostlc; and tbe 

wrAciLy tiTtihe A|xj»ife is ^lcpendeni ujhjii 1fie cyidetkoe of mirwrk fin .hix wmity^ 
oot upon tlic dotcrinc of ihe di^ine snguLaricy. p^rom, op, cUj 

w MS gl: N01 docs ic leairt 10 ac^unncniatkin. i«l a csrrlc. 

Baydawi said: 

T, 343, T 166 



l. God't omnipotenee in miongmous ac&M 

The Muiakallirnun arc agrccd upon tlic (kct that L 344 [Gud] 
Most High is [treely] omnipotcnt in autonomous actionJ [This is 
because if [God] should bc [limited as- being rnerely] a 'necessary 

causc' in Hmnseir, and ii" His ellicacy did not dcpcnd Lipon somc 
tcmporal condition, thcn the existenfte of thc univcrsc from pa&t ctcr- 

nity would be implied. Bul if [God's ellicacy in causing the existeiice 
of the univen>e] did dcpeud [upon some Lccnporal condition], then 

[thc cxislcncc of thc univcrecj would bc dcpcndcnl upon cithcr 
a. [the tcmporal condition"sj prescnce, thus implying tcmporal 

phcnomena joined togelher in a series withnut any Lcrmination, which 

would be impossible, or upon 

b. thc rcmwal of [dic condition]» thus implying lcmporal phc- 

nomcna $ucccssivcly linkcd [in a scrics] having no bcf*iniiing> which 

also would bc impossiblCr 

[This would be so] becausc if the cotal of all that had happcncd 

up to the time of the Rood were to bc owriaid by aH ihat has taken 

placc up lo our own day, and if in thc sccond Jserics] thcrc should 
not bc a portion with nothing opposite to it in thc lirst [series],, thcn 

that [series] havjng morc would be cquaL to that [series] having less; 
or s if the first [serics] had bccn arbitrarily cut short and ihe second 

[scrira] had only a limited amount mora than Jthe fimj, then [ihe 
hrst series also] woul! I l>e limiled. 

Objecuon is raised that ibe univcrae would come about [rnore 

suitably] [God's delibrr;-Lie <*ctj bccause of ihe impussibility of 

lq.Sdir] Ptillowing Rtchiird M. FnLnt's traristarioci af [qaciir/qudrah] a& tHmnipo 
leiu in [= "capablc csf]- {HjIuihittuhh amti™, 3,1 as cx]daincd icL liia Btingi cmd 7Jnr 
AtMintteSi p. +4, n. 31. cic, cf. his gLrasaiy undc-r "qdr." 

804 2. sccrnoN 2. ^haptpr i 

u cjdsting in ctemity past- Our [Baydawi] rcE.ponse [to ihe objeo- 
lion] would bc Lhat for [ihc uiihcrscj to cxist at rasl from [the time 

dTiis crcaliun by] ihe 'Neoessary Cause 1 wuuld nui be an mijjo&si- 

bility. and wc havc grantcd that., but [as a possibility] it could havc 

prcccdcd its cmstcncc. 

[Another| objection i* raiscd that Ehe two serics [of tcmjwraJ phe- 

notmcna] would not ht: concrcce ewstcnts so they may not be described 

a& being more and lesa; but dii=> [objectio»] is inconsisient with [thc 

fact of ] timc duratian. 

[Anothcr] objcction is, raised as to why it woutd not be admissi- 
bie for th« Cineator of the univer$e to be an mtermecliary agcnt hav* 

ing indepciidcjit choicc\ Wc rcspond [that it would bc inadrnissibte] 
becauRC! eveiything escept the N«:essary EsristeriE is a pns-sible reaJ- 

iry> and eveiy possibte rcaKty sUnds in need of an effcctive cause, 

and evcry[hing that stands in tieed of atiything is a icrnporal phc- 
noincriun- Now rince thc cfficacy uf thc cf!cctivc causc would bc in 
[thc internirdiaty] through crcation, it would be inadmissiblc for 

[thLs cfficajcy] to remain acrrve in a state of coiitinuancCj, beca-use to 

give existence to [something already] existeni- would be impossible. 

So thcre rcmains eithcr thc statt of trmpural origination or thc staie 

oi nonodsicncc. On both assumprions thc tcmporal orisrination of 

the cHeci. « implicit. 

lsPahani says: 

L 344, T 166, MS I75b 


Whoi [Baydawij was liiiished wiih Scciion 1, he begau S«:tion 2 
On [GocTs] artributcs, that k, the altributcs that arc Hrmly crstablishcd, 

and he set forih T 167 two chapiers. in [tliis scctionj: MS 176a 
I. [Rstabiishcd] attributes t thc basis of [God's] acts^ and 2. Othcr 

attribuJcs, [uot thc basis of God^s acts]. 

2 L (34+: I ]) readsj ". . .give ^ lo thr j^vrr of exiM(t*iite" fi|?id al^rnujid]. 
ici clear errDr for "&vc existencc to an cxi5ten.t > ' fiiad al-maHJud] vthich h the rcad- 
inir in T, MS Garrett 28:ib (E 37b:<J) r Garrett 989Hb (E '28a:2l) t and which Ĕ 
cdtiftrm«:d b>' I^nkhani^s usage in tiis co[nmcritar>' 



Iii Chapter 1 thcre are four topics; L Gucls omnipolence in auto- 

nomous action; 2. God 1 * cvcr-prescnt omniscicncc; 3 r God"i livin 

nature; 4. GocTs will. 

1+ G&d 2 $ omtrip&tmce in automnums dctim 

All meligiou» communities 1 have aocepted the docirine that [God's] 

eflfoctive ca.usa.don in the ereation of tlic univcrse is iiisuiuled thi ough 

|boch] His omnipotcncc in autonomous acrion and |His| Ircc choicc. 

in the sense of it being equally valid for Him whether to activatc 

the creation of che universe or to refrain from [activacing] it 

Thc phiLosaphcrs tiold thc doctrinc that His dlkracy in tbe cxist- 
ence of rhc univcrse is irL&timtari through [His] 'necessary cansation^* 

in the sense that thc universe h a concomitant of Himself ? just as 

ihe suii*5 ĕAiciicy is activatcd through its hright radialitui» tliis bcing 
a concomitant of itscUl Gcrtainty in thc affirmation of [God'sj omnipo- 
ccncc in autononious. accion is based both upon the tcmporal origi- 
narinn of the uniyerae and upon invaIidatioii ofthe theory that somc 

temporal phenomena have no beginning.* The One capable of 

autonomous action 11 ts [GodJ from whom it h appropriatc for action 

1 MS ijjL: What is mcant by ^rcLij^ious mmmunitics" is cvcryonc [of any rcLijpon] 
taccpt thc [sccular] phiJosopbers. 

* MS gl: [J.e.J His ri™ 3 P twstenu*: to ihc wurlJ [yaduKu li] E fthmJ ACtOrdirkg 

to thc prestnc onder i$ onr i>J"chp conoomitium of HimseLT |thal Ls, of His caacncc], 

so tbr llim lo wiLhdraw from [ihi.s pndiik^n and] wnnld Ijc Lrin|MirtsLI>Jr:_ fFrom 
■SAant M | ■ \Ujwaqif ai /;j)/by \-\Ji Lbr Muharnnnad al-Sharif aJJurjaTii. 

s L arid T rcad, "havc no bcginning - " (la a\%-~wal Liha.], bul ihe MS and MS 
Carjitt 969Ha rcad^ ^not (rcachirig" to] a b^rginIlL^l5■' , [la i]a T awwal]. 

■ MS gl: It sliould bc undcmood lliat Lf ttuc- [divii3c] capacily for aulonomotjs 
j.ction should be «cplaincd throujh wtiat may bc vaJidJy considcrcd as Ilis action 
or nonactioii r whLch is what th-c dispute is about, niDst of ihc phLLasophcrs- would 
nOt acc^pt it, Rathcr^ ihcirs is a doctrinc of a c causc ncc<rssar> - in itwlP [mujib bi- 

aI LihiUj, in conliasi to tltb furcgoiug Li]i«preta[iuiri f aneaning (tiM [God] Mousi High 
jh a Ncccaaaiy CauscT in r^sard Lo iJic csisrtcnr^- of ihrt worJd, but with LnowLcdpc 

atKl <li&t:errirftetu [s]i« c ur|. 

Iini if ii [\hc d oc 1 1 i i kt J should b« «pdiaLned as aome of ihem do h namdy, thai Lf 

[God] stLnrtiH will [sDm^rhLng » tw] itien He ^w^kl aci jto pc-rlbrni it], anri if Hc 
should not \%t.U [ic] thcn Hc wouJd n-nc ac( [upon it], chcn 7 according to thcm, Hc 
ilic Most Hi^h wnold bc capahJc: of a^iconomous artLort [qadtr] tn thLi scnsc. Uut 
hcrc thc condidonal syJLogism [aJ^haLtTyah] isi composrri of a truc prcmuc and a 

806 2, SEjCTION- 2. CHAJT&K. I 

to proteed or not procned, and (his very appi opriateness ooosdluces 

Bls power of auionomous action. The prclerrmg of one of the two 

options [Lc, of action or non-action] ovcr the othcr conics about 
only when the presence of the divine will or iL3 abscnce is a factor 

adckd to the divinc powcr of autotiomou* ^ccion. 

A]id thc phtlosophcrs do not dcny that Eact/ Therc is [somc| dis- 
agrecment only about \vhcther f upon chc joining together of the 
powtr or autonomous acuon atui the will> it is possihle for the divine 

act [of omaipotenoel to oocur simultaneously with [their joinitig] or 

not t or whethcr imtead it occurs orJy nttcr ilial joining togcther- 
The philosophcrs took thc position that it is not oniy possibic L 345 

but rather, necessaiy that it should occur simultaneously with their 
juiiiing togcthcr. Itothermorc,, becuuse [the phiiosophensj hdd the 

docErine that \n past ctcmity thcrc was thc [divinc] knowlcdgc., thc 

[divinc] power of autonomous action, and the [riivine] will as being 
a specifk kind of [divinc] knowledge. iheir derision was for the eter- 

nity of thc universc. 

Ilic Mutakallimun hdr ihac it woukl bc lmpo^siblc for thc divmc 

actioii [of omniipotJencc | to occur simultancously with the [union of 
the] two [attributes of power and will]- Rather, rhey t&ught [hat 
[God*s] action would occur only aftcr the two |attributes| are joined 

togcthcr. Kor thal reason [thc MuLiikaJJinmn] asscrtcd the necessity 

for the temporal ori^nation [of rhe universej because thc motivat- 

ing agcnuy s bcing a dkincly dccisivc wili, wnuld only moiiyatc [to 

existcnccj what would br noncxistcnt, and ihr luiowlcdgc of ihis 
[laccj i& intuiriivc. 

']"he argument thal [C-JodJ Mosl High is capahle of autonomous. 
action* cotisists in the fact tliat thtt existcncc of thc universc aftcr 

having bccn no[i-fx(Aient exclude^ ihe thcory thai [God's| effective 
cHusation of thc univene would bc [mcnely] by ''necessar}^ <:auHation\ 
The fir*t slatenient here^ is certainly truc T on account of the estab- 
lishcd fact that the univcrsc h a temporal phenomenon, and so the 

faUacLou5 cDnclusion. aiirj llius, Lhcy fthc secornl .^ruLi]i| do rnM h^JiJ 10 fht 6oc^n\\v 
c>f a. \nasc nrarssary Lii itscH'^ which ^Atids in conuahc lo thii |lai[cr) Htx[ilaiiariDii. 
7 MS plr RrEerencc b*rtn.g to thc rarcgaing staccmcm on tJif" inmtibig of il>c 

[iiLviiiej capadty f"r>r aiitrmomnija arrirni janl rhr acUiition nf thc [disdnc] wiU lo k. 
H MS jjl- In rhc scnsc that il is IIc from whom it is apprapdate that acti-nn 

sHcmld procccd or noi procccd. 

l ' MS gl; N-urwly 5 ihr ckLiu™!C rrf ihu- lJnLvrrM , ■ suhscqucnt to ita nnncxi5icjice. 


sccond statcmcnt hcTc j:i would bc cxcludtd. Thc cxplanaiioii for this 
cxclusion is that if [God] Most High should bc a 'ncccssary causc* 
in Him&eir, aud if HLs dll -c tive cauaation of the existcncc of thc uni- 
verse should not depcnd upon some temporal condition, thcn thc 
past. etetnity of rhe uniuerse would he. implied, equally wheiher ils 
cjristcncc through [God f s] agcncy dcpcnd-d upcm sornc pasi elcmal 
omdirion or did not dcpcnd upon any condition at u]], bccausc of 

the inherent impossibiliry of any failute for the effecc co appear after 

[thc aclion of] a complctcly cfFectivc causc, 

Now, if [(jod a sJ elfective causatinn of" thc existcncc of thc univcrsc 

ahouid depend upon some temporal condition, MS 17(ib thcn, it 

would depend either upon ihe tcmporal condidon's. presence or upon 

iLs rcmoval. If His cflccdvc causation of thc cxjsiciice of die uiii- 
vcrsc shouid depcnd upon thc tcmporal coiidition 1 s prcscnoe» thcn 

we woutd iransJer what we have -said to [the latter case], and the 
implication would be thitt there were tcmporal phenornena joined 

togcther 11 in a serics without any tennination* which would bc impos- 
sihle. Bul if [God^s] effeccive causation of the existencc of the sini- 

verse should depend upon a temporal condition'& renioval, thcn ihe 

implieation wouJd be that thcre wcrc cemporal pheitomena succes- 

sively iinkcd fin a aeries] having no bcginning point for its comple- 

lion. which also would be impossible. 

JThis i.s] if all thc successive temporal events that had 

laken place up to ihe tirne of ihe Hood were lo be overiaid by all 

the cvcnts thal havc occurrcd lu up to our day^ and if ici the secori<l 
[series], that is, in what has tran^pirrd up to our day s thcrc should 

be no evcnts without a couriterpart in the first [series], that h t in 

all thc succcssive evcnts up to thc time of thc Floud, then [the series 

huving] thc grcater [durauon of timc]. that iSh the second one^ woulrl 

}>c [incrcly] cqual to thc [scrics having thcj lc&scr [duratiori of timejj 
that is, tlic first onc. Now tlic sccond [scricsj is morc than thc first 
to the extenl of all tliat has taken. placc from thc llond until our 
day; ihii^, the totalit> r would be equal [mercly] to a part of itseir, 

which would be impoRsible. Buc ii" in thc &ccond serics thcrc should 

be a pnriiuii having no couiilerpart hi ilie lirsi, Lhen thc Airst series 


MS gl: KliiticI^ ihat IIi& beiriK thc clTcclivc causc of tht 1 nniycr^c wrmki bc 

[menely] 'necemry cauSi«ion ? . 
11 MS $): fJ,e r J m cxjhccnce. 
I= MS s^|: [Le,,] J>om past eternicy mp tft o»if day. 


would have been cut short a.nd Ils limitation wouki be implicit, aiul 

as the second is greater tlian the first by [onlyl a limiied amouiii, 

thc sccond al&o woidd bc liimted, becau&e what cxcccds samcthinEj 
linutcd by a iimitcd airiount would (UsclTj bc liinilcdJ* Ati objcc- 
lion might he raised not granting [thc cascj that if the Creator Most 

High shuuld be a 'neoessary causp in HimselP and 3f His eflective 

causation did not dcpcnd upon sornc tcmporal cundition, thcn thc 
past etcmity of the universe wouid bc impticd. 

[Raydawi ! V| posiiton i* diat [the foregomg] would hc irnplied, 

because of the impossibility of failure for any efFect to appear after 
[thc action of] a complctcly effeeiive cause. Our [Isfahani's] posi- 
tion is that wc do noi gi'ant this rcasnning. Kailure for thc efieel to 

appear after ihe eJTective cau*e woukl be impossible only if the elTect 

should bc a po&siblc rcality t bul that is impowdblc. Thr cxistcncc of 
ihc univcrse in ctemity past L 346 is impossiblej as wc have 

explained L * [prevbusly] diat if rhc univc.rsc shoukl be existent iti 

ctcrnity past^ thcn it would be cither moving or quiescent s cach of 
which would bc impossiblc» so its cxistcncc in ctcrnity past would 
bc impcssihte. Thcrcrorc, thc failurc fbr thc cHcct to appcar aftcr 
che effectivc cause would be on account of the impossibility of ita 

existenoe in past eternity. In Jight of the fact that ?he eflect proceeds 
from the eflective causc, theti jusr as ihe existence of the e.flective 

causc may be considcrcd a logical dcduction^ so also it may bc con- 

sidered h logical deducdon that. the eHect would l>e a possihlc reaility, 
Thc rcply [to thc objcction] is that we do noi grant that thc cxist- 
cncc oi thc universc in eternity past would bc impo&siblc, Indccd. 
it^ cxistcnce at rcst in cternity j>ast aa the cHcct of the Neccssaiy 
Cau&e would. not hr. impossiblc; but rathcrj, the actual occnrrcrnce of 
rhe intiverse tlirough the divine omnipotence of autonommis action 
and frec choicc in ctcrnit} pasl i§ what would ht irnpussible. 1 * We 
havc jrranted thc impo.ssihilky of tlic cxistcncc of tlic univci3c in 
eternity past- But it would havc bc cn possibJc 16 fcjr ita existence to 

:1 MS gl: AJdiMiigh it Jiad tHMMi daninicd to bc uniinuud. But this Ls ccmtraiy to 

M MS gl^ ln ihe u>pic on ihe oirijjicianon of hodtin. :Book 1, &rcLLnn 3-^ Chapac r K 

iopdc 4} 

lv MS ^i: Bccausc if u stiauld hc hy [djvinc] frcr thcntc, thm ifc nrcation would 

havc to hc aitcr ils noncKkstccioc. 

:t " MS gJ: AESumLcij; Lhat thc effcitivtf causr wOuld \x a ncccssan,' causc. 



have eome carlier," but if it should h;ive existed before ii did exisi 
by thc space MS I77a uf a day, it still would not hs*vc bccome 

etcrnal 011 that account; for it would ha\ r c had to bc csisting [ncc- 
ea&arilyj belorc Lt dicl exist, on aecount of both thc odstcncc of the 

per(ect Eflective Cause and che exdusion of any impossibility. 

[Anothcrj objecdon haa becn raiscd not granling [the case] thal 
if thc Crcriior shnuld be a Nccessary Cause and if His. eAicacy should 
dcpcnd upon thc existcnce of somc teinporal phcno-mcrion being 
cxcludcd, thcn [the cxistcncc of thc univcrsc in ctcrnity pa&t] would 
bc an impos&ihiihy. |Baydawi's] statcmcnt is that this would imply 
tcmponit phcnomcna succcssively linked [in a serics] without any 
hcginning. Our position. is that chc concornitance [of ihc remporal 

phenomena] should be grantcd. But [Baydawi's] statement that thb 

would bc imposaible [wc say] is |itsclf] an impo3sibility.. in Regarding 
JBaydawi^] statemeiU [i-C^ at ihe opening of this topic] ninnin 
from, "Rec-ausc if thc totai of all that had happcn^d . . ." up to his- 
saying, * L . . . limitcd^ wc [IsfahaniJ ccmimcm that this proot would 

bc peribct only if the two scries were describable as gmeater anri 

lesscT [in timc duratioi)]» but this is impossiblc. Irideed, thc two scries 

arc not prcscnt in cxi5tcncc 3 since thcir units havc oistcncc by way 

of succcssion and of tcrmination and arc not dcscribable as grcatcr 

and lcsser, becausc greater and lesser are characceiisiic* of cxistexit 
phenomena, not of noneaistent phenomcna. However, ihcre i.s an 

inuoniiistcncy in thc position uu that thc two acrica arc not prcscnl in 
existcncc and. T 168 therefore mav noi be dcscribcd as, crcatcr 

citid lesser in iime duration. For indccd, thc parts of [tinie duraiion] 

are not all asscmbtcd togcthcr within cxisicncc bccau^c [thc tiine 
duration] is not stationary ir itsclf fc And notwithstanding, [thc tiinc 
durationj may be dcscrit*cd as greater and lesscr T since it is propcr 
to say that the limc diiration of a compkte cir^uit of tJie planct 

Saiuraa is grcatcr than 0"C timc duialion of A c:omple-ir cinuit of the 

planct Jupitcr t and thal thc dmc duration of a complctc circuit of 
thc plancr Moon is leswr ihan the time duration of a complctc cir^ 

cuit of the planet Sun. 

p " I. smd T inaseit ihe phmw, "dian its CNiatcnce did ooinc l>y Ui* spACC of ^ 

day. 1 * The MS atid MS Oarrcct yfiyEIa dn nor havc tlua phrasc. 
,K MS gb Which cogtdncr charactcrtzc ctcmily pasc. 


Only thc MS of our sourccs prcfix« [quLna] to IsTahani^s commcnL 

MS gl: [Lc.j. qnoling] frt>Tn tlte Mutakallimun. 


Another objcctkiTi conld bc rai&cd iliai an cxpliination of thc impos- 

sibility of tcmporal phcnomcna bcing in a succc&sivc scrics having 

no heginning would be ricpendenr upon the overlaying of the two 
serie.s. Bat the overlaying wonld be impossihle, not bccause ihc two 
series may not bc described as greaicr and lesscr» but bccatiM tht 

total a& s-uch woulri no prci-sencc Ln exktencc — Iwhereas in[ ain 

<:xi>;Cinl fl.:-r;ilily" riid: :-l :ls p>irls wnulcj akv;iVN bt prcsCTlt— sr. I.hc 

uwriaying of its p»rfc [i.c, in thc noncxislcnt scries] wouHd not bc 
conccivablc at all 

The [lurthcr] objcclion 21 has bccn raiscd that thc argiirncnt as it 
ha& hccn sct Ibrth wctuiri rcquire only that the f eflective c.ause' of 

thc uriiiverae be [God] who h ornnipou titly capable of autonomotis 
action, bui it docs not require chat thc 'Nceessary Existcnt a bc |God| 
who h omnipotcntly capablc of auionomous action. Why [thetil 
would ii not \m admissible tliat dic eristential cause of thc uiiivcrac 

bc an intcrnicdiatc agcnt having frcc choicc? S5r [This would bc] in 
such a way that the Necessary Kx]sient in Himsdi" and by neccssary 
rausacion 23 would nequire [that there be] an eternally CKktent being, 
neither a physkal body nor a corporcal being, but onc having powcr 
and frcc choicc 3 L 3-47 and chat that onc having powcr and frcc 
choitc woutd bc thc onc who would spvc cxistcncc to the univcrsc 
through Ilis powcr and frcc choice. 

Our [Islahani] position pn reply] is that this would be impossi- 
bkj, 2 * becausc cvcrvthing cxccpt thc Nceessary Existcnt is a pos&ibk 
rcality.,, and rvcry posaible reality stands in nccd of an ef lemue rause, 

and everything slanding in need of an efiectlve causc is a temporal 
ph^nomcnon, MS I77b [This i$] bccause tt would noi bc admisai- 
ble that the efficacy of the Eflfective Cause upon it in giving it exist- 
ence should remain in a continuing state [of cflicacy] 3 bccausc givin? 

cxislcncc to |somcthing that h alreadyl an cxistent Ls inipossible. 

So, what remains. [of che objection] is that the efTicacy of the 

Effcctive CSause upon [ihe pruposcd initrrnediary] would bc cithcr 

*' L and T rcad. "K ob^cdon Ehould bc raascd" [fi*-in <|tla]. Thc MS and MS 

f ijirreci 9fct9II^ bcgii] rtie semenoe tvi[houi tlie cotiditkm. 

12 MS pfl: A summajy of ihc is thac thc inhMTncdjary ha\ing frce choice 

COuld rttit CtHicciv.cJLbly h£ isti tkTEiaJl bcin^ bccansu hc ^"ould bc a [mcrcl pcHsLblc 

The MS has ibe pj^sc icri.ue; L, T aiad MS Garrecl J*89Ha have ihc imjjcriect. 
f+ In anaweir io che Jbregning ^uesck)^ L acid T scaie \hc Lmpdssibilit) 1 ihtn ^nr 

rhr r«won why. "Ilie MS and MS G^rt^tc 969 Ha bcgin wdi cbe rra»u. 


m a staif uf tcmpoml urigiriLLtiDn or in a siatc tif iioiiejdstcncc., and 

on both assumpcaons there would hc an implicit tcmporaJ origina- 

rion of ihc tJYectr If [he interrncdiary should he a tcmporal phc- 
nomcnon, ii then wu-ultl not be jjnjssibk for it to be an eflect of thc 

«rernal Necessary Cause, except wiih the ituermediation of a suc- 

cession of trniporal phcnomcna Jia%iiig no beginning> which would 

bc irnposEiblc. 

|Anocher| objcction may be raiscd, asldng why it would not bc 

admissible that the dTcct of ihc Necessary Causc upon that inter- 

mcciiary ^hould t>c tbc statc of exktcncc i5 [BaydawTs] statcmcnt is 

that it would be 011 accoum of ihe impossibilky of giving existence 

to [wmciliirig that is already] an existcnt. Our [T&lkhani] comrm.-nt 
is that wc do not grant 2 * that thc [mtTe] giviiig of existence to [somtt- 
thin^ that is alxcady| an cxistent is what is implicd. ThaE would be 
implicd only if [the result of God's] eflficacy were the state of exist- 
ence in the effcct as bciiig an ocistent» but that 3s n..ot the case, 
Rather, thc cfficacy of thc Effcctive Cause constitutes thc l state of 
cxistenoe 3 in the eHecl* not \a iLs being either an exbtent or a non- 
exislei)t, but rathcr, in its bcing in the quiddity itseir, tn thai [Godj 

c-ausca it to cxist, 

Anothcr objcction might bc raiscd that in this casc thcrc would 

bc an implied intcrmcdiary bctwccn cxbstcnc:c aud nonckislcncc., 

which would be impossiblc. The reply [to ihac obj^ction] is that a 
quiddity has no state other than dlhcr cxistcftce or nonoxistence ni 

which thcrc might bc an mipticit Liitcrmcdiary. Thc quiddity in itsclf 

h somcthitij^ othcr than the q u i cJ di ty as bcing cichcr an cxistcnt or 

a nonexisLcnt p even though it cannol have being without being either 

onc or tbc other. Moreover. [God"s] efficacy constitutcs the statc of 
cxistcncc in ihe quiddiiy a^ mvh 7 in thal He britisjs |th-e quiddityj 
to rcality, that is 7 He caLi^ns it to exist, but not in that He brings 
iis "cKJstence' to realicy. 27 

Another objection mighl be raised to the effeci that if the quid- 
diiy may not bc ircc from cithcr cxiateiicc or noncKistenee, tlicn the 
cAicacy of thc cftcctivc would not bc frcc from onc of the two 



\IS R[l: Which would bc a starcr of permaricnt cjontin.uancc. 

* L has iitachTrtcndy aniittcd ihc j;lu"asc, rf vvc do nat ^rant. 11 

w T HiTid llic MS Ithc NtS- with wwclling addcd] mĕiA^ thc lsui ihr« vtrb* us 

MClaw arwt Eitasculinc sin^uhir. Hawcwr, L marks nlie vtrb P,iy<iqaqaJ in bo\h cas** 
t i5 passivc and fcmUun*! sfcngulv B The verba in MS Caltcll 9d!>Ha ars unniaal^d 


812 U, SliCTION 2, CHAPTEK [ 

staies, &o, thrrc wouJd bc an implictt dangcr* Thc rcsponsc [to this 

objeciioinj is that what i& meant by the state of existcnce is either 
the lime duration or thc cf&ct s existenoc, n £>r thc rnoinentary timc 
<jf its CKistencc. 29 There- ls iiuthing dangerous in ihe fact ihat the 

tfF«:tivc causc rnight producc in the eflect tilher a timc duraiion 

for thc cflcct*s cxi&tcncc Or a rnomcntary tbtte for its cxi&lcnt£ a 
becausje ihe dlect docs not retard bchind thc cftL'crive causc aa rcnards 

time duratioii, but rathcr rhey are both simuhanenusly pirsent in 

time duration. Howcwr,. as rcgards its csscncc thc cffcct is subsc- 
quent to the effecdve cau^c. The cfficacy of thc cffcctivc cansc is 
wichin the eflect,. and this. latcer, a$ regards its csacncc is subseqnent 

to tlic cflective cause, bui as regards ttmc durarion it u simultane- 

ous with it. Now an eflfcct would not octur in any state cxcept cither 
exLstc nce or nonexistcncc. And the iact that thc cfficacy of thc eflfccdvc 
cause produces the scate of existence in [thc cttcct] does not imply 

the creation of an. existenu because even if the escistence is simuha- 

ncou.s with thc cllective causc as rcgards tiirtc duration^ as rcgards 

its own essenoe it is subscqucnt. Morewer, an. unlimited scrics of 
succ«sivc temporal phenomena link-d together wjihout any bcgin- 

nirig would not bc irnpussiWe.* 



L 347, T 168 

Dwine omittfwttnt€ relattd ta snme pmhtgms ^ togic 

[PoRsibLcj argumcnts in oppusitioa could be rai&cd as follows; S:l 

a. If the E eflective cause' wirhin the universc should assernble the 

■ :1 MS gl: If it 15 gTHdiicil [tadnjiyanl. 

h K(S gL: If it is lrst^rtt^ncrjij^ [daTTyanl. 

ffl MS g^: BccaiLM: thc tcmpool phcaomcaa *uccccd each o(hfr in serics^ anrf 
nui a onc \uf ihcin] lim pceLtdcs is [he «luse ot any wccccding or"^e h Uji rachcr 
it b the cotKEtion lor li; sm rh^re k no impowibiliiy, 

3i rcjj| l>f +g nCl[c — j Day<lA-wi and 1$fahan] prrs^nr rhir- JhLlowing d.i*rii!^iQn ticar 

ihe l^iiiii[|i> of die scudy on thc divmc jvcrrib«tcs and vnr haw givcn it thr grn- 

eral topic h T>iviti« orrtrtipntenr:^ n-lrm^d ro so^i^ prnlilrins of Ic^ii: r . .■MrhciLL^h rm 
pcrson O^ grrjiup lcading ir is nani^d b>' Jlaydaw or l9fahani a r>r hy cjlm-WH in dir 
MS K it pcrhaps can bc tnken hih shciwing 1 the ^cniTal "wwpoint uf ihc QĕLdariryah 
rn&YTmcnt whLrh waa vpc!CtlUi(K , L a ftcbd nwl <iti.rihu"cd 10 a«y siiigU* tlicologjajrl. i'hi? 
dWuiwioD b ?YkfcEi"Jy a cnllccnnji <jf «ta^nhcnE^ in opposirion to thc Sunni orcho- 
doxy r^ardtng God^s wtII v-cr&us man^ ^iJI as che scaircc of human a-ction. Thwr 
anpjmmts arc no dnubt rca] records that Jiav^ b«n piisscd on from caHLcr audi- 
■cnr.cs and readrrs. Baydawi lia c iJirady givni his argumenl, in fnVnr. and like fuur 


sary phenonienon 1 ; otherwiie^ [ihe eHect^] aclivalion at one time 

aiid ils norLattivation at anoiher timc wouldi bc a casc of preicncncc 
without a prdcrring au/nt. liut il [thc cause] should not asscmblc 
[thc cuiidition^], ihcti [tlicr cficct] would bc impussiblc. L 34$ 
|Our| rc sjTons^ [to this pointj j& thai the Qnc the omnipo- 

tem power of auconomous action would give prcference to one of 

thc two objccts wilhin Ilis powcr; likcwisc ? a hungry man wuuld 

choosc onc of two Ioavcs of brcad rcscmbling cach othcr in all 

respects, and a man fleeing rrom a lion would lake one of iwo escape 

routcs^ without consulting a l prcfrriing agcncy : ! But that casc would 
not be like the occurrence ol" a lemporal pheisnmenon that has no 

cause 1 at all. One a s mtuilion nhserves that [hnre is a 

between the two cases and that the efiective cauae has assembled™ 

the conditions of possibUity, and thal thc esistcncc of the action 
drpcnck upon having a linkagc with thc [dmue) wiM. 

pnincu rtf sh^sr- siAccmcncs are joiiini wiih ochcar miscciJlancous ohji« s tinns, t*> which 
Mahanii r.ommtntary adds a fcw mnrt. 

F.D. Rbl2J, writinrg in tht late twdtlh century a hundred ycars cartier thaci B<iydiuvi F 
hus a simiLir lisLj, but Jiot aII arts ihe Ktme iHLUTiynwyus accucnuiiLUun JWjiti which 

Ilaydawi nijd kfrhani <tmv. AfW statitLg iht* case in. &vor af ihe nnhodo* posi- 

tLon, Rh.zl takus up oppntiLtinn statcmcntii with rhe tirHnniata, *'An objccdon could bc 
raiwd. thai . . . I% His prcscntalion is in rhc Fomn of a rcpon of a distant Jsut rcal 
tkbatc-j, and Liidudcs phnucs likc l Svhat >^ou Jaay" ? ar.d CL what we say M j and "his 
T-na.ccnrjm is . . ." Scc his .-l^auhrj^a/ tD^^thrr with N.D. Tuii's Talkhh oi-AIuhtissBi, |"pp, 

Iliree aiid fi>nr hundred wnrs befote Razi, ihe tj^dariyali nu^jnem had been 
a tkrce otiKoing dcbaic over GcmI 1 ^ prerugutK-e of isauing his 'purcicuLariiing decree' 

[t|3id?trj. B4iisital]y thb was a s>trujggic uvct ihc affirmation of GocTs Tr^rc orcLciip<j' 
lecLOe aiid ics d^niwJ- [tj^d^r]. l ^tiirwLariKiciLj dccm 3 , of coutw ja ck^])' rel^tei.1 

ni iLlc [^nrir.dii}, rhc power [of anconrnnoti^ arrLonJ nn (ifsri : s pan,. who Ls [aJ-f|AdlLr] 
th-c OmnipoccnL Onc, 

TLie Lritcnsity of religiouB <tnd pulibLal dcbatt ovcr God : s Dmtdpolen« iia tliis 

luty RAydsiwi $il\c<! [hrnugh ihr^r- podnc»; of dispi^^iion owr aspccts of dkinr omnLpo- 
iclitjC th;tc R^yj had gathcrrdl yji in hts Odf^Pirfluwt tf/" Thnrughl acid r.ho^c four thai 
hc l>r)ifvci:l bfit illusUat^d chc iiw.cssity fiw gnuL can? in luiUiLling thk lcadiji^ chc- 
oLogicaJ pmblctm. ParUy chc! tisbc ^s i th^l-ngian wu tn inccrprac rightly thc tradi- 
ticinaJ sourccs of chc tslamic laith, and partly thc taik wa^ io reason ont whiit 
qua]ilics wcrc niost appropriaJr as Ciod'fl atrribLLLra. and whal wrn-- cnrircl)' uiuuit- 
able iicici inapprcjpriiLtc as attribuLes. Woc to thc th™iV^gian who tmd tnrdcsily 

al>oui God^ Mdnipocenct, Hb primal attcibuic. 

!w jbe aniclts "Kadariyya"" bv J- v*n £««„ and "Mii^asilA" by !>■ "CJimairr in 

ihc En-I-2. 

'** T ahmr ^dds ilir two pTrpn^nonal phrrtws ril for il"" and *\o it." L, MS GarrrCI 
SBDHb aiidl MS Garnsrt 2?WH da noi. 


b. The exercisc of powcr by an agent having thc omnipotent 
power of auconomous action would consticute a relationship that 

wuukt depend upou [his] dislinguishing an objcit for [ihis] powcr 
that hi itseir wouid dcpcnd upon [thc objcct^s] own po&itivc cxist- 
encc^ so there is an implicil circular argumcnt. Morcowi \ this point 
is Lncon^isteiU with ^necessary causanonl. [Our] respons,e [to ihis. 

pointj is thai the distingiii»liing takes place whhin ihe knowledge of 

thc Onc having thc omnipotcnt powcr of aulonomous. action, not 

wkhin external existcnce, 
t An objcct of power in«vitaWy would be within either e*istence 

or noncsi&tcncC;, and whatcvtr occurs [in cxistcntc] would be a *nct- 

cssary phcnomenon^ whilc its conntcrpart pn noncxistcncc] would 

be 1m.poss.ible'- Thus, possible rcaJities would havo been racluried. 

[Our] re&ponse [to this point] is that possible reatitie* occur instan- 

taneously [cithcr] a| through the cxercise of existenrial causation 
widun the controntation [i.e., with the muntcrpari randiriaips lor 

exisicnce]; or. they occur instantancoiujly b) as nrgards ibe csscncc 
of |thc objcct of powcrj but irrcspcctivc of what its status may bc 

[whether existent or nonexi$tcnt]. 

d. Rcfraining [i.c^ by clir Effccrive Causc from pcribrmmg ati ac- 
tion] would constitutc downright exdusion and perpctual nonexis- 

tcnce [for tlic univcrsc], so ihere would be neither an object of power 
nor any [divine] action]. [Our] rt-sponse [to this point] ts that thc 

Onc having thc omnipotcnt powcr of autonomous action is [God] 

for whoni it is proper either to perfonii or not to peribrm [a given 

actj, but not [propcr] to pcrform an act of rdraining. 

Tsfahan[ says: 

L 34B S T 168, MS I7Sa 

Divim ommpotmct nkted to smm proMems #f logk 

An oppositioj! [paHy], that is, any who hold thc doctrine that thc 
Necessar^' Existent the Most Uijrh is a ^ncccssary causc in Himscir 
T 169 and i.s not |freely] omnipotent in autonomous action, rould 
prcscnt an ars^umcnt ovcr [thcsc] (btir poin&; 

a. [ITie firjr. point of an t>pposition argumcnt would bc thatj \£ 
thc cfEcctivc causc for thc cxistcnoe of an objcctivc cntity should 
as&cmblc all thc conditionsL whcthrr of cxistcncc or of noncxiatcncc 
that Eure n^ccssarj' ibr cfli:cdve causaliLy [in this regaidj : then the 


rcsulting eftect would be a 'neccssary phenomcnon'. 35 [This is] bccausc* 

if the cflcct should noi bc a ncccssary phcnomenon whert tugedicr 

with die ex]slencn of (he eHective cause lliat has asacmbkd thc con- 
ditiora» dien its acdvation at one timc and its- tioiiactivation at an- 
otht.T time would be a of pr^fcrcnce without a prcfcrring agcnt. 

But the conclusian ts false so ihe premis« Ls likewke. To explain 
the logic»l neeessily in use hcre, it is that if ihe eflecl shoukl not be 

a ncccssary phcnomcnon whcn togclhur wilh thc esrisLcncc of the 
effrcLive causc chat has assrmhlcd the conditiom, then |the efiectj 

woukl be a possible reality* sinoc there would be no reason for [us] 

impos.sibiJity when togcthci with the existence of thc cffcctive causc 

that has assembled ihe condiiioii^ And LF fthe eflect| shoukl be a 
possible rcalily, ihcri iu> activaiion at one dme and its nonactKaiion 
at another tirtie would bc a casc of preference without a preferrittg 

agcnt. But if [thc c£fcctivc causc] should not asscmblc thc cooditions 
considcrcd |necessary] lor eflfcc|ive causality, then thc cxisccnce ol" 

an eflect, as coming from [ihe cifective eausej, would be impossi- 

ble, sirice dic cxistcncc of &ornething conditioncd wnuld bc impossi- 
blc whcT] thc condition would be nonoa&tent. 

a. -a.l* The Hrst part of the re&ponse [to the hrst poim] is ihat 
the effecdv< eausc* that asscmbics the condirions considcred [ncces- 
sary] Ibr cfFcctivc causaiity» docs not producc its cffect as a necra- 
sary phcnomcnon; but rather* somccimes it is thc sourcc of thc cffcct 
and somctimcs it is not, without thcre bcing any chanjrc of situa- 

tion at ali ui either of thc two siates, 3 * and so in that case there 
would be no impossibilky [of thc eflect] being nonacdvated. 

[Baydawi a s] slatement 30 is that [ihc cflcct a a] activation at onc timc 

and it5! nonactivation at anotlier timc would be a case of prcference 
wiihuut any prelerring 1 agcnt^ which would bc impossiblc. In our 

[Islahani] judgmcnt wc would noc assumc tlic impossibility of snch 
a thing. Indccd, thc Omnipotcnt Onc may prdcr onc of two objccts 
of His powcr over ihe olher diracdy and without any Tomial giv- 

ing of preference ? for one of theni over the other. L M9 h is 
iikewise whrn a hungry man chooses one of two Loaves of brrad 

| 3 Raai, qp rit ., p- 162, LL 

H MS gl: [T.r,,] rhc actiyaiion [of the effect] qt [iti| nonagdvatic>ru 
14 Follow]nR R&zL kw. ch. 


srmilar in every respect wiihout ariy Tormal giving of prelerencc* for 

onc of thcnn ovcr thc othcr., or whcn n. man Accing froTii a Lon or 
an cncmy wdll takc onc of two cquiva.lcnt cscapc routcs l without corir 
sulting [an indcpcndcnt] prelcrrirrg agcncy'! 

Baydawi said that that [analogy] docs not propcrly suaggcst an 
answer to the cmintcrobjercion. A surnmaiy of the conntcrohjection 

is ihrtt to pcrtnii fhe prefertncc for one of iwo equal entiries without 

thcrc bcin^ a prcfcrring agcnt would lcad to pcrmitting thc orisina- 

tion ofa temporal phenomenon wiihout any eause, so then ibe door 

would bc closcd to c&tablishing thc ccrlainty of thc [divirie] Makcr. ih 

A summary of thc answcr [to thc countcrabjccrion] is that for thc 

Omnipotent <>ne to prefer one oi" two equaJ ohjects of His power 

without imng an lirLctepenrient] preierring agency is not the same as 

thc origiriHEiun r>f a terripor.*! jjhenorncnon wilhout a cause, &nd 
indccd^ intuition obscrws thc^ diflcrcncc bctwcen thc two, Wc know 
by intclicctual intuition that thc origination of a tcmporal phcnom- 
enon without cause is impossible, and thar this is dittcrent from thr: 
prcfcrcncc givcn by thc Ornnipotent Onc MS 178b to onc of two 
eqital objects of His power wsihout using an [independentj preler- 
riiig agency. [tiielleriual tiituition doej reco^nhe the admi&sibUhy of 

diis, and that it aclually occurs, But the truth h ihat preference for 
onc of two equal thiiig* wiihout a preferring agency would be impos- 
siblc^ cqually whcthcr it would be the origination of a temporal phe- 

nomenon or [the preierence ofJ onc of two objects of power of the 
Omniporent One 3 i? aiid ro sper.ily one rsf ihe two as bcing admissi* 

blc and thc uther as bcing irnpussibl^ woukl l>c preference wkhuut 
a prelcrring agcncy, Now, an agcnt of frcc choicc i^ onc whose 
action foliows upon His- will and itg motive reason/^ wich tlie motivc 
reason being sufficient to eserc.ise preferencc. Ncithcr the hnngiy 
man nor the man witl chnos^ one of two eqnal ihings widi- 

out thcrc bcing sottlc; ]ircfcrf rn e .^ Rather, [Baydawrs] intuntion i* 

'* Rsiy-rs di&cTHsdrpni (np. cit^ p. 162) ap[nare to cnvrr ihc. riLadc by Bavdawi 
and T^Tahani Ln thcir rcsponsr co the Eirst part of thc lirst poini af thr opposicion 

■ : ' MS gl: RfXiLLisc it mdJt^ it uiitKu.essajy lo esLablLih Hir. fau:l of ihe [dkirict] will. 

11 IA scribe aiLmrt lo stand hia speUJn^ of "tD mll Strtd moiiw" Ili-iradyilii wa» 

dfi B iy4jih] p. but the prcnioniinal sufiix is ^dded aftcr iht [[5 1 marbujAh] yf d^e imun. 

AL wHr 9 wrchr>ui removiiig ib« di>ublc dots ofihr [i4 3 J *>r of (hc fmal [tSL*] jn [^'Ly^hj. 

T lijUo^. L^s origiiiAL peadiiig, withoul ajttempting a changc. Thc MS and MS 
■Garrrtt M9Ha shcm- Jx>th pronomiTuJ suliixtA in phicc. 

M L^ T itcKl MS- GajTL-lt 989Ha m^ " l withoul prcfrttmtf ,: ?min gha>T UirjiiiJ, 


ihat the prekrrtioe wunld foe unknown 9 biil ihe J^irk of knowledgc 

what to do docs not rcquirc logically thsii no act may ucdur, 

a_-a,2_ The second pait of the response |to the first point] is that 

the Effectiv€ Gause has asscmbkd the condition* for the c xcrci$c of 
masiery* 11 and thc act on [God*s] part would not be impossible, but 

jat thc samc timej thc caistcnce of the act is dcpcmicnt on there 
bcing a iitikagc of the [diviiicj will with it> so that it docs not imply 

a prcTcrcnce bcing tnade withoul an agem or pr^rercnce^ 1 And as 

the will has become linked wiih [the act*s esdstenoe] it would occui 

by way of ncccssiiy. But a ncces&ity ojwrating through [botii] the 
power of autonomous arlioti and the tatJI cxcludes ncithcr a) Hk 

eicercise of rnasiery as to [His uwn] action or nonaction, nor b) ttw 

fact that thcsc two idtcrnadvcs [i.c., acting and iiotacting] arc equal 
in thcir rekuianship to [His] omnipotcnt aittonomons action by icsclf. 

The neces&ary characler of the action is wiih respect to both thc 
omntpotent autonomous action and the motive ffor it]; hut Hia exc 
cisc of rnastcry over action or nonaction is rclated to His omnipi 
tcncc in autonomons action by itsclf. 

b r The second [point of thls opjiosilion argument]* 2 h that thc 
exercise of powei by th* Ointupotent One woukl consutiite a rela- 
tionship bclwecn ihc Omnipotcnt Onc arul tlie object of power, 

Thcrctorc, this t "onr| ohjrct of powcr must hc cii ^ti n t^i r:i 5= h-r* cl Jmm 

cverything dsr. hccamc, unless that ungle [ohjcct] wliich is in rcria- 


tionship [witb thc One] is distinguishcd from cweryrhing ehe. y then 

it would be iuipwsibLc 1 to dcsigriate rtiat onc [<J>jeci] and no oiher 

spctilicalty for that rdLitionship.* 3 ThuS;, it ts cstabli&hcd ihat thr 
objcct of thc Idi^incjj powcr nccessahly must bc distin^uishcd from 
cverything dse, And, since every «10^" that had l>een distingnishcd 
woulcl be an establishcd certainly, thercfore thc linkage of thc Omni- 

potcnt Powcr to thc objcct of the power would bc dcp^ndcnt upon 

[the object] bcing a certainiy in iiself 3 and the esia3>lished ceitainty 
ortho object of tbe power would bc depetideni ujwra the Otnnipoieout 

Power over h, so a drcidar argument is implicit. 

w L» thc MS and M£ Ciarrett IKJSHa reari [d-muknah], but T reads [at-mumkiniihl . 
** In \im siwihk] pan ^f tlie ^r!!^>ui]^;l , lo point onr wf lfif ii|?po«iliuri Arpnn^nti 

ilie impo^am (aci k ihi\i tlie ^iil of Uud h opermw in His artiuns. K»« men- 

potis thi.s fect o^i p. 1 &2 Ln jus? iwo Jimrt, bui « is ivociusivie as B^yd&wi mnd 

Ufah9j-ii sbuw r 

+ l Razi, op. ciE-, j>. 163. His paragraph numb^rcd i "&cDcmd , ' , Lfi on chb topac. 

818 2 h section q. chapter j 

Howcvcr, this proof is not consistent with ncccsstary ca.u&acion; Ibr 

if this prool" shuuld be sound ihen the Lmplicauon would be tliat thc 

cffcctivc causc was not a ncccssary cau&c. [This u tmcj bccausc thc 
nccc&sary causation of thc cflectivc causc upon thc effcct is a rclation- 
ship L 350 bctwcen thc nccessary causc and the cffccL Therc^arc, 
thc cHcct niusl be distingubshc d f'rom a]] othcrs, sincc untess ihat onc 

[objectj which ts [to be] iii relaiionship 4 * [with th« Ornnipotcnt Onc] 

is distinguishcd fmm cvcrydiing chc, thcn it would bc irnpossiblc to 

dcsignate tliat one [object] and no othcr spcci£calJy for that rcla- 

lionship. Therelbre, it is an established certamty that the eiTect nec- 

cssarily must bc distingiiishcd from cvcrything elsc And, sincc cvcry 
disringuished entity woulri he an cstablished Mrtainty, therefore ? ncc- 
essary cansation wonld riepe.nd upnn ihe certainty of the effeci in 

ibelTj, and the certaimy of thc edect in itsdf depeiids ujn>n the nec- 
es&ary causadoii, so, a circular arguincnl is iinpiicit, 

b.^a. Thcn ? thc reply to this argumcnt is that thc nguish- 

irig of the objece of power |Vom evciything else takcs place only 

MS I79a within the knowledge of thc Omnipotent One 3 not oeter- 

nally. Evciy distiriguishcd cntity is. an established ccrtainty within thc 
[divine] knowlerige ? hut not m extemally 3 [The distinguishcd entity'»] 

ceriainty within ihe [dMne] knowledge does noi depend on the 
Oniniputeiit PtmKr uver it; but rathcr, its cenainty rxternally [lo the 
divinc knowlcdge] depcnds TJ upon the Omnipotcnt Power over it 

"i'hu&, thc arjrumcLic in a cirrte has comc undonc. 


r:_ The thirri [point of the opposition argumcnt that the Neccssary 

ExLstent is a ^necessary tause', not freely omnipotent iti autonotnous 

aciionj, is t}]at an objcct of powcr inevitably inust bc within citiicr 
cxistcnce or noncxistcncc. Therelbrc, if thc Elfcct]vc Cansc should 
b^ ownipolent tn aiitonomc^us action, thcn His [divinc] exercise of 
ma5tcrji r would be one of inherent necessity P thc circumstaritc^ being 

onc of thc twt> forcguing' nJtematiws [enstence or noncxistcncc] , 
bccatiBc of thc logical impossihility of avoiding both csistenee and 
ncincxistcnce. liut thc conclusion is ^aJsCj bccausc whichevcr of thc 
two :ilicniativcg acniaJly occnrs, eqnally whether ir s-hould hc sxist- 

ence or nonenstenee» it would be a nccessary phenoiuenon. 5o, if 


MS k.1; l.e., thc ^rtbct. 

° L, T and MS CiiAi rctt 989Ha lxith staicmcnts of dcpcnckrnjcy jn thc aaime 
ibrm, [maw^Dl" 'ala']. In a minor v°ariation Lhc MS reads [mutawaqq fc =d" ^ala'] for 
iJie first statcmc nL 


whkhcwr occurs of the two alterrnatives should bc a ^nccessjiry 1 phe- 


nninenon, ihcn thc altcrnaikc coiinicrpart to thc one that occuns 
one woukl be nn Impossible 1 phenomenon. Thus, chere wonlil be 

i ic i- «errrire of iriastery [by thc autonoTnous power] whiile ehlier af 
Lhc altcmativcs [existcncc or noncxistcnce] would bc [in thc proccss 

of | occurring, because of the impossibility of exercistng mastery over 
a phenoiiitrLKJii that would bc eithcr netcssary or impos&ible. 

c.-a. Thc responsc [to this ihird pointj i& that thc rcasoning you 
[opponcntsj have &et forth would require thal the excrcisc of [divinc] 

mastety be ex.duded duriug ihe occunrence of eiiher one of ihc. two 
altemaiivra.^ But wc do noi hold it as duclrinc T 170 ihat the 
niasLcry is cxcrrtiscd with both altcmatiycs during ihc occuircncr of 
onc oi thcm. Rathcr, our position ia a) that the cxcrcisc of mastcry 

occurs instantaneously [within the power relationship] ihrough [thc 

cxercisc of] cxistcntial causation in thc confrontation [of thc cduii- 
terpart candidates for radatencc],* 7 Or 3 wc might say chat chc nias^ 
tery occurs itisiantaneously as regards ihe essence oi" thr objject of 

power, without regard for its status whether in eaistence or non- 
ensicncc. For thc objcct of powcr* in vicw of its csscncc and with- 

out any rcgard for its status whcthcr in cxistcncc or noncxistcncc, 
would bc a possihle rcality, and tlie excrcise of mastcry occure in 
relatiomhlp wkh a pos&ihle reality. 

Howcvcr s in rcgard to its status in cithcr or noncxistciicc 3 
[chc objcct of powcr] would bc either a 'necessary 1 or an irnpossi- 
blc 7 phcnomcnon, and [hc excrcisc of mastcry would not occur in 
relarionship with an objcct of jMwcr in vicw of its bcing mcrcly an 

esdstent or a nonc^mcnt. For in view of ils beiis^ an cxi&tent or a 

noncxistcnt it would be cithcr ncccssar\ or impossiblc s and ncithcr 
of thcsc niay bc an object of powcr hecause of the impossjbility of 

excrcmng mastcry ovcr a phciionienon that is eithcr ncccssar^ r or 

impossible. Therefdrc s the Ocie Onniipotent bi autonomous accion. 

cxcrciscs mastcry [within thc powcr rcladonshipj Lhrough His cxiKtcn- 

tial causation ol (Jic essence of aji object of powei 1 , but not through 
esds^tcncial causaiion of the essence ofan object of power that is pi m " 
ited to being tuerely] esistcnt or none?dsteiit r 


[s^hani *\±\rg& upon Raii^s dbcuttiort {op, cit. fc p. 162] ? and appiears. (o Kiive 

mick 2. bcttcr casc 111 the rcspi>nat io tiie opposidon ? i poiiru 3, 

17 [al-muknali b^ilah Ij al-hai min-al-ijad II 4i-fetiql/alJ, 

820 2, SKC.TION '2, CIEArTER I 

Aii objcciion is raisrd against llie firsl [element in thcj respon&e 
(aU to thc cllcct ihat for thc cxcrrisc of tht masicry to occur instan- 

laneously through existeniial caus^Lton in thc conlrontauon [of the 

counwrpart candidates for cxtsteaccj wouiri bc- impossihtc, [Tlm 
would be so] bccausc any octurrcnce within the conirontation wonld 

bc impossihk 48 sincc thc condition for an occurrcncc within thc con- 
frontation would bc the occurrcnce of thc contlrontation in&ianta- 

neously, and an occurrence of the confroiitation instantaneously is 

icnpossiblc» Thus t the occurrence witiiin ihe confrontation would be 

an impossibility, bccausc thc impossibility of thc condition rcquircs 

ihe impossibility of whai is condirioned. Therefore p [for the esercise 

of maslery] to occur within ihe conGrontation [uf the counterpart 

candidatt^] there would no£ bc [a situadon conrcivablc asj an objcct 
of thc power of auionomous ai tiort; and so, it would not br possi- 
hle io exercise iraastery I. 351 instantaiieoujiJy through existenrial 
cau&ation within thc coiifroTiialiuii, MS ] 79b 

Our [Liiahani] rcsponsc [lo this objcclion] is ihat wc do nol grant 
that the condinon for the occurrcncc [of thc exercise of mastcry) 
withm the confrontataon [of the counterpart candidates] would be il" 

thc coiifrontation wcrc to occur ui^tantaneously. Rathti% thc eundi- 
lion for thc occiurcncc wilhin the conlrontution would bc for thc 
exerci&e of [divine] masteiy to occur instanLaneously through exis- 

tencial eausation within the oonfro»tatioD- To join the mttautaneous 

exerdse of masceiy for an acuon wiihiii the confroiilalion together 

with the ahacnce r»f any unmcdiaLc action would bc an inimcdiatc 

. And for thc iiistantancous cxcrcisc of maslcry to occur 
together with thc occurrcnce of an actioii within the conlrontaiion 
would \m a possiblc conibhiation, hut |for it to <h -i-ur] togeiher with 
thc ocLurrentc of an immcdialc action would be au im.po&sihle coni- 

hination. [Tn his courjtcrobjcction] our opponcnt |niistakcnly] has 

combined thc two occurrenceSj the occurrencc of the esterctse ol" 

mastcr) r |as an immcdiacy] and ihe occurrence of an aclion immc- 

diiLtcly:, and so thc impossibility is implicilr 

w L 3oG gl, [#3; Thb U bccausc, sincc ihc autonomoua powcr far the act to 
ogcut has iMDrurrctJ LcL^LanLancously, ihc act wLthin ttitr tocLlrDiiLaUorL shoudd alsu 
occut Lcciccicdiatelyj but Fdf the cw:<:uiTcnce of ihe a-ct thai lmppni& ^iLlui] die con* 
frontatb£i lo happcn imm^diatdy is noi ooncei^ablt 1 iinle» ihe conrrontaiion shoulrt 

happcn imrn<idiately. Thcrcforc the condiuon for che OCCurrenCie vnill\iil sJl£ COA^ 
frontEiLHni would bc for tht confrocktitUon lo tKLur imnicduiCely; iind liiis rs boiii 

thi fc go^d of thc loRiC;. iuid iui [AppAretii| impcwibiliiy. [Ymm th* [Stekb T^m] 


d. Thc fourth [point of thc opposiTinn argTjmcnt that thc Ncecssary 

Emsrcnt i* a neoessary caast\ not frcely omnipotctit in aulonomnus 

actiuu] is Omtj 3f thc Effcctive Causc shuuld be ommpoteni in 
aulunomous action, thoi both action and nonaction would bc objecta 

of His power,, becausc the One Omnipotent in autonomous action 
niust be capable of both aclitig and refrairing frotn action. Bur the 

conduskm is f&l&c> bccausc to rcilrain from acticm would nol bc an 
objcct of powcr> since it would. be purc cxciu&ioii or pcrpctual non~ 
cxi&Letic.e, and neilher pure exclu»ion nnr perpetual rinnRxi&tencc con- 

ssitute cither an objccl of power otr an action. 

el^a, The responsc [to this point] is that thc Onc Omnipoleni in 
autonomoiik actinn is [God) for whom it is propcr to act or not to 
act ? which docs not mcan to peribrm an act of rcfraining; for tbc 

exclusion of an acdion is not the samc as pcribrming thc opposite 
that h 7 it is not thc same as pRrlbrming an act of rciraining/ 9 


Baydawi said: 

L 351, T 170 

God*s omnipatmce m wtonomous actwn is ovcr atl possibte reatilies 

A corollary [to this. discussion of GocTs power] is that |God] Most 
High is omnipotRnt tsi His "powcr °^ auionomous aciion and cau- 

SataoT]" M OVtr all possiblc rcaJitics- This ia on account of thc Fol- 
lowing facts: a) thc ncccssary cause of |GocTs| omnipotent powcr in 

autononious action and causatlon is Himself, bj His relationship with 
thc univerve [of possibte realilw*] is [to each one] on an equ<*] basis, 

and c) the agency validating the statc of ready-r esponse to the [deitysj 

powcr is thc 'pussibility' 1 prc.scnt as a commonality among the cntircty 
[of posaiblc realities]. 5,1 

The philosopher» hold that [God] Most High is One, a^id from 
Hirn M there comes only onc [principle]. Our presentation on chis 


This +rh pninc r*f ih<- opposiikm"» uri^imenc hL.gltlights ihc tliHerence hcrwcKii 

sa>ing thal Cods act would hc ■cirr^rmiti^d' hy ncrr&riry, or u wn-uld bc a. fr«Ly 
thoscn acL Thc wholc opposition point of \iew is an argumciit for ''dricrjiunisni"» 
btil the point of view of thc majority of Muslijns whs that God acts frcely with 
power accoriing 10 His will, 

^ R-M- Frauk ? i&r^.-r d^ 7&iK Alhih^^ p. M, hcre inrludes ^rausapon 1 as bcinsj 
infcnrd "with "ajtdon" in [q&dir]. 

,L Ka.ydavb-i. md Tsfahani aftcr him. toUow doscly the ditcnsaon of this 
tupic irr !■'.]). R^zi"s \inhtissai. pp. 1 78 — IdO. Baindawi quoccs or r-c-trrs bricft)* to cach 
iteill, whilc IsISiha]]] c|uuIch cncrel of ihc malciial fouricL 

^ T; "acttl rrinn the Onc therc is&uca orily thc onc ipriiKipk-L 11 MS (jhttcU 




has been givcn carlicr. The ascrologcrs [among thc pliilosophcrs] 

hold that thc govcmiii£ agency of thc uiwcrsc ia thc cclcatial sys- 

tem [of] spheres and the stai's, because we obsctve that changing 

[carthly] conditions are arrangcri according to thc changing states 
[of thc pattcmsj amtmg thc stars, Thc rcsponsc to this [statcmcnt 
of the philosophcrs| b that the rcvolution and rolaricm in thr cdes- 
tial systeni give no d«:isive pn>of of any c^usality merely hecau$e 

one sticcccds ihe olhtT in ihc iwo calegorics that arc takcn logclbtT 

[i.c» carthly ccmditions and cclcstiai patlcms] „ whcthcr it is a par- 
tial cansc^ or a c ondition [of thc causcj^ or its. concomitant. 

MTie Dualists hold thai (3od docs not havc the power of autonomous 
action ovcr CYil^ othcrwise, Hc wuuld bc an cvil bcing and undcr 
nblicration lo cvtJ m 

Al-Na22am w hcld that [God] Mosc High cloes not have the power 

of auionoinous aclion over what is unseemly, because ihe unseemly 

h an indkation of ignorance atid want. The response to thts [posi- 

lion] is that thcre is no unsecmlincss at all in anything rclating to 

[God]. Even if such were granled, slill that which prevcnLs it is pre- 

seni; it is not ihat the clivine powcr of auionomous uci.ion ha* ceased. 

AI-Ka'bi al-Batkhi w said that [GodJ <iid noi havc the powcr o£ 

autonomous action ovcr anything rcscmbling thc acrion of a human 
beingj because such [human acrion] wouid he cither an actton of 

^■H.tB: "and Hrtira. Him rhf:ff issm^ tm\y €**$ «... ,* L, rhr MS (in IslahdiiiTa cjuarr of 

BaydairtiTi), and MS Garrwt fiftfJJib: il Rnd Imm Ilim thsrc lasur-i nnly thr- iine . . . 

^ Baydawi^ rcfcrc;ncc u to Rk, l ? Scct. 1, (]hap. 6. Topk. 2 3 "Multiplc causcs 
and cHccm", accordLng io zui MS ^loss in thc carn.mcn.taiy whcrc IslaJiam ia dis- 
cu-Esin^ ihis passaijc, 

14 [al-munajjirnuri]. Abu R^yhan Muljarnmiid ibci AtarciLLtl al-BTrunT, 373 c:a. L0"j1. 
was probably thc intist Ikmoiis ^Tuslim a^rolu^er. His sdentiihc: zu:livjiii!s emhractd 
much niorc thun thii aapect^ howrveT. Swr ihe cntry ucidcr Jiia tyimc irt En-1-2; 

alw, Ch?pKT 9^ "Thc weckiijng of Ju^w &ml es,rth in amncilog^- 1 '. pmc of llic smdy 
of in Scyycd Hossclii Na^s An Intt&dwtew A? Islamk Cosmntogknl DwlrinM. 

** [ultUdcima,]. 

T iriErrL5 a jfardjip"apFL of two tijira noi in L;, MS GarreLt 2B3B h or Mi> G<trrctl 
W^Hb; "Thc /rtinjiastrians [-iil-mitiSsl liold ihat [GtKi| h<i>- power t»wr [«aiIJ bu( 
Ue dCK^ nut pt-ribnm ii iue to [Hi^ wis.lom. They r^laied iht 1 «vil in rht- world 
to ;AhrJminJ [h-r-m-n]" — {i.t, to thtt tvil sptric who -opptBcg Ahiira Mazda, whD 
ii thc giwnJ sjiLtit Ln ZnroaKriaci dmitrinc]. 

^ S«^ thr notc with IsTahani^ nowragic- of thi.s topk. 

17 Ahu a]-Qasdin r Ahd .'\]Lah ibn .^hmad al-Ka^bi a]-Balkhi ? an carly kadcr amcmg 
thc Mu^iaiilah, d. 39I/93L 


obedieuce, slupidity or inuckcry. Thc respunsc [lo ihis] is ihat iliese 

things arc rnraial consideraticms applitd [as qusditics] to aclion in 

thc coiiLcxi of human bdngs. 

Abu *Ali [at-Jubba*!] and his &on [Abu Hashimp* said thal [(JodJ 
docs not h;Lve omnipotruce in autonomotis- actjon over the same 
power focus ,!> as that of buman behigs; othcrwis*\ if Ile should will 
]t while human hring* rpjected h t thert ihr LiiipHratJrm woukd bc that 
[ihe anion iti question] woulrl both happrn and uot liappenj, on 

iiciount of onc party caLling fbr it and ihir other paity rcjccting it. 
Thc rcsponsc [to thisj is that a rq3iignant aclion would not takc 
placc ii" 110 oiher willing intcntion should he Iinkt d lo il 

lslahani aays: 

L 351, T 170, MS 179b 

Ood *s Nrmipaiente w mttanomous aciiott is ww a// passi&ie rtalities 

Altcr [BaydawJ had set Ibrth thc fact that [Gnd| Most High i& omni- 

potent m autnnomous aruon and cau.salion, he corralatcd it with the 
|additional] fact that He is omnjpotent in autonorraous action and 

ca.usauou over all possiblt fealhies. fl) Our colleagues [of thc Asha c irah] 
had taken the position ihat [God] is oirinipotcrit iri autouomous 

action ovcr all possiblc rcalitics, and thry diilcrcd fmm sccts lo which 
we will riler with a dcrailing of thcir doctrines. We hold that (he 

nteessary causc for [God T sJ omnipotenoe in autonomous action is 

HimseJf s and that [this omnipotcnce] rclatcs. L 352 to all possiblc 
rcalitics on an cqual hasis. [This is] bccause if Hi^ omnipotcncc in 
autonomous action ^hould bc s}>ecifLC to sonic [possible reahbes] and 

nor othera, then His essence-in being omnipotent m autonomous 

action [merely] over sotne possib]« and not others — would need ;i 

^pccilying agcnt 3 which wouid bc impos&iblc. Purthcr, [wc hold thal] 

thc agcncy vialijdating thc statc oi" ready-rcs-ponsc 10 [God^s] omnipo- 

tencc is the *possibiliiy' that h present as a commonality among all 

* Abn Mi Muhammad ibn ^Abd al-Wahhab al-Jyhba a i 5 d. »03/913-416, and 

Abu Hashim c Abd al-Salsun [ibn Muharnmad| al-JubbaH,. d. 321 /933;. wene early 

]r:;idrira ol" ihe -Mu^Jl^tLtli ifi Bns^ih, 

w Taking "Ibrus* 1 [i.c^ oPpnwrr] as a usclul daril^iTip u-mi fo-r tttc litrra] ' l obj«ct 

of power" [maqdur1. CT the Merrisim-WebetLT [Ninth New CollegLite Dkuionary) 
definirton of ^bcu^" 5 a; "s^ cmMr of acciiity, attrnecbn or ACt^nddn"; 5 b: +h a 

poLnt of c-unccniracicnoL 11 

f *~ Thc &cribc of L ^kippK^I rwo Ihi^ ti^rt, but ibey are «upjilipd by T iunl chr MS. 

824 2, SECTION 2, t!HAFTIf.K I 

thc rcaEti.cs possiblc- IndcccL cvcrything cxccpt 'possibility 5 is confincd 
within thc [categprics of] 61 *neecssity T atid h imj>o$sibility*, and both of 

ihese [canegories] woukd bring aboui a [negative] change" pn} ihe 

atatc of rcady-rcsponse to [HLs] omnipolcnce in autancunaiui action. 
As an objeetion, a qi]eslion might bc raised whether nne know. 

by imuition or by proof thar a apecifyirig agency in this contexi 

would bc an impussibility, If you say that il is by intuitbn, thcn you 
havc actcd prcsamptuously^ and if you say that it is by proof thcn 
where is the proof? The mwt that can bc said on thc sabject h that 
we da not know whether it would be admissible to aiTirnri the cer- 
tainty of a &pecify l ing > agency or its impossibility, But it is truc to say 

chat the fact that thc tcrmination of all cxisting rcalmcs possiblc is 

[a prerogative] with [God] Mojt High h proof that He is omnipo- 
trnt in [His pawer of] autoiionioijs acrion over all. 

The philosophers hold that® MS 180a, T 171 [God] Most 
High is ()ne p and fmm Him there comes only one [prinriple]- 64 A 
statement about ihis in the form of both argunwmt and reply to 
objccriotis has prw:«ltfdr i,a 

An objcction Lo [thc philosophcrs'[ posicion minht bc raised as a 
way of tbrcing thc argumenc to the effcct that [God] Most Hlgh is 

Himseli" identical with the *sperifk existence* which is the subs-trate 
for the 'absolute «dstence* of [thc philosophers 5 ] theory. Thercibre* 

with rcspect lo [God.] there arc the&e two aspccts 3 &o it would be 
admissible that Trom Him more Lhan one [prinriplc] shouk) comt\ 

Let no one say that absolute exislence is [cmly] sotneihhig theoret- 

ical, and ihat someching theoreiical inay noi bc an eflcctive caust. 
Indccdj. wc hold that cvcn if it should not be admissiblc fbr a thing 
that is [merelyj thcorctical to bc an eifcctivc c.ausc^ ncvenhelcss il 
wonlci hc admissible for it ro he a condition lor the cllkaey of the 
cfFective caus* 5 aa you liavc staled with regard lo ihe first L cmana- 


MS gl^ [I-e.,. withmj ihew two essentiat naiurw. 
w MS gl: (Thf wcrb d^ri\"^s] fiom **a Ihing chARj^cT V if an imjj>^^s!uhiJk^^ , ^ , [aJ-mi.ah2f]. 

" A gloss in both thc MS £ iSOa and in L 552. n. 3: You Ehoulcl nert mas^ 

thc £wct here thu( mciiuori of tbe phik^r>phcrs" doctrinc le unsuitable, bccauw: thc 

topic is a cotolUuy fitnm fhc lacc iluu Hc chc M«c High u onnupcnct^ Ln auconomoos 

swSioEi, iuid che jdiakwophcrs dtuv chat principk [L tim ■ wuroe aa the [Stmh 7i^f?] 

M MS LJiOa jjl: That whi^h conics (rom [CiodJ at th# bcginnin^ h chc 1-irat 

lntdlfct ? andi al3 fhc rcmaining otit& procccd chrough tbc intciLTncdiarjir- 

w MS gJ: Iti thc study on causcs and dlcctt [Book 1, Sccrion I, Chapter 6 ? 

Tcspk: 2]. 


tion' [oTj, 'bciiig prw]uu:d' by f*od]- c * You have allowed llic 'posst- 
blc rcality j and thc 'ncccssary by way of anothcr^ both bcing: ihc- 

orctical rormiilationSj to stand as a condition for thc efficacy of thc 
cftcctivc causc^ and so in view of thcse two theorctical considcra- 
liom 'mariy' might hc produoed from the 'One'. 

Thc astmtogers" 7 teach that the goueniing agency of thi& world, 

narnely, tlie world of tln? elcments bdbw the jpbcra of the Moon, 
is ihe celeatLd sy&tem [of] spheres and stars aiad ihuir po&itions, siiite 
wc obserw (hat changcs m thc physical conditions uf this world are 
bound up with changcs in. thc siatcs and positions of thc stars. Thc 
rcply to this. is that the nioat you have said herc is thal thc chang- 
ing physical conditions 68 of this world are paitemed after changra in 
the condioons and positiuns of thc stars whidh corisriuite thc orbit- 
ing [hca% r cns]. Howcwer, thc orbiting of thc hcavcns docs tiot clearly 

show that the rotating [sphcre of] heaven itself eiterts causahty upon 

an individual rcvolving body s sincc tlic causality would bc conse- 
qucntia3 to thc lieavcn& 3 roLalions in the case of both adjunctivc cnti- 
tics [Le^ the total rocaring pmces.% and the revoludons of tlie indiridual 
hcawrnly bodies]. 69 For each of the adjtmct endties is mutually hcrcd 
to the other, whether by cxislcnce or by uooexistenoe ? so that thc 

jnotaiions of the heavcru is a ccrtainty betwtren ihe two of ihem, 

although ncithcr onc is thc causc of thc otlicr. Similarly a thc rota* 
tlon.s of the hcavens would be an pstahlished rertainty |existingj as 

between a 'parcial cause, its condition, and 3cs concomiiam*, [i.e., 

bctwccn thcsc narricd thrce (= a- b c)] and the L dfifect, its conditioncct 
cntity» and thc concomitant^ subatrate' (i.p-, the namcd matching 
thrce [= aa-hb-cc | .— if the pardal cause, its condircon, and its con* 
cnmitant shoiild be ©qual wiihici exisience to ihe efFcct T the condi- 
tioned ^ntity, and thc concomirant^s sub&rrate, — [and all this would 

bc 1 ] in spitc of thc fact that ncithcr thc partiaJ causc, nor its condi- 
tion nor its concomitaiit wouid l>e a [f\i]l| causc r 

llie Dualists atid the Zoroastriani say that [God] Mosi High 

L 353 is not omnipoicnt ici autonomous acrion ovcr cvil; odicr- 
wisc, Hc woukl bc evil_ M^h^ Imam [F.D. Ra^i]^ interpredng their 
po&ition saidj, c,=r riiis ih hecLiu-s^ tlir agrnt of good (hings is a cjood 

u> MS gt; 1"h*l ii, lln: FLr5t Intelkict. 

^ 7 MS gknwea: l) l.Cr^ onc ui' drt vecuc^ 2J This is h sccoiiiJ jpoiiip of oppuntnts. 

f * M$ gl: Such us che sta^s *>Ti"iig1ii ftnd 6*y t ofthe loiir seasor^ ainJ others. 
,y - MS gl; [l.e., corfel3livc4 in a paatern such] as a son Hrtd aonship. 

ti26 2 ? SKCTION 2, dlAPTKK ] 

bcing and the agent of evil is an cvil one, so onc agt-ru cannot be 

good and cvil™ [N.D. TusiJ thc aiithor of thc Ta/Mw said s [ Ll Thc 

ZoFoastriatis| .say that thc agent of good is Ya/.dati fi.c fc> Ahura 

Maida] MS l#Gb amd the agent of cv31 is Ahriman.' 1 By thesc 
two thcy mcan an aiig¥?l and a dcviL, but God Mosl High is far 
abovc bcing such an agcnt of both gpod and cviL Thcr Manichacam 3 '* 

hold chat tlie agcncy for [each of] these two |i.c\. £ood and evil| 

are [respn Thrty]. Liijjhl ;nid DiirLne.ra. 'I*he Daysdniyah^ have ;i iIol 

triric lik^ ihaL They all leach that ihe One who h Good is He 

whosc dccds arc all guodj and the Evil Onc h Hc whosc dccds are 
all cvil, and so it would bc unthinkablc for the agcnt to bc one, 
while his actions as a lotality wou!d be botb gnnd and evSL* 

The Imam [Razi thcn] stated, l The amwer [to their argumeiU] 
is ihat if you [i-e, ? dnalisLs], by saying c the Qne who is Good and 

tlic Onc- who is EviF, incan tlic One wha brings into exisbencc the 

good and thc cvil, llicn why do you say lliat it would be impossi- 
blc ibr onc agcnl lo bc thc agcnt for thcm both? But if you mcan 
by it something elst\ then makc that clcar." (Tu&i.]* thc author of 

the Talkkis inlers [from thc loregoing staiement] that the Imani [Razi| 

had not oouiitcrobjeci^d hi order to rebut their position, buL ralher 
allowcd that thc agenl for both kirids of aciions rntghi bc oiit 
Then [Tusi] wcnt on to sayj, "Thc answcr to ihcni is that good 

and cvil are noi good atid cvil of themsehes^ but rarher by means 

of an adjunctivc rclationship to things othcr than thcmselyies. Fur- 

thcrmorc^ il" it should bc possiblc for somc [singlc] action in cooi- 
parison witli one mattcr to bc good and in comparison to anothcr 

Hiaiter to be cvil, thcn it would bc possibtc lor thc agcnt of that 
[doubly linked, singlc] action to he one* w 

Thi» k thc meaiiiiig of [B^ydaui*s] stakmeru that [God] wonld 
be undcr obligation [i.c^ to cvilj sincc in thc cxcrcisc of His power 

™ Rras hm u paiaphrasK ihn djocuine of the Davsanivah which foUmvs below. 

"llir quotalicin5 roLlowing are from bodi Rari's Muhassal A/hrr ai-JHutagtrddhrrm «w 

ai-MuhSwJii&irint and NASfr Al-Din T«si's TbIUw ni-Muhmt^ bi>th p«aag« brin^ 
nn p. 179 iii ihi: Caitrti l!iUH eciilion. 

:| Vow*]fcd [-\hraman] in L, the MS and MS Ganrctt 931 Ma. 
n MS pl: (Who btĔcmgl iinwng tht drualisi^. 

Se* the aiticle K Mani ahd M&tikhadstn" b>- RAIcL Wil«hi in ihe KwyibpMHn 

vf Fhikmph}\ «nd "M&cii b. hAtlik/Paiik^^ in £n-I-2 p by C.E. Boaworth. Mam [ca. 

a-d. "216-ca. 27ii| livtd lt\ Penii aud wai strarvgly oppoacd l>y (lic Ma.jian pn^ia. 

71 MS gl: [VV.ho are] amoaig rhe dijt^tLsla. See iher arricLe 4>, Day3&]iTyah^ in En-F-2. 

Thcy were rolluwer» oi Bar Di"san fBa.rdrsar)ts]^ 2nd ccm. a.d. 


He obligates Himsclf co seem 011 occasion to be in tlie role of an 

agcnt of evil], 

Al-Nazzam J * hcld that [God] Most High is not omnipoteitt in 

autonomous actio-ti ovcr tlic creation of an un&e-cmly act> bccausc 

r HimJ to do what is unseemly woulri he impossjhlf:- and what 
is impussiblc would not bc an objcct of : [divinc] power. Now as for 
thc fact that [I lis] doin# what h im&eemly would bc impn&siblc* it 
is becauac it would show the tgnoranoe of the agent and his deBdency, 
which arc impossibk fbr God Mosl High f aiicl what is&ues in aii 

tmpossibility woukd iisclf bc an impossibility. And as for thc tact that 
an impossibilhy woutd not bc an objcct of powcr> that is bccausc 
an ohjcct of power is something that might YaJidh br hrought into 

e^istence, and that would requir? thc capadiy for valid existencc, 

but what is irnpossiblc has no capacity Ibr valid esistcncc. 

[BaydawT.sJ reply is that ihere is no ijiiseemliness at all in any- 
ihing relatiiig to God Mosi High. Huwcylt, if such a tasc [i.e., 

unsccmlincss in somcthing rclatcd to God] wcrc to bc grantcd. ncv- 
crthclcss thc unsccmly would bc unsccnily ah&olute]y> 7r ' bnr H Hc who 
prohibiUi [thc un&eexrily| Irom bdng cnactrd is a pjresenr nality. 

[This is] noi [to say] that the [divine] omntpotience in autonomou» 
artion cca&cs, 1 * bccause then ihe unseemly would be impossiblc 
bccausc of somcthing othcr than itscll^, and what is impossible on 
accoiint of somcthing clsc would be a pasyblc realicy in jtscl£, and 
what is a pnsrible reality iti itself would l>e a [Focussed] object of 
powcr. But the fact thal [thc umrcmly actionj would bc a [iiKTLLSiedj 
objcct of power would not cx-c:lude it L"rc?m being impossiblc on 
account of something olher ihan itself. 


74 rbnjiMm Lbn Sayyar al-NaEKaiii, d. ca. B40 a.u., waa a lcadcr amo-nR thc Bas- 
ndi My c tazilnb l\Tatiani 3, s cocrHtic-ntajy fo!lcws Ran^s Muhassal and. Ttjsi*s Tai&Ais al- 
Mtiftitt3vt [p. \79\ n-rnrly vCTbinim m tlie di&CLissicm of th4. L ™ri™s scholarly cjpinions, 

7-1 MS gl: l.c, in pdadon m th«: Neccssan^ ako. 

™ MS ^3; l.c Jp but tht-rc would bc 110 iinpLJcadoEi, Lrom ihje fafl thai |Gud| w-Ould 
Ik CicnnijKJlcPit lti a.u?oEiumoLj& ajution ovcr wKiit ia unsccmly, that iiiimimltiieiss wouJd 
[iiciHiaUyJ £'ome iiyim Him, ll niijrht lx s thmt it vrtitild ciol ccjmc i™m IUm becsiuse 
of"5omcEhfcMg rhat wottld prc^nt i($ ac(uhI OCCurrc*wc, nameljr,, (ha4 whsj^icr woirJd 

pruaTLpl sucIl an acuon wtjuld not ckjsT;, hul [Ilk dciiating fmm surh an aciicm 
ivnulj] tini h\: b^CinusC IIc wOulcl UM bc OAiriipvl£Al in autcincnYKius aClion *ver it, 

n MS gJoss**: I) Namety, {tbe cnarimtiH ofJ wh^t is uuseemly. 2) In chc s^jisc 

ihat Hc has nothmg proniptirig Him to <to whan U "unsCfitlly K a± yoM tiavc staicd- 
,a MS gL: In thc aciaa- that if Ehcrr Hh^Hilrl cwcur 10 Him Honur nKitLvacion to 
pcrRirmmg rhc arlion^ ihcn Hc changcs thc mociYation to- {one of] dcslEtiui; |Jrorn 
it]; He docs not cxtTcifiL' m.aEtcr), , in thac jcticm. 


Al-Kh*bi al-Balkhi [Abu al-Oasim al-Kdi^bi al-Balfchi] said that I Ic 
thc Moat High was not capahlc of autonomous actton ovcr anythhig 

resembling ihe accion of a human being, ihat is, over ihe [(bcussed] 

dbjrct of powcr of a human being, bccausc a huinan bciiig*5 [IbcuascdJ 
objccc of power would bc cithcr obcdicncc* y * or stupidity,** or mock- 
ery, and such for God would be Lmpossiblc. The answer [to tbts.] is 
that an act in itself is eithtr [merdyl motion or rest. while its con- 
stitudng cithcr obcdicnce» stupidity, ot mockery wonld bc mcnlal 

considcrations applird to an act in thc contcxt of a hiiman bcing; 

indecd thcy quaJify thc act as coming from M5 lSla mankind, 

but God Mo&t High is entirely abtc ro produce action similar* 1 to 
thc cssencc of tbe act, 

Ahu C AH aljubba^i and his son Abu Hashim hcid that God Most 

High is ornnipoient in autcmomoua actiun ovcr what resernbles a 

human bcing's objcct of powcr 3 hut Hc ia iiot omnipotciit in auto- 
noraous action ovcr thc samc objcct of powcr [as that] of •& human 
bcing. L 354 ['lliis is so] because an objccc of power ha& as its 

characfrrijtic that it exists whtm the motivating fim:es of au agem 
capable of autonomous actiori arc abundanl,. but ihat h retnains in 
noncsistcncc whcn that [agcnt] has a markcd rcccssion of tbcsc 
forccs. So if thc samc thing that would bc a man*s objcct of powcr 

should bc the object of power of God. Most Iligh, and if God Most 
High were to will the enactment of thc human'» object of power 

but the human were to raject [thc tnactmcnt oi J it, thcn [bothj its 
occurrence woutd be implied in ordcr to achicvc satisfaction tor the 

niotjvat)ng agencyj 83 and its nonoccurrcnce would bc implicd in order 
to achieve saustacuori foi tlie rejectine; agency, 13 

Thc response [to this poitu] is that a repugnant [action] would 

not takc place" 4 i]i thc presencc of a rcjccling agcncy» as long as it 


MS ^l. VVHiich would «wail snewards 

Sw Rjuis Muhas.ialt p. tfMl 

w MS sjl: [Which would "hcj dcvoid of hcnrfit„ or CDrroptin^ or inclusivr of hoth 

cquaUy\ all af which is impos^iUe E?*r (Jrnl Moac High, 

fll T ulnrn hw rcadi "thai aciion* 91 |rth5]ika at-tall, wherens L h the MS and MS 

Garrrtc 9891ia rcad fc, that vny ajction" [dhat al-fa1J. Razi's Af^Aarjv/, p. Ift0 reads 
^prccbcJy that vcrv aclion" 1 fdhat dhalika aJ-fa11_ 

fl3 MS gl: Whkh is thc wiU of God. 

flJ MS gl: WiTiJch is inan 1 ^ dJi^dainmriii cif it, 

u L addy h-cre purLmLheticaJly ? tusiud vftnant^ K ^fl«ld ik>[ be rtali^t-d" |fcl 
yataJpiui^a^J, frcnn aciothcT nuLnusciipt fupy [ciuskiLuliJ. -udierwbe unidenLilicd. 


had no linkagc: to annthcM 1 will that would at:t indcperndcindy.* 5, Analysis 

[of ihis pioblemj shows that it would be posstWe for an object of 
pciwer \o be iharcd bclween cwo agents capable uf auiuTiomuus action 

Jf it should bc takcn as sorncthing unrclatcd to cithcr of thcm, biat 
aftcr it should havc bccomt rclated to onc of tht twd thcn a shar- 

ing in it would be prohthited, T 1 72 in view of this rclation- And 
an unrelated object of powcr may become rclated to each of them BG 

by way of altemaiion» this bcing what is mcant by an objuct of 
powcr of onc of thcra [alsoj bcmg thc othcr's object of powcr.* 7 

Baydawi said- 

L 354, T 172 

2. God\s ever-pmmt &mnucien€£. 

[FuurJ reascns indicatc thaLt [this is a divinc attributc]. 

a. [God] is frcc (o choo&e \llh acts], and as such Hc iireety avoids 
dircctin^ His inteniton. to anythinjj thal is not an imellipble [object 
of knowledge].* 8 

b. Whoever has meditated on the pbcnomcna uf creaturdy H£e. 

and hns thought rcficctivciy on thc anatomy of our body mcmbcrs 
and thcir uscfulncss. and on thc structurc of chc cclcstiai sphcrcs and 

the stars and on tlieir movemenrs has come to know for a certainty 
the wisdom of their Creaiur. Evcrylhiiig obseirable in ihc amazing 

activitics of living heings. consi&ts of powers God Most High has givcn 
to thern and instincts He has provided fcr them..* 9 

c:. The cssence of [God] Most Hi^h is ari incorporcal personal 
kleniiiy ihai is [always nnd irnmtdiatclyj prcsent wi(h Hini, Tbcncft>tic, 

[God] has a comprchcnsivc knowlcdgc of [His csscncc]* sincc com- 
prchcnsivc knowlcd^e [of an cntity] cnnsists jn thc immaterial quid- 
dity [of that cntity] bctng immediately prescnt [to the knowerj. 
Piirthermore, [God 5 s essence] h the source of alt tJiings in existence. 

m MS ,([l: [I.cj on thc pnn of thc Cicatnr., 
fc MS gl; Lc- ? thc Creator and ihc human. 
** Tusi, c.5|>, cjc, p. 180. 

Iji t. "hc scritK uaadytrtcjiih .■tipj.^d ihr i ij j^-j-lllil: liiii-s vviili Lhe : i ■ -- 1 j.^, 
bui inscrtcd theni in tbe rnaiigin. 

^ [fa-icLUL aqdaj ."ytSh La c S]a : iryySha wa-ithlmLKi ldha]. L vari«; fiv\'ahu] and 

w l^ wi(h N.TS GAnttt 383B aiid MS GaiTrtt 9B9Hb: mftscidint pronoan [*ali- 
nian bihi]. T: ii^iinine pionoun. 

830 2, SElint>.\ 2, CHAr]"KR J 

And so, whocver has comp.rchen&ive knowledge of the source will 
have comprahcnsivc knowlcdgc ot" whoever pos&esscs it. ,JI lndccd^ 

who knows- Hitroelf knows that Hp is the source of ewtiy- 
other ihan Him$elf, and ihal [knnwlcrige of i-nur&£] inductes 

knowk-dge of Himsdl"; thc-rcR>re s [Gud] h»s camprdienswc kiiwwl- 

cdgc of all chings. 

d. [GodJ Most High h an incorporcal hcing., and cvcry incorpo- 

rcal bring must mndcrscand [bo[h| it&cir and [the e-ssrnccs of| aJl 

other incorporeal beings, [This Ls] because [ihe esscn.ce] cao be 

understood validl>% and whatcvcr can bc undcrstood validly also can 
be undcrgtood [when takcn] togethcr with some othcr than itsdf. 

Thus, 3ts rcal nature [i.e., iis selT-understaiiding] will tmi in close 

agsocJaliDn with [its csscnce]* since a comprchcnidYc undcislandiiijj 

rcquirc.s that [rhe intcll]gible's] qi]idrfity immediatcly hc present within 

tbe agency of comprebeinsion, M 

Howcver, the validity of <>ii-s duse undaliori is noi ronditicniak 
upon its bcing within the intcllcci^ because bringing [lIlc incoipo- 
rcal bcing} into dosc assHciation with [its own sc!f-undcn»tandingj is 
a runrtion of tlw inrrllect» and ncnhing may serve as irs own con- 
dition, Thcrclbtc* it is valid for thc qiiiddity of an estemaj existent 
to be brought into close assuciation with the [inwardly] intelligible 

^uidditics., and thcrc is no othcr mcaning for [thc phrase,] a *com- 

prchensivc undersianding', ihau [his r 

FurtJicrmore t ewryone who does undcrstarid a bcing othrr ilian 
himscli' also can undcrsLind that [that sccond othcr oncj is a bcing 

who [in turn] undcrstands [him thc first thinker], and that Enchides 
tlie facE that [the other| undersiands [the fii'st bcing's] csscnrA. Now, 

evervlhing that rightrully belongs to an inooiporeal l>eing necessaril^ 
will becoinc a rcality s because pdiciiualiiy h a propeily of niatter 3 

*■ L, MS Gairctt 2K:iIi ai>d MS GaiTctt f*BWl Eb: ^aw _whaccvcr anhndiH U" 
I^Slini bi-dhuwfhi]- T: " fc knaw whatcvcr Ls- withouc jr 1 ' [bi-ma dfiiuhij. 

MJ In this 4th p«inf -nf thc ar.Rnmrntj, Baydaiti;, fol]owL'd by TsfalianL chanRcs thr 
Tn^in verh itn th-t rii^'yssion \o " k imrlfttwinri II9> nv ^ttmprchPiicH ['acjalaj, in «itscri^ 
to "kn.ow* 1 [*aJimaJ- V. RoswMithal^s gr^at study, kthwkdge Triumfih/ml (Leidjpn^ IS70), 
cspcrially thr sacctLons^ "Cod's tnowlcdgr* 1 ^ (chap. 4 ? secl. 3 3 pp. 100- 129; and 

fci Know]edKv h th&nghL (philusL^hy}"^ ^nrLre diap. 7, pp, 194-239) pMvidrs iitsc^ht 
h«re- The suggt^uoci inay bc diat the c f&cus of kno««g\ ai First directed bo «tk 
ihen io more th^ii onw- ^>ecific object of knowiedip [^riilii, c alimaJ h is grackwlly 
broadencdl to include ihr 'undemAnditi^ of a" objwt of knniwlcdgc rogecher wrh. 

iw rnany LmpikJL ramLfic»uons amo«g ^laced objects of knowl^dgc, chns becojning 

\ompri:h*iisft'e kftffvwk-d^e ? h or, *}^mt imimm^nct. 


and c&pcciaJly it is a prcrogativc of God Most Iligh* tbr Hc is thc 

Necessary Exigtent Ln all aspects, 

Tlic two reasons [c. and d.J are basic with the philosophcrs, 

bul with both «i thcm iJicrc is slill tnorc to bc considcrod. 

Uiahani *av$- 


L 354, T 172, MS IBla 

2- God*s eaer-pment omnistience 

Four reasons indicale ihat this [is a divinc] attribute. 

ll God Most High ts frcc tu choose [His acts], ii) accordance 
with prcvious kcturo. and cvcry agcnt frcc to choosc [His acfs] 
refrain* Ironi directing his inlention To anychmg 11 * thsst is not an intcl- 

ligihlr objecl of knowJedge, since 95 to have free choiee is to act 

aticording to an intcntion, and thus. rclrain Irom dircctnig thc inten- 
tion to anything that "U not an intclligihlc objcct of knowlcdgr. 

Thr-rr :\\rc. (Uk\ \hm ll\\*h rHr.Mii> f V c uj : dim rijtg Hi>: mTcnrion lo 

anything that is not an ititdligible object of knowlrdgr:. Nmv, any 

[intcntional] objcct of Ilis powcr L 355 h an iiilcltigiblc object 
of knowkdgc: and thus, |God| ia omniscient, 

b. [God*sl actjonn are of a wise and periect nrder. Indeed, who- 

evcr has meditatcd on the phcnornena of creaturely Iife, and has 

thought rrAecth cly on the anatomy of our body membcrs aud thcir 
uselulnegs, and on The structure nf the ceta&tial spheres and thcir 

nir^rments and positions, has come to know su a ccrtaituy tbe wis- 

dom of thcir Greator.* 6 

Whcrc thc author saysj. * L EvcTything ol)fiervable of thc ainaiin^ 
activitkrs of living bcings [indcredj con&ists of powcra God Most High 
Itas givcn to therri ;ind inwtinct* Hc has prc)vided lor them^" |Bayda^iJ 
is induAtitig r.he airsiwcr to an intcrpolaiioru [Hnwever] ? a f"ull statc- 
rncnt of thc intcrpolarion!, — that thc prupcrtics of thia [prirriordialj 
action, namciy, rhat ir includes carefully balanccd organization and 
mariP r elous constructlon, do not conatitutc a proof demonstration 

* J MS r1: An agent frcc to choosc niust be uwarc of what fiL' inttnds ti> liriii^. 
in^o bCLitg. 

M MS gl: Sicicc he woukl ito* form a oo«cc:pL ot ii i x xgcpl with ^omc knowlc-d.i^.'-. 

^ This cUllbc dptimng ihr skgcm with frw choicjc is orniucd fronii rhc tcxt of L 
imd T. Buc it is artdcd in chc margin of L, and k is pr«cnt in thc tcxt of ttu- MS 
and MS GanrCi 98flHa. 

* MS gL I.c, ilidr Exisi«itial Causc [mujidLhaJ. 

R32 2. secttion 2, chapthr t 

MS I8lb r>f liic wisdoin of thrir Existcntiat Caust- Intkcdl thcrc 


iirc living bcing^ in which we bchold an aniazing bdiavior ? rarrfu]ly 

balanwd nrgani^acion, and mawelous conscruaion, such as the work 

of thc bcc ij] bwlding licxagonal cdU in which thcrc is cxpcrt atrength- 
cning and pcrtcct ordcr^ although [bccs] arc tiot wi&c and knowing 
l~>eings in an ahsolute sense.' 7 A full stai^meiil oftfie reply would he 

ihat everythi ng we obserye of the ama^itig phenomena "f 

beings indeed consi&ts of powers ihat God Moai High has gircn thern 
ovcr thest phcnomcna^ and instinclive abitily tlial ilc has providcd 
for theM living beings to accomplish tJacs^ vety ariinn&. For CJod 

saicl * ! Your J-ord has reveaded io ihe bees [whcre to makc- their 

homci; in thr <lifrs 3 and in trccs and nctworks of Yincs]." [Qiir s an 
16:6B] Furthcrmorc> Onc whosc act^ are wise atid pericct is One of 

comprehensive knowledge, Acts of that quality do not coine from 

onc who has no knuwledgc.. nor docs any wisc and pcrfect act cvcr 

bccomc a rccurring habit in somconc of |inindlcssj i^norance- 

c. The csscncc of (GocT| Most High i* an pncorporcal personalj 
ideiility, abstracted froni nialier and its properties, that is [always 

and imrnedialcly] prcscnt wilh Him^ and thcrcby Hc has [full] 

knowlcdgc oi." His csscnce. [This isj bccausc knowledgc [of sonic- 
thing) consbts in [that thiiu^sj quiddity ahstracccd irom mattcr and 

its propejiJts bcing in the imrnediate presence of the incorporeal 

[pcrsonal idcntity as. its knuwer]. 

iurthcrrnorc, chc cs&cncc of [God] Most lligh is thc sourcc of all 

exisring chings. bccausc He is thc One omnipotcnt in autonomous 

action ovcr all rcalitics pos^ib]c 3 and [Hc] is their cxlsi:cntial cause, 
Now, whoever knows the source will know wliatever embodics thc 

sourcc, as indeed^ thc Onc who knows Himsclf compictcly knows 

iJis own concomitant [powcrs] wliich havc no interm-edi- 

ary." [Outstanding] ai^ong all (hese [ooncomitants] is ihc fact ihat 

He is thc sourcc of anything otlicr than J limsclt., and thus Hc knows 
thar Hc is the source of anything othcr than IIc. Therelbra, Hc T.\"ho 
knows Hims^ll" [or 3 His own «siseencej knows that it is ihe source of 

everything other than Hinisel! K and iliat [role of being the souroe 

^ Thc MS and MS Carrctt 9B9IIa timit, fc! ajid knowing bclngs in an absolutc 
actcisc." [^alirr.^h qat f anl 

* Ihe MS varics Trnin the »tiicr souiccs m havirin ihc pronoun m liLr fcmiinLiie 
[hadirah ]aha| v>ith its antcccdcnt markcd ai the *csscncc\ as disEincL from Ctwi 
' * L and T iead [wasatl, whilc thc MS and MS Carrecl 9flQHa icad [wasiiah]. 


fot «uiythitig other ihan HLms«lf] includes knowledgc of anything 
else thar cimbodies ihe source, 100 

Thus [God] hai full knowledge of all things. iti ewistence, tn the 

&cnse that thcy all havc their placc ui a causal scrics coming dwn 
trom Him n whcther 

1 . directly in a Long line 101 as a series of" causcs ptaccd in ordcr 
and lerrnii]iitiiig iii HiinsHf jii itiat vcry ortter.. Oi 

2, mdircctly and bi oadly IM as a serics of tcmporal phcnomcna 

lermmating in Hintseir in that thcy alJ are possiblc reaJiries haviii(j 
nccd of Him [as an empoweriiig Agtnt], thc need bcing accidenral 

in naturC;, in which all units of thc caiisal &cries LDa " havc an ecjual 

m to Him rhe Most Hich. 
cl [GodJ is an incorporeal beUig peHectly free from both niaitcr 
atid its prypertk-s 1 * 1 aud subsisiirig in His esscnce, 101 as we havc said 
previoualy. tp * Further 3 cvcry incorporcal bcing &ubsisting in itself nec- 
e.ssarily will understandi coinprehengiyely it.s own essence and that oi 
all ullitr incurporral beiiigsj 07 since cvery incurporral heing subsisc- 

ing in iciiclf can be undcratood with va]idity. [This is trucrj becrause 

]. cvery |-such] incorporeaJ and sell-Jtubsisting hcing is rcmoYcd 
far abovc MS I82a matcrial adniixUircs atid is madc pure of cx- 

traneous Imkages, 1011 factors ihat do not f<tci1itate 


MS gl; Nsuncly» ihr rr-uJiiira possibJc. 
Wl MS gtosscE 1) Lc.j. in dctail 2: l.e., with an intcnncdiajy. 
m MS gLosscE 1) Le. ? :in a gcneral way. 2) I.c, T wiih no intcrmcdiiuy. 

L, T zind MS GamtL 989Ha m\d, "tuiite of the causal chiuri.";. whilc tlae MS 

rearis» "ii* unUs. 


t: °* MS gl: Otherwise, He wouJri br a compo^iic [nAtuireJ. 

TO MS gl: Thc minor prcmi&c. 

'* MS gl: Which impLiw that Hc ihc Most Eiigh will bc Onc who knows the 
csacncc of Himstir and of ^jLiiything d^: <hat ia an immateiial bcirtg - . 
"^ MS t;L: Ilic niajor prcmise. 

"* 1- 355* gL 3: By materLal Mlmixtures <ind extrc«]eiius! Liiikages ItsrahanlJ mcans 

tHp: panii^slasr- A^ridenia rhar bmninEt pro[XTiie* oi" a thing hec-.ansr- of rihc mait^r in 
CTicrnia] rai^tencc, propcrtics whir h tTr^uirt- a division inco pans dhtingiiishahlc fmm 
onc ancHhcr by ilicij 1 situAiion. Thcy %tt wliai pr^^tm iinelloctuat conccpdion, as 
ynn h;ivr leairnact. li" rhe [hitig is ahsrrarred from iIkiti, then rh^ni ia nnthing in Lt 
to piwcnt fc[ from hcing an inrclhgibLt^ hui raihcr in itactr it ia [aJrcady| suitahlc 
to bc Lntdkctually concci\cd. without anythui^ ftutlicir hcing donc lo makc it suit* 

ablc for ch^c 5o> if ii in not mrelleenislly concciYcd:, theti ih-m |'ln<:k] would bc on 

thc sidc of thc powei [srcking 1 ] to conccivf \}i\ iniclicccually. For if all intcllccts 
wcrc lo bc abslracfcd from maLcria! (htndraii^csj (Jicy in thcmscJ\ci wouJd bc i«ft- 
iiblc 1(m bc intclligjbt-cs., but wc da no* niajiagc to undcrstand thcm intdlcciuiilly 
bctausc our inYuJwmenl in biKiily linkiigcs hindrrs our piTccpdotL. [Frc™ IsRiliani ? s 

Hwhirah i.i. N.D. Tussi'* Tt&id d-'Aw&\ 

834 2. SEcnoN 2. chaptor i 

what mighi bc its [actual| quiddicy from it& [apparentj quiddity; and 


2. wilh all bcings of lliis sort ihe function ofthe q-j.iddily is 10 
bccomc an intclligiblc objcct of ktiowledge for iis uwn csscjicC} -sincc 

it nrcds I. 356 nothin^ [morc] io be done 10 si 1 " 5 in ordcr tbr k 

10 become [such] an inielHgible ohject, But if it shoulcl not be under- 

stood [as such an] objcctj tiien that [lack of undcnstandingj would 
be on the part of" the agent of comprchcnsion whosc role it is to 
tinderstand [the quiddity], Thcrcforc, ,]Cl cvery incorporeal and sclf* 

subsisient being validly may be undcntood» and that 
validly may bc undcrstood is aJso possible of bcing; tmdcrstood [i.c^ 

in ils diEtinctivcncssj whcn takcn togcthcr with somcthing olhcr than 

Ltself [This is| herause It is not possihle co separatc one r s under- 

standing ofa[i cnlity ihat vaJiclly may be understood' — T ]73 Trurn 

one^s valid judgnicnt regarding [the cntity] that it has cjdstence and 

unicy, and ollier uniuersal in.tclli^ib]^ qu.alities of that sorcJ" 

Moreowr» to makc a judgment about one thing widi rcspect to 

somcthing clsc implicitly icquires thc comprchension of both of thcm 

[ogether. Therprnre, everythin^ chat is Valid to be undersEood 1 is 

aho L possihle to be uciderstood' [diadncdvely] when naketi iogeth-er 

with something oihcr than iiself. And everythiiig that is possibte to 

bc undcrstood [distinctivcLyj when takeu logctlicr with sonicthiiig 
clse niriy bc closely associated validly with somt othcr intclligiblc; 

and cwrything thal may bc closely associaied validly with soine other 
mtclligiblc may bc aasociatcd validly with [that intelhgiblc cvcn] if 
it should exist cxtcrnnUy as a se]f-subsi5tcnt bcing* This is bccausc 
ihe validity of an absolute rlosc associarion docs not dcpcnd upon 
che associaiion being withiti the intcllccL Indccd^ the validity of an 

"absolute asscKintmn 1 is consurutcd hy the *possibility of an absolute 
association\ And thc 4 possibiliiy of an absolute as&ociation 3 j being a 
more general categpry rhan an "association within thc intcl]cct\ would 

bc anlcccdcnt to thc 'ahsulute assodation' which [in lurnj would be 

antccedcnt to an L assodadon. witliin thc intcllci: t'; [sincc] thc ^antcccdcnt 
to the antcccdcnt' of something would bc also anlecedcnt lo that 
thing. Therefore ? the validit\ ol an absolutc association would not 

I I L 


MS gl: Le., 111 beiog made lire ol toikt, 
nn MS e.1: Thh is ihe conduslon [i-r > to thc two praniscs that bcgin cbi.s *eo 
tion 4], 

111 MS %k Such tk& chatigc^ indU-icJuiitnin, c^nTporcality, .and othcri- 



dt-pend upori [being an] association within the mtellcct, inor would 

it bc condirioncd by [such an assuciatiun], Othcrwisc, ihcre wuulrl 

bc implicd both a circular argnmcnt 113, and thc proposition that a 
thing may be its own cnndilion. But this would bc contrary to thc 


So, it has been rstablishrd that ihe validity of an ahsolme close 

association is not conriiiioiial upon thc association 111 bcing within thc 

imrlleit. [Tliis is] because the [assodatum 1 * sLrLirture| being within 
Lhe iiitcllcct is thc samc as the [asscx:iatiod*s facturs] associ aling within 
[thc intcllcct]. ThuSj, if thc uaLidity of thc alreolaitc assodation shouid 
bc conditional upon thc fact that the incorporcal rcality would bc 
within thc intcllect, thcn the implicatum would be that its "aasocia- 

tion within the intellect* would be a condition for its *associarion 

wkhin thc intcllect 9 , since thc coTiditiuu fur thc aiitcccdcnt wuuld 
also bc thc condition for the subsequcnt. But nothing may stand as 
its own conditioiig, thcrcfon% thc incorporeal bcing would bc valid 
to bc usociatcd with anothcr and cxtcrnal inlclligiblc, 

Moreover, if thc incorporcal bcing rihould esri&t extema.Hy T while 

hdng also MS I82b self-sub&isLitig, then the validity of its absolute 

asRc^riaiicKi^'* not dcpcndcnt upon lirin^ tiii asKiKriiiiioci wilhiii (he 

intellecl, would bc such that the othec iiitelHgible would occur within 

it as an iiihcring cntity oecurs within a substratc* That is so tjccause 
whcn it h an Jiicorjjorcal and 5c]f-su.bsi3iiiig bcing thcrc is an impos- 

sibllity qf its bcing associatcd with soine othcr hy way of its own 

inherence in ihc othcr. or of thc inhcrcncc of thc two of ihcm [bcing] 
111 ijome third fentit\ |. Atwjhite awociation \s comprised within these 

thrc:c options, two of ihem being impossible; so it is indicated that 
the validity of tiic HSbwiation iics in the third option, namely, that 
the validiiy of [the incorporcal reality f s] association with another 

intelligible would bc that of thc association of a substratc with an 

entity- 'Ilius> it has been cstablished that whcn anyi. 


MS gl: Ikcanse k hbis bctn dem^nstraied ihAL A*sociaiic«i withiii tEic inicltect 

d^ptnds bp-Oia iht vu.lidi*y vi' iJtt asMMiatkui. Bul if llitf validily i>f Jll- us&uciHtiuEl to depcnrl mi ;is*orirtrir"si-i wi<hin ihe inTrflecE 3 chp« anrgiirirreinr in a circis uTHalii 
bc impticLt. 

m Jhv \m, tttittnce is (i>und in L and T hm tWH rn the MS *r MS Cparmc 

MS gl: [IJteralLy -'it ,fc ]; ijt, jthc antcccdcnt hcrc rcfcrs lo tbc quiddit^' of\ 

tbnr intorportal bcicig. 

111 MS pi: Le^ Ehc ■aMocLation [apprr^priatc to] aji\ i lhing vahd to bc associatcd 

wich Hnotlitr icLLeLIiijiblcu 


valid to be Tjnclprstood exi£cs estemally and is an incorporea] and 

self-subsisimg bting, then it is valid for it to associate with some 

othcr intclligiblc objcct o£ undcrslanding in the manncr of a sub- 
stratc associating with an inhcring cntity. And for cvery such bcing 
ic woLilrl bc valid ihal it iincterstand that othcr 3 since a comprehen- 

sivc undcrstanding would be Tn^iimgless ekrepi aa tlic dtrac assud- 
ation with an intclligiblc objctt of underslanding within an cxistcnt 
incoiporeal and self-subsistent bcing, L 357 

Theretbre, every inenrporeal *md 5c]f-subsi5tcnt being may validly 

understand a bting oiher than itsclf, and every incorporcal and wlP- 
5ubsiiitcnt hrin^ that may validly undcrsUjrid somc othcr bcing thereby 
i$ able to unders.tand itsclf [This is| bccausc its comprchcnsion of 
ihat other b<:i.og logically jmplie^ the pnssibility of compiehending 
that it undcrstands thal othcr. Hcrc^ thc truth oFlhc prcmisc rcquircH. 

the iruth of the condusion, Thus, the ualidity of its eomprehension 
of the othcr bcing intplies the valicHcy of the uery possibiKty of com- 

prchcnding that it undcrstands that othcr, thc validity of the posai- 
bihty [anif:ccdently| rcquiring thc po&sibility ilscir So f it is possiblc 
to comprehend that [the incorporcal bcing] undcrstands. chat othcr 
being; and to eomprehend chat it undcrstands that other being 116 
logicaHy implies that it eomprchcnds itscl£ ]ndce»d, comprchension 
of a problcin in hand reqtiires comprehen.sion of both the subject 
and whaT may hc prcdirated of it- 117 So., thc possibility of thc corn- 
prehciision thnt [ihe incorporeal beingj understantls that other being 

logically implics thc possibility for thc coinprclicnsion of itsclT. 

ThcrcAnre,. it has bccn cstablbihcd ihal cvcry incorporcal bcing 
may validly undcrstand itself; indced. it ncccssarily wi\] undcrstand 
ilseir, hecause its comprehetLsion ol' itsc]f consists in eitherr the* occur- 

rence [as a pracnra] of itselt or the occurrence [as a presetKc] of 

thc likcncss of it. But thc sctond altrmative would l«r ililsc 3 

of tbc impossibility of [thc incorjmrcal bcing^s] o^n likcncss occur- 

ring witliin it; the implication otherwisc bcing the joining togethcr 

liu The 1 MS HaE thc prubablc ccmtpiI r^udicrp u: . . w-a-ia c Hqqul ariEiahu ya^jit 

ilhslik al-ghajr yascab.i^) - ■ 

Oiher tc?iu^l inadwrt4Mi^ir$ mc: L: Va-ta^aqquL innahu//dhdik/yya ,! qfJ dhahk 

al-ghjayr ya.ila.lKim . . . H T: ^ra-ta^a^^ul aimahu ya^qi] dh^iJLk [— ] yas4aizini . . ." MS 
CarrctL ^ll^IIa: ^wa-ia^arj^ul aunahu [-■ j dhalik al-ghayr yaatalzim . . -'"" 

Ht RcfcrrLu.e ls to tbc distuRaon in thr IntroducCjory EssayT Cbaptcr 2 <m cspljina- 
tory statcmcnLs. 


of a doublc likcncss, which wonld bc impo£.siblc. So it is indicatcd 
that [the incorporeal being'$] eomprchcnsion [of itsclf] consiscs m 
ihe occunenoe [as a presence] of its own esscncc, and that its essence 

is constamly prcwnt and not abscnl fmm it. Thus, [an incorporral 

being] necessarily [and always] will understand itscir, and ncccssar- 

ily it will undrrstaiid all intclligibles othcr than itsclT. [This is] bĕcausc 

e\erythi»Lg valid to bc thc prcrogativc of an incoiporeal being nec- 

cssarily will hccome a realicy,. sincc potcndality MS I83a is a 
propcrty of matter, and is espccially a prcroejative of God Most High, 
for TTe is the Necessary Existem in ewry nespect. 

Addendum io the third andjourtk reasons in tke argume-nt/ar di®ine 


The latter two poinis [c, and d. in the argument that omniscicncc 
ii an attributc of God] 33e are approvcd by thc philasophcrs. whilc 
oiir author [Baydawi] has said thal Iwth ol" [hem require more con- 

(c.) In thc first of thc&c two lattcr rcasons.. [morc comidciration is 
rcquircd] bccausc 

1. wc [tslaham] do not grant that [God'&] csscncc is somcthing 

[always and immediately] present to HimselF, since one thing^ hcing 1 
present to anothcr thing rcquircs that there bc two things, and it is 

impossiblc for onc thing to bc twu things; anri [because] 

2- knowledge consiiis in the Torm 1 of a rhing being within thc 

'krLowcr*, but it ii> impossiblc for a thiiig to bc wilhin itsclf and for 
thc thing s s likcncss to hc withm it&clC 

Now even if ii he gramed that |Gnd| Ls. a hcing who has a coin- 

prehensive nridersiaTiding of Himself 3 nevert}ieless we do not grant 

that He has a a>nip.rt i bensi\T undcrslanding of the sourer. His being 
h source for anything- othcr than Himself would be an aLuibuic of 
adjunction, and a ccDmprchcnsi% r c tuidcrstanding of thc subjcct to bc 
dcscribed doea not lo^irally reqiji.3tr any knowledge of His attributc 

of adjunction. And e\^cn if it bc granted that [God] would havc a 

comprchensive iinderstandincf of that for wbkh Hc would bc thc 
sourcc withoLit any intcrmediary, 11 - 9 ncvcil]iclcss wc do not grant that 
Hc wou!d havc an undcrstanding of all c?dsdng things. Knowlcdgc 


MS Li^: l.e.g, thc third iind taurtJi [in scqucnre|. 

1W MS gl: This bnnjur thc First Eff«t [ai-nui r lii] al-u^yj], 

838 2 B section 2, c:hap 

of that Ibr which He is thc sourcc without any intermediary ,K) would 
not require knowlcdge of the wholc scrie* [of odsting things] all 
arrangcd Lq order and coming down froni Him, 

(d.) In thc secortd of thcse [two lattcr reasons in thc argumcnt for 
the nnmiscience of GodJ, ive [IslahaniJ do not grant that every in- 

corporeal being rnay bc undcrscood validly, beeause it k admissiblr 

that somc incorporcal bcing might be impossiblc to bc undcrstood; 

mriperi, thc essence of the Necessary Exktent 13 an incoiporeal being, 

sud it h irnpossihlc to be understoori, as you scc- Evcn if it should 

bc grantcd thai every incorporcal bcing rnay be undcratood validly h 
ncvcrthclcs5 wc wouJd not grant that what is valid to bc undcrstood. 

by itsclf would bc valid to bc undcrstood [whcn takcn] togcther with 

som-ething other than itself, becausc of the likelihood thai some of the 

incorporcal bcings miijht not be valid to bc understood [whcn takcn 

togcther with something ctsc. But if it shoulri be granted. that [that 

parricularj one 121 incotporeal bcing would be valid to he underscood 

[when taken] logclhcr with sornelhing dse, ncvcrlhck-ss we would not 

grant that il would bc valiri to bc understood [whcn takcn] togcthcr 
with all of chc rcmaining intclKgiblc objcets of undcrstanding. 
Atiri if that [latter premisc] should be granted, nevertheless we 

d not grant chat the validity of [the incorporea] being's] assocta- 
tion L 358 wiih anothcr irUdligiblo object would not be condi- 
tiona! upon its bcing in thc mind; indced., its a&sociadon with anothcr 

intclligiblc objccl would bc dillerent (roiii its associalion with a com- 

prchcnding agcnt. T 174 The iim [casc] would be an assonaiion 
of two cntiticE. inhcring within a substrate, while thc sccond [cascj 
wonlri hc Lhe association of a [singlej cnLiiy inheriug within the sub- 

.so il would be arinii.ssible for the validitv of thc tirst 123 to l>e 

coiiditional upon che second, 123 And if diai should be granted. nevei> 
thcle^ we would tiot graiu ihat everything valid co be the prcroga- 
tivc of an immatcrial ticing woiild ncccssarily occur in actuaLty; and 
we do noc granc that poienriality is one of the propcrties of matter. 

™ Varyinj5 form5 of ihc noun. are in chc [Cxte: L: [wasai]; MS: [wanjfl; T srwl 
MS Gamtl 939Hai twaa|uh]. 

111 MS rI: Whai » me&m ^ere fcy "'one 1 " 1 L^-^'^ minij ^ th% lilajy nrjne, ht-i^u^- 

al wOLild not Xx va1irt fi>r connppeh^tiiinn tn bc- Mili any nth<:r. 

m MS gl: Le., aWlute sasoci&tLojn- 

,fl MS gl: l-e.* sworialLms wiihin ihr mind. 


Yuu should undcr&Land that diesc laikT two arguments vve have 
sct forth in thc commcntary MS I83b havc bccn shielded from 
most ol the [hostile] rea&oning. 

Rayd<iwi Baid: 

L 358, T 174 

An argument ai iwianee 

An argumcnt has bccn set Ebrih in the points that follow by an oppo- 

ncnt [of God 3 s evcr-j>rcsent omnisriencc] , 

a. lf [Godj should undcrsland comprchcnsivcly some onc concrcte 
enrity, then He would undcrstand Himsclf, because Hc undcrstands 
that He has comprcherided i(- But this would be impossible hccause 
of thc impossibilhy for a rcladonship to oocur bctween a lhins> and 
itsclT^ and fbr a thhig to occur within itscl£ Morcovcr s it is contra- 

dicted by the fact tbirt man does form a cnnccption of himsclT. 

a.-a. Thc answcr [to thk point] is that [God*s| ol 

llimself is an attributc subsi-Sting in Himsclf and having a spccial 
Itnkage to Him$elf. 

b. [GocTs] knowledgc does not constitutc His esscncc. a_s wc shall 
sct forch- Ii i.s an attribute suhsisting in His csscncc, and concomi- 

tant to it. ThuSj His. essence is at once both a [passivc] acceptor [of 

action] and an [attive] agcnt [of action]. 

b, - a. The rcsponsc to this point has alrcady bccn givcn. 

c. If knowledge should be an aitribute of pertection, then [GodJ 

Most High, as charactcrizcd by this attributc, would t*c impcriccl in 
Hinisdl^ but would hc made p€rfcci on account of somcthing other 
thiin Himseir. But if [kiKiwledgi*] shonld not be p-e. ? an attribute ol" 
pcrfec:iimj] T theii its remov^l fkr fion] [God] would be implied, by 

consensunJ 8 * 

c.-a. The mponse [to this pointj is that thc pedcction [of knuwl- 
cdgcj \s due to ib bcing an iittributc of His cs&cncc; not that thc pcr- 
feclion of HU es-sen-c^ is duc to His l>:ing characterbwd by [knowlcd^e|. 


Baydatti^s sccorui acird third poLcitSi in ihr *cip|Kjnerif s arj^urrwrnl' ™]"n"Spw[id 

10 (h* iwc poirits of L uljJL a -L _ Lion' in Ruri^s disuussiGHr Crp, cit 5 p . 1 R6 S liilts 6 arid 10, 

K40 2, SECTION i2, CIIA1 V I1£K I 

Mahaiu says: 

L358, T 174, MS LK3b 

An argummt at rariance 


The argument oCan opponentj™ chat is 7 onc dcnying the lact ihat 
[G-cxlj Mcwt High is orniiiscient, is sci fi>rth hcrc in ihrer points. 
a. [CjodJ Most High dncs not have comprKhensive imdcrstanding 

of any single enrity, bccausc if Hc had had a comprebensiyc undcr- 
standmg yf sotnc onc etirity, ih™ he woidd h*ve unck-rctood Hittisclf. 
But this concluuion is Ikt&c, scj ihe prcinisc is likcwisc. To cxplain 
thc logic uscd hcrc it is. that if [God] had undcr&tood comprchen- 
sivcly sonie one encity t tben Hc woiild havc understood chat He 
understands ihat thing sts a potcntiality closc lo actualiiy, 137 as pre- 

scntcd carlicr; and intluded in that [undcrstanding] would bc His 

unclentanding of Himse1f. As fbr the falsity of the conriusibtt, tliat 

is bccausc comprchcnsivc imdenrtanding is no morc than cithcr 

L an adjuncti\T rclationship bclwccn a comprchcnding agcnt 

and an intclligible object of undcrsLanding, or 

2- the occunence of the form of thc intelligible within tlie cnia- 

prehending agerit, Whichcver it may be, it woukl hv impossible for 

ihe eiiiiiy to undeisland itsdl": this is. true iu ih« ihsi opiicm brcauso 

of dic impossibility for a rclationsliip lo occur betwccn a thing and 
itscl£ sincc rclation&hip requircs. thcrc bc somc distinction bctween 

the twu things relatcd; and it is iruc in the seoond option bctausc 
of thc impossihility ibr a thing to occur within itscH. This point is 
contradictcd hy thc lact that a man docs form a conccption of liim- 

wlf_ If the prpof ontlined wcrc valid. thcn it woukl imply ihat no 
concrete entity wonld cver undcraiand itself; but this conclusion is 

false ? because indeed a man does Form a conception of himselT. 


MS ^: From cjiic of lhf aiK-ent p-iilcK^phcrR. 

VJ * L Bud 1": '[aUnaij li-amiahi]|; i-lS: faJ-nafi hi-annahu]^ and MS GarrECt 4H!)Ha: 
|ai-naJT annahu]. 

J2? MS und Tr gl: Le^ tht implioLuj» is rwJl lliaL whorvpr knowy a thinp mD 

then kur>vv ihin hc is & knovra uf iu ^td rh;*c otherwbig^ ihe lsncwtedge of ouc chinj; 

wnnLd impLy kncvwLcd^r flf th^ kiiowL^igc: lxF dhac thing, arid ao on, ai char ch^ 
knrjwlcdgt of cmc thing would inipty krtCii^Ledge rjif lIilhju^ without cnd, for this 
would M be impossiblc- Ruthcr, the implLaniuti is ihAC ii bs pyssible For Him. to 

kitow lliat Hc is « knOwĕr, aciJ dLrre is n&Lhirig ■uLjs^.ure about \Im fatl. \\T-ioevcr 

kncrws m ching « >m mwieirscatid chat he it, [*nd tltl^J by itibererLi necewity. 

And if tbc p^ssibiliiy shoukii Ijc LrtipJ^it, rh^n the chim would Ik- ^sLabli^iedi indeed f 
Lhe po^sibllicy of wn impyssibiLiiy ls m impossthility. [Fix>m (he .S5rf?ft T^rir.] 


a.-a. Our answer to thLs point is thal [GodJ Mosl High^s koowl- 
edj;e of Hi& Es^cncp is. an attiibute subsistiug in His csscncc: and hav- 
int; a specml linkage with His essence, and this logically rcquires that 
ihrrc lx! a distinction bctwetn His knuwlcdgu and His essence. 128 So 
from ihe fact that [God] undcrsit*ntb His esscncc it cHtmot be irilcrml 
that a relationship has occurrcd bctwccn a concretc cntity and itsclf, 

ot thal ti concrclc cntity has occuiTcd within itsdl. "The iruth i& that 
[Ciod^sJ kjiowlcdgc of His csscncc is thc samc as His csscncc s L 
359 and [takrn together], the knowledg^ thc Knower and the intet- 
Ijgihle objcct known are [allj one iti telatjon to (CrodJ Most High T s 

knowledgt of His «sciioe, The distinctiun [among them) l* a mat- 

tcr of Logical considcratlun, as wc will show. 

b. [God\J knowlcdge docs not constitute 1 ^ Iliii esacncc. as wc will 
jet forfh. [CrodJ Mosi High^s knowledgc i* an acrrihute suhsisting IM 

in His essence and concoimtant lo it^ thus Ilis essenoe is both "accep- 

tor host' and u sponsoring agcnt'* 

b.-a, Our answer to chis point has been gwen, 1 * 1 and it Ls that 
tliere is uolhing to proliibit His esscncc iruni being both the s-pon- 

soring iigcnl and the acccplor host. 

c. [Godj Most lligh docs not havc comprchcnsi% r c under&tanding, 

because knowledge either is an attribute of perfcctioil s Or ii is not 
an attribute of pertection; whii"hever [of thesej it is, |Eiod| cannot 
possibly havc it as an attribute, [TTiis wuuld br so] in the first alier- 

nativc becausc if knowtcdgc should bc an attributc of pcricctionj 

then [God] Most High, as being characteri^ed by it* would bc impcr- 
Pect Sn Himscir, but would be 'niadc pcriect' by someihtng el*e, 


MS g|: "Iiiisi r«|iiin?s cmskln^uuu! bci a auMr "'kcHwkilge 1 , o^y^lL) 1 -whriiicr it 
is -±n airril>uie sub44S(ing in [Ho6\ M«st H Lgti > e^sence or nor n n:quirfj% LhaT a «111- 
cret^ t:jitiry [a* m o-bjccij rn-jst diA^r fsrr>riri [Ok knowlcdg^J ir.sclC bccausc ihc.rc. t& 
2. rrladon&hip [bciwccn ihc iwu), ^.nd Lh^rc js jiu doubt ai aJI diat dua rcJationahLp 
R*quireR thaT rhe^ cwr> rhings in ihr: ic:LdLionship l.-r iiilTi-r«:]j( Lrrnn onr .jnodicr. Thu& 
thc- Lntdlcclual awaiT-iicM of thc Crcalor Most IHgh of irimsdrcori^liLutcs lh<: n^> 
•i^ary cay§e for boih |hc kni>wnng agcnt and ihc iiiiclLipWc objccc of knfrtvLcdgc. 

LM Thc MS alnnc arida fc, is ic^iiLical to 4h (nr 3 Nl is ihe vny samc 11 ) fayn]. L, T and 
MS Garrcti SrtOlla do iwt 

LMl MS gl; That LEi fil ]?] an a.ttribuU? addidonaJ to Hb nsjtl-es-yeJlte as a p^jsii- 
h]p rra]iry arnl having nwd of [His r^al-eisenc^]. It has an cilcctivi L caua: uiiir.tL 
"is nonr csthcr th-iii die rcal-csscnce of thc Crtator Most High. 'ITiuik |tj«d] is bolh 

tht ajLiK a -e a^cnt Jof dic knowJcrij^'! iLrnd its [passivr] SLcccpicir u( ihe siimc tirrii" 

[Iii'i3an w^-qab]laii Lahu rru* c an]_ 

111 MS gl; ln ihc iwpk oti causc iuid <. L fi™ts [Bc»ot 1, Scclion l ? ChnpLt"! £\ 

Topic 4j. 

842 2, SECTION 2, CHAPl "liR J 

namely^, knowledge the attributc of perlcction; but this would b* 

Lrnpossible. [And it would be so in the second ahernatHe becau&e] 

if knowlcdgc sbould not bt an attribute of prrfec(ion thcn its rcmoval 
(ar from [GodJ would be implicd* by conscnsus a bccausc He. the 

Most High could not be chararterr/ed by MS 1B4m a 

c — a, Our answcr [to this poim of thc opponcnE's arguincnt] is m 
that knowlcdgc is an attributc of pcrijcction, and thc Onc charac- 

terized by h cannot possibly bc detident in Himself while betng periect by someching ehe. The jwrfection of this attribute 
derives from its being an attribute of [God's] cssenoe, not that this 
attributc [itsclt] constitutcs thc pcricriion of [God 3 s] csscncc in that 
Hc thc Most High is charactcri&cd by it! 

Bavdawi saSd: 

L 359, T 1 74 

Comlhry 1; G#d cmprehendi alt intdiigihkt 

Thcrc arc two corollarics [to the doclrittc of GckTs krinwlcdgc], thc 
tirst bcing that Hc thc Most High knows all thc intclligiblcs just as 
rhry are, bccausc thc Causc of His oinnisckncc is Himscll', 
and the relacionship of HimscK to thc uniucrsc [of intclligihlesj is on 

;ni equality [wilh eacli]. So, whcn Hc madc it a duiy for Himself 

to know a portion [of thcm},, He [also] nriade it His duty to know 
all rhe s 

An nlij^. linn has been raised that [God] knows paiiiculars oniy 
in a gcneral way 3 bccausc if He shoutd know them in dctail, then 
whcn thcre was a changc of an intclligible [object] there wouid bc 
an impiication cithcr of [His] ignorancc [of thc intcliigiblc] or of a 

change m His attrihute& 

[In reply], we hokl ihat ihe adjunctJon and the hnkage [of fact] 
would changc» but not thc knuwledge [cis a siructurcj. 

Anothcr objcction has bccn raiscd that |lJod| docs noi know any- 

thiiig that is unlirriitcd [in nature] 

a. bccausc [anythin^ uniimitcd] would not Ijc somctiiing distin- 
guishablc. buc an intclligiblc is disringuishablc. and 

111 I. HM ;ij anrt MS g 1 - Ih e vcrifKatiion oT thk b chat if thc allribul^ nf ^r. 
fcrj]on shoulct be a prortum |u&ihi'ahj o[ ihc cA^encc, thcn that wouJd hi* m ulii- 
matc: p<!rfcfu™ o( thc. «s^ncCj and thcrc- muld bc dcEiciency only ifit [thc actrihute] 
should hr. a prnduel of somethhng cstrancouH. 


b. bccausc [anything unlimited] implics [structurcs] of knawlcdgr 
without cnd, 

[In reply]» wc hoJd that [thc category of the] intelligible would 

includc cvcry singlc [kind and cxamplc] b and th»t thc knowlcdgc [as 

structurc] subsisdng in His essencc is a .singlc attributc, whilc thc 
quality of being unliinited would be in the adjunction linkage and 

tn tlic matcnal that is linkcd. 

IsJkhani says: 

L 359, T 174, MS 184a 

Cumilnrp 1: GW comprehmds alt intettigihles 

[Raydawi] set ibrth two corollarira to the doctrinc that God Most 
High is oinniscient, the iirst bcing that He comprchends all thc 
intdligibks m jusi as thcy anc- 1J * [This is so) because the necessary 

tausc thr His omniscience is His. essence, atid the rclation&hip of Hi* 
esseuce tu the universe of imdligiblcs h on an equalily [with eaeh 
iuteJligibk]. So when Hc made it a duiy fbr Hi^ esscnce to know a 
portion [oi thc intclligiblcs] Hc madc it His duty [also] to know all 
thc rcst. [This isj hccause il" His omniscicncc should bc spcciiic to 
onc portion anci not anorher, thcn His essencc — comprehcnding only 
one portion aml not another — would need a specilying agt*ni ? whicb 

is iinpoysible. 

a. An objcction has bccn raiscd that somconc might ask whcthcr 

you know by uituilion thai ihe specifying agcnt in this case would 
be an ]mpossibiJity s or by s-omc proof. If you should say that it is 

by intuitiong, thcn you will havc actcd prcsumptuously, and if you 

say thal it is by a prool" then whcrc is thc proof? The vcry most 
on thc subjcct thal you can say ia,, "I do not know whcthcr it is 

admissihle or impossible to aRIrm the certainty of a 3pecifying agent." 

a,-a. [To answen we hold that] the iruth is thai He the Most 

High knows both uniyersals and particulars, thc uLiivcrsals in a gcn- 
cral manner, L 360 and the particulars in a detailed manner^ a.^ 

we will show, 

!M Oloas in L 359:3 and rhe MSc Thar Ssl [H#: cniinprerh^TidsJ all cnncciyKcl nockma 
tha.t arc intelli^iblr, ihosc possiblc, cho&c nLX*fHary, ancl thmr. impo^blc-. Kcici^lcd^r 
: ,s <\ morc gtncral catcgor) 1 thaji powcr, for it ckiib spmtk-Lilly w\\U rciilitics possi* 
blc, Asidu Tru-rn neccsjddes and impossibtlidcs. |Frorn tiic Skarh Tinynr,] 

134 L Atid MS ■?); TliAt is, actordiiijy; La whclhcr llicy iire psuticulun or unK^ 

844 2 P SEcrnoM -z. ■chajte.k i 

b. Anothtr objection raised 3s to the eJTect that [God] kntws par- 

tieulars mcrely in a gencral way; i,c M IIc knows thc parriculars just 
as He knows ihe iimver.5afe i In other words, Hc knows T 175 
thesr particuliiro, inasmuch as thcy are natures ihat hav« been 
abstractcd froni thc specific propcrlics whcrcin they lw ncccssarily 
cxist due to thcir cause&, — in such a way that His pcrccption [of 
thr m], 1M althoti^h a gen^ral ptrrception, h one of aure coiwiction 
and tiot mcre suppositinrL [Moroovet\ He knows thrae particulars] 
iis bcing rclatcd to a source whosL 1 ^pociHc tia t ure ~ j ' e*xi$Uj in ari 
vidual of its own kind, That is not to say thal it doe& not csrist in 
any other than that (particularj mdiyidual, but rathcr that it would 

be adcnissibJe for it to exist \n some other onc. What is meant™ is 

that thosc particulars necessarily have existence only through their 
[«condaryj cau^es Irom whence they aJso have thcir natures. Then 
thos* 1 particulsArs are 4pedficaUy quali£icd by ihe nalure of that source, 
as [thry arc] in ihc casc of a parrial cclipse. 

Indccd, thc occurrencc of Lhis [phcnomctioii] irtight be undcr- 
.stood aa being duc to a caii&c haring govcmancc ovcr its particular 

cau^es as wcll as over ihc inteHect's awareness- of them and |whai- 

evcr Tniiy bcj ihrir Itnka^t?,. rn tli-e sarne irtanner tluu [GndJ undeir- 

stands pariiculairs. That [kind of piTccptionj woukl bc soincthing 
other than thc [narrow] pLTCcption of thcir dclails and rimcs, a pcr- 

ception thai detennines thac [ijie eclipse] has occuncd just now T or 

just bclbrc or aftcr. Rathcr 3 [thc wider pcrccption] woutd }>c as whcn 
it would bc undcrstood that a parrial cclipsc MS 184b would bc 
displayed whcn thc moon should risc but bc only partly \isiblc at a 
ccrtain timc a or bc only partly vuiblc in a ccrtain conhj^uration- 

Then maybe ihat eclipse would occur, but dic one who had under- 

standing of thc matter at the onlset 13 * would not be aware cither of 

its occurrcncc or ite nonoccurrcncc. c\"cn though he had bccn awarc 
of it in the sarlicr sense [Le,, of prcdirting it|. This jlatter sense] 

would bc anothcr [kind of J perLrplio-u, a particular onc (hat occura 

'^* The MS alcpne suppliTrieiitylly »dd^ hcrr, "Kiyy/' 
lw Glu^A iti MS Giamreil DBDHst: l.e. h perteptLiyn of the pArciculars. 
IJ3 MS gl: l.e r , iis %&Kt<L\ jutiine » m ^cui^ whicK cati bc prcseni in soinr ]>ar- 
cicii-lar irilm* \\m\ thal om. 

Ifl MS .gi: £■£-> what ss mranr by thc relarionship [of lHp paitirwlarsj to ch^ir 

own spcdrtc naturc. 

m Tliis bdaig tbc CMic with knowl^dge of an rclipsc and les causrs. 


simLiltaiieijij3iIy with ihe acrLirrence nf thi 5 : ohjcct of perception, and 

ceases when it ceasft». 

H(jwcvcr.j that Ibrmcr [kind of] pcrccption would bc a fixcd ccr- 
tainty for all timc, cvcn though it would bc thc kiiowlcdgc of a par- 
ticular.. That [kmd of pcrccprion] is when a person of comprchcnsion 

would under^tand that bctween thc moon's position when beginning 

it& conjiinclioti with [Aries] the Ram, for inntanct^ and its posicion 
when «iding its conjunctinn wi«h [Ari-ps] the Rarn there wouLd be 

a speciHc ecLipsc at a spectlic lime; thc elapsrd periml Troni its posi- 

lioti whtu bcgimting its cunjurictioii with ihc Rairi would be thc 
sarnc as thc timc thal thc moon normally is within [thc conjunc- 
tionj,"* 10 and it is tcn dcgrees Ironi thc beginni ng of its conjunction 
with [Ari™] rhe Ram. Indeed, the comprehcnsion of a person who 

undersiitnds theae Uiiiigs would bc a matter of ccrtaiiUy precediiig 

thc timc of thc cclip^e, during it, and after it. 

[As a summaryj, the [opponent's] argument, supporting the propo- 

sition that |'God] Most High docs not know particulars in a deiailed 
manncr and in a wny that changcs with thc changing of thcir par- 
ticulars, is to thc cttcct that if Ik should know the partjculars in a 
dctailcd manncr» as for instancc, Lf He should know that Zayd was 

in the house at a given morociU, then when the knowii lact changed, 
ihat is. wlien Zayd wuuld havc left thc huuse, thcn cidier [His] igno- 
rance [of this changcj or a -changc in His attribuics would bc implied. 
[This is soj becausc, if His fim kiiowledge jhould rcmain aa it was, 
then [His] iguoranee [of the chHtige] would be itnplied, but if His 
first knowlcdgc should not rcmain as it was thcn a changc in His 

uttributc!» would bc implicd. 

b-a, In answcr to this [rcasoning by thc opponcnts] our author 
statej; that \ve do not grant that whnn tJic known fact changes and 

if His first [fac[u-a]J knowledge should not change thcn [His] igno- 

rancc would bc implicd. That would bc implicd only if thc adjunc- 
lion and the iinkagc [of fact( should noi rhan^Cj not thc knowlcdgc 

itself. L 361 Buc this would bc: impossiblc, 1411 foi the fact is that 


Tla^ MS inscrts marginallyr "to travrrrsc. lh 

41 MS gl: Hl; mcacLs ihat cliangc^ ui Hlm 15 n<H ins^Li^:d 3 bul rathcr chc chaiiq;c 
15 only in ihc adjunctive rcLatimiship&. bccauac in our vicw th^ic js cichcr a spcciAc 
adji]nct]ve rrialjonshii) or a n:aJ attnbutc pos&casuig an adj^ncth^c irLatiomhip. Icl 
ihc tirst altcmatiw the knowlcdpc ]tsdf changcs, and m thc sccond Ocrtly i4s adjimc- 
Ilw rriationship chanRus. On both sLippositions thc changc is not implicd irl acl 

€'3uslent aUribiitc fi,c s . *jmi that is iLscll' thc scau of aci attributcl but in si>niei}Ling 
wfll ui]di j HLfHid tis a bij^cid ^jmsideriitKiTi, which is iidmissihlc. 

846 a, section a. ciiapter I 

when thc known fact changcs ttocn thc adjuncliun and thc linkagc 
|of taci| do change, but the [tocal] knowlcdge [as a structun?] does 

not change, It being ihe genuitie at(ribuie r Thus thcre woidd be no 

implicatioi] rith-cr of [Hisj igiioraricc Or of any changc in Hi^ attrib- 
utcs» Rather, thc changc is in chc attribute ? s adjunction and its link- 

age [to a particuiar], and in ihat there is no impos»ibi]ity, Indecd, 
change m the adjunctions is an aciunl occ u rre t ice s for wlule God 
Most Higti was in raMence bcfore every tcmporal phenomenon, Hc 

thcrcupon bccomcs contemporary with it, and thcn IIc cxist& aftcr 
it: and the change in the adjunctions causes no changc in Himseli; 

Likewise herCj His being the ktiower of the known fact constitutes 

an adjunction bccwcen Hi^ own krsowlcdgc [as a structurc] and that 
intcUigihie iact, so whcn thc intelligiblc laci changcs only that adjunc- 
lion will chyiLgr. MS IBSa 

c. An objcction has bccn raiscd [which includcs also objcctions 
d„) and c.)], 1 * 3 to thc cflcct that knowlcdgc consists in ihc actual prcs- 
cncc of a condnuing tbrm that has. the rcquiremcnt chat it be in 
adjunction ymith its intclligible objcct ? 143 and [the ihrm] changes with 

the change of thc inteUigiblo objcct, Thus the knowlcdge [hat is held 

by somconc who knows that Zayd is in thc houac will undcrgo 
changc whcn hc lcavcs thc housc; because thc knowlcdgc hcld prc- 
supposcs an adjunccinn with its particular known fact ? and it will 

not heconie linkcd wiih aiiy known fact otlier than thai one via the 

[samcj lirsi liukagc Somcone may knuw that a givcn thing is not 

existcm, bnl whcn thc thing comcs into bcing thcn that pcrson comcs 

to know that thc thing actually h whatcver it iu. 144 "llius the adjunc- 

tion and ihe adjoined attribute would changc at the same time. 


MS gloBsesE 1. "Hiis <Jjjt'LUi>ji is [hy] Ahii al-Hasa« aJ-BAsri.. 2. Anoriicr crf>j«> 
tioti (cf,) i^ (Jsai foi" its reaJ ?acc to hr -i Hiiun» oocunviwe h diAerenc frorn ii^ ivaf 
lact btinK u past occurrucLoe, so a ktio-wlcd^c of llus [hner] ca^- ^ouLd bc ditTcrem 

tkiin a kJsrH^ii-Jge of i>w.t [ibinierj case; mclwd, ih-e diltcicnce Jji ni Itnkcd ettuty 

li>gi* _ jil]y r^tjjuires n «jillewnre ii^ Thi* kjnwk-dgc [rhat *"Qcnprr:h*ndfl] ihcnn boih. 

Anothcr obj-ctTion (c-J [liere] is [xhe fact] (hjic the condaaon for ihc kiir^wLedge 
of a Ip3£t| c\icnt is that its orcurrcncc Was silready Uikcii placc, and (ht 1 ctmdition. 
for thc knowiedii;^ f>f un t^m rhat wiLl yz\ iwcur is (he T^k of irs rKrumincri? [in 
llic psrcsctnj, so if [thc jwatter] wrrc ?n br- [retbrmiiLicrc! inro| onc [sratrnimtjK ihriT 
would hc no diffcrcTicc brcwccn tlw coiidiriori En-r cach [part]. 

MS In L and T lii^ L^"<j no-uns arc dcfiniLc and havc thc pronomuial sulTbces. 
"it^j in thc MS boLh ncmns arr dcSnitr »nd thc Maflix is c*n thc fir>-L nmiii ocily, 
wEiUc in \IS Garrcll 989Hu both noacis arc irtdi^niu and ^ithnut sij^ri^ts, 

M The tcxt£ dificr and Hpptat to bc comip^d on iliia terrn, L 361:3 4i|>pt4ir3 t-u 

n:ad [ayisa. 3 ]; T 175:24 rc»ds [LuysiAJL MS Gnrrult *J89Ha rc%ds "aci cjusLcAt" [maw- 


Indt-tnl wh«j.i ;;i krit>vvn kii;ows ;l c:c*r:.iii: rhinti; ihĕ ^diurirEinn j:h 

spcciiic tc> itj so thal if hc wcrc to know oniy in a griicral scnsc, 145. 

tlien that [knowlcdgej would not bc sufficicnt for him ta know a 
particularJ* 6 Rathcr., the rcsulting knowlcdgc woukl be ncw knowl- 
edge rcquiring For jcseH" a new adjunction and structure ibr itself p*e-> 
kiiowlcdge as struuturt] newly made fbr it s a ncw and specific adjunc- 
tion 3 diiTcrent from both the Jmowledge in the preceding situation 
and the [fbrmerj structure by which it was realized, Thus, if thc 
state of the knuwn inielligiljlr object shouki vary either fnorn the 
asrpect of [its] noncsistcncc cr «d&tcnec., thcn thc state of thc knower 

thc knowlcdgc must aUo vary, not only in thc adjunclion 
with the knowledge iLseli", bur |«iimuhatierKJsly] in it and in the knowi- 

edge [structurej to whiclt ihat ndjurir lnii is contomitant, 

Bui Lruly» [Cod] docs know particulars in a dctailcd miinncr s as 
wc will show. 

f, Objection lias becri raisrd that [GudJ Most High does not know 
whau:ver is untimited [in naturc], [This isj bccausc 

1. the ujilmiitcd wouid not bc distinjjpjiiihablcj* 7 whilc cvEry 
intelligiblc is di&Linguishiihlc^ so somcthing unlimitcd would not bc 
an inrcHigible object; then iore the Creator Mosi High does not know 

whatcYcr is unlimued in naiurc, olherwise tiie ucdimiied would be 

iiiteJUgiblc, which h cuntniry to thc hypothcsis. tiLiihcr, [it is] bccausc 

2. if [GodJ wcrc to know what is unlimited in nature thcn Hc 

would have lcnowlcdge [struuures] without limit&, 

£~a,h [Tn answcr to this rcasoning of thc opponcnt&n wc [IsiahaniJ 
say that] the ccmclu&ion is falsC; and thc prcmisc h likcwisc. To 
cxpiain thc inhercuL logic hcre, it is thac thc knowlcdgc hcld ofcach 
intelligiblc dillers from ihe knowledge ol" anythan^ else, t.iecause it 
wouid t>e posKible for one thing to be an intelhgible and something 
difreient not to bc an lntclligiblc. So s if thc intclligiblc objccts of 
knowlcdgc ^hould bc unlimitcd |in numbcr], thcn thc knowiedgc 

[structurcs] woutd also be unlimitcd [in number]. As for the ial-sity 

jud] b pro^idin^ chc &cnst' of thc contcxt. Thc MS rcada [aysJiuj. aiid has this mar^ 

girLil glossLi ! Lr.. whue^cr thmg k W [ayyu shayin huwi], a toLloquial conu^iiiori. 


A*., dic quiddity of m.ankincl. 

M As,. ihc quLddjty of Zayd. 

UI MS gl: Or.licmiisc, it would havr a dcliniicatioii and a boundajy r b\ r which il 
wcinld L«" dbatinKuisshablc arid diviHblc from othn^ und if it shoukl haw a hoimd- 
Ary ib^rt il wou]d hv sorncthiiis; unlimLtcd; boit this is contraiy to thc aj"RumcnL. 

S48 2, SEtlTEON 5, GHAITTlK I 

of thc oonclusion, that is becausc it implies that diere would bc 

within thc knowcr an unlimitcd [quauitity] of cxisicnt things, which 
would bc impossiblc. 

£-a.2. jBaydawT&J answer to the first [part of tlii.s ohjcctionj is that 

[lie intelligible ihat is known would includc each one orthcse [exam- 

plcsj,, and cach onc of thcrn would bc distinguishablc. MS 183b 
and cach onc would bc unlimitcd. To the second [part of the objcc- 
tion| [liaydawi] answcrcd that thc knowiedgc subskting in the cs^tice 

of [GodJ Most High L 362 is a single artrihuie, bm its adjunt- 

tion linkages arc unlimited [in number], and so likewise are its litiked 

matcrials^ and it is adrnissihlc for an unlhnited [quantity] to cxist in 

boch the [categortes- of ] adjunction Hnkage and [inked maiertal r 

g. A counterobjection has bcen raised against [Baydawi's] lirst 

answer to the cfJirc:l that |in itj thc claim is that God Most High 
knows the unlimited; thus the unlimilcd would \)c. an mtdtigible 
ohJRCl, and eveary T 176 inwHigihle nbjcrt wttuld he soTTEHhing 

distingui-shable, *u lhen ? the imliitihed. wuuld Ik: stimething distin- 

guishahlc. Bul lu graut that cverything di^tirigiibhahlc would bc lim- 

itcd would imp]y diat 'somcthing unlimitcd* would bc 

limilcd\ A corrcction [to this- point] would be that the major prcmisc 

should be rejected, as the limiied and the unlimited 1 * 11 are iwo 

[different] intelligibles.. but the limitation of the unlimited cannot bc 

iuferred from that fact 

h. Another counterobjection might be raised against [Baydawi'sJ 
sccond answer [i.c^ to part 2 of thc objrction] to the eflect that the 

knowledge of each thing would be diAerem ftom thc knowkdgc of 

anythin^; clsc> and thcrcforc. thc knowlcdgc mbsisring in [God] 
J J imscir would not hc [merelyj a sin^lc attributc. 

Baydrtwi said; 

L362. T 176 

Corolkup 2: God's 'knowkdge 9 <md *poim' tm entiii^ distiwtjhm His tsmct 

r dr [God] Mwt High ia ornTji&cicTU with a % know]cdgc : that is botli 
1. distincl from His csscucc, [thia statrmcntj bcing at variancc 
with thc majority of thc Mu'tazilah a and 

141 Thc MS hcrc condcnscs chc tcrnn "l]^]Lmitfd, ,,| wi?h a rdaiiyc promiuii [inna 
al-ntiilanahi iva-Erhayr.alm|. 


2. is not unitcd with [His «scncc^ this siaicnicnij being at vari- 

ancc with ih-e school ol" th« Peripiitctic phUaraphers. 34 * 

h. Kurtherj [the case] is Likcwisc with {C2od's] *omnipofeiice\ hi 

cnir [BriyJdLwi^s] \ir.w y it is intnihon ihnl muk^s the- cK&tirLCtiuii hclwmiL 

when we say t "[God] HimscH'"," and when wc say "[God] Himsdf 

i& 'rjmniacicnc 1 and fc omnipotcnt. a " 

c, Moreover, [God's] knowlrdge is either 

3. a special adjunciion, — this bcing what thc two [scholars] of 
rhc Jubba*i Pamily callcd the "onini&ciencc [of God]*, 151 — or 

4- it is an attribute that rerjuires iJnJs adjunrcion — this being 

thc doccrine of most of our [Asha c irahJ colleagues™' — OT 

111 [aI-Maah%hA*ftii| ur | aI - M ash>h£*iyfin ) . 

,w LLtrralLy: "llk csKnce 14 [rthatuhu]. 

111 With rcgajd to God\ kiwjwltdgc the <ditfiiiKlive irnu ['aluriyah] sccitis hrst 
traaislaled as ! *dLvin.c oirmistirncc" 1 , or ^omiLiseicnce [uf Ood]. M With regard to knuwl( , d[jf 5t would sccm bcsL Lo spru.k of ,l, |.hunian] kruawlfidg™b5lity. B 

m Kn-hard M, Frank expoundt rhe mauer oF "ihe Aicribute ot che Esseiice" 
(Chaprer X pp. 53 57) h logether wich "ihe Esseuiial Auribuces* (Chapter 4, pp. 

j& ff/l in. his book, Reings twd Ih&r AllribateE 7ht. Jtrai:jWg ^/A* Basrim School <*f tht 
Mti £ {&s m ilG wr fita Clasricat Iteitti [rSmdics in Uamic Philosophy aud Scicntcj- Alhany: 
Statc UiiLvrT5ity of Ncw York Pr«s, 197B]. His «rplanation coYcrs thc iwo prob- 
Iriils, wliy die "Knowlrdi^c of God" and thc "Pcrw^r oFGod" arc dirtimilly thJTercnl 

ftom Clod I limseir, aiid why ihcy are diircrrnt From God's ^Ornni^denoe 1 and His 

Frank wi-iics; """An *es8eiice7ihiii^ii»vlf (dhai) is liiidt uf whk-h pnedicaiiim ist made; 

[r ks noc sairi ol anyrhing else" \fip- c i t ■ , p. 53)- Ail-H TuTih^r, <,s |li^ es^ili*! airiib- 

utcs iK cL&lLiigui&hcd as ttuw that beLong to a ihing *by wtLic <if thc way it is in 
itscLP '; thcy arc- not thc-n;isdlvc5 fc chc wav chc ching is tn ttsdf " but cnanifc£C chc 
etseiKe/ching-itKlf as it ls in itsrlT" (op. rit. p. 58). 

Al^u H^ttim al-Jubbii a i tau^ic lLwc chc cs&cncc of an ccttity caii b<- icidkmcd cmJy 
as thc cniily'5 bcLrig it*wlF; ihat ls, [he enlily in c|u«9(ioii is iIk nHiLy iiwll'. Tlie 

fc a*cncc* canTioi be nsi-d ^.§ ^i prc<licaic ro indiaiie mmerihing ^he. Hui cemin ^ih^r 

thinga and qYiaJicics nctr^wirily iefer tr> ihr , ca*cnoc l - Thcmr. ;ime tht "eascncial attrtb- 
utf-s\ which ac ihis poinc in It;iydawi % s htn?k sirc ilhLttratjcd by du- fc knr>\iicc%c^ ajid 
■"pawcr 1 ' of God. Thcae arc 'ci^mial qualilLcs (altribut»j lk , Lf w^ are (o di&Liciguish 
LtLtcUigjcn.tly bctw^Tn our sa\irLg l% Qac] Himsdl"'\ ainl our saying w CJch] I limsclt has 
, ■knfJnA^etl5c , and 'powcr/ 1 * God (an csacncc) \s kno^TL hy ihcsc rsscntial quialLtLcs. 

Thcci;. whal kiad oF knosv]cdgc and powcr aji? mcant? Thc ItnnwlcdRc and poT\'cr 
mu*l be - chaIILCtcrizcd' , cnodiTicd by an adjcctLwj^ » thc tcnns 'onuiisrie-nl 1, and 

aje not chcmsclvcs. ihe 'knc^l-Jge 8 " and ■powcr"' wliLch thcy modify, just as "knowl- 
■cdKt* acid ^pj^^Tr' ^re not the ^rsscncc* oF GckJ, to whocci ihey are uLLnbulcd. Su, 

« disi^jice l«'ginK to bectirn-^ fvidmL Ijelwrm the *ewHrriCft' arwi Lhfi "pkshiiUiI atlrilj- 
utes 1 , anrt b^iwecn thc Vs«rrjii^l .iiuibna^ uud theLr "ciunrduatriasiJcs'. Thuip ^ise 
mcn struggJc to dewribc the resdiiy and wL^loin imo whose prevcnce rtiey oome 

and whach arc iilluinLL\aKd for ibem by llit- "ray* of L^wcdigjn o\«swainiiig," s 

B!)U l l r SHrilON 2, CHAPTEK I 

,1. it [nonsistt of ] the fonns lsa of the intelligrhles that *ubsisc 


a) iri thcmsdwSi thcsc buing thc Ttatonk idcals' [= Yanii5 T j> or 

b) in thc ca&cncc of [God] Most High,, this bciiig ihc doc- 

trme of most of the philosophci*. 

Whichever it is, [GckTs ktiowledge] is something othcr ihan Hi* 

tsscncc; and thc coiTuption of thc idca of L union' has bccn sct Ibrth 
already.* 54 

An urgwttmt uppuJmg tfte dwtnryr ikal Gvd*s knowkdgt and fmtw art 
distinci Jr&m kimsti/ 

L 362:12, T 176:8 

a. [Our opponcnts] argue thc (bllowing poinis. 

I. ri" [GorTs lcnowledgej should subsisr in His essence chen it 
would bt a requircment for His csscncc: &o. Hc would bc both a 
passive acceptor and an active agcnt [of the know!edge[ at the same 
tinie, which woukl bc irnpossihlc, 

l.-a, [Answer]: our poshion is thai the answer tu this puint 
has already been given. 


^a. 11" [God*s knowledgc] should be an attiibutc subsistintj in. 
His esscnce^ and should be an eternal phcnoraienon^ then thc ini- 

plication is that there would be a mukiplicity of eternal phennmena; 

but this doctrinc is hercsy, by the constiiisus [of scholHrs], [Tliey 

argwc] "Do you not scc that [Cod] Most High has rctkoncd thc 
Chiistians aj hcretics in their doctrinc of thc Trinity» which is their 
aflrirmarion of rhe three Hypostase^ namely, ^EKisteiicc 1 , : Knowledge' 
and xhe. *Living nattire'? Wbai ihen rio yoii ihiiik of thoaic who affirm 

ihc cxjsicncc of eighl or nine [clcmal phcnorncna] f thcrdby iinply- 

ing that thcrc is composition in Himsdf ";*" [This is bccausc God's 

knowlcdgc aa beingj an attributc would bc to ha\c a cornmonality 

in Hls eternity while being diAerentiat^d from Him by [the knowl- 
edgc*s] speciiic propert> r [of being an attribute]. 

2b. |And if Crod 1 ^ knowlcd^e shoutd bc an altribute subsLsling 

in His essence], and should be a temporaE phenomenon, then the 

iinpjicatioii is that tempora] phenomena subsisted in His essence. 

m L carrics a. mmll i:xirAtieoias spot of prinrsr'* Ltiik ovcr ihr k-iccr fsad] hu( th^ 

i'radi.Mg ia clcarty ,,: Eorim" [snwar]. 

3H ln BchiIl 2 3 $Kr,iion 1, Cliaptcr 2, Topic 3 a abovc. 
3W Bocsk l, Scrlion l, C cr rt. Topic 4, abovc. 


2.— a. Our answcr [to this rcasoning] ss that thc doetrinc of the 
'ctcrnity of cascnces* 15 * [is what] constitute* heresy, thi^. [doctrinc] 
being' entircly apart fram the doctrine of 'erernaJ attiibuc^ s\ 

Although the Christians have called [the 'hypostases'], which ihey 
afHrni to be certamlies, 'atiribulcs', siill thcir position is that these 

[hypostascs] arc csscnces in rcaliiy. Thcy say that thc Hypostasis of 

the e Word\ fby whiehj I mcAn 'knowlcdge 1 , transfcrrcd {UscH'] to 
(be body of Jesus } peace bc upun him;, and anything hayiug the free* 

dom to ino% r c about is an E csscncc\ 

rurthcrmorc* ctcrnity i& noncxistcntial in nature., so thcrc would 
be tio impliracion of composkion [henng present in etcrnity] from 

rhe comtnonalily in it [Le., of thc Word/knowLcdge with Jesus], 

3, God Most Highs l omniscicncc* and JHis 'omnipotcncc 1 are 
both ^neccssary^ swjg, tlicy would nol bc chc *<?ffect$* of [Ilis] 'knowl- 

edge 1 and *power\ 

3, a. Our answcr [to this rcasoningj i» that ihc h divinc omni- 
acicncc' is nctcssary tlirough the *divine knowlcd^c' bcing net:essary\ 
and this is duc lo Lhe requirenient of [(iod's] ^s.ssencc that it be so; 

it is not of itselTj. ho, any causatiun would be impossible. The case 

is- likewise wiih (hc *divinc omnipo(cTicc\ 

4. lf [God*s] 'ornniscicnce* and 'oninipatence* should bc fac- 
tors addcd fto His cascncej L 34)3 then. [it wnuld bc a case of] 
His having nccd for somethmj> cuber [than His essence] in order to 

% know* and to 'cxcrcisc powcr^ which would bc iinpossible- 

4-.-a. Our answcr [to thi&J is that the csscmrc of [GodJ Mnst 

IIJL\h has requited two attributei of neccsaajry causation for thc 
[ad)unctive] linkage^ of omniscieiice and |omiiipoient] creattvity. If 
this is what you [the oppo^iiig disputartt] mcan by c having noed\ 

wc do not grant that it would bc impossiblc.. but if you mcan somc- 
thing elsc^ thcn makc that clcar. 

{C 39b;l0) aiid MS (Sanrti 98SHb (f 29b;i2) liavr ihc'plural IdJiiwriii], as ii bs in 

th^ Ccuiuiu-ncairy' ai I, 3fif>, T 176, aciri MS 183^:7« 

852 2 : SECTION 2 T OHAITEK i 

Mahatii says: 

L 363, T 176, MS IS51> 

Comllaiy 2: God*s *biowledge* and *power* are enlitm distinctjhm iiis ess&ice 

[God] Most High is omnbdent with a ^knowledgc* that i-s 
a. distmct from His esseiice, 557 [this statemcrit] bcsng in contrast 

to thc [doctrinc of thc] mayority of thc Mu'tazilah, and that bs 

h. not unitrd with His es.wnce ? |this statement] being in coniras-t 

to the [docmne of ihe] Peripateuc philosophcrs, 1 ^ For their posiuon 

is that 'knowlcdge' is uiiited with the 'knower*. 

LikcwisCj |CjodJ is omnipotcnl with a *powcr* that is dislinct Iroin 

Knw oftht sc/wlars of religiun L 363:5, T 176:20 

Now F first c>f all let m t]arify each point of dissension^ and let us 

note what it is that each school is teaclung- [Herej you should undcr- 

siand that those of our [Ashalrah] collcagnes whu rejcct altHbiitc- 
statcs niake thc aasertion tliat [God 5 a] knowlcdgr itsclf is thc [di\inc] 
omniscicnc-c, and that [GocT&] powcr itself h the [droinc] omnipotence, 

and these two are aiiributes that are added to the cssence [of G<?d], 
Abu c Ali [MuhanunadJ al-Jubba*i [d. 303/915 9L(ij, and his son, 

Abu Hashim [ d Abd al-Salain aljubba*i, [1, 321/933], asacrted 

L that omniscicncc 1 and 'omnipotencc 1 arc both additiotis to 

thc cssence [of God], 

2. but thcy arc ncithcr cxistents nor noncxistenu; but rathcr 

3. ['omniscicncc 1 and "omnipotencc*] arc tw p o l cffccts* [produccd 
by Gnd^s] *knowicdgc' and 'powcr^ 

4. [the 'knowledge' and *power' themsclve&] are not additions 
to thc essence [of Godj. 

i\mong our |Aiha c irah| collcagucs s thc knowicdsrc and powcr arc 

both additions™ to the esscnce [of God], and both are eiristcim, 
Abu Hashim took ihr position ihat ihe [kiiowledge and powrr] 

arc somcwhat likr attributc-scatcs 3 but thc attributc-statc is not somr- 
thing that may be known [diractlyjj although che esscnce [of God] 
does. give knowlcdge of it- 

,Sfl MS gl: Mcanhin^ that it is ncrt idcnliciil to His ttecncc. 

,Sy L ^l ;Lbbreviat-ed in iht- MS: Le., tbost wbo Lcihrncd scicnCc and phiJrjmphy 
fir-rjm Ari5[ollc aior^ llic palhs^ lu-r AmLulle was iw:4."uSE<?cne^I l^ wnlkici^ 

lw L Arid T make ihe endiiiR teminiiie r&r "addici&rur 1 and masculine Ibr "esisi- 

■cnts.'* Hie M5 aod MS Garreci 989Ha make both cndbigs m^sculiut 

ESTAULI5HED A I "J K i Bl ■ li-S-, IHL UASIS \>Y L;UIJ"S ACT.S fjj3 

With us [of <be AshaMrah], [krwuledge and power] are intelli- 
gibles tn Ehcmseh-es, and Abu *Ali al-Jubba s i grams thal they are 


Oui lA.sha^irahl colkagues who ailirm die existence of thc attributc- 
scale. ussiTi thai ihr 'oiiumrirtuV oJGhk] Mosi High is ati attriljule 

produced by h t uusaJ factor subsisting in His c^scncc. and ihal causat 

factor h the [divine"f ^knowledge'. 

Tho$e of our [Ashalrah] colleagues. who leject auribute-stares 
MS I86a have not lakcn the po-iition that the 'o^^lntscience , is pro- 

duced by a causal tactor, namcly, thc fdivine] knowledge; but rather, 

thcy took the poainoii that thc [divinc | 'knowledgc* itscif is thc [divinc] 

'onini&cicnce*, hecau-se the evidence indicate-H nothing more than thc 
certainty ihat sonic cutilies arc additions to the essence [of God|, 

But as. tov thc third mal^c^ J ,f>l, thcrc is no proof for this at all, 

er in tho Observed Prcscnt 161 nor in tho Unsccn [CreatoTs. 
Authority]." 21 

Hk' [mam |l'';ikhr aiDin Razi| hdd that Vi<- rtwtrrK' nt Abu 
Hashim that thc attributc-state may not be known is absolutcly falsc. 
bccausc if something should be in<onccivable in itsclf then we can- 

not pos&ibly givc judgmetita] asscnt to iLk- .^sercion of its existence 

on anv other basis. 1 " 

[Nasir ai-Din TusiJ> author of thc Tatkhu said thai this requhrt^ 
considcration; 1 ** bcoause if 

lhf m^unig shoulil hr lli;i! whni a lljir.^ is inil inri- 

ccivablc as cxistin§j inttividualiy it is impo^iblc to givc judgrrLriiLal 
asscnt to t]ic assortion of its cxistcncc on any othcr basis, thcn that 

caimot \*e granted. | "Hjln is] bccause ^relationships 1 are not con- 
ccivahlfi as individiially, but as&ent can be given to ihe asser- 
tion of thcir eKjatencc by rnc^n^ of somc othcr t fc riiity B But if 

wl MS gl: I.C., [IkslIiJ ihe LwnjiiHc-i^nce acid cHnnipot^itrc (as licin^ cTTccts. pra- 
dnced by thc ciK-inc knnwlrdgc aiid pnw^r.J [Tl.iii h h^licvcd to br ihc full scnac 
of thc lacoiuc ijIdss. lakrn a_s rc^rrrin^ 10 thc poiints. Jistcd by Ahu r Ati and Abu 
Hashim al-Jubba a i. Ed.J 

IGI MS ^l; Niunclj^ urnong m^tLkiELiJ. 

m MS gl: KHime^', ihe Creator M&st Hi^Ju 

lt3 Tar Lbb sct IsfahaniR stciltrneiLt on thc pa^: prccediny herc. AlthouE*h Lhr 
stunc icrrrtiriokisy is nol in lhi p Aluhasmi tral of Rmzi ,, 5 discussHm ol" ilw- 'iUtrihurr* 

3.iiiitfi ? {pp, 60-64) ncr irt his cii5C«sa.on ^r "Gcnd-s kncwkMige'' [pp, 165 166;^ l.^lixhfti" 
has clrarly paTnphfA&e<l (hc p<isiiiona ol" RaKi and Abu H^liim Fri>m pp. 60^-61 as 
thc twpic opeiiK, 

IM lMfah;jni ;igiiliL paraphraHr.s f?orn "I "u.$i n (yn p. Cl Atvfl his rir^e* 1 anri !^). 

B54 2. SECTlON 2, CHAPTEK 1 

the meaning jhould b*; that sornething is not at < 1 1 1 con- 

rairablc, thcn jthc slnliTTiirit of thc Imani RaEi] would bc truc- 

Onc miist tindcrstand that it appcars fmm thc statcmcnt of Abu 
Ha.shim that the attributc-*taif may ru>c hc known in ttsclf, l€S5 although 

ihc cssence [of Godl does give knowledgc of it, and in tlial raar 

what thc Imam [Razi] said would bc truc 

Mwatf of the pAikstphers L 3fi3:22, T 176:34 

.% Lbr iho phslnaoph^r*, whilr they |.all| hdieve th;n 

Lwo beings would not emanate frum |,Jb [GodJ Most High 
bccausc of thc iact that Hc is a singlc rcality having no plurality 5n 

Him fmm any aspeci, and that 

He i.s iJicijhcr .? pa^nr iuurplor [;i& substrasc] For any 

thing nor an activc aggnt L 364 ibr it = thcy havc othcrwise diiTered 

[among thernselves]- 

c) Thus, the earliesl of [the philosophcrs] ea.cluded knuwl- 
edge [as an atiribuic] Ftom [God] Most High f in order to avoid the 

implication that He wouid bc both an acccptor and an agcnl [of 


Plato Look thc position thal 

aj ihe inteUigible fonns were scltaubsittem, io order to avoid 
b) eaduding kriowledge from Hitn thc Most High. aiid [to 


c) the implicatioti that Hc is hoth .acccrptor and agcnt. 

Th* 1 : School of the Peripatetics took the posidon that 

thc agent oF undcrsianding unitcs with the iritelligibk 1 , 

[doing so] in ordcr to avoid [not only] 

cscluding knowlrdgc [from Him, but a]so 

c) implying thai He is both acccpror T ]77 aiid agent h 
and [tu avoic{] 

d) |the norion that] the forms of rhr intplligiblcs wrre sclf- 


I .V 

Mft giassciK I) I.r , . 1 mav thh he knnwn ai aJt. 2) T.^- 7 ;is an iikdi^riiiaJ. 
'* MS: [^anhu]- L, T and MS Gamtt 9Sl)ha: [minhu]. 


The thmry qf' lim Sma 

Sliaykh Abu c Ali Ibn Sina 

L 364:4. T 177:1 

sssertrd that knowlcdge btlortgs 10 God Mosi HEgh, 

bccausc Hc is an incorporcal bclngj and cvcry incorporcal bcing is 
a kiiowing bcrin^: and 

lie rcjected as false 

thc doctrinc thac thc intdligiblc forms lu? arc s£lf-3ul 
sistcnL, and 

2) thc docirinc thai tlve knowing Lntellect and the intcl- 

ligihlc. obj^ct at* utiitcd, atid that 

thc intcUigibks arc uiiited one with anothcr; and 

c) hc grantcd tJiat the Neccsjsary Existcnt comprchcnsivcly 
undcrstands evcrythirig. 

Thus, [Ibn Sina] taughl iliat since ihe Nece&saiy Eaistent undcr- 
stands His csscncc rhrougb His csscnce. MS l&6b and aincc [GckTs] 

i^sence h [itself] rhe Eternal Constituting Agcnt of cxisicncej that 
is% [it is] thc Primary Cause for [allj realitiei posst ble ^. the fact that 

Hc dues undcrstarid thc whole [iinivcrse| by His understanding of 
His csscnce throu^h llis csscn.ce> iniplics that [indccd] Hc is thc 
Etcrnal Constituthic; Agcnt of cx3st€iice- Therelbre^ His undcrstand- 

ing of the whole unherse is an effect that is concomitant to His 
cs$e.nce, because Icnowing thc cause ts itsclf the primary cause of 
knowing thc cffccL 

There-lhrc; the £brms nf eve:rylhmer in the whole iiniycrse. [hat is. 


all Uie inleUigihk» objects of [God 1 s| undersiaudiiig, arc concomi- 

trtiits aniviiig subscqucntly Eo thc rcaliLy of His csscncc, as an cflrct 
k *ubicquc]Li Lo its ciuisi:. but thcy do nm cxist wkhin thc csscncc 
as consiitucnt (actors ol" il: Mnrcowr., tliis whote abundance of intel- 

ligiblcs has come ahout ;irrording to aiTangt-inenl; and ihis great 

abundatice of concomiii*nts lo thc «SNcnce [of Gnd], whcther they 


MS: "Rtrm"* [^rali] m iht djiguJarj oihcr sowrccs give the jiLisrrtl 

lffl Anhur J. Arbwry has curiipikd st IlilJc anjhokigy of hte cranilalioiia fiom lbn 
Sliu^ wriungN whsch hft m\*r<\ Ar-u&ma m Tiwt^ [(VMHrUim r*f thfi K^rinsl I/m- 
ckmij. Murray. {I9.ul|.] A chapler caleen frcun Ibn Sina^a Al tUaria atllnhiya itilc.d 
"On the Nalurc of God'\ has a subscction, ^Cod^s Knowlcc|gc H {pp. 33-3+). ITiis 

p^age concaim marty efthc ^imc stiUcmeriL* ih;n Tsf&hani b<** oollected hene. In 

il ihcne is somc lo(pca3 pr«ogrcssk>n throughaut and tlic tonc i& onc of prnLse of 
God. Thk can bc said also of rs^ahanl^ ccsnirncntary al this point. No siinLbr pav 
$bgy W<& rourid in Ibn SLn.a"s al'lsha7ni; UM-at-Ttmbihat, 

ia h\ L^ T and MS Garrrtt 1)K9Ha tbc pronoun sufli\ is ]na£c:uLLn<: 4 indLciLLicLij 
God as Uie am-rcedcEii, ihis bting thc logicaL wnsc; bnt in iht? MS il is rcrriinins, 
rhp; srribe Apparttiily assLimiiijyr Lliai "tntirciy" [LtdiniLiJ was thu «intcccdcrLi. 

856 a, tOM 2, ckmter i 

arc distinguishablc or not distingnishablc [iirom His cs&cncc,, do not 
nullify thc unity of thcir Primary Causc that scrvcs a£ thcir subsiratc, 

namely, thc iinity of [GkkTs] csscnce, cqually whcthcr those [abun- 

dantj concomitancs are inhcring in thc esscncc of thr: Causev 7D or 
they are .wparate and distinct iram it. 

Tlic First [Cause], the Most High, receives [from ardent bcliw* 

crs] by thc ascription [of praisc] a grcai abundancc of < omomitiints 
both adjunctavc and nonadjunctivc, along with a grcal ahundanrc 
of negations. On that accoum Hi& namcs havc multiplicd, but t]iat 

has had no inAuence upoti His own unity, In sumrnaiy, thc Necessary 
Existcnt is Onc, and His unity does not cease bccausc of the abun- 

dancc of intdligiblc forms [inhcring] in Him. 

Crilical mrigw of Ihn Sina^s thmiy L 364: 16,. T 177:10 

Now ? in ohjcrrion to [Ibn Sina]. ihe followinfj poinLt havc heen 

marie showing ihat his doctrinc ihat tbe coiicomitants of the First 

[ChushiJ havc inbrmnje i 11 His cssriu-e h ihe saiiie as sayiug lluil 

a anglc entity inay bc both pas&iw acccptor and active 
agcnt 171 at the samc timc; and 

b) the First [Cau&cj is charaetermd by attributes that arc 
neitber adjunctive nor ncgattv*=:, for thc Tonrm of thc intelhgiblcs' 

that are inhcrcnt in His esscncc are real attribuies; and 

c) jCiodj is a substratc tor thc grcat abundancc of rcaJitics 

possible that are tbc l eflects' of His s causation' ? for itideed the forcn$ 
of all ihe mtelligibLes are thc e.flfects of His causation and they arc 

Ltbundantly tnanifold: and 

[(jod'sj First EAecl is nol distinguishablc from His essencc^ 
for thcn His First Effcct is the form of thc First Intcllcct which 

inheres in H\% es.sence; and 

e) [CodJ Most High brings nothing 11U0 exkstencc ainon 

thc individual quidditics diat would makc His csscncc distinjruish- 

able through His essence rather than thmugb [he things, that inhere 
in Him. 

All of ihrse maners are in contrasi to the plain doc-trinc of the 

But it is thc right of Shaykh [Ibn SinaJ to hold thai thcrc is no 
harm in any of thcsc mattcrSj L 365 bccausc indccd, [tjod] Most 

nn MS gl: Sucti a^ thc atirihulcg flf th-n Crcator Mnsi Iligh. 

m L 2iu] T: [q3JbiUT! wjJaHlan). MS aiul MS Garretl yfl<JHa: [^klan wM|3bihn]. 



High Ls thc *Spccifk Existcncc* who characlcrizea 'ahsoiutc existciicc\ 
Thus, thcrc arc two aspeets of Ilis naturc, the aspcct of His 'spccilu 
existoince T whtch h His reaJ naturc^ and the aspect of His 'absolute 

exuienc«', whidi h one of His properties- 

[Seeing that is thc case]. it is not an impossibility 

■a) that I k should bc both a passivc actcptor of and actjvc 
agcnt for thc fonns of thc intcl%ibles 7? MS 187a all arrangcd in 

order; tior is it an inipcxssibiliiy 

that rcal attributcs shoulci inhcrc in His csscnce* iior 
c) chat He should he a suhsrrarc! for ail His own eliects. nor 
that His First FJlect. should not he di&tmj^L&hahle Irom 

His essence, nor 

c) that Hc should not bring anything into cxisience antong 
thc indhidual quiddities csccpt by thc mcdiadoii of cntitics alrcady 

inhering in His essencc. 
Nowj [if a disputant should say] ail thcse things were impossfblc» 

>'-Li.-3i a ]K..sĔTJiin| uoulcl br haseri rm ihr proposirion thac thert is 

no pluralky iii ihe Ncressary Exis(cni the Mosi High in any respect 
whatsocvcr. Bui this iiilcrcncc is rulcd ouu bccause indeed, in His 
naturc thcrc sre two a&pccte, onc of thcm bcin^ the 'tpetiAt exist- 

euice' and the other thc 'absolute cxistence\ Let no one say that 

l absolutc ejtistcncc 1 h only a : lhcorelical niatlcr 1 and that thc theo- 

retical h not valid to serve a_s a caLLse for somclhing A FKistcntiaJ\ 

[nchwd, our [Mahani] posilioi] Ls that ii would not be admissible for 

thc thcorcticaJ to be thc L activc aj^nt* for somcthing cxis.tciitial !l bul 

it would be admissiblc Ibr [tho iheoretical] to serve as the l condi- 

tion 1 Ibr thc cflcctivc causaiion of thc l activc agem\ or as thc 'cora- 


dition for passivc n?ceptivity\ as they aHirm among thcmsclvcs in 
thc case of thc "Hrst Emanation." 176 

Howcver } what is implicit in thc doctrinc of Shaykh [Ibn Sina] 

h thal [God] Most High would not know a particular dctail in a 
detailcd manner bccause knowlcdgc iri a detailed manner of tlie 
particular dctaH would rcqusrc that thc lonn of thc particular 3 as & 

l7 " : MS gl: Lt, otic of Ilis accidcntaJ qu^lidcfl- 

,Si M^ gi: McanLTig thac a givcn entity may havx: bcinjr amcnR thc indKiiluiLl 

!-i>i s ni i-; 

i?i MS gl: [Namcly]. |hc Cr^arLiir Mcwi High. 

'" M5i gl: r.*\, among (he. philusrtphcira, 

'■* MS qL: l.r., tlic "Kiral inh!Lk:i:f [a bcin_g ]H<MLu-red b> God, but noi bv cmaiiaLioii]. 


pariicular, br inhrrrnt in His csscnce. But the parricu!ai\ as a par- 
dcular^, &omctimcs changcsj so, if thr thrm of ihc particular that is- 

inherent in His. cssctice should not also changc when. the porticular thanges* iheii it would [stpi.iear to] imply [His] ignoranoc [of 
ihc fact); but if [ihe fonn of thc particular dctmJ) should changc, 
thcn it would imply a changc in His rcal attribucc. 

fofahani rtsumts fris ctmmmis tm Bapdaim^s iopk L 365; 14,. T 17/: 2 7 

Lcl m nrturn now to our commcntaiy on the suhjcct mactcr in [Bay- 
d&wT-iJ book. 

Our author's st&iciticnt h that for us, intuiiion makcs thc dis- 
tinction bclwecn whcn wc say- "[God IIimsclf |" and whcn wc gay, 

■ fc [God Himse]f| h "oniniscicnt' and 'ottiiiipotetU-'"" 
This sratement is a [logical] iiidication that [God] is ommscicnt 

by a l knowlcdgc that is distinct irotn His essenr.p^ and that Hcr i.s 
'omnipotctu by a power ihat is riisiiriLi llnorn His e8S«ii«:e\ A fiiller 

statement of this would be ihai if knowledge and power shuuld nol 
be distinguishable from the essence [of God], then therc would be 

no diHcrence betweeri our sHyjng, "[God Himself] + *, and our say- 
ing a fa [God HimscLTJ is. h omni«cicnt a and 'omnipuciii.*** But such a 
conolusion would bc false 7 hccausc inturtion docs diatinguish hetwccii 

these twn statements. 

Furthcnnore, JTT knowledgt? i* cithcr 

a r a spccrial adjunctive relationship belwccn the [divme] knower 
and ihe intelligiblc objcci ofktiowledgt, ihis 'relalionship' being whai 
the two [.Hholars] of ihejubba'i family 3 Abu *Alt and tiis son. Abu 
Hasliim, caJlcd i omniscienee , f or 

b. [knowlodge] is an attribute that rcquircs that apecial adjuno 

tive rclationship, this bcing thc doctrine of most of our Asha^rah 
colleagues-! MS I87b or 

c. [knowledge] consists in the form& of thc intelligibltt that arc 

seli-aubaisdng. namcly, the Platonic ^ideals' |or 7 Torms^ 1 ™ or 

d. [knowledgej con&ist» in the forrns of [he itiLt*lligihles that sub- 
mi iri tlie eNsence of [God] Most HigFi s y.s is thc dnctrinc of Shaykh 
Al>u VUi Ibci Sina arid }ns lalbwcrs, 

l? " MS gl: [Ucrt is] a «ecorid bjipcul tndicAii&n. 

" B L 365 g|: H«I0 UnA (he pcdliyia Oiat br twry iciLeUigibk- ih&wt is un ideal 

[midiSlJ, iKai k ki «wnial «Kistenoe aud Lti-u is seir-subsi^uia^ wh*n dir snnl i«;uiiis 
& pgrcepuan. of ir. [Fmm che Jflifli* Y^rtptr ) 


Now^ whichcvcr fof foar thcoriesj it way be T [knowledjre] 
is something oiher ihati ihe essence of [God] Most Hlgh. The fal- 
sity of the doctrine that thc agent having comprehensivc uiider- 

stending would bc unkcd wilh thc objcet of undcrstanding was 
discusscd carlier where wt: cxplained thc imaladity of such unionJ ,!j 

An argymmi opjming lite doctrine Ikat God*s htmdedgt aml puwer art 

distittct Jrom himsetf 

L 365:23, T 177:^4 

"ITiose who say that God Most HLgh is noi B ©iruii$d£iU p by a knnwl- 
edge djstinctly diAcrcnt Irom His tssmce . L 366 and is not 'omni- 
poient 1 by a powcr disiinctly diHcrcnt l"rom HimsclT havc prcscntcd 
an anpimcm having lour points, 

a. If an attribute should havc subsistence in the essence [of God] 

(hen His €ssci!ce would rcquirc it [to be Lhcrc], [This is] bccaustir, 
if an attributc should subsist 5n Himsclf thcn thc attributc would 
liavc nccd for Himscli hy th«* inhcrenl lo^ic ol" an attrihute having 

need for what U characteriies. Tlkis, the attribute woulcl be 

L a pos&iblc rcality through kscHi ainoc atiything having nccd 
fbr somcthin^ clsc would be a possibk rcality in itsclf But [thc 
attribute] would be 

2. neccssary through a cause, and that oause would be no othcr 
than the esscnce [of Godj charactcrizcd aa an attrihule, T 178 so 
thc esscncc [of GodJ would irquire [the atuihutejj and [Gad Hijnsclf] 
thcrclbrc would he both an at^reptor and an a.g4>n£ al ihe same time, 

which h impossihlc. 

a.-a. Thc amwcr to this point^ wc hold. has prcccdcd in thc dis- 
cusiiipns on cause and efleci, ,8 ° de riii ng Trom [thc facfj that it is 
admissible for tht^ One to he both an acceptor and an agetic. You 
havc come ro kimw 5 that. [God] Mosi Hi^h 3* a ^pecihi": eacistenoe', 

of which E absoiute existcnce is a coiK:omitam. Thus, with ruference 

to fGod] s thcrc are two aspccts 5 and ilius it is ndmissiblc for Him 
to bc both a passivc acccptor firoiri onc aspcct and an activc agcnt 
from the orher aspect. 

b- If an iittributc should havt subsistcncc in [thc csscncc of God] 
thcn [thc allributc| would have to be eitJipr 1. cteinal, or 2. temporal. 


L g 1 ]: In j ! iI«iok 2, Srrrtnn I,] innltrr ChApi^r 2: QiiftMlM^ ttfrf piroj^rly anri.l> 

utablc to CjcmI. "1'opk 3 on chc csdiiisioii ot" t ll^^o^l ,, fri«m [God]. 
m Book I, Scction U Chaptcr 6. Topic 4 3 abovc. 
1BI L, T md MS Garnrci *M»Ha read TaJimtaJ, buL thc MS has [^ra/Lu], 

B60 2, SEirnoiN" i z t ciiai t iilk i 

(U) If [ihe atuibulel shoirid bf etemal, th*n ihi* would imply 

[thcr exiiitcficc of] a grcat abimdaiuc of elrrnal phc- 
rLomcna^ and thc doctrinc of a grcat abundanrc of clcrnal phc- 
nomcna cansnitutcs hcreay by thc conscnsus [of scholars] . Is it not 

dear to be seen, [they argue], rhat [Godj MosE High has reckoncd 
the Chrislians unbclicvcrs by rcason of their doctrinc of thc Trinity? 
God Most High ha* said, "They arc unhclic^crs who say that God 

ia the Thiidl One among lliree," [Qur'an 5:73J Their trmilarian 

doi Liinc is thcir as&ertion of the Thrcc H>postascs. ihe Hyposiasis 
of thc iathcr, this bcing *Existcuoc*, thc Hypo&tasis of the Son, this 
being the *VVord\ or^ Knowledgc^ and the Hypostasis o.f the Itoly 

Spirit, this bctng the *Ijving Nature^ and [in (he doccrinej the wttnc.t* 

[oF God] is a unity cliuracccrized by thew ihnee attributeA.-* 2 

Now, if somconc who affirm& MS 3B8a thc csistcncc of tlircc 

eternal cmities is an *unbeiiever\ then what do you think of some- 

one who affirms that thcre are cight etcrnal entities, 1 ** as is the doc- 

trinc of mosi of thc Mutakallimun, or |cvcn] ninc [cternal cntities]., 
as is tbe doctrjne of ihe Hanafiyah [scholars] who hold that the 

'production of l>eLrig ? is an auribute added to [God"s| 'omnipotent 

powcr in autonornous actioci 5 ? 

b) Furthcr» [if dtc attributc should bc etcnial, this wu-uld 
imply] that thcrc wouJd bc compnsition in thc csscncc of [Corij; lor 
in that casc P indmdl, [Gnd| Mosl High would haw a conimotiality 

with thc attribute in His etcrnity 3 but woukl be distinguished frorn 

the attrihute by Ilis own l &pecific s naturc s ,K * so composition would 
bc implicit, as dcriving both llrom the comnnonality and irom thc 

jipeciBcity, bul it would be an impossibOity. 

(2J) And if thc attrihiite should bc* a tcrmporcil ph^nomcmon, thcn 

f3:c lmpliraiiOTi wsnjlrl hr th:if lcni]ior;il phrnoinrrKi would hv 

ing in thc csscncc of [God] Most lligh. wliich would bc impossibk , 1 
br a. Our answcr to chis point is that wc prcfcr to think that thc 

aitrihnie subsisling in ihe essence of [Godl Most High would be an 

Ctcmal phcnomcnori- [JiriydawTs] statcincnl h lliat this would imply 

"" MS gl: "1'hcse threc arc one in hii^inR EubtiliiiitisJity [S aJ-jawhariyahJ., i.e^ 

Jthtrc is| otic esscnce chcutictcrbsid by (he« ihrc*- *ub*ianua] prorwni*^, 

m Thesc IjeiriK tltc Hvirng nA[ure p p<iwer in aui^noinrwa* acri^ni, rbe w\\h knowL- 
ctl^tj licariiig^ ai^hi, specch and immorraiit>' P 

:N L: wr-a- P nufaiTia> , >i?. . - . [T- wa-yat*mayyii r , .] bi-MHuusjyal|_ 

The MS and MS Garrclc 9fi^ha: wa-yaiamayyiz . . . hd-khiiif]siya.rLhi. 


a grcat abundancc of ctcrnai [attributcs]; that wc huld sbould bc 

grantecL [Baydawrs nextl statemenl is thai holding this [doctrine of 
plural ctcmal attributcs] would constitute heresy by the eonsensus 

[of scholars] . 

We [Ljfahani] say tbat this f]nfcrcncc] should be rulcd out. It 

is thc doctrine of 'multiplc ca&cnccs 1 bcing" ctcrnaJ that oonstitutes 

beresy, and this is enthely apart frorn the doctrine of "multiplc etcr- 
nal attributes'. 

lf an objcction should hc raised that ihc doctrinc of multiple eter- 
nal attributes also would comtitute heresy, since (Jod Mnst High has 
reckoncd the Christians \inbclievers s because of their affirming the 

Thrcc Hypostascs* nanicly, Existcncc s Knowlcd^c, and the Iiving 

Naturc, which arc ctcrnal attributcs, thcn the rcply would bc that 
although thc Ghristi&ns call thc Three Ilypostases that they affirm 

to exist *attribuces\ neverthekss ihey hotd that they arc 'essenres 1 in 
reality. They bclicvt L 367 that thc Hypostasis of thc Word, [by 

this] I mcan s ihc Kiiovdcdge„ tran&Cerred itsclf to thc body of Jcsus, 
pcacc upon him, and anything that is free to movc about^ is an 

essencc; thus, it is established diat thcy hold the dottrine of multiple 

etcrnal esscnccs, and for this rcason God rcckoncd chcm VnbeUcvcrs a , 

Our opponents* statcnicnt that "composition would bc impiicd in 

the esscnce of [Cind] Most High 1 tbus would bc an impnsKibility. But 

their statenient that the esseiice of [CJod] Most High ha_s common- 

alily with the atiributc in the fact of His eicniiiy is grantod. Likewise, 
thcir continuing slatcmcnt [is granlcd] that [thc divirtc nalurcj h 

distinguishcd from [thc attributc] in [its] sjpceihcicy. But it may not 

be inferred from the commonality in ecemily and ihe dtstinction in 

spcciAcity that thcrc would bc composition in thc esscncc itsc[f [This 
is bccausc] past eternity is a nonexistentia] [category], as k is a way 

of rcterring to the lack of anything antecedentj whether in sueh a 
"noncxi.steiice" 8S6 or in any other [categoi>]- Le? So it may not bc 
infencd that there nould be composttion in the essenoe [of Go 
from the fact of the commonality in an ctcrnity that is nonexisten* 

tial in naturc. 

c, Tlie 'omniscience 1 of God Most High as well as His 'omnipo- 

tence* *ire each tieccss^ry [in na-turej; and whatcvcr h nccessary 



MS gl 


Li\> wkhiti y[\x eicrikiiy ol time-duratitm. 

I.c. wiihLti etcmi-Ly itsdl. 

862 a> section 2, chapit:r i 

wouid by its own ncccssity havc no need for a causc, so the [diviiLtrJ h not causetl by che: |c.]Jvinc] kiujwledge, iior is ihr 
fdivinr] omnipotcncc [caused] by the [divine] power. 

c. a. AnswtT imay bc given tliat ihc 'oinniscirncc' Ls not caLuscd. 

only if il k saiiwlhing newrssaiY of ilsclf, MS I8frb but il h shuukl 
bc nccessary bccausc of somcthing clsc, thcn it would bc somcihing 
cau&ed* Omni&ricnce is something mncesssiry rhrough the jdivino] 

whicb [in turn] is necessary since the esseuoe [of God] 

rcquircs it s but omniscicnce is not <u>mcthin£ so ncccssary of its*lf 

^m m ^m m m 

thai causarion would bc impossiblc. Rimilarly^ *omnipoteuce' is some- 
thing necessary through the [divtne] power, which [in turnj is nec- 
cssary since the essencc [of GodJ re-quLnes it; but omnipotcncc is not 

somcthing so nccessary of itsclf that causatinn wouid bc impo&siblc. 

d. li both thc 'knowlcdge 1 oi [GodJ Most High as well as Hi& 
^power* should be additions to His casence, ihen in order to 'knoV 

and lo *cxcrdsc power* Hc woukl havc ueed fbr sorncthing clsc. Kui 
thc couciusion is falsc, bccausc it would bc impo^iblc that in Hi^ 

capaciiy as thc Omniscicnt and Omnipotent One He should l>e in 

nccd o.f anything elsc. To cxplsin thc logical rcasoning hcrc it is 
that if both His knowlcdgc ttnd Tlis powcr shonkl bc additions [to 

His cascncc], thcn in ordcr to know and to cscrcisc powcr Hc would 
havc nccd for knowlcdgc and powcr, and so with knowlcdgc and 

power bcing somcthing other than His csscnce Hc would stand in 

need of those oihcr (actors. 

d.-a. Thc answer to this b that thc csscncc [of God] rcquircs tw r o 
attrihnteSj™ the*F being knowkdgc and powcr, to provide neces- 
&ary cau-sation Ibr ihe linkages of ornniscienc* 1 ! 186 and [f>[iinipotci]t] 

sm MS j^l: Thc anwcr to thk [point] is thai the es&eru:^ <if [God] ^'li.Bt High 
requircs hvcj rcal ivhich are the iieussary causes for ihe Hrikagcs of omni- 
scicnc-c [*ilmlyahl and omnipotcnt ciralivuy |ijadTyali]; thac is, tnowlcdje rcqLiir« 
a linkagu with an inbcl^i^iblc 1 objc-ct of knowlcdpc, and powcr rcquirc4 LinLip^ with 
a focuistd objttL of pow^r So LTyou fof tbc D-pposiliuiil mcan by His haYicig' nccd 
[br somdhiiLj^ clst in rcapect to thes£ twu- iitirit-iutes, dicEi your iin.^^iini;, ncun<:]y, 
tbcsc tH^o «Lttributcs .rc^uiriiig 1 linkajes with an inwlligibk' objcct and iL po%vcr objcct 

[rtspeclii^e^lj, is nol gr-a,nted :i as iL is an impossihiLily. But if yoii mcan somethicig- 

elae. then nuke ii clear, m ihm wc may Unik ai ii and tlecide upm m VAtidicy or 

irs- faLiity. [Fn>m die c uiumentaiY ™ Baydawi s Tafoai? iw 4 Ahd . 6 Ulah ihn Mnhammad 
al-Fa rR hani al- fi lbri, cl. 743/1 3-12.J 

ignare rhc ,,, knowl* , dg;c-ab]Jity : " or Ln ttic cmc frf thc ddcy, rh« "cTnnbci^nc^^ 1, 


cTrativity ? lw thmugh which th* essencc is omni&ricnt and omnipo 

tent, So if this is wJiai you [disputanls or llke oppnsilioii] mean hy 

^necdiiig somcthing clsc' 191 thcn wc do not grant ils iitijwssibiliLy, 

But if you imtcnd sonic othcr mcaning by l lM'ing in nccd\ thcn 

cxplain it fir3t so chat wc may form a coticcption and talk about it. 

You should know that research scholars have nn excellent mcdmd 

Ibr esiablishbig [the fact of] thc knowlcdgc of the Creaior Most 

High, Hcrc is an cxplanatioii of it: 

1 . just as a kiiawing person has no need ibr any form in ordcr 
to pcrceivc him&elf otlicr ihan thc form of hnnsclT by whkh he is 


2. so also ? in ordcr t.o percrive what is pmduced by himsclf 
he will have no need in liimself for any other forrn than the form 

by which thal produci h whal it is. 

Now, considcr how in yoursclf you know suincthing by a form 
whkh you conccivc and which h produccd by you, not by yourscll 

alone, ahsoluiely 3 lw but rathcr by sonic degree of participajion with 

some other than yourscl£ In spitc of that, you do not know that 

given form thrnugh anruher 193 bui rather, just a$ you would know 

L 3fiB |giwtj| thmg by that [givftnj forni, So you would ktiow 

ihat form by ilself s withoui forms wUhin you being multiplicd, Buc 
rallicr, il may l>e that thcrt is only a muluplication wilhin you v? 

thc logical ronsidcration^ linking yoursclf with that form. Now s if 
your own sicuation with what is praduced hy you through your part^ 
uership wiih anotlicr sbould niatch this situaLion p lli^n whal would 

you suppo^L- ihe siluation rniglit be of a knowing p^rson wiib whac 

I>ue in anothcr [srnsc] thcy arc somtihm^ dminct trom [diiLia] chc lidjihulc thar 
tanstitutrs ihc adjunction ansrjf Idhath ic bcint^ [icspcctrvTly] thu- knm-t-Lrdgi! <\m\ 

1,1 MS gl: Lc- ? Hb nc^d for sr>m«hing elsc^ thra bdiig ihtr linkagr- [of His kno\s1- 

cdg^J wiiih thc jnidlLgibJe ^and] liJi^wise in ibc ca*c of powr t thcn thb U pwittd. 

But we do tuit grariL tli.ic Lr would he an imjaosability 1 . Ebr thc t\\^ of thcm arc 
ad]unctn. r r •atirihutca, or rctal capablc of ha^ing a adjunctwc rcIalionshLp. 
whik tbc csscncc [alonc] of God Most High docs no€ sijJHcc for thc oocurrcncc of 
an adjunctiw rcLationihijj. 

IM MS gl: Bccause a huttian twing cnay nul hc a taLiae fur ilie trrLniieiliciiii oJ" 
cinyLhiirig JWjm himst'Lf uidcpcnd-cjitly. nsthcr |iiich an crnatiatirjril would bc by ihe 

yid ol" I lini who forcorcULins. 

n * MS gl: l-C- ? hy sonu: oihcr form, oihcrwisc (hc ai^umcnt woutd hc ati iLtBnitc 

864 a, sEcriorc a, chapter i 

is produced by himself alone without the inten ecuioTi of anyone elsc 

iti it? And it should not bc snapposcd 1 * 1 thai your bcing thc substratc 
for that forni would bc a condition for your knowlcdgc of that form. 

lB9a But rathcr^ thc occurrencc 8 * 5 ol the Ibrm with you is. a 
f:ondition lor your knowledsw of that I" 179 Ihrm. and vonr heine 

a wibstraie Toi thai fonn h a condilion fbr ihc otcurreiice of that 
form with yoii ? whkh [in turh] is a condition for your knowlcdgcr 
of it. So if that fgivcn] form wcrc to occur \vich you in somc man- 
ner olher than by its inhering in you, then thc knowledgc would 

occur without inhcring in you. It is obvious that thc occurrcncc of 

a concrctc cntity with its activatincr agcnt s bcbi£ [a phrnomenon] 
tncludcd wiihin the broader notion of its occnrrence with any being 

oiher than iiself, would noi be less [or a phenomt-non] than ihc 

cntity s s otcurrcncc with its acteptor. So thcn thc producis which 
originatc with an aclivating agcnt of himself occur with him but 
without inhering in hiin. Tlms thc anlwaEing agent knows- diern wirh- 
out thcir indwclling" in him, 

lf you are surt oi" this^ iben you should know that thc True One, 
niay He be blessed and eralted, knows His esscncc without thcre 

bcing any diflfercntintion as such bctwccn His cs&cncc and His scll- 

knowlcdgc, for His tssencc and His kciowlcdgc arc not mutuaUy 

diiTcrcntiatcd basically,, but rathcr thc diffcrcntiation is in thc man- 
ner of rdcrence. Thus. Hia sclf knowlcdge is the same as His essence. 

;\nd ihus the knowing agent ? thc knowing actlvity, and tiie intelli* 
gib]e objccl. of thc knowing are onc in tlic cssrnce, wiih Lhc 

diScrentiacion bcing in thc manncr of rcfcrcncc. So Hist csscncc and 

His selHcnowledgc™ are a causo for II is knowlcdge of thc Plrst Ema- 
nation [i,e^ thc *produccd" Incollfirt], l9V so just as both r.auses, that 

"** MS ^ - Tht5 ii thc reply to a suppustd lntcrrupti-rm, ivhosc purport 5s that an 
objetlion may \x ridstd that 5t wOuld HOt ht suFT2ck'ii( in thr pt'ixt'ption df thc 
Umn oi & LliLriy if Uie Jimn ilscLT wtr* to Ot:<.ijr. Rai.litr Uie need is fur llic Ei>rtti 

of [cht; iliirLg] io rwcur iii [h* oiie who p*rceives, Iwunu* peroepiicwi i* iIh" occur- 
rence of che thirt^ : H Jbrm tn die pereeKier. So ii k Lhe peroeivcr's beiiig a ^ibstniLe 

!"■"!" tli^ " : "Trc- i:i" v.-[l;v. is p^r tt» ^ ■"! "J i<i i i=- ;s. " ujidULim l : "i: f :■■ r » = i ■ 1 i^- ■ - = Si: | J-Jii,h;!.rLi| 

replied by saying, "AikI ii should nul be SLip|MispJ . . ," 

m L gl: Btcausc Activc knowlcdgc dcj« nnt m^cd inhcrencc ? in contrast to th^ 

m '\~hf MS and MS C.;3rrett 9B«H» elo twt ndri ihe plim» , "S" Hi* cb#ikp. 

^ L 36S gl #2": Thar is to $ay 3 onc ol" [hc cwo -caiiM^i u ihc: ras<Miee ol' [tJod] 
Mnst High 7 it br-ing a tausc for tlic csistcncc of the Rrst Eciiariatmn [i.c, thc "pro- 
duccd"" IntcUcct], whilc thc othcr causc \s dic &c]f-knowlcdgc of Him thc Most Hi^h, 


i&> His csseiicc i\nd Ilis scrlT-knowlcdgcrs arc basiccilly onc and theie 
is. no diHcrcntialkm exttrpt as a matiner ol" Tcfercncc; Likcwisc, both 

eflects, that is ? the First Emanation [i,e, a ihe pruduced Tntellect] md 

the knowlcdge of |'God] Most High of it s constitute basically tme 
cntityj, without any diHcrentiation that might require the fi^l of iV 
two to bc diHcrcndatcd from thc First [Cautsc] thc Most High, while 
thc sccond |of thc two| lw would bc fixed winhin it. For just. as thc 
diticrentiacion* 99 in the two causes is a rnanncr of refercncc, it is 
likewisc so in thc two crtlcts. 

So thcn, thc cxistence of thc Hrst Emanatinn [lc, IntcllectJ is thc 

sarrii as thc knawledge of il held by ihe Mosl High, without there 

bcing any nccd* 00, for somc ncw form to mhcrc br :M thc csscncc of 
thc First [Causc], niay Hc bc cxalted high ahovc that [nccd for siich 

inhcrcncc]. Now : 

a) whereas thi ^inteibctti&t suhslana.% 9 fa$ bewgsj undmta&d 

what &rt not thcirowiL cfTccts through ihe occmr^noe 

of theii™ 2, fonns within thcm 5 and 

2) that is, hecausc thc occurrcnce ol somcthing thcy havc 

not caused would only be by its inhering within them, and 

3) thc inherencc within thcm of the form of [thc uncuuscd 
ihing] by which it has its identity would be impassihie, — sincc whal- 
evcr wonlri nol b« their ellect would he eiiher suhsUance or acrident 
and the inlu-rcnce of eilher nf tht-se in them woukl he impottiblc, 

i[ being impossible Jbr a substante to inhere in a subsirate and it 

bchig impossible for an accidcm to tnovc about. tlicrclbre, 

4) [thc tiue optionj is detennined to be ihal its occur- 
rence aiTiuiig them would Im: through (3»: inherence of iLs lorni in 

them* And 

b) whcrcas tke ( mtelleduat hithstmias* [&s hmgsj L 36?) understand 

1) that the Fim [Camc] is the Neces*ar> f Existent [God] 

Mok High, there bcing nothing at all existeni MS I89b that 
would nDt bc thc cflfcct of thc First Caui>c fc 

it Iwing a catwL" far His biuwledgt olihc Flrsi EananiLLioTi [i.e Bf Ipiulkcr. Ti^ iwo 

cauK«» namelyj. Ilis esstcLce andl Hi» Kir-kru.nyled^s **t badcalty unc» and che 

difBcDcnujcii>n ^ in iIk - iriniLibcr ot refeitfifeue. 

31M MS gi: l.r.;, Ltit^ [dJYinc sfJf-JknnwLrdgL'. 

' Fl T and [h<: two MS snurccs: [taghayur]; L: [taghayyur]. 

"■' L. Mlowctd by T. add& hcrc a prc?rujRkiiial suITik lo rtad "without k.s nrcding." 
wt The MS aJouc adcb hf:re the prcpnsLLL^n ^Ji- H 
M L iLrid T add thc ]dcncif\inEf pronomina] iuftix ^ihcir 11 , bul irt is not in thc 

MS ot MS Garrai 98911a. 


2) thrrrlhre, thc forms of aJl cxi&ting: things, both uni- 
versal and particitlar^ however they rnay exist t will bc occtinring 

within thcm,™ 

3) and [&o] thc First Gausc [God] Most High knows all 
thosc substantiial beings togcthcr with thosc forms ; , a,i not lorms othcr 
than thcm % but rathcr thosc identical mbstancrs and tbrms. And 

it ts /Swww with 4 »a$tctttt' f however it may be in its etitirety 


and detail, 

]"; for the cKistcnrc of thc individua] cjuidditks of all f:xis- 

tent Lbijigs is [GadY| fcnr.wlcdge, 

2} likcwisc ihc cxistcncc of thc forms of thc indiridual 
quiddirics which inhcrc within thc intcllcctual substanccs are Hia 

3; likewistr the ftnrms, of iSic^r individiial qutddities which 
iTihcre whliin tlic- iTieorporesil cclcstisd souls, 

4) likcwisc thc cxistencc of thc particular indkidual forrns 
cngrav r ed upon thc imprintcd celcstial souls; rather^ all existence, che 

extemal]y real 5 the mental,. coq)oreal and aJL else, constitute the 

knowledgc of Him the Mosi High. 
God Most High said, 


God has liTOught eveiyihlng within His c»mpreh^ns]ve under- 
staiiduisj." [Qyr J an 65:121 And God ha$ said, 

"No leaf ihai falls h unknown to Him, not does a grah lie ffor- 

gtittrnj withm carth's darkne^s 3 nor is moisturc or diyness uimoticrd 
in ] HisJ Rccord of plain fact/' [Qur ? an CljE}] 

,r H<- knows whal p(*op]e bring with opcn hands and whaL duy 

kccp bcliiTid thcm." [Qurtin 2:255 ctc.] 

*"He knows- thc trcachcry of lying eycs and of that which hearts 
wou\d hide." [QurVm 40:191 

"He knows what secmet therc is and what is yet more confidentiaL H 

[Qurtm 20; 7] 

So it has bccu inadc clcar th^t [GodJ Mmst High a s knuwlcdge 
comprchcnsivcly undcrstands all lhings 3 both univcrsal. and particular. 

;,: "' MS irl: Lr.. :hv ^nabstacilidJ .ind i"i LelJt" ■ r\LLiJ Krin^-,. 

-** Tlst MS- burah], 


Haydawi said: 

L S60, T 179 

3, God T b m liuuw natare 

The coiiscTi&uSi [of scholarc] is thai [GorlJ Most High U a livmg 
Iwring, hut thcy dillcr on whai cliis mean&. The philosophers and 

Abu al-IIusayn [al-BasriJ took ihc position iliat His ; living- nahire* 

is. a term espressing chc vaJkiity af His bcing characttrizcd by 'knowl- 

f ■ 1 1 ■ ^ ii - ' rinsl Ynmrt". A 1 1 ! tit tisL |of l!:t .--ii. ^cjL^ic s ] huhl ihat Lt l^ a 

term for an sittribiitc that fequĔn;s this valkhiy; The evidence for 

[this attribucc] is tliat if thcre werc not auch [ari attribule], chen this 
validily bcing a propcrty spcdlk to [God] Most High would bc a 
case of prelenra] withouE ain agcnt of preferring_ Bnt this [ncgativc 

argumcntj is conlmdiclcd by thc iact that [God] Musl High does 
hav-e Lhis alirihuie as a spcciiic property, and so [such an argiiment] 

is overtunied by the fact thal His cssenoe, so specifically qualificd, 
would bc enttrcly capable of rnakLng specJGcacion and re^uh emcnt. 

Islkhani savx: 

L 369, T 179, MS 1 


3, Q>d*s tirittg mtnrt 

The ronsensus [amnng scholarg] is that [God] Most Iligh is a liv- 
ing bsingj™ btU thcy differ on whai the fact thai He is a iiving 
being means. The philosophcrs and Ahu al-Hu&ayn aJ-Rasri 2 * 36 taok 

the position that His 'Kving nature' is a term esprcssing the ualid- 

ity of II is bcing charactcriztd by 'bnowiedgc* and ■power*. Thcre is 
noching in this situauon 207 other than thc esscncc [of God] that Jog- 
ically requires ihe exclusioii of any impossibilily.™ 

The rest |of thc scholais], that is, thc majority of us [the A^ha^irah] 
and of the Mu^ca^ilah, have taken the position that [thc iiving 


MS acid L rI; Bwuu-sc H^ iz [L acUb- bcrlJ lu be] ornjjssciciH anj omriipci- 

terutp aml ^erY ottinL^ -im and omniiKitrnc "bting wmild Irc a li\ing heLng by Lnbtr- 
cnt ncccssitw [Crcim rht* .Sh&rk '/j^nr.J 
^ MS gj: ()f che Mu^iiirilak 

^ning amibute; rsiher, ii iti ?]ic cs»en« riiat rcquire* thc ynlidity, aiid the cxdu- 

aion of any inijW^biJiiy b COllscqu^m to ibe ^alJdicy of His being diaractr riacd by 
lmass'kdgv! and power. 

"™ MS gt: Lc. chc cxdusiOJ3 rcf anjnchjng making it LmprHsibJc fbr thc [dhinr] 

cssencc to be characterbed by biomiedge and powi^r» 

BtiB 2, SECTlON _>, CHAPTIlK 1 

nature'] is- the term fbr an allribu.e rcquiring ihis validicy [Lc-> ui" 1 

GocTs bcing characteriz__d by ^knowlcdgc 1 and *powcr']. 

The evidei_ce for this attribute is the fact that if there should not 

bc an attributr rcquiririg this validhy F thcn for ihis v_i_idity to bc His 

spccilic prapcrty would bc a case of prctcrral without an agcnt of 
prcforrii_g. But this J"negativcJ proof h contradictcd by thc fact thal 
this aiLribute do€s helong to Him as a spccitic prnper_y_ — A ___LI state- 

meiu is that if the [_iega_ive] proof should be valid 3 then thr Tact of 

His c^&cncc bebig spccUicEiliy qu__I_fi_-d by this attributc would havc 

to bc duc to somc othcr attribLUc N othcnmse, it would bc a <:asc of 

prelerral wirhont an ag..nt o_" prelerring, L 370 which is implicitly 
an argurnent in an infmite series,— And this [ricga _ivt] proof is ovct- 
tumed by the fact that His esscnce. 30 specifically qualified ? wouki 
_. _..__. . m_.kii.g ihis spscific_itici_i and nequir.ii.ent, 

Raydawi said: 

L 3-7G> T 179 

4. GotTswitt 

Thc i___.jor._y of scholars arc in agi"ccmcnt that [God] is an 'agcnt 
of wiir, but they dispute as to what thc ' wilT meajis. The philosn- 

phers- teach that [the wi.P constitutes [God J s] knou 1 ] _ dge of how aJl 
existcnce shoukl be ordcrtd so tha. it mighi bc mo.t perfect, and 

they call [thi. a&pett of His ki_o*vl_ dge] a l provident conccrn*. 

Abu al-Husayn [al-Basri]*" 1 interpre.ed [thc L witr] as nr.cani.ijr 

[Gnd's] tbreknowlcdgc of whatcver |polcntial] bcneht there miglit 

be in an action that would commend [its] exi.tential causation, Al- 


Najjar' 111 [intcrprctcd thc c wiIT] as meaniiig that [God] cannoL \x 

overcon___ or coerr.ed. And al-Ka^bi al-Balkhi [i.e. 7 Ahu al-Q_Lsim al- 

KhTm i_f-R;aJlv]iij pnti-qirctcd ihc \vi\Y} as TTieajn.iiig' [<itxff Mosi Higli's 

^knowlcdgc* [as shown] in Hia Own actions, and His 'command 1 [as 
shciwn] in _hc ac_ion& c>f [all] othcrB. 



Mu J ia_*_lL .heologian, d 436/104+. See arride, "Abu sil-Hu.ayn sJ-B;isri" v in 

Kn-I-2-SuppL, pp. _J5-'2(i by \\\ Maddung. 

_■ ! ■:» 

Thii schciilar i^ prc»hab_y (aJ-jHii. b. M. a_ *_\1. al-N-ajy __._■:, Sjth ccnt. a_c_».; i«! 
thc anicLw |fc al-Nay_ir H by M.S. "Nyhcrg and KtuiLiJ ^Aihamim in F__i-]-2_ Relk. ta 
hltii arc in Uie: En-I-2 Indc.x, aii d 'in J_*RT.M. Pctcn. C_»rf-_r CmHed Spt&A 7 p. 359, 
notc 167; ar_d W.M. Watt, Fm T l-"^/ and J^___ , _ , _r__j._r_™T in Eariy hlam, p. LOb, etc; 
ajitl Shahra_.taui ? Mustitn Sscts anti D&isiom. trans. A.K. K__zi &J.G. FLynTL. p. 74. 

£bTABIJ£Hft:l> ArrttllSUTLS. THL BA*L% 01' COD^ ACTS 8G9 

The doclrine beld by our [Asha%ah] colleague» and by Abu q Ali 
[al-jubba*i] and [his son] Abu Hashim and by Qadi 'Abd al-Jabbar 
is thnt [God*s l will a ] is an attributc, T 180 additional to and 
dittcrent from His ^knowlcdjrc 1 and "power^ that &crvcs as an agcnt 

of ]>referririg for some objects oFHi* power over others. 

Our [Baydawi] ara position is that thc spccification of soiiie 
objccts of thc divinc powcr For coming into actual cxistcncc and oF 
somc of tbcm to bc madi; antccedcnt or sub&equcnt [lo othcrs in 

coniing ro actualiiy] certainly jiidirates that there is an 'agcnt of 
specification\ Rut tliis [agent of ipccificadon] is noi the divine 4 know|- 
cdgc* it&clTg, as that coines aitcr thc intelhsjiblc object of knowlcdgc* 
nor is it the divinc 'powcr* f itseLH , as thu Jpowerj rclates to all 

things unifornily and so docs not make any specHication, and the 

rolc [qF ihc divinc powcr] is lo providc both cflcctivc causation and 
existmitia] causation. Now, an Y:xUteiitia! cause* as such, is nol the 
sanu j as an G agenT of prcfenititj* as such, because exist£ntiu] cau&a-* 
tion h baaed upon thc act of prcicmng, 
Ijct no onc say: 

a. chat the possibility of coming into existcnce of cvcry temporal 
phcnomcnon wcjuld bc specified for a particular point of limc; or, 

b. that fa temporal phenomenon's] coming into eadstenoe would 

bc conditioncd by some cclcstial ronjuncdon^ or^ 

c. [ihat a temporal p}ictiomejie.nVs coming inio eswtence woiiid 

be coiidiiioncdj by [God] Mcisl High"s knowledge oF m happenmg 
at thuL partkular tiiiic> or, 

d. [that a tcmporal phcnomcnon's coming inlo existence would 
bc conditioned| by what bendil thcre might be in. its happening jiist 
dicti [hat would give ic prelerence, 

Indrad, it would lx: impnsiililc for any opptwiiioji 10 cume be- 

twccn an intclligiblc objcc:t and what is most bcncfaciaL and our 

position is that somcthing impnssiblc would not becomc a possiblc 
reality. Our statonent also applics to thc adbremcntioned [celesiial] 

conjuncdonSj movcmcnts and positions^ bccau&Cj sirtce thc celtstial 
sphcrcs arc simplc and as thcy are ablc to movc in a ccrtain way s 
just so thcy would bc ablc to mov r c in an oppositc way» and thcy 
cuuld movc in such a way that thcir orbit would take anothcr cir- 

cuit; and the stars could have an aspect ditterent tiom what thcy 

usually ha^, 

Furthcr, knowlcdgc of thc fact that somc cndty is about to cxist 
would he linked with iliat endty only if it is [alraariy God^s jntmtinnal 


choicc]*' 11 that JLhc cndty] will cxisL So thc [factor o\\ inteniiomd 

choice precedcs the knowlcdge [ahciiit it] 7 and thus [thc inten- 
tional choicc] is nol dcrived from [kiiowlcdge abuul the rntity], As 

ft>r a L propcr conccrn* for what would bc thc most l>cncficial, that 
is not a l ncccssary 3 [factor] s ais tbr rc-iscms wc will sci fonh. 

Our apposition argncs that if [God's] *wiir shonld hc linked to 

sonie obj^ctive 7 then thc Oeator Mosr High woiild bc ck*[ident in 
Himseir while bciiig madc pcriea by somcthing other than Himscli. 

liut this would bc impo&3iblc< 

Thc answrr |to thc opponent] is thar the linkage [of (Jod^s- SviH' 

to some 'desirable willed objecrivc' v^ouEd be madc according to 

[God's] cssencc, not according to anything clse. 

IsTahani savs: 

L370, T 180, MS l»0a 

4. (Wj zvil( 

The majority [of scholars] arc agrccd tbat [C3od] Most High is an 

agcut of L wilF, but tluy are in dispulc as to wliat thc *wiir nieans. 

Thc philosophcrs hold that the VilT of i[(Jod] Most Iligh constitutcs 

a- His knowicdge of all esijtiiig ihings from L eterniiy pasi 1 io *eter- 

nity luture', as well a& 

b. [His knowletlge] how all e^istence should be organized su ihal 

it will be in it^ most pcdcct aspe*t 3 and 

c. [Hi& kiiowlcdge} how [all cxistencc] should bc produccd 
Him the Most High ?o that L 371 what otis-ts will bc in agree- 

meni with what is hitelligiblc and in the Rnesi of order, having no 
alien purposc or sclRsh goal. 

The [phiiosophcrs] c:all this [aspect of His] knowlcdgc *pmvidcnl 


Abu al-Husayn al-Rasri intcrpietcd thc Viir as [God] Most Iligh^s 

fon'knrjwh"dgc of whatcvcr [potimtial] ljcncfit thcrc might bc in an 
aclion to connncnd ils cxi^lcniijtl causalion. Al-Najjar intcrprctcd thc fc 
^will* as [mcaningj that Hc thc Most High cannol bc ovcrcomc or 

w This innrrprrtatitni ia dcrivcd fmm rhr topiial ccHitrsL, ralhrr Lhan tncnn thc 
lueral tcxt. Ochcr suip^Bticiiis arc thar thc [bi-ha^llij rrfent I) i^ thc- 'prohabaLity' 

of acnricthing l>cing abnut to cxisl K or 2) to chc : rclc\'ancc' of somcThLLiiir bcmg abuut 
to cxiai. Scc aisn ibc ncrte fm tlic Hamc pajoage in thc Cnmmcncaiy. [Kd.] 
■ ,|y "ihe Bijihc of L ina.d«rtendy inserttd -a scc:on.d :, ■^ ,,, into [ri^ayah]. 


coerced. AI-Ka*bi bd-Ralk}ii [i.c, 3 Abu al-Qasim aJ-Ka'bi al-Ealkhi] 
imeipmcd the 'wiir as [GocTsJ 'knowledge* [shown] in His own acts, 
and as His 'command' [govcniing] thc acts of all olhers. ais In other 
words» al»Ka c bi al-Balkhi interprctcd thc 'will* in rclation to [God] 

Hig'h's own acts as showing His knowlcdge in thrm, and in 
relatian to dic acts of othcrs as [showiiig] His govcming eommand 

chrough [thcir acts]. 

Thc doctrinc of our coilcagucs [ot thc Asha c irah] and Abu *A]i 
al-Juhba ? i and hw son, Ahu HasJutn, and Qadi 'Abd al-Jabbar, h 

that the 'wilT is an atlrihute, additional to but diAerentiated from 
[His] knowledgc and power, that is an agent of preferring for some 

of thc objccts of His powcr ovcr othcrs. 

Our [MahaniJ posilion is thai specihcation of some objects of 

|Cud s s] powcr for rca]izarion [within existGncej, suine bcing eilher 
carlicr or latcr [than thc rcst] — thcir apcciKcation bdng" for deirinitc 
timc£ with an option for their ficcurrcnce to he liciore or aiter those 
d-efinii«i [imesr-*certainly calls for an s^gent nf sp&cihcation. That spec- 

ilym^ agcTii is not thc [dwiuc] knuwlcdge iisi/ir, Ij^cau-sc knnwlw3ge 
[of a thing activcly] follows upon chc [cxi5tcncc of that] inlclhgible 
known thing; [but the knowledge isj not Jbllowcd [passivcly by thc 
cxistcncc of che incplliephU:], in ordcr to avoid a circular argumcnt. 

Further, [the speciTyiiig agcnt] is not the [divine] power |ltself], 

bccausc thc rclation of this [iactor] to all objccts of powcr and to 
all points of time wouid be Lhe sanic, so it would nol spcciiy onc 

object of power ralher ihan another, nor Jwould it specify] somc 
dctinite poitit ortime ouc of all the ochers. Therefore^ certainly there 
wouid be an attributc, othcr than both the divine 'knowledge* and 

^powcr 1 j by rcason of which some objccts of [ditinc] powcr would 
lic specially designated co hecome tempora! phenomcna raLher than 

oiJiers ai sorne drhnitc poiru uf iime rather than another; M.S l^Ob 

that attributc is thc c will' [of GodJ. 

Furthennore, inrludcd in thc fijncdon ot" [diiine] powcr are 'eHecriyc 
causation p and 'e^i^tential causarioiv ? ihcsr two [factors] hcing related 
ro all points of time equally, but thc funciir>n of Ehe g vAlV h to give 

prei^j-ence, The exJstential cai^e in itself is scnn^ihing other than ihe 

thing othcr than thc act of prcfcrring sincc cxistcntial causation ii 



MS gL: Le.j, ai God Mast iiiph's tommand to Hb creamre 10 peribnn [hose 

8/2 2 ? SECTION 2 ? OHAPTER I 

hascd upon ihe aci of prefertmg, and what is based upon another 

thing is cratainly dillerent Irom that [other] thing. 31 * 

L I jet 110 one aay tbat th^ possihility of coming into existcnce 

Ol cvcry ^en-ponsl jaln cm ?criL- cloil w-mjLd Iji: .S|Jt:i:iEu:d fi:r ;s purlii-uliir 

point of timt, and that its «currence would be impo&sible belbrc 

and altcr that point of timc, so for that reason its oocurrence is 

speciiicd Ibr that point of timc.. 

2. Or, Pet no one say] that every temporal phcnomenon^ cxis- 

tencc would be conditioned upon a conjunction of the [oelestial] 
sphcrcs., such thai aia when God Most High created chc spheres He 
crcated [n ihcm naturcs thai movc thcm by themschcSj and thcn 

ihrough thc causation of these natures these [albremenlioned] tem- 

poral phcnomcna arc gcncratcd in our unwerKC» and conscqucntly 
the elcmcntal tcmporal phcnomcna arc bound up with thc con- 
jiincliuns of the celescial spheres. Then a |sinc:ej th,e conjunctions of 

the sphcrcs havc dehnite schedules in which it h impossible for one 

thai is latcr to prcccde or for onc that is cHrHer to rctard, thc ck- 
rnental tcmporal phcnomcna arc likcwisc; and.. in that casc, thcy 
have no need Ibr an agent of specificationp 

:i Or, [let no one sav] ihat [God] Mcwt High'5 knowlcdge 
L 372 that [a tcmporal phenorncnon^J coming into esistcncc would 
bc at that | pariicular] point oi timc is what givcs it preierral. 
Indecd, [GodJ Mosl High is i.unnLscient of all thin^ so He. knows 

which of llion aetually wili occur and which of them actually will 

not cHicur, Kurther, ihe esdstenoe of what God Most High knows is 

noncKistcnt would bc an impossihility, and the rcversc is that of 
course Hia knowledge ol" [the temporal plicnomcnon ? sJ occurrenrc 
at that point of time giv-es it preft*rral. Ind^ed ? whatevcr is contra* 
dictory to soinclliirig mtdligibly known would l>e an Mnpossibility, 

4. ()r. |ld nn cnw \n.y\ 1 J j.l"_ |Gi d's| kmjwlcdgc of dic bcnciit 
thtrc rnighi be jn fthe ttmporaJ pheriomeiion^s coming inio esi^t- 

enoe] at that point of timc is whai gives it prelcrral. 

Indced. whatever k contradicio«v to somethina: mosi hcneficial 

wodd lx f an impossil>ility t and God Most HiglL comprehcuds all the 

intclligiblcs^ so Hc would bc complctcly awarc of thc good and thc 


MS gl: Ijc.j thc UiiiiR that <kp<:i]di is socikL-chitig othcr ihan the lIlLtllj; iliai is 

dcpt^idiMJ Lipon. 


Rcadjnpr wilh L, T^ anrl MS (riinrit FWil9Ha Ebj-uiiria kiiStla^ .-\Ilmli]; t\\v MS 

iv-nk: [fa-Liin4 Allah iii B ala* ichala^J, 


cvil thcrc might he in chem. The knowlcdgc that an action holds 
benetiT is preemjneiitly unique in ihat it is somethine; that motivatcs 
exfctcmial causation. For whcn wc know thac there h m an act sorac 

good that is ircc from harm thcn that knonlcdgc motivatc& us to 

pLTlbnii that actioru 

[However s ihe Foregoing positions are not tenable doctrinek.] Kor^ 

indcccL our [Mahani] T IKI doctrine is [as Tollowsi]; 

la. It is not admrissible that thc pos&ihiiity of coming into cxist- 

enoc of a temporaJ phenom«ion J,fi should he specihed for a partic- 

ula.r poitu of time. [If it should be] otherwise, thcti hcfore tha< point 

of timc that tcmporal phcnomcnon cotild not possibly have exi$tcd.. 
and thcn it would haw become possibk for it to cxist s but this 

[change] would bc an inipossibility bccause something impossibJe 

catnnot bccoinc sumrLhing puHsiblrr 17 

2a. Nor is. it admis.siblc MS 191a that thc agcncy spccify- 

ing [the coming into esdstence of teroporal phcnomena] should be 
the celestiaJ conjunctions, aiH motions and posmons, for then ihe dis- 

cussion about thosc conjuncrions. motions and positiuris would be a 
rcpctition of the discussion about thc [albrcmcntioncd] tcmporal pho 
nomcna^ slnce tlie tcmporal origination of thc conjunctions, motions. 

and positions would have 10 be Jrom some agency of speeification. 
The spheres are simplc^" and just m k is pos-ijible for them to moue 
in this [particular tLsual] dircction, namcly, that thc limitcd systcm 
[of tlw firsl sewn (planetary} spheres| moves from thc east to the 

wcsi whilc [the cighthj. thc sphcrc of tbc fixcd. stars, [is moving] in 
thc oppositc dircction, it also would bc pcnssiblc for tlicm to movfi 
ili thc nrv r crsc of chis n namcly, diat tlic limitcd H-ystcin [of thc Hrst 

*' n M& Jtl: TTiis \s thc arswcr to [MahanisJ statcnirnt: L ^Lrt no onc say tK-at 
thc possibility of comins into c-sdstmce of cvcry tcmpciral phcnonLrncin . , m n etc., aE 
thc bcginning of thc bl Lct no onc say" [pesaagcj, 

117 M5 gl: Tliis rtcjLiLrcs considcrati™, becaurc ihis L^lpassibilit> , Js <m ittLpOSSi- 
bility of yomelhing clsc [bi-al-gha-yTj, but it dots not eschide wbal is possiblc; che 
ioiposdbtu is only an inwrsdon of whal Ls cs«:nlially impossible iiltii what ife cs^en- 

LsaEy ]jnMJbfc. 
™ MS gL TPiis is rhe !¥S|K>rLsc in [lsfoliani , *j aiaicrrictic, Hfc Or> 2- [IjCI no otic 

say] thai cvcr^' trnip^ral ph^norncrion^ «dal€isc;c ^ouLd ht conditknicd upmi a con- 
junciiuH . . . ,? ctc. 

* 19 MS gl: For if they are simpJe, (hen ii!3 poahaotLi [yw<,La f J m jdaiion to thr-m 

arc cqiial. Bni thU jrequire$ corisUlcrAUtyii. Why would ix noi 1m: acJmkiibLc fthr ihat 
io bc tnic on acconnt of ihc m^irn ot form of mcty sphcrc 7 aincc thc primary 
cnactcra and fbrms of thc gphcrci art raricd:. or on account of crthcr factorR which 
thc mind of nLan Ls unahEc to pcn:civc? 

874 2. 5ECTION 2. CHAPTT.R 1 

f __--- m - - r-, _-. 

&cvcn (planctaiy) sphercs] woudd move from ihe west to the easi 
while thc [cighth] sphcrc of thc fixcd stars [would inovt] trom tht 
cast Lo the west. Furthci\ just as it is possiblc for [thc sphcrcs] to 
movT so ihat the ^odiac prcscnts this. particular aspect, just so k 

would bc possible foi [thc sphercs] to movc so that ihe zodiac would 

bc \n another circuit diftcrcnt from this particiilar onc; and^ just a* 

it h possible for the siars t» be in thc riirection |in \he. sky] ihey 
are now, just so U would be possible for them to be m a direciion 

diffcrcnt from what thcy s*re in now. That being the casc, wc thcu 
may transfcr thc [carlicr] cliscussion to thc conjuncUons. motions and 


pnsiUons of the spheres, and then che argumcnt would not be an 

jnfuiiie serits. So, ihere is no other opeion hut to rest die mauer 

bctbrc God Most High. 

3a. [Nor h it admi.s&ihle that the coming into raistence* of a 

temporal phenomenon at a desigriated limc should be condtiional 

upon God ? s. knowlcdgc of its happcning ?r*t ihal tiTnc] Thc lcnowl- 
cdgc™ that a partkular thing is to hccomc cxistcut will bccomc 

linlted with [that thin£r] only if that thing is [alrcady God ? & intcn- 
tiotitil choice] to become esd&tetit, 221 since knowkdge* that a thing is 
to bccomc cxistcnt foUows upon the fect that [the thing] is the £ imen- 
cional choicc 3 co bccomc cKi-stcnt. So. the intentional choicc is ante- 

c&clcnt to the knowlcdgc [about the thin^], Thcrcforc a its bcing chc 

iiitcntiunal choice u> become existtiii h not because of the knowl- 

cdgc pinkcd to it]. [If it should bc] othcrwisc 3 a circular argumcnt 
would bc implicit. 

4a_ Nor is it a-dinis&iblc tlial [God^s] knowlcdgc ot the bcnciit 
ihere might be in some act should he the agcnt of prelerring for 

it. 25 - That wonld be admisible only i.f a 'proper concern for what 

is most bcncficial* should be a 'ncccssKiry ohhgaiiot] upon God M(*si 

^ MS b;1: This ii thc rtsjHjnsc io IsEaliaiii'4] stLitcmcilt, ^Or, 3. [Let nn onti 
sity] that [God] Most HiRji' 1 ^ knciwlcdRc thal fu lcmjini^al phen&rturn^n^] coming 
intri rsdstertce wtnild hc: at rhar [par^icular] pjinr nf timc. is whar giws it psr^rerraj/ 

m Morct liccralLy: 4 "only if thc diing l=- [hcld/ytkcii] in rtrjard to its bccoming 
rustcnL"' fWa-aL- c iLm bi-an sd-shny 1 sa-yiijad innami yviui c altftt| bihi idha kaii ai- 
shtty 1 bi^uih sa-yOjad li-athCLa al- c itm bi-Aruui aL-sbay 1 sa-yCijad tylji c li-kawuLhi. bi- 

Ijayth sa-jTjjad Ri-al-^aythiyah s3Lbiiq£ih c aJa 3 at-^lmj. 

P22 MS jjj[L: This is the response co [Esi^i lxanP3s J 5raTi^r™ent a — "br, 4. fLer no one 
w«.y] ihat [Gud 3 s] biwkdse of th* benefi( thcrc niiglu br: in [thc tcmpc*p*L plic- 
nr>mtjioii ? s coming into existenoe] n chw pMni of time is ■■■ liat gives U preferral." 


High*. But tbis wouM he ati impossibilicy, bccaus^ a u propcr con- 
cern for what is niost bendRciaT h not a necessary obiigation upon 
Gud Mosi High, as wc shall sct Ibrth. 

Our opposition argucs that if ihc will should bc hnkcd to Some 
objcctive then the Creator Most High wouki bc L !S73 defkicnt 

m Himsclf whik bcing madc perli-ct by soiriclhing else, whlch for 
God would bc impossible- An cxplanation of thc inhcrcnt logit- uscd 
here h ihjuj 

a) if the will sliould be litikecl to some objecrive, then that 
objectivc would bc sumeihing othcr ihan I lianseir, and thus Ho would 
bc mack pciTcct by that objcctivc alicn to Him&cl^ and what h RUidc 
perfcct by sotnethiug ebe is deficient in itsclf; MS 19 Ib but 

b) if the wiU should not be Hnkecl tu some ohjcctive, then 

it would bc futile, and ibtility as appiicd to God Most High is an 


Thc answer [to this opposition argumem] is that the linkage of 

thc \viiT to a l willcd objcctn/c 1 is on accounl of thc csscmc of [Gotfs] 
wilL an Tlic will of God Most High is cndrcly transccndcnt ovit 
objcctwes. Rathcr, it has a ncccssaiy linkag-e to thc cxislcntial cau- 
aation of a parcicuLar thing a£ a partkular poinc of timc on account 

of its own essencej. 22 * not on account of anyihing else. M5 

Baydawi said: 

L 373, T 18] 

God's wiil is not a temporal phmommon 

But the Mu c tazilah hold that [GocTs] 'will* is. scli^suhsistcnt and is. a 
temporaJ phenoiru. non., ahhough it is not in a sub^trate., whilc the 
K;jiramiyah hnlij that it is an attril.ium; ncciirriirg n$ a lemporai php- 
uorrLcnon within thc eswncc of [God] Most High, 
Our doctrinc has two aspccts: 

a. Th(R cxistcncc of cvery tcmporal phcnoracnon dcpcnds upon 

the linkiigc of [God s] ^rtll to it. Thus, if His wiU werc to be * tem- 

oral phenoincnon thcn it wouid havc nccd tbr anothcr wiH f this 
ai^ument implicitly being an intitiite scrics. 

m MS gl; JSYit for nnnic ohjrrjtiw, 
131 MS gl: l.e. ? of its wuiTi «ip^citk natun 1 . 

m MS gl: Thu.t ihc rdationship oF thc wll wcnild not bc itilh two uppusaics^ 
ror ^ith ail polnt^ in timc cquaDy. 


h. A se!F-iubsisUi'ig aiinbuie is icKonLTi^ablc, Bul in syht* of lhat s 

if His csscikc should havc [such an attributc] as a spccial propcrty^ 
iJicn it would bc a casc of spccihcaton withouL an agcnt of specifih 
cation, becansc Jthc attributc*»] relation to all Jothcr] essenccs would 
be on an equality r The fact that it is not in a substrtttc is a ncga- 

tive concept, so it would be unsuitiible to bc an agent of spcriiica- 
tion. Furlhcrnit:irc T thc subsistence in [GorTsJ esscnce of an attrihute 

as a temporal phenomenon would be impossible on account nf prc- 

cediiig discussionSr 




I. 373, T ]8L MS 191h 

(iW 3 j Bw'tf w mrf fl tcmpoml pkenommon 

The fact that [Godj b ati 'agent of will* whose actwe will is distin- 
guishabic from His knowlcdgc and powcr has a coroUary in our 

|A£ha c irah] doctrinc that God Most High 3 s wiJ is not a lcmporal 



Tlie Mu*tazilah say that the ^ill of God Most Hi^h is seif*sub5isi^»u 
and is a cemporal phenomenon, ahhough il h not in a substraie .™ 
The Karramiyah hold that the will of God Most High is a tempo- 

ral attribuic that God Most High crcates within Himscin** 7 

Our do( trinc has two aspects: 

a. Thc existence of every tcinporal phcnomenon is dcpendcnt 

upon thc linkagc of thc [divincj will to it^ according to our prcvi- 
ous discussions. Thus, if God Most llagh^s wiil wcrc to bc a tem* 
poral phenomcnon, thcn it would stand in of some other will; 

so, argumcnc in an infinite series would be implicit. 

An oljjt-ction has becn raised thai an argument could be broughi 
against thts point, to the effect that 

I. you [Ls^ahLini^s parn r ] havr as&erted that it h [God^j will 

llial gives preferral to one of iwo poinls of lime for existential cau- 

sation ovcr all othcr timcs for it s and 

m MS gl. Sincc if it dioulci bc in a gubslratc, ihrn ttiat substralc wonld bc rittirr 
a) [Gud HijELs^lf], or h) sorrK*tlucLK dac\ Tlac fmt dttrrialivc is lalstr duc Co tht 

^«pr>ssibil3t>' i'or Him tK-e Mosc Higli to be a siibHraU" Ibc 1 uemporal pbenomtruL, 

arwl (hc *ctond U likcwlsc fs1se p doc io rhc impLieaĔbility T&^ (lic anributt uf ock- 

cmity io IX Rul:^$tctn m 

' ii7 \IS gl: As rlit-y umistcJrr Lr kidnusabk: "6>r Him to hf ^ suhsirate fo^ lempo- 

ral phcoom^na. 


2, you have sidd that it is adinissiblc for [Gu-tt] the Oinnipotent 

in autociomous aciion 2JH to givc preicrral lo onc oi two objeets of His 
powcr over ihc othcr without thcre being any *agcnt of prefcrring*; 

3. therelbre, why would it not he admissible that [CJod^sJ will 
withoui an 'agrnl of preleiring' shoukl come from God the Omni- 

poinil, (hcn ihis will wuuld iKJieonu' the nguncy ol prHhnil lor rvrr\- 

thing ckcj and thus no inhnitc scries argumcnt would bc implicd?. 58 ™ 

a*~a- [Iii aiiswcr to this question], of course, there is no doubt 

L whnever would grant thc adrnissibilily of God Omnipotcnt 
Riving prcferra] lo one of two ohjer.ts of liis power ovcr the othcr 

without an agenl of preferring would be fbrced to makc that inicr- 
cnc-Cp but 

2- whocvcr would not grant it as admksible would rtot be forced 
lo makc k. 

b, lf God Most High's will were to be a temporal phennmenon, 
thcn cicher 

1. it would be seir-subsntent, or 

2. it would subsisl in God Most High's essencc; but both of 
the&e coneluskm& would be false, 

b-a.l. [In answer]j the first [of thc conclusions abowj would bn 

falsc bccau&c thc will as a tcmporaJ phcnomcnon would bc an 

attribucc* and ihc s^ll-subsLstencc of an attribute is inconccwable, Buc 

in spite of that, if [God Hims€lf] should be specifical"y quajfied by 
a sclf-subsisting will thcn it would bc L 374 a cstse of specilicHlion 
withoui an agcnt of spccihcation. [Thig is] bccausc if thc will should 
bc seli-subsi^ccnt ihen it* rclationsbip with all [othcr] casences, whether 
ihe essence of the Crcator or the esscnccs of the possible rnalities, 
would bc cqual, and thus, lor [God HimselT] to be speci&cally 
qualilicd by [thc wil]] wuuld bc a cast! of spcdJication wiihout an 
agcnt of spccitication. 

[BaydawTs] statement ihat fhe fact that [the willj is not in a sub* 

strate k a negative concept refers to MS 192a the answer to m 

assunicd inteipolation. A full statement of thc intcrijolation would 

be that Cod Most Hig/s essenoe is not [re^tdent] in a subs[ra«f: T 
and [His| wi]l likcwisc h not [residcnt] in a subsirate. Thu^ for 

* M MS gl: In [hi- top\<r oi\ lhf divinc powrr. 

' ,J,J MS gL: [This wnuld bc-] oji thc thccsry of Lh^ icmporaL origiriiition *jf thc will. 

876 2, sncrriON 2, ghaptek i 

|(rnd| Most Higti^s esscncc to be Rpcrrih^ally cjualitkd by [Hisj will 

is prrfr:fij:j]i- to ntiyiliiitg <:].$<'■. And ;t full slisti rni riC nf 1 1 1 : : j:i:-vm r 

woidd be that tlie fact that tlic ivill is not [rcadcnt] in a aubstratt 

is a ncgativc conccpt \vhich mnkcs ic unauitablc to bc an agcncy of 
specification. 2j,J 

The njjpusiliot) could T 182 object by not granting, — on the 

thcoiy that [God r s] will would bc &d.f-subsistcnv— that for [God] 
Most High"s csscncr to he jBpcritically qualihcd by [His. will] would 
be a case of specifioition without an agent of specification, 

[Baydawi**] atatennt-nt is rtiai [God's will] would br irUii-d to &11 

[othcr] csscnccs on an cqual basis. Our [Mahani] position ia that 

we do not grant this- Indecd. God |llimsclfj is thc aetivating causc 

of [His] will T and for [this] actiuacing cause to be specifically qualificd 

by [this] efli-ct k more appropriate than for anything el&e to qualified 

by it 

b" i.2r [I11 ariswtrij. ihc second [of ihe conclusioci* abovc] wioiild 

bc impnssiblc. brcnusc il is not adniiwiiblc thal [GodJ Most High 
should bc a suhsirate for lcrnporal phcnonicna, accoiding to thc dis- 
cussions that have prcccded. 


MS gt: [I.e.J Ibo" thc fc3ivici.-c , l wtl] in its capacity as an. csislenl enlity [Uj bc 

■iut agcncy of speciJkaliotl]. 

R;*ydawi said- 

I. 374, T IB2 

Cmaptek st: Oitikr AttkiwuteSj not iiie BAsiii o¥ God 1 s Agts 

]. Gt)d*s heanng tmd nght 

The arguments we have traditionally heard have demonstratcd thai 

[GodJ Mr«t High is a Being who h ^ll-lteai ing and all-set irtg. Therc 
k noihing in reafr.ui that woukl divcrt thcse [argumenEs] from their 

■ il:i\ii:>us fO]]rlusi(jris ? so thry must hr itdmitcrd; 1 and &im;r Hr kiicm^; 
what.t:vcr things there are to t*e hrard and sv.r.n y and ihat being at 

ihe time of their occurrence a this i& what is tncant by the fari thai 

[Gcd] is all-hcarin^ and aH-sccing. 

Knrcher, it may be iiifcrred that if [God] the Livrtng Onc should 

riot have thest iwu th;iracieristic& ihcn Hc would be deftcieni. This 

[argumeni] is canyincingg, bccauSE it dcpcnds upon ihc fact that every 
]iving" bcing is properky charactcrizcd by thcm, and for a iking bcing 
not to bc charactemcd hy them would be a ddiaency. 

Howwer, our opposition could deny both of thrae sLatements, thcir 

iirguinem thcn havmg twu poiiU4>; 

a. If His htraring und aght should buth bc ctcrniiK dicrt il would 
imply thc ctcrnity of that whic.h is hcard and sccn^ whkh would hv 

ralse^ according to you [i.e. ? Baydawi as thetr opponent], Rut if rhey 

arc bo-th temporal phenomenaj thcn [God Himsclf] would be thc 

substrate ft>r thc tcmporal phcnomcna, and that would bc impossibic. 

a.-a. Thc answcr to this point is that thc two arc ctcrnal attrib- 

utes that arc bcing prcpared Ibr [generaL] pcrccption- that is> [thcir 

preparation for perception is] their linkage to whatever may bc heard 

rtrtd seen whenevcr these shouLd exist. 

1 Rrading with T. This &wm6 lo ht & sirioochcT scribal rendcrin^ anni is rrfltt:te<J 

in ihe oommeriKary. 

L imcns hcrr hiilfa linci [Thia u ncw m ihc sctue ihai Llod Mos-t ltigh kno^ 
■uf ihLngs hward and ^cn^ and t\\vn rorttinucs: ^chcrcraR. 1 , Ht ktiuw&^.." Ttw 
irwcrt^d half lim: is [wl liikcn iij> iil lh* c™m^e]^tiA^\^ 

Binh MS GiiFrcu 2S31j jick! MS Garreu tt89Hb oniii llic }udf-Liiu: ituertkm, che 
em agrtes ^iili l^ 

880 2, SECTION 2. liHAITlIR 2 

b, The second [point m the oppo«uion's argimient] is thai [GodTsj 

hcaring and sccing arc cithcr thc cffcct of somclhing scnsory or thcy 
are a percepiion conditiona] upon [&uch an rflect|, tw>Lh. of thesc 
a1ternadveA britig iinpossible m applicd u* God Mo*i High. 

b.-a, The answer to this poittt is that the tninor premisc [i.e.j 

both of thcsc allcmativ r csj is dcniccL 


1-374, T 182, MS I92a 

Ghapter 2: Other AttrjlbuteS;, not the Basjs of God's Acts 

The seconcl chapter is on thc rest uF the [divine] attributeSj and in 

it are a iiurnber of topics: 1. GodP& Hcariruj and sight s 2. God*s 
Spccch, 3* GckTs Immortatity, 4. Othcr (JJualitics that aI-Ash*ari 

named Alirihutes, 5. GckTs Production of Being, 6. God*s Beatiinr 
Visibility to Bdievers in the Hcrcaftcr. 

1 . Cod ~s Itetmrtg md sight 

Musliuis arc agreed upon ihc Jaa tliat [GudJ Mosi High is all-hcar- 

ing and ail-steing* but thcy dillcr on its mcaning- 

The philosophcrs of Islam* along withj al-iCa*bi* and Abu al- 

Husayn al-Basrr bold che position ihat *hearmg p and *$ight* are a 

manncr of rcferriiig to His ^knowlcdgc* of whatcvcr may bc hcard 
and sccn.* 

2 M5> gj: [l.e,, ihe rc*t] of ihc ertHljlishcd [auribiurs]» t™ 1 - "»i Lho$t upon whLch 

Hi& i#rts arr: hosjrd. 

' 1- a»d T T^adi ""Thir DtEciutrr rtT Istam"'* [hujiai al-lsJdnil., l.c. r al-<;ha?ill h hnc 
Lhc MS, MS Ganrctt 9&QHa» and MS Garrctc-Yahuda 44fifi (t 147:4) rrad "The 

phlkwjphcra of tsJam . . /' [hiikarna*]. as lhf: MLnu-imj; cantr %t confurra. Tlic paralld. 
in. r IVi])ic 3 [l^ !ifsf+l jh u the phi]oHn]ll]e^^ : ' ,, Kilb^^dl hy Abu aJ-Hus.a,y[L aL-Basri. 
* Lc, Abu al-Qasim al-Ki'hi al-Balkhi^ hcad of thc Mu'lazitah schooL of Baghdad. 
was bDm and! dicd at Balkh hi 31 9/93 1, aiid. thus he i& cqua.lly wcll known as Abu 
3iI-QiftsijTi al-Baikhi ShL-.Kfi € lH. W.M. WaLt, hinmk Phiiosepky md TSwtagr. p. M, mnk« 

rcgard chs Jiaiu-r^ as LndicaUnR cwo dii'U a rvnt ^holars, is cheir jiiaLn artlcL^ L& unrii v j j 
Bcdkhi., wieh a fcw intkx rritrences uridcr Ka^hi. 

s Aliu aUHusyyu al-Risri, d. 4^fi/ll>H, pupil »rQudi c A1k1 al-JwlAwr, Cf W^ci, 
tstomit /*iftiLi^> fl»rrf "/jWig^, p. 107, and W. hlad^Lung^ artide in Kn-l-2-Sp p, 25. 

5 MS gl: [Le-],. at chc dme of iis occurrtnct- Thus chcy wwild both hc cr-mpo- 
taJ phcnomr-iia and drrivc froni the divinc tnowicdgc; (h^y would m>1 Lx^ attrib- 
urrs adik^d io Ll [hom Juijjani^ ShtitA Mm.viqif qI-I?l] 

OmiEft AlTKLHUTEk. NOT TH£ BAilS Clt* GOD'5 AtiTS 881 

The posiiion wf the iirajurity L 375 of our [Asha c irah] coUeagues 

and uf th-e Mu'taziLah and tho KamiiniyHiJi is tiiat Qi^f two [qual- 
UicsJ arc LUirihuic& th"it art: tn iidtiition lo thc [dh-iiiej kiiowkdgc ot 
whatever chiKigs may bc hcard and sccn. 

The argnments or traclitionally hcarri authority demonstratc 

a, thac [God] Most High is all-heanng and all-seeing, and 

b. that thc cspre&sion, "hearin£ and ayht* ls not rtrally applica- 

ble to the [divine] knowledgc regarding whatever may be heard and 

secn. Bul sincc thc changc cif mcauing ibr an csprcssion frum lit— 
cral to figurativc is not adniisnibk cxccpt whcn thcrc might bc some 
objcction» and thcre h jioLhmg in. rcason to divcrt thc traditional 

argunicrns from tbeir ulwirttis ronclusiona, thcy must therclbre be 

adimlted, brtause of thc requirerneul deriviiig dom iheii 1 being fim j 
Irum (ihjcctions* Furthcr ? [tradidonaJ aLiihority holdsj 

c. tliat if Ilc is all-hcaring and aU-secing. thcti Jlc will bc omni- 

sciem of *vhat-ever things inay bc heard and seen at the very time 

of thcir occurrcncc. 7 

Ijct it hc understood MS 1 92b tliat rcason has shown thc impos- 

of perception by [GodJ Mo*t High by means of physicaJ 

organs. Thus, hearing und sight are tho righdul possessiou of Him 

the Most High, and thcy arc not by means of physicaJ org«uis, They 

derive cithcr from thc [diviiicj *knowlcdgc of whatcver itiay bc henrd 
arid &ccn\ as ls ihc doclrine of thc philosophcrs^ or [thcy dcrivcj 
from somc attribut-e other ihati cIik "^knowledgc of whatever may bc 

heard aiid seen* but not by mcans of physical organs^ as is the doc- 

trinc of our [Asha'irah] coilcagues. This is what h mcant 3 by His 
bcing all-hcaring and all-geeing. 

The condosion rhai hearjtig and sight are two artribtite* which 

are to l>e added to the essenoe [of G<k1J but whirti are differr je1 

fiom [His] krtowlcdgc is drawn by in^-tus of a wcak proof The lull 

sLatcmcnt of thc proof is that [God] \Iost High is a ii\ing iM^ing, 

7 F.IX Rid [AlbAĕLcrd/, pp. 171-172J ircpcnls ihal ^airly lliink-r-r^ Jinkt-d qual- 
iti« to God fc s kimwLrdgc at»d co His pcriection of nainrn; For nnly a d^feciivr hciag 

would |je ^iLhout thtm. Fsfaha.uL claborjitcs on Bayda.wi who had choscn ocily a 

lew oF Ra^i"? rt-purts. 
1 MS gt: Le Pp the [meanitigj im*ii<fcd [al-murad]. I. (in both chc oommcntary 

and ihe BaydawL iext) and lLsc: MS (c-cHnraicniaTy only) appcar to- rcad ""'inlLcndcd 

ccLL-miicbL^ 1 [cd-mu^cicia 3 ^ sccrnirig]y an unsual uwr criT thc vcrb ['aaiiyii] iu tiit 2ud 

Iimiii. I" ijn bnlh pl;^0'V. ;icid MS {^m-lt 989H^ ^ori-rrrHrilMiy .■■nly ;ir-r ^R^lHli 

{RaycUwi Ick.1 onlySi read [ma f naT. 

882 s, SLCiiOK a, ciiapier -2 

and it is valid Lor a li^dnsy; brmg to bc charactcrizcd by hearing and 

sight. But if anything valid to be characterized by hearing and sighc 

should not bc ao tharacteri^ed, thcn it would bc characterizcd by 

their opposite and thcii opposite wauld constitutc a dc£icicncy s so if 
the Creator Most High should not be charactcrizcd hy thei^e two 

[quatitic&] theit He would bc delitienL But ascribmg defaciency 10 

God is impossiblc. 

[Baydawi] our author says that this prool' is conyiniing 3 bccau&t: 
it 15 based upon thc pn&ition (I.) tJiac wcry living being niay Vididly 
be cbaractcrizt-d by hearing and «ght, and (2-) that not to be char- 

actcrizcd by thcm would bc a deJkiency. 

The oppositioiis, howcvcr s could dcny both premiscs. 

L The first premise [could be denied] hccause the Living namrc 
of God Most High is diilerent ftoin our li%ing nature, and diese two 

diJlrniLl tniinis ijjurt jirjt hn\c l i .mmumLity in uny jn^po^kms 

[aboui ilicm]; so it may not be inferred from the fact that our liv* 

ing nature has bccn conHniicd as suitable to have heariiig and sighl 
that chc living naturc of [GodJ Moat High would be likcwisc. Wc 
grant that poinl. liut then^ why would it not bc admissible to say 
that even if the livmg natare of [God] Mcisl High should bt? conJintied 
as suitable to have hearing and sight, neverthele^ His rcaL nature 
would not be aoceptant of them, and jurt as although a giveri living 
naturc mi^ht bc conhrmed as suitable to have evil deaire and ran- 
cor nevertheless its real nature would not bc acccptant of thcm, so 

likcvirisc it would be in this tase? We grant thac the essence of God 
Most lligh is acccpuuit of Jicaring and sightj bul why woidd h not 
bc adnii&siblc £br thcir occurrcncc to bc dependent upon a condi- 

tion denying thcir rcalization within thc csscncc of God Most Iligh 

2- The second [ onuld be denicdl bcc^use we do dol 

granL that it would h* a dehciency for a IMng being not to hz char- 

actcrizcd by thcm. fBaydawi*s] statcmcnt that if [God.] sliould ooi 
hc r haracteri^ed by thcm then Hc would bc characterizcd by thcir 

opposkes shoukl be ruled out^ because it U adnussible for a being 

acccptant of somctliiug 1» l>c dcvoid HnLti of Lhai Lhing ilsclT and oi 

its oppo-sitc. 


Ihe opposition prescnta an argumcnt h^viiig two pointsr 

a. If [GodVj hcaring and sighi should be 

"' MS gl; l.c^ [dcrnonsLrat«.| probiLbiliCy |?artttr|. 


L cternal then it would impJy rhe etcmity of whatcvcr may bc 
hcard and secn. But che oonclu&ion L 376 is (alsc according to 
you, [1.C.J Baydawi as opponcnt] MS 193a because acmrding to 
yo«j attything that is other than God would be a tcmporal phe- 

HOTTKjnnri Thr 1 1 1 s^n r |of lim cuncliision] is lji;il rhe hrarinj* and slght 

would not bc verified as rcal unless thcrc wcre somelhirig to be 
hcard and seen.* If [God*s hcaring and sLght| should bc 

2. temporal phcnomena, ihen [God Himsdf] would be a sub- 

stratc Jbr temporal phcnomena. [This would bej bccausc the hcar- 
ing and sight would be temporal phennmena suhsisting in [God 

Hitmdf] 5 sime His essctke would havc them for ailributcs. Bui ihe 

conclusion is impossiblcj on attount of what you liave come to know 

to thc cficct thar tho e^ence of [God] Most liic^h cannot posribly 

be a suhstrare for temporal phcnnmena* 

a. a. Thc answer T 183 lo this poiiu is that [God'&) hcaring 

and sight are ctcmal attribtites which prcparc thc onc characterizcd 

by them lo pertehe whaievcr may be heatxi and seen. Thc percep- 
tioti of whatcver may be hcard and seeri b a way of referrtng to 
ihc linkagc of hcaring and sight with things that may be heard and 
sci.n v. h-:-i n-\"i-r rliry rxi>T. \'lw\>. thr cUTmty ol" what k heard -md 
seen may not he inferri!d from thc etcrnity of thc hcaring and sighL 

b. The sccond [of the oppositioi^s poims] is ihat either 

1, [God"s] hcaring and siglit would bc thc eflki uf a sensatc 

imprcssion from whatcvcr may bc hcard and sccn f or that 

2. the perception of whatever may l>e hcard and seen would 
be conditional upon thc cflect of a scn&aic impression from chem, 

But cach of thc&e alternativcs wouJd bc impossibJc to ascribc to God 

Most Higli, 11 thus Hc would not bc an all-hcaring all-sccing Bcing. 

b.-a. llie an&wer here is to rule out the niinor prcmi&c. for wc 

dn tiot j^rant that hearing and sighi wonld be either (]] che eiiect 

of a sensatc impression from whatcver ntay l>e heard and seen, or 
a pcrccption condidonal upon thcm. Rathcr, hearing and sighi 
arc thc perception of whatc\ cr things may bc hcard and seen whcn 

these occur. 

,,: T aLonc adkt hcrc: "'ITiub,, if thc tliumr hcaring; aiud Eighl wcre lO kc. eiemal^ 
llien whALPvcr may bc he-ard aiid sc«j wuuld bc clerTJ^J a]iiu. ?! 

11 MS ^l: BecAuse each h m arrrihui:** preJkMued of IhkA^s. 

fM!4 2. SECTION 2. CHAPTER 1> 

Bavdawi said: 

L 376, T IS3 

2. God'$ spetrk 

Thene is an unintcrrupLccl Linanirnity among thc prophcts, pcace 

iipon thcm, and Chcir agreemcnt is upon rh^ tact that [God]> may 
He be praiicd and cxaltcd, is One who speaks. and sincc thc 

ccrtitication of their propliethood doc& not dcpcnd upon an utter- 

ance of Him the Most Hi#h, [the fact of] it mu$t ihereiore be 

[God'sj spccch docs not consist of any consonanl or vowcl that 
subsists in [Himseirj,— [thia poiiu beingj in coiiinidictiori to the 

HaiLahihdi ajid ihe Katiaitliyahj — 0F lliat would sulwjst in auythmg 

clsc,- — [this point being] in coiUradiction to thc Mu c ta^i!ah, Rathcr, 
|God 3 s speech] is a scU-subsistcnt tausal Tactor 17 chat is rafirrrcd to 

m various and changing terms, and it is distinguished from [Hisj 
knowlcdgc aiid willing intcntion beeause [GodJ KIosi High may be 

distinguishcd irom thcsc two [attributcs]. 

[God] Most High commanded Abu Lahab to helieue, in spite or 

Hfe own dMnc knowlc-dgc ihai [Ahu Lahab] would noi hdkve 3 13 
and [in spite of] the impossibility for [God's] willing intcntioii to 

support what would viokitc His kriowlcdge. But too rnuch cmphasi& 

on this [problrm] would hc of small hcncEit, becau&c thc ccntiid cone 
of [God*s] essence and attributes h curtaincd ofT from the logical 

rcasoniner of our intdlccts. 

lsiahani says: 

L 376, T 183, MS I93a 

2. God*s spttrh 

Thcrc is an unintcrrupted unaniiiiity among thc prophcts, praycrs 

lo God for them, and tlieir agmeemenr is on the fact tbat [God] 

12 [nna^riA'] The early gramjnarians, Ahu al-H«dhayi and Ibn Kullal^ establb.lied 

three main rjucgorics nf signitir.ajicc m predkatcs ahoui. a. suhject, that is^, adjcr- 
livrs or uMributtf5 «lEid lorfc.i^cr slatcniccils iibdu'<iU^; l) dwf sul:;jtct b nriil, 2) lIk b sul> 

jniA k a ca.uBL' ot dictermiiiine ĔbCt-or, and 3} rhe subject i$ [n acticni. Ttils h a 

\xu*phrtez r^TR.M. Fnnjlk"s nuij^ti givcn in Kb /irir^f atd "/7w AUrthuUS p. I2\ 
13 Abu Lahab ^"as an ucick of tihe Prophct Muhammad whn RiLppcirtrd his cau$c 

:it mic rimr:^ [hp;ri gaw hLs sypp^rt to anochcr. The scvcre nature oi" Lhc slnj^^U"- 
ftpr a persr>n (0 have hclief Lti thr Propbrt is rcAecccd in Surah ] 11 "'Abu I^hab-' ,, 


Mo*t High is One who speaks. Now, cetlitiralion of Their praphct- 

hood does not depend upon an mterance of [God] Mosl High^ 4 

bccausc whcn thc prophcts, peace upon thcni.. laid claini \o prophcl- 
huod and perihrmed some greaily arn;izjng act in acoordancc with 
thcir claims, thcir truthiulncss was known» aithough thc knowledge 
of their truthliilnesa waj. not dcpcndcm upon an. utterance of [God] 

Mosi High, Therelbre, the speech of [God] Mosi High must hc 

ac:kjiowlrdgcd. And Mustirns are agrccd in applying dic c-Apression, 
"thc: Onc who &pcaks", t<> CJod Mosr Higli, hut they diHcr ahoui its 

rneaning. 1S 

Our fAsha c irah.J collca^ucs havc agrccd upon thc position 
a. [GodY] spccch docs not consisr in a consonant or a vowcl that 
suh^sts in the esswnre of |God| Most High, becau^ vow«b and con- 

sonanu are temporal phenomena L 377 and it is impossibte that 

[God] 11 "* should bc a substratc for ternporal phenomcna. [This point 
is] in contradiction to thc Hanabilah and the Karramiyah, for thcy 

MS 193b say that the speech of God Most High consists of vowels 

and consonants that subsist in HimsclT [i.c, in His. 'csscncc 1 ], Further, 

b. [God p s speech] does nor consist \n a consonant or a vowd that 
woukj subsist in anyone else, [a poim thai h] in contradiction to thc 
Mu c razilfth. They say that the meaning of [God s] being <One who 

speaks 1 consista in His bcing the existcndal causc of con&onarUs and 
vowcls that indicatc spcciik mcaning!? in spcciAc matcrial bodics. 17 
Rathcr, we [islahani] bclicvc that the gpeech of God Most Iligh 
is a se]f-subsisiing [causal factor] lfl rclcrrcd to by various and differ- 
ing tcrms, and it is distinguished from [His] knowkdge and willing 

Indeed, God Moat High commandcd Abu Ijihab to be]ievCj in 

spitc of His own divinc knowlcdgc that [Abu Lahab] would ncu 

l+ TTic MS rcads, u . . - not dcpcnd^nt upon «rliricatian bv an ukctcuilc ul" God 
\fost Hi^h." 

J& GcHfs LTjinrriLinitiilioiL to M-iuikiEidi i-s real^ Ij«1 :i, His sppruh 18 " b n«l irt & COf- 

poreaJ serm, F,D, Kazi (op. ciL p pfx 172 174] ibts the sr^ailauons: eKplottil io 

oi-<kr to clariiy an( ^ WMW^ (h* problem, 
,ri I^ T ^nd MS Garrett 9B9K* maku "He" ih* undentcod subjcct of th^ W rk 

The MS, lnmwer. lugipli^s ,H Hb eswiioe" Idharuliuj as ^Jjject. 

17 M 5 j(l: Sucb a.s thr Prcscrvcd Tahlct or Jibra*il or thc Prophct. pc^cc upon 
hinn. Morcovcr, llr is omnipotcnt, as- ihc Karramiyah hold in concrast to the 

'*■ MS gl: Tt ts ir^n^ $pi;ccli [al-kalam haqtqali], iii^d k i$ «terna], and auhsiila iin 
the csacnce of [Ccd] Most High. [Froni Ji.jrjajni" , s SkatA AfoiMiqtf d/-j^i — codcd onlv 
sh cn 1 .) 

H8ti 2, SECTION li, CHAPTER 2 

believej atid in spite of the impnKSLbilily ihat His willing intenlion 

would support what wtmld violatc His lcnowlcdgc. Now, if jGod] 
had intcniioDally willed that Abu Lahab should havc bciid, thcn its 

occurrciicc would havc bccn aouicthing ncccssEuy; atid if ila occur- 

rence should bc something ncccssary^ then |(?odJ would be uriable 
lo know that |Abu l-ahab| did not believeJ B But if [Abu r*ahah| 
should know that hc would not havc bclicf 5 thcn [his bclicPs] occur- 

rence would be impossiblc, and if [his- belief "sj occurrcnce should 

bc impossiblc, then [God f s] wiUirig" intcntion would bc irnpussiblc. 
Thc Mulakallimun on both sidcs of thc qucstion havc diacusscd 

this at grcat lcngth. But. our author [liaydawi] statcd that too mucli 
emphask 011 this problem wnuld be of small beneht^ bwause the 

tenlral core nl" [God'*] essenct- and His allributes is curtained ofF 

Irom thc logiral rcasoniiig of our intcllctt. 

Baydawi said: 

L 377, T 183 

God*s spotitn word is iruthfiii 

Gorollary to ihe Fact thac [God] Most High h One who speaks h 

the fact that thf message of God \1osr High h tmthlul 
laLsehood would constitute a dcficicncy 9 and for a deBciency tt> be 
ascribcd to God Most. High would bc irnpossiblc.. 

Isiiili^rii says: 

L 377, T 183, MS 193b 

God*s spo/w word is irutlt/ui 

T>criving from the fact th&t God Most High is One who spealcs h 

[his f;ic:ij (hat what i* commtitiktatetl by God Mosi High is Lruihftil. 
This is bccausc falschood is a dclcct in thc truc rcality of thc onc 
who faLsifies : , TO and for a dcfcct to bc ascribcd to God Most High 
would be impossiblc. llicrc is 110 information finom God that is falsc- 

hood; it h lruthful bccause of the inhcrem impossjbility of avoiding 

[thc rjucsdon of] its truth Or ialschood. 

Objeciiou U rai^ed ihal if judginjtf ^ImiIlcmh] io be a defec:i .should 
bc an intftllci;tual juidgtneiii, ie ihwi woul<3 be |rnere]y| i siaiement 

^ MS $: Becaust it wouJd dicn bc- miplicd. that [God] was icpiorant [of it|. 
' 1J MS gl: I.c. in t"hc real-rascncc of thc liar. 
Ra^J fop. clt.j pl IB5] tmpha£]zcs this poinc. 

OTHER ATTRmrres, not THE basis of cods mts 887 

aboui rhe goodne^s or uiYkedncs* of things accorcling t.o nhe inieU 

lcct. But if [the judgrncnt] shoukl bc un ihc basui of tht tradi.ti.on- 

ally hcaid doctiincs 41 thcia a circular arguilicni wuuld bc iruplird, 

The answcr to this [objcctionj is that thc problcm of goodness 
and hrinuumcss in this scnsc is an intclLcctual on«, which no oiic 
digputesL Rnc it h bettir for that prahkm to he Kstahlishcd hy thc 

consensus of scholan, even if they should disagree in cxplaining it 

Baydawi said: 

L 377, T 183 

3. God y s immortatity 

The Shaykh [a]-Ash c ;iriJ look the. jposititjii thar |God| is immnrial 
through thc iminurtaliiy siibsisling in Hiuisclf. 

But Qadi [a]-Baqi3laTii]j Irnam ai-Haramayn [al-juwaynij* and 
Imam JTakhr al-Din Ra/.ij rejcctcd thi* position. Thcy argucd 

a, Lhat if the [divine] immortality should be an existcnt entity, 

ihen [GodJ would bc immortal hy annlher [kind ofJ immortality, 

so the arguincrn irnpliddy would be an inlinite serics; *md 

b. that if [God : ^J bcing- immortal should bc through thc irnmop* 

tality subsisiing in Himscir, thcti [GodJ the Ncccssarily Eadatent One, 
in Himscli \ would hc neccssary on account of something othcr than 

Himsdf. but this would be contrary to thc assumption. 

The Shaykh [al-Ash c ari] arguod that any given cntiiy al the timc 

of its tcmporal origination might not be something immortal, but 

attcr that it might becomr somcthing immortal, and thc cxthanging 

and changing [of thc entity's immorlalityj wouJd not be in [the 

eiitiiy^s) csscna^ 13 nor would tbey bc in [the cntity 5 sj noncsistcncc^ 

21 Glosses: ]. \I5— AccordiTig to rdU^aus Law fsltar : J]; 2. L 377 gl; The tra- 
dilioiially heard thirigs (bJ-sarn : Tyal| duprad Lipo-n tlie uH!Eaaj?e of Ciod Moal I!ififh; 
bul il Ll>e moaa^ were (o dtrpcnd upGn ivhat is ErAditionally Keurd thefi a circu- 
LmiT ar^ui"!^]]! would Ijh.- imjjlwd. 

1? li EOj^dier wiih MS GarrrH 2B3B And MS Garreti 909Hb, seem.i to alkyw 

ihc iinteci*dcrit of (h* pnuwuo suffix on "rawnte" IdhitihiJ to remain ambiRU&us- 

T, whcchcr by chaiioe or by design sc is tK>T clw-r» hm added afwr ihe «jAIk thc 

EbnTiula "thc Most Hicfh, H iTidkariri£ ihat ths dwty would L)l- thi* aiLlcctdent here, 
IsAdibuii^ rspliodun of this sUiU B mcnt is aji esamph: t£ his ri, kK33*ning up the auLLk^r 1 ? 
LigLuly kK a brd ainbLguiii*3 of ejcprrraicHi." 

,y Ic may br sprr.ulatod char jiU.^sh^ari rrseant ihaT tIit -r^hang^ and r.hangc"' 
were duc to GtxL'9- acrion cxicma! co thc givcn cnrily. 

#88 "3, 5ECTT0W 2, GHAVTTJt 2 

However, [this argumenl] i& madc inconsistcnt by thc jiactor oftheJ 
tcTnporal originatioTir 

Tt should bc imdcrstood that che intclligibJy known fact about the 
^Creatar^s immortality' h the imposwbLlity of His nonejdsience, while 
the 'continuaiion ortcmporal phenomena' consi&ls in ihe siiiiultancity 
of [such phcnoincna*sj exislcncc togcther wilh two or rnorc dura- 

rions of time. And you have learned tbat 'impossibtlity 1 and 'sitnui- 

taneity with a tinic duradon 91 bclong among thc inielligibly known 
ideas that do not have external emtenra, 

Isiahani *a y s: L 377/378, T 183. M8 193b 

3, 6WV immoriality 

Shaykh Abu al-Hasan al-Ash c ari took the position ihat [GodJ Most 

High is immortal 14 thruugh thc immortatity suhsisTing; in Himsclf. 

But Qadi Abu Bakr al-Bacjillani 3 Imam al-Haramayn [al-Juwayni], 

and Iinam Fakhr aJ-Din Razi rejccted [such an] immortatity. Thcy 
argucd on thc ba&i& of thc foIlowing points: 3 * 5 

a. if iGod^sJ ^immortality 1 *hotild be an cxistent enlity, nhen [GodJ 
would be T 1 84 continuously immnrtaL by inherent np.rassity ; but 

MS 194a 

b. if [GudJ should bc immortal thruugh another kind of immor- 
talily^ thcn thc arjfumcnt implicidy woiJd bc an inhnitc scries; and 

c, if [God] shonld be immortal throngh the immortaliiy of His 

essence [i.c., Himseir], thcn thc arguittoit implicidy would bc cir- 

cular; and 

d. if [CodJ should bc immortal through 11imsclf and if Uis e-ssoice 
[i.c, 5 Hc IIimsclf should be] immortal ihrough [this divine] imrnor- 
tality and was in need ibr it, thcn the esscnoe [of God] w-ould be 
inuerted to [being the] attribute and the attribute [would bc invertcd] 

to [bcing thc] cs&encc, which would bc impoasiblc, 
lAirthcr^ they argucd that 

e, if thc latl thal [Gudj Mosl High is imrnorlal should bc ihrough 
thc iminortality subsisling in lliniscLt, thcn [God who is] thc Ncccs&ary 


MS gl: l ImTnoTtality > is thc condnuajicc [isdmrar] of [man^/Cod^s] css^nc-c. 
25 Razi [op. ciL;, pp, 174^175] aucmpu to rccorKrilc thLnkrrsi acccpt aa cbvi- 
oas, sls Eayd<iwi poiiiu outj, with Logicd prcibltms arising Irom G«Ts L inrunortaL 
conLicLu-iiiiue 1 consacJcrccl a* *ici *eniiiy f . 


Esiatcnt by rcason of Himscir would bc ncccssary through somcthing 

other chan Hiniself. But this would be contrary to the assumption- 

To explain the inherent logic used here, it is diat; 

1. if Hc thc Most High sbould bc immurtal through the imtnor- 
tality subsisting in Hunsclf 3 and 

. [if] thcrc should be no doubt al all that thc immortality 
was somcthinj^ orher than Himsi lt". then the implicatinn wnuid bc 

tlnat the Necessary F.xi*u-m had necd for tomethrng oiher than 

Himscir, and thus. Hc would hc 'ncccssajy 11 through somcthing othci 
than HimseH. But this would he contrary to the asjumption. 

Thc Shaykh [al-Ash^ari] presentcd an argumcnt that 

a- any givcn cntity at thc time ol' its- teniporal origination would 
not bc immortal. but tlicn it mighi become immortal s and 

b- this E exchanging and changing' woukl not he something within 
the essenee of the teinporally orighiatcd cniity — for ihe essence ol 

thc tcmporally originatcd cntity would not bc somcthing [tliat at 

hrsrj *was not an essence* and thcn later 'bcc.amc an esse?nqeV — and 

c, [this <cvchanging ancl cbangmg'] would not hc somethmg within 

thc immortality^. :ioncx!5tencc\ sinrc it would bc impo&sible for ihc 
'immortality 1 * noncjdstencc 1 to become thc 'immortalily'* Thus it 

would be determined that the 4 exchanging and changing 1 would bc 
wilhin some additionat aitrtbutCj aud this is the logical goal of che 

argument But this prooHs made inconsistent by the 'temporal orig- 

ination* f fbr if [thc argumcnt] shouki be valid thcn the implkation 
would bc that thc lemporal originatinn would bc an additional 

atlribuie, since ihe ihing at first was nut a lcmporally originated 

thing thcn it becamc onc ? and thus tcmporal origination would bc 
an addcd attribute. But you have leamed that temporal origination 
is not an additional posit3ve chatacteristic. 

Thcn Baydawi^ the auihor, siated 

a. tliat whai is intclligibly known abotit thc immorudity of the 

Crcator Most High is thc irnpossibility of His own noncxistcnte, and 

b. that what is intclligibly known about thc continuancc of lcm- 

poral phenomena is the simultaneity of their existeiice togethcr witlt 

more than one time duration follo^ing thc fir^t duratioti; but that 

lact is not conccivablc whcn it is applicd to somcthing not dealittg 

with ttme duralion |in namrej. Purthermore, you already have Icarned 

Chat the s iira|H>Ksibility of iionealsttiKc* :-*nd (he ^iinidianeily wiih a 
tiuie duradon' l>el"iig among [thc inncr] iiiullcctual considerations 

that do not havc extcmal cjdstcncc. 

ft90 a ? section a, ghapter 2 

Biivdawi said: 

L 378, T 184 

4. CJiA^r tjwlitm that a!-A sk c dri umind attributes 

Theae [bthcr divine qualities] arc thc Formal Sesaion, thc Hanch the 

:c and chc Eye, [all aJRraicd. of God] on account of ihc Iheral 

jtatements that have come [down to u.s] with mcntion of them. The 
rcsl [of the scholars] havc imetpreied ihe&e [statements] figuratively, 

and thcy hotd that wliat is mcani hy the lonnal Scssion is [GocTs] 
formal assumption of [His] aulhority, by th.e Hand is mcant [th<! 
free eseercisc of His] autonomous power, hy the Face is meant [GwJ J s] 
prescncc in crostence, and by the Rye h mcant [His attentive] sighir 

[t is bcttcr [wc, Baydawi, sayj to follow dic practicc of our fbrc- 
bears in the faith regarding thc^c [othcr qualiticsj, and to give full 

H&cription [of them] to God Most High.* 11 


ani says: 

L 37B, T \B% MS IMa 

4, Oiher qualitiss that {d-Ash c ari narntd attribuies 

Thc lilcralists among thc MutakallinrLim asscrl that God Most High 
has 110 attribuLe beyond Lhe srv r en„ namely, [HLsJ *Iiving naturc\ 
MS 194h 'knowlerige 51 [or, ever-present omnisctenee|, *power* [or, 
omnipotcrLcc in ;iutonttmuus ax:tioi.]j *will 5 s *liearing ,t , "sighi 5 and 

L spccch\ or n thc cight^ which arc thcsc seven plus. Smmortality*. 

But Shavkh Abu al-Hasan al-A$h'ari a£Fmned other characterisric 

qualitics. L 379 Hc affirmcd [God*s] Tormal Sessioji* as aiiother 

atlribiitc t the L Hand* as an attributc [which gocs]. bcyond thc L autono- 
mom power^ thc *Facc' as an attributc [which gocsj bcyond L cxist- 
cncc\ and thc 'Eye* as anothcr attributc, [and his atfirmationj was 
because of the literal statenricnls we havc rcccivcd mcntionmg [thcsc 

qualities], Of iliai kind are l>it foUow»ng statements. of [God] ^Tost 

"'ITie Mcrcilul One who ia prescnt in fbrmal scssion upon His 

thrune," [Qur*an 20:5] and 

4 Thc hand of God is ovcr thcir hand," [Q,48:10] and 

% Raza [op, ciL^ p. L S7] (ilJs out t}itf slctll" wr thr earlicr thinkcrs. dealinp wit]] 

crLuliii|jfc iisprr^ -of eadi anrLltulc. Kay^dawi ennphasixcs ihc nced fof brcrity and 

daHry^ whil^ Islkhkini indk^iL-s ihc n)m|>l(:xilY nf llnr maiti:fc. 


"But indccd thc facc ol your Lord does comLnuc , - -,* [Q, 553:27] 

"So that you [MoscsJ may bc madc [a pcricct soul] undcr my 

own oycrsighL 11 [Q. 2Q:3 f J] 37 

Thosc who limit thc atiiibutes. to &even or eight argue that wc 

are held raspcmsnblc fr>r havrng comprehcnsive lcnowl^dge, Blh this 

is gairLcd only through a knowlcdgc of all thc atlributcs. and ihc&c 

in turn do not comc casily exccpt by sonic mcthod, and thcrc is no 

[avai]ablc] meihod orhcr thm inference from [God T s] acts and [HEsJ 
freedoin from dcfccts 5 and botli of thcsc mcthods point only to ihesc 

Th« rehitaLion a\~ this argumcm is in the fact ihat we do not grant 


that inference both from [God*sJ acts and from His freedotn lirom 
dcfects would point only to thesc attributcs. And e% r t'ii if wc wcrt 10 

grant that thcsc two |rcasom] point only to thcs-r aitrihu tcsL ncvcr- 

thclcsg wr: do noL grant that thcre is no way for us to learn abmit 
the atcributes except by inference from [His] acts and [His] frec- 

dom Irom dcfrcts. Rathcr,, giving an attcntivc hcaring fto thc author- 

itativc tradition of revelatton] is anoiher meihod to establish their 

exhtence. Thc Shaykh [al-Ash c ariJ aiTirmcd thr cxistcncc [of thesc 
qualities] only b-n hilsc of thc revcIaiLOn in aulhoritativc tcxts about 
theiru and bccausc thcy arc not synonymous with thc rest of thc 


The rest [of the schola? 1 *] incerprcted figurati.vdy the Hteral stalc- 
nients that have come wilh mentioii of [thesc qualitir5j- They hdd 

ihal (hc incaiiing intcndcd by tlic Tormal Scssion* is [GckTs] l assump- 
tion oE" authnrity*;* by thc *HamT is [mcant His| ( [lrcc cscrcisc oi 

His] autonomous powcr 1 ; by the Tace* is [tncant His 'prcsence inj 
existeiice f ; and by thc 'Eyc* is [mcant His 'attcnrivc] sight\ 

It is hcttcr to fo]Jow thc pracdcc of our (brcbcars m thc faith 
rcganiing [thc intcrprctation of thcsc quaJirics]^ aftcr cx<:luding any- 
thing that would rcquirc making a comparison or au cmbociimcnt, 

and [thusj to return [praisc for a]l things} to God Most High. w 


T hAs n ay&r\ in thc plural fala* 7L c -yxuii]- 

2 * MSc rtad as |isi4w]a J | wiih ih» < [waw] joLned to thc Leum ^olltHwing 1 , 

w MS gl: ' 1 1 1 i s is heiter thj!» lignraiiw irtKri.ireUnion only U^-ause ihis is wor^ [^ubAdlyah], and [ii mclud^J an ^$klij>:iii$ $carth 54 chat whai b mcam by 
ir may bc discloscd. Fipuradvc sntcrpnccation has thc mcanirLg of "worshLp" ['ihadahf|. 
B«r *to b* worahipW is a «umcwhal stranpT scnsr- L becansc it is liJdnc; pLwisurc 

892 2 3 SECTION 5Z, CH_APTFR £ 

Raydawi said: 


L 379. 1 1B4 

5. G&d's pruduciwn vf beitig 

The Hanaiiyah position is thal [GdcPs] *production of hcing 1 is an 
etenmj attributr that is dLstirigLiished from thc s autonomous power\ 

Indccd, [ihcy sayj something linked to the 'autonomous power 130 

may not cxist at alJ, in contrast to whaE is linkcd to thc 'productioji 

of being*, for ^power* h linked to the 'possihility 11 oi" a thing, wbile 

"production of being* is Linked to ks + exisience\ 

Out [Baydawi] position it> ihat 'possibUity 1, is in the cssencc aud 

not in anylhing clsc, whilc thc 'produciion of bcing' i& a linkagc with 

present reality. For Lhis reason Vxistenoe' is arranged in order upori 

[llic 'producoon of bciug^ ^ God Most High has said., 

"His only command, whcn ilc has intcntionally willcd [thc cxist- 
ence of] some Gfrjectivc, is to say to [the *poK$ible rcality 1 of| ii, 

s Bc/ and it ha* [exiernal] bcing." [Oiir^n 36:82] 

Maharii says: 

L 379, T 184, MS 194b 

5 . God*s prtiduetion qf twing 

Somc of thc Hanatiyah [scholars] havc takcn thc position. thal thc 
[divinej "production of beinR" is an etenial attributc thal h distin- 
guished from [Crod's] *aiiLonomous power\ MS 195a and thai 
'what has bccn caused to bc* is. a tempura] phcnomciioiL 

Imam [Fakhr al-Din Razi] said 31 diat a statcmcnt regarding whcther 
ihe divine 'production ofhein^ would he. something eternal or some- 
thiiig temporal calls for a conccprion of itis qtiiridiry. Thus^ if thf 
meaning intcnded by [the ^pn^riuctinn of beiiig"] should he thc sam^ 
as thc dTuctiyc causality of [GodYj aiLtoi«.]r"Tious power ujx>n thc 

[ithJa*] m what tbe T^ud done; whilc ^-grship 1 Er nncr* action of doing somc ■ 
(hing hi please [mi yiir-rfTj [hr I^ittI. Oii rhis account 'woRhiprnLrirss* will nnl he 
di^COUJnrd m [iit^^] fina] outcremc [al-^iMjba 1 ], wliik "'wcirshLp 4 will hc cliscounicd- 
|From ^sh m hh ? = Al-ShariT al-jLirjacii 1 » CommcnLiLr>' iipon ai-Mawagj/ Ji 'itm c/ h 

/urAEn by c Adud al-Dio Iji.] 

w L ykjjtt, "Srjmcthmg linkt^d cn rhr aumionni>u& pcvwcr . . . : ' [ra-iiuia nHjta^alliti 


*' Tlic quote is [F.D.] Rcizi's reply to ibc scatccnccit [by thc] HiULuAyah -of thcir 
pceititHL in lik jWy^^Mi, p. 186 [C^u.™-, 1323). 


pbject of ihat power p chen [che 'produrtion of being 1 ] would bc a 

rclationat attribute that has no esistenee except together with ihc 

iwo eniities that arc related, |namely, the Creator and the crcation]. 
Thert^rore T fr©m ihc cempora] nature of *what ha& bcen catiscd to 
be* there would hc inlerrcd the tcmporal natuir oi" Llie ^praduction 
c*f beirig* ksclf, And if die innuiing intcndcd by [ihe 'pruriuctioji of 

should bc an attributc having effci " ti ve- «.ausaliiy ujpon ihe 

exktcncc of an cffcct T thcn [the 'production of bcing'] would hc the 
same as the divinc autonomous power itscMl But if you [disputauisj 
intcnd some third meaning by it, then ihat should Iw made clcar. 
[Thc Hanafiyah scholars] hoki ihat what is. linkcd wuh thc divine 

'autonomous power' may not exist at all, in contrast to what is tinkcd 
wilh ihe 'production of bting\ [Thcy say iliatj the 'autonomous 
powcr a k an clfcciivne cause in thc 'possibilUy* of an entity» while 

L production of bring' has effcctive causalion in 'bringing it into [cKtcr- 

nal| bcing\ 

[Baydawi], our author p replied [to this argument] that "possibility' 

is in the esscnrc, and thc [dkincj autoiiumoua power does not have 

cfTcclivc cau&ation ovcr whether dic power objcct would bc a possiblc 
rcaliiy in iijcl^ bccausc indccd., what is, in thc csscncc would not bc 

I. 380 in anything else. Thus, there would be nothing left for the 

effective causality of the [divine| autonomous powcr upoii thc cxisi- 
cncc oithc powcr objjccl cxccpt Eo be in ccrms of [thc object*sj valid- 
ity. not in tcrms of [its] mcces&ity, Thcrcibrc., if wc should aiascrt thc 
cxistcncc of anothcr [sccond] attribute of God Mo&t Hityh having 

efiective cau&ality upoti the exis-tence of a power objent, thcn 

a. if [thk sccond attributc^s] effccdvc causality upon ihe esistcnce 
of thc pnwcr objcct should bc in term» of [thc objcct a s] £ validiry\ 

then [ihe second attribuie] would be ihe same as tlie [divine] 

autonomous powcr a thus implying 

1. thc joining togcthcr of two idcndcal samplcs and 

2. thc joining together ot" two tndependcnL attributc?, in bring- 

ing cftbctive causaliiy upon a singl^ ohject of powcr t which would 

be impossible, And 

b. if [this sccond attribule J a eflci;tive causality] shoukl be in tcitns 

of [thc pf)wcr objc<:t^j 'ncccssily^ thcn it would bc iiiipossiblc for 
that objcct of powx:r not to bc L cxiatcntially causcd 5, by God Most 

High, and lhus ? God ^Cost High would. be a *necessary cause' in 
[HiinsĕN ] s not an, agcnt having voluntary t Jioicc [of action]. But this 

would bc a faLsc conclus-ion by thc conscnsus- |of scholarsj. "l"hus. 

834 2 r SECTION 2- GilAPTKK 2 


elie [divint.J aulonomous power «xchidc3 ihk iitlribute, Fur intkrd, 

a 'noccssary cau&c* in [its] csscncc wouki not bc an omnipotcnt bcinp 
having voJuntary r choicc |of action]. 

It should bc undcrstood that thc I Ianatiyah [school] toolc the dot> 
trinc of thc 'produ-ctton of bcirig 1 only from thc word of [God] Most 

"Our only commatid to something [objeoive but nomrxistcnt] whcn 

Wc have witlcd il to cxist, is that Wc say to it. l Bc\ and it ts [iramc- 

diatcly an rxtcmal| bcing." |Qur'an 16:40 1 

Thus, [God] set His word "Be" 10 antccedc the vcrbal action of 
the 'treing 1 , and this ["Be* 1 ] is caJlcd **thc coramand. 1 ' Morcover. thc 
[termaj "word", "productioii of being", "origination" 3 the 4 V.xist^n- LTiusaliiKi", ar-id ihe "V:rertlion [fiom r,oihuig]'\ met ;i]] u-rrns ilm" 

have a commonality m meaning, but ihey vary widely in the setises 

|in whkh ihry arc used]- The demcnl of commrmality in thk mat- 
tcr bi that jumirthing; is newly brought itito rxistence MS I95b 

from nonexi»tence 7 ^ when previonsly it had not becn an cxistent: 

This [sense, Le-j *production of being 3 ] h more specific in [itsj Hnk- 

asjc than h thc [divine| *autonomous powcr^ bccausc thc [divinc] 
'autonomous power 1, has an equal relation^hip with all the objects 
of power^ while [the 'productitm or beinpfl h a specihc property of 
the partLcular ones tliat entcr into cxistcnce. [The s productior» of 

bcing'] is not a rclational atiribute that h thought of together with 

two catitics in a relationship, rathcr, it is an attributc that rcqiiircs 
this relatiotiship alter thc effect has occurred. 

As for the claim 35 that they M make to ihe eHect that ihe [divinej 

ft L and T nad, ^ralidity^ [sahhah] . Bul thc MS and MS Ganrctl 98ftHa raad, 
"atlrihutr*' [sitiihjj whidi fiu the coaitcsL 

11 Now here iJiat lsfahimi, ^"or]diig ^uicldy,, quotes rrom Oiir^an 16:40, which 


"Our only statcment , ^ .." whcrc thc worda and acrion arc in tbc firsl pcreou 
'plural of maicBty" 1 - Hoavcvcr 3 hc uscs ihc leading word f "command" 1 , from thc othcr 
vcrsc [(^ 36:82] thal Baydawi had quotcd comcctly. Baydawi used this clnscty ihcr- 
nalc Ibttti, wherc the words and actiun aure in th-e third pcram sici^uLar. 

In ihc MS, whib the smbe was writiris Istkhttnrs 1iirm |Q_ Ii6:40. with verbs iit 
IsL pc-rajct plundj iipparucirty he remtnlbers Is^ili^ui'» ust- uT iht h-ad word "™m- 

maitd" Hrorn [Q_ 35:62] ^ and so is confused and ftverts to tbe n Hc uvs co ii"" Jbr- 

^&T |0l y. :*6:8?| imt«ad a r>f Che "We s^y to lt" tormar in [Q !6:40J.' 

M Th* MS marginally m^rrtA hcre the pirpimtion "a^er"' |!>n c da]. 
w Thc scrihc of L irtscrtB a rclatiw pronoun. iu thc Lnaaculinc singular aElcr 
"claim H , but it ia not Ln olhcr soitrccs. 

* MS gh [T.e.j Iht HartafiyAh. 


aulonomous power has aii efleclive causation upon che possilMlity fnf 

cxisu b nccj of a thinj^ that is not truc. It Ls true only that the 

autom 'jTnons power is linked to the *validity of the exisKnce 3 of thr 

power objcctp whilc thc *production uf bcing* 3« linktd to tbe e^is- 
tcncc of thc powcr objcct, and is its eflcctivc eause, Thc rcla.tion- 
ship |of thc c produ.ction of bcing 1 ! to a tcmpondly originatcd act is 
likc thc rclation of thc [divinel willmg intcntion to thc willcd obj 
tivc. f'God $] aijionomuu& power and knowlcctgc do not recjuire thar 
the objects of powcr and knoivlcdge have being as esistents chrough 

thcir agcncy, whilc the L produclion of bcing^ docs icquirc thiSr 
Further, ibe doctrine [of the HnnaJiyahJ ihat thc 'prnductinn of 

buing* [as an attributc] 5s from ctcniity past is [rd;Ued logically] to 
thcir doctrinc of the impossihility of thc subsistcncc of tcmporat pho 

nomcna iti thc esscnoe of fGod] Most 

Thr statemcnt of our author [Baydawi]— shat if chat atiribute p-e-* 
the 'produttion of bcing 8 ] should bc an eflcctive causc in terms of 

ncccssity, thcjn God Most Jlij^h wouJd bc a c ncccssary cause > !l --!s of 

no cnmcqucncc, because that necessity would bc a *subsequetit' prop- 
erty [of God] ? not an 'anteccdcm* [lactorj. This means diat if God 

Most High should intcntionally will to crcatc any [pnniicidar] onc 
of che [possibic] objects of His powcr, thcn ihc actual coming into 
hcing of ihat particular thing is 'necessary', but not in the sense that 
h would have bccn necessary that He should create it w 

[Baydawi^j suitcmcnt,. — thnt if what is meant by [dic 4 productioi:i 
of bciiig*] is an attributc that would havc cffcctivc < ausation in thc 
cxisccnce of an effect* then it would bc idcntical vAth the [di\inc] 
power itself 3 — may l>e answered that if the powcr sliould he an 
eBectivf: cause thcn all of thc objects. of power would Ijc [the power's] 

c^Tcct^ and chus cacli oi" thcm would bc an exisccnt thing. 

It may not be infenrd trom thc cenainly of the "production of 
being" [as atiribuu-J tliai thcrc would Ik: a joining togethcj" of two 
identical examplcs s bccausc what would be linkcd to thc l fdi%ine] 
autonomous power 1 is diffcrcnt from what would be hnkcd to the 

"production of bcin^, "Iliis h what can bc said for thc [Hanaityah] 

sidc [of thc dchate]- However P the tmth 1$ thac [God^l ^autonomous 

power* L 331 and 4 wiil arc two ciitilia that have bcen grouped 


K^uliijg wiUj tht MS and M-S tiaiTrtt 9R9Ha- |kyny wSjihau :-in y4i.k(Llii<|«ihu]. 

L aiid I amplity ihi' cliui*e 10 ifa<l [k?lna wajiltam qahJa. an yakhUiqaliu|. 

H96 2, &ECTKJN 2, CHAPTIiK. 2 

togcthcr, both of ihcm bcing linkcd wiih thc cxj5tcncc of an dTect; 

and so together with chesc lwo [attribulcs] therc U no [furtherj neod 

to affirm anothcr anributc. 

B-aydawi said; 

L 381, T 183 

6. God 3 s htautifit mibilit? l& beBems in Ihe hereqfkr 

a. Assurcdly, [God] Most High wili bc sccn in thc Hcrcattcr. This 
is in th-e scnse that H* 1 will reveal HirnsHf to Hi^ beEieying wnr- 

shipcrs in thc HcrcaPlcT in as clcar a sclf-rcvclation as thc fulJ moon 
is visiblc + |this point bcing] iti rontradlction to ihc Mu c Eazilah. 
b. Morcovcr, thc 5clf-rcvcla.tiotii \\il\ nake placc without any imprcs* 

sion being rcgistered jof thc dtvine (brm], or any coniact with Him 

bcing rnadc thruugh an out&trcaming ray [of visicn] ^ and [without] 
thc cqnscqucnt occurrcncc of a gcncral facing" about in dircction [to 
look], [this point bcittg] in contradictiioii to thc anTliropomoiphi^ts 

and the Karramiyah, 

{a.) As Ibr the first [part of thr doccrincj, thcrc arc tbur 
tiotially rcceiucd rcasons. [that dcmi>tistrate it]j 

L Moses, peacc upon him, asked for a yision, 39 Therdbre, if 
it had been an impnssihiliry, thcn his requcst would haue been an 

cxprcssion of igTioninl lulility. 

2» [God] Most High linkcd [His sclf-rcvc]ation] to thc firm sta- 
biliiy of che mountain, 40 a linkagc madc with rcgard to [thc moun- 

tain'& siability] as a 'possihle realiiy'. Therefore T [thc case] will bc 
thc samc with anything linkcd to |"posaiblc reality 1 ^. 

M Eailier i3i ilw leccure series Btsiyclawj hm specilic&lly cleclai«d Hiat ihe ihcosry 

that visir*n ih liy ineans nf rays thai i*o thsm rhr iirwiT"s v.yr. to IIlc olsj?:c:c nf vision 
ha.% hcc.n supcrsprlcd by thc thnciry chat lighc rays go firofn th<: objecl ol" vision to 
ihc yicwcr^a pyc. Rizi fop„ cLt., pp. lfi5)--MJ:t for fuU discuasion] transmits thc oldcr 
<hcorv toithDtit ^orrection by clthcr Baydawi or Isfahani! 

w Ojir^i] 7:143; "Wtocn M«cs . . .said, fc Lrt citc wf artd bok upon You', [GodJ 
said, : Yuu will ncvcr s«* Mt K . .. .i 31 

*■ Qur a an 7:143: H [God sdd| s 'Loot At tht niouiLtLutlL if it stands tirnlly in lt£ 
plutc. Lhen Lri ihc fulure ydu will ecc Mc\ Sw whtjl llis lx>rd niAriilosttd HirosdP 

lo The mounrain He mad< ii [bri:wn*'| leviel grt d T and Moses Ml cjuw^ stLinned 

hy li^hming. Whrn [MnMts] rc^c:ovcrfid n Iif said, *Phiisp be co Yon [L.ord], 1 repenc 
bctbre You. and I am chc tir^t to bclicve. ,H 


3- [God's] word is: "Faces that day shaJI radiatc brighmess as 
they look 10 thrir Lord/ [Qiir 3 an 75:22-23] 

4. [GodYj word ia: "Ncwri Far from ihdr Lord ihat day [all 

chcatcrsj shall bc curtatned away." lQur*an 33:15 j 

(b.) As for thti necond [part of the rioclrine, the certaLnty is a mys- 

lery] bcrause [God Hinniidf] mamtiiiii» a holy Awdom Irom any 
liiiLJLadott of 4 din:( lionality' or locality'. It rnay be inCeired that a 
body js aomcthing visihk bcrcausc wc scc its Icngth and brcadth. BiH 

[in thk refercncc| t.he length is not [lo be undemood a*| an acci- 

detiUil {|iialLty. If it sltould be au accirient, tlien k wnuld subsist either 
iri onc atornic part,, but thcn it woukl be of loo gruai a scope and 
so would bc dividrd, or ic would bc subsisring in morc than onc 

[atomic] part, and ihen it would bc a case ofone subsisting in matiy, 

which woidd bc unpossiblc. 41 An accidcntal quality also is somcthirtg 
risibk* Thus thc ^alidaung n&use [for thc yi&ion] would bc a com- 
monality, and it would be eilher |something oJ | temporal origina- 
tion or of oustencc^ the fir^( being noncxistcntial^ chus, ckarly, it 

would be the second. 

Aii objcction again&t this is raised that composition is an acrit- 
dcntal quality, whilc validity is aomcthing nonodstcntial and thus 
needs no cause. And cven if [the need for a cau&ej should be granted, 

we still would not grant thc neccssity for it to have both common- 
ality and «dstence. Sometimes two different entities wiU sharc in 
producing a single eHect; and as vahdity h somethmg nonenstential., 
it would l>e admis&iblc for it to bc on account of nonexistence. 42 And 
tf this. Ahould be gratitcd, then why would it noi be admis»ible for 
the i mpossibilitj' of any sighting of [God] Most High to be on accoimt 

of thc ccssation of some condition or thc cxistcncc of somc prc- 
venting factor 

qi Razi cwtrs Lhrs ''additiuna] attributc* Lti liis AImAoi^ pp. ]^9-193- Tlw usc 

of "aL-uinic iticury 1 , h*'ld by thc MutalcallLrnunp m Ru.ydavkrs discus.siij-n is s.iirprisiri}|;» 
huc as a ihspr)' Lx pmh^ljly woukl Ij^ iht inosi familiai anii iiiidCTUAnrlahlc! frame 
of rcFcrctioc for his hcarci», 

*' J Rcading %vith L., MS Carrett UtiDHh :md Oanxtt 2B3B pi^damj. Ca!vcrle>' fc s 
ncNiaLLon ttulicam ch<: Lnst^rtinn fif [maHulahj IwHonr [U-^daml, aml T rciads ['illah 
Ji-*idiirtii]^ bus thc mcaiung dors. noc rccjLiirc cnhancrmctit by an in^r-rtLocu 


2. StCTION 2, CU.APTF.R 2 

Isfahani savs: 

6. God's bemttiJbc 

L381, T 183, MS 195-b 

lo heliewTS in tke keimft& 

i* in 

a. Assuradly* [God| Most High wiU bc sccn in thc Hcrcaltcr. This 
the senw ihat Hc v^Til rcvcal Himscif to His believincj wor- 

shipers in thc Herealter MS 196a in 35 clrar a self-revelation as 

the Imiiiiious fuU irioon is yisible* [this poiiU beingj m cunLradietkm 
to thc Mu*tazilsih. 

1). Morewer, the sell-revctation will lake place withcmt any impres^ 

sion behg regiatered in thc eye 45 of the Fomi of >vhat is seen, 01 

any contact being made with the objcct of s%ht through a ray [of 
vision] outstreammg from thc cye, or thc coraequenc occurrcncc of 
a general lacing about in direcrion to look* tliis point bemg in con- 
tradicttOTi to the anthropomorpliisl^ and chc Karramiyah. The [lat- 

ter groups] admit the possibtlity nf a vision of Hhn the Most High 

in a dircctbnal cncountcr 44 on account of thcir bclief in I lis bcing 

in a oeitain direction or placc. 

Wliat is mcaiit by a Sisiorr is Lhe circumstarice in which a man 

hnds him&cll" whcncvcr hc bcholds somclhing aftcr hc has gaincd a 
knowledge of i(, tt for we do pcrccivc a distinctipn hctwccn thc two 
staies,* 8, That distinction we havc perccived is not pemiittcd 10 rcturn 
id order to have thc form of what is seeti regtatered in thc eye, or 
to makc contact by a ray [of vision] oiUMreammg fmrn the cye to 
thc objcct of sight whcn tating about to look. That is anothcr [scc- 
on<TJ state, d)ffenent from thc [firs.t] statc in dfcct whcn thc knowl- 
edge catnc thal ihe occurrencc of [annthcr. second, statc of ccstatic 
rcalized Yision] would bc possibta» but wtihout any regi&iered impres- 

sion of form or any out^trcamiiig ray [of dirccticmal si.^ht] m it, So, 

ihere h T 186 assurance for a vision in this sense. L 382 

(a.) Aa Ibr thc fir^t [part of thc doctiirit], naincly, thc assurantc 
of" thc v]sion in thc scnsc mcntioncd. a nuttibcr of rcasons dcrnoii- 
stratc it. 

A * T mispiiril.^ iwo lctccns, readinp [ghjyrj \m |'a}TiJ Ln fbur placcs iti this and 

i4 MS gl: lje.> by liirning ihc r.yr.s toward Him [bi-iaqlih al-liacLaqah nahv%ihi]- 
* MS gl; [T.C- ? kiiowtcrigc] bcforc hi*. si^ht of it. 

** MS g}\ Le Ph ihr statc of knowlcdgc [about mmctbing] and thc statc af ccsta.- 
tic rcalization [wijdan] fof itj. 


L Mo&cS} pcacc upon him s askrd for thc Yision [ic^ Qur b an 

7:l43a]p Thus, if the vision had been ati impnsstbility, then th<: 

request of Mosch wuuld have been an expression of ignorance 47 and 


Thc: opposition disputant^; conld ohj^ct that ihi: request of Moscs 
\v»s on bchall +ft of his pcoplc, from [Jie eyidtn* *j of [GodV] word 

quoling thcrn. 

4l Wc will ncrvcr bclicvc you until wc scc GcmI plainly; whcreupon 
;i balt of]ighlning 5cizrd thcm/' [Q2:55] Aitd thcre is [God*s[ word f 

quoting Moses: 

4i Wilt Thou dcstroy us all on aceoum of what some base ones 

herc did?" [0,7:155]' 

And there is [God 5 s] word: "They had detnanded from Moscs 
somcthing greatcr tlian that. 4 * for thcy said. "Show us God plainly', v 

2. The second [reasnii giving ai! of thc vuion to bclic% r crsj 

is that God Mosl High linkcd the iision to the stability r of thc moun- 
tain [i.e.3 Our^n 7:L43b]„ and llic slability of the moiuilaiii is with 
rcfcrmce to its bcing a "'possiblc rcaJity\ ThcrdbrCj in the sarnc way^, 
what is Imkcd to thc stability of thc mountain also would bc a pos- 

siblc irality*, so rhe tision is a '])©s$ible realfcy\ 

An objtction has bccn raised not grantiiig thai [God] hiiked the 
vision to somcthing 'poasibh? 1 , but rathcr to somcthing L inipossiblc a . 

[This is] beouse Hc linked the vision to the continuing stability of 

The mi>i.]ritadn ivhite ii was aJready $haldng P [This is] hccause if ihe 

conditioiial ,: if M clause should be put in the past tense then u would 

bccomc fiLture in mcaning; that is- 4 if [thc mountain] should bccomc 
stabie in the future ? then m the Ihture you will scc Mc\ But it ccr- 

tainly did noi beconie stnble in a future time d.ura(ion, otherwise, 
ihe occurrcncc oi tbc viaion would alrcwdy ha\ r c bccome uecessAryj 

bccausc what rcsts on a condition mujt takc placc upon thc occur- 
rcnce of the condition thai ciimpletes En itself the catisal acrinn of" 

the cause. MS J%b For the condition introduced bv thc con- 


"il ".. i.s n conditioTi bv which tli.c c:*u^:tl Mctinn ^ ■ I 1 1 ■ : ■ r.uisr 

n .vould be fnlfillrd. But thc occurrcncc of thc vision was not reali^ed, 


7 MS gL: Lr. ? he would oal have knmiTi of iu LmpossibilLt) 1 . 
43 MS pl: Le., tar tht take of his peojjLe, namirK', ihat 3iis peoplc inight know 
die impussibility uf thc \ision. 

rt Lc. ? greater than bringing do r .-.n a Book from heavm. 

900 2. SECTJON 2. CHAPIER 2 

by thc corLsensus |of schalars], bccausr nhc mountain dicl not rcmain 

slable, as it was iiecessarily shaking and changing, since there was 

no inlermcciiLitr condUion bclwctrn the Lwo slalcs [i.c\, its «conLinu- 
ing stabiliry and thc changcd dcstmctionj. So thcii> thc mountain, 
at thc timc CjckJ linkcd the yision ro its continuing stability, was 
already shaking and changing, ancl for the moimrain. m remain sta- 
blc in vicw of its bcing in rtie proccss of changc would havc bcen 

impoasiblc. Thus 3 linkagc [of thc vmon| to [thc mountain^s stabil- 

ity] docs not demonstrate the possibility of the yisicm, hecause the 

linkage to an impo«&ihle conditiom would noi demonsimte the pos- 
sibility oF what i& cotiditioned. 

The Imam [F.D. K.azi| answered [chjs ohjectionj hy grantlng that 

ihc mouitlain 3 in thal case ? would be in prcH:csai ol" c:hangc; bm the 

moimtain, as a inuuiibuii 9 u valiii!v rnay bc considcrcd lo \k quira- 
cenL What is sct ibrlh in the [Ojir^an] vcrsc is nothin^ othcr than 
the mountain iLsell" And regardmg what it is that re<juire$ tlie imposp 

sibiliiy uf thc mountain rematnmg qiiic&ccnL that is the [actual] 

occurrcncc of thc motiomi-channic. Sn thcn the ^um of what is $ci 

fortli in the rarse* 1 is tlie basis tor ccrtatnty in the [mmintaki*s| sta- 
biGty, and nothtng thai woulri be a ba&» for the tmpossibiltty of the 
[mouiiLsniii^] atabilily is inentioncd in thc vcrsc. Soj it is ncccssary 
to acccpt thc ccrtainty [of thc mounlain^s sLability» and consi:quendy 

of the yisionj. 

^Yn objection to |Razr» interpr^iation] is rai&pd, ihat what is set 

lonl- in ilir \rjsr is tlw: I " i i l iif ihr ([iii^stTHrt: wfiilr ih.r i-ioiml;im 

was bcing obscrv r cd^ — referred to in [t5cxi a s] word t "If [thc mounlainj 
continues stablc in its place", [Qiir J an 7:143b] r * ? — not thc ccrtainty 
of quicsccnoe that is concomitant to th-c matcrial quiddity of tlic 
mouiitain when thcre is oo condition rcquiiiiig changc, 

[Answering this last objcction; lsfahani sayj]^ "But [you scc], that 
[sciiptursd] situation does require a change, 51 and with [the changej 
thcre is no possibility for the certainty of quieseence," 

w L and T, with MS Gamtt 9fl9Ha, rcad, [rnin ha>th huwa jahal]. The MS 
n^adingr [lii-maL hirwa jahiJ],, witli thc olJicr rcadinp in a glcwa.^ b Lrwc lo liw? tcxt 
in R?i2i ? s -MwAffj.w^ pp- 191 f 

Sl MS gl: Nnmely, tlie tsseace t>f the niountaici. 

M L, T and MS Gsirreti 989Hai luftVG oniy iLk 1 [coikdiiiuiiid] pratiist' daust\ bm 

die MS Addi ihe ean«qweiice. 

Vl la rtwd I" i-cpc&t thp- noLiti "«hange" 15 [hiir4tkjih. | .. hw chf MS uses nnly a prr>iKJUti. 




3. [God 1 ^ word is: "Fac«s thal day shall radrale hrightncss as 
they look to their Ijnrd™ [QiiPan 75:22-23] Thc point of the ainpj- 

ment tliat indudes tliis quotatioir 4 is tliat the looking 1 L 383 either 

a) is a way of rricmng to thc visio3i [of dcityj, or 
b) it rriers |iii general] to thc turmng of eyes toward a visuai 
objccl in order to look at it. Thc first [aleernalive] is ilic rneaning 
sought ^or^ but thc sccond [altcrnativc] would albw [thc vcrse] to 
bcar its litcral scnsc; 55 and thus the [vcrsc] would bc prcdkatcd upon 
thc Yisioji^ that is, U wotild he like the cause of the ga*ing in che 
verse's second meaning. This libcralion [i.e. 5 from obsnmiing lactors] 

and application to both thc causc and the intention of thc caunal 
agcncy arc thc bcst of rcasons for using mctaphorical tanguagc, 

An objection [to this point] has been raiscd ihat the gazing would 

not dcmonjstrate that thcrc is a vision. Accordingly, it could be said 
by anyone, "I lookcd up at thc crcsccnt moon, but did not scc it. 
Now; if thc gazing should not demonstrate that thcrc is a vision, 
thcn it would not indicate ckfitutely that the Sision' is the intcndcd 

racaning. Rather, il is poi>sible that the inieiidcd mcaning shoukl 

be somcthing el&c., on thc ground that it would havc sonic othcr 

This [possibility of another interprctationj would br. that thc wnrd 

"lawr gift" [ila 1 ]" should bc predicatcd as dic singular of "favor 
gitts." Thcn [thc vcrsc'a] mcaning would bc^ "Faccs that day shall 
radiatc brightncis as thcy look up for [thc £avor gift of] their I-#ord,™ 
MS I97a that h y "as they anticipatc [ir]." [Q, 75:22-23] Or 7 it is 
jwssihlc [heirej that the lntcndcd meaning [of thc versc] ha* been 

conwycd by thc omission of an anncxcd wordj namcly^, ic thc rcward." 
Thcn thc mcaning would he^ "; 4 . radiatc brightness a? they look up 
anticipating [tlic rcward] of their Lord* M 

Objection is again raiscd that bodi of thcsc intcrprctatioiis are 

faisc. Thc first [intcrpretadon] (a) is fal&c becausje expe:ctant waiting 

i5 a cause of worry, but rtic vcrse leads «p to a display of favors, 

And the second [interpirtatiun] {bj is false becausc looking up for 


L and T do jioi. add \* pr-rmoiLti \nte f whilr tlir MS ^imiI MS Clarr^rl E(B5Ha 

d add cscLc, iiir- fomnnr of limiininc j^nrlrr anri ihi- laitcr ma.^ulinr. 
"" L 303 gl: Rccausc thc turning of chc- pupd of chc cyc to thc ihing to bc «cti 
ncccailaLcs thit [God] bc in aomc dirccLion and &omc pLai^. 

34 Thc MS hiLs- a relaiivf prtHicnjn in priacc cif Lbr wc^rci : \ision M [ru fc yah|. 
H \\l**\ 9 ]J.: [ili^l MS gl: This olcbjis ^a Jwor."" It is ncrt a prqpnsLtLim 

902 3, SHJTTON 2 ? CliAPTER 2 

thc reward incvhably cor*vcys thc mcaning of sight of the rcward., 
bccausc a turning of the cycs toward ihc rcward without thcrc bcing 

Aiiy stglii of ii wonld noi hc a favor at all. And if it shoulri lmvc 

bci. L n ncccssa.ry tci» coucchI t.h-c %Tsion 3 thcn conc^almcnt of "thc rcward 

most cortainly would arnoum to an incrcasc in ihc conccalmcnt with-» 
out any |;idditional| proo£ and that w p ould noi bc admissibic. 
Thc answcr [to thc objcction against thc hrst injcrpretationj is 

that the verse indieates that the srate to which [God] who is praised 

and cxaltcd rcfcrrcd in His word> *Taces that day shall radiate bright- 

ncss ..." [Q 75:22 1 * prcccdca thc statc of pcrmancncy ibr thc "Pcoplc 

of the Garden 11 in the Garden and fbr the Tcople 08 thc kirt* in 
thc Firc, as k shown in the word of [God] Most High: 


Fa<:es twisting wilh gloom that day wiil a&suim: ihc worst mis- 
iortunE thal niight bc donc them." [Q 75:24-25] That ia, they will 
be as&uming that somethlng will be done to them or s-uch sewerity 

and horror thac h wiU be a mislbrtiine ancl disaster that crushes the 

vcry boncs ol" onc's bac:k. Aud whcil ihc Tcoplc of ihc Firc' wcrc 
situabed pcrma.ncndy in thc Fire> indccd, that worst niisfortunc was 

done 10 ihcnn. 

Now, aincc that other [second] statc had prcceded their perm;i- 
ncnt siiuation^ thc waiting foi [divinc] lavor aftcr recciving good 
rtews ahout it would be happintss chat brings on radiant brightness 
of face P Wahing such as that would not call for |anyone's] wony, 
as. wailing to receive the lkvor and gift of a king does not cause 
worry [for amyonc] whcn (ihe gifi] is oertain 10 reach [thai person]. 

On thc othcr hand^, thc waiting for punishmcnt aftcr bcing warncd 
of it& roming would amount to decp gloom that bring^ on violent 

oonlortioi] oflac«, that is> grimsces ofexirerne despair as whm wair- 

ng to bc punLshcd by a king whcn punisluntnt by iiirn is ccrtain. 

Further, [answcring co thc ohjectiou again^t thc sccond intcrprc- 

taiion]^ theie would be no need to conceal the visaon when looking 

op to the njwMTci iih i.hc siirise oThappy amiripaihni. Tliin is because 

[]ie 'looking' is a icrm refemng either lo the vision it*elf or lo the 

tuming of thc cycs 3 and thc turning of thc cycs mc»ns *lo ihc rcward" 
aitcT bcing givcn thc giood ncw&p in antkipaUon 1 [Q7 of its coni* 
ing as a [divinc] favor. as we havc exp]aiiig fc d. 



L and T give only thc Tirsl half oFlhr stAKciiciiC H± 75:22 oiilyj; th« MS and 

MS Gaim-11 9B!)Ha qurjte il 


■k [GocTs] word h: l \Nevcrl Far irora their Lord on thal day 
[all cheaters] shall be curtauied away." [Qur'an 83:15] MS I9'7b 

The point of tlwe argum-cnt here i& ihat [GodJ Mosi High gav< iiorice 

fbr [chcaliag] unbeltcvcrs by a ihrcat in His word, L 384 lL Ncvcr! 
Far from thcir Lord on that day [che cheaters] shall be curtamcd 

away. n And that demonstrates that ihe ^beliewn' on that day will 
not be curtaincd away from their Lord. If it should be otherwise p 
ihrn ihr noiicc fotr thc [cheating] unbolicvcrs in thc thrcac, *Tar 

from thcir I>ord on tliat day [all chcatcrs] shall bc curtaincd away", 
wcmld havc no vahar . AjhI it" thr l>clicvcrs on ihiit day wiil not bc 

curtained away from iheir Lord s then they will sce Him, 

b. As for ihc second [main part of thc dociriric of thc assured 

rision], namciy, that |God{ shall he sccn withoul any lorm 

irgisiered of what is sccn in thc cyc, or any cx>iitact being iuadc of 
an outstrcarning ray [of \ision] with thc objcct of sightj and the cun- 
scqucnt iji ("urrrijc v of a ^cncral fkrini^ abou: in dircction |to ]ook| : 
ihis is according to wiiat yon have come ro know: that [God] Most 

High is holy and distinct from any dirccdonality, chat H<* is absolutely 

free from any hmitation of locsnlity» and that Hc is cxaltcd bcyond 
thc norioTi of any gcncral facing about lo bchold Hirn, 

An inicrcncc [by a disputant] has hccn madc to trulhful doctrinc, 

[but] by mcans of a spurious argument- A summary of his argu- 
mcm is that a body is &oracihing %isibic H and that is becausc wc scc 

whiiitcvcr is long and broad-" 5 " Now, a long object of vision would 
not bc an accidcntal quality, bccausc if it ahould lx: an accidcnt s it 
would subsist in a substratc, and it has- l>cen escablishcd that a bod> r 

ig composed of iridivi&ibie atoms, which are actual existenis. [\fei«] 

Jength then' 60 cithcr 

a) would suhsist in one ol" the atorns oi" which the body h 

compowd a so thai atom would be greater in size than otit 3 iliat h 

not liingj HTid so would be capable of tli™ion, and iluis wuuld bc 
a lx)dy s this bcing contrary r to what is asmmcd, or 

,u Thc WS adds ^dmp' [ 4 amlql. 

w U Ihc MS and MS Garrttt 9801 U rcad u [somcthingl lon R " [ai-tawall. 1 
Mvi[cl^as lo Lhu cKiun lorm. "lcnRlh" [(01] . Notc that thert: ia c^idirntly ccniCcptual 

copiii^iou here. Al hrvi thc u !viig u>bjcct r>f visaon" is roncrJYrd n> b« su^Land^ 
noi acckl^utal. TIh.'cl dire Tati t*rii« kngih bttcorri^s ila" Kh^ur ftf tliscuKskPH- [jcn^lti 
l>eing ^ocidencal in iiaiure, a substrate ia wubIil^ which cojiiradLCtt thc opciiirig 

>t + ii;rmfiii;s. 

904 2, SECTION 2, CIlAtTLR 2 

b) it would subsist in more thaii one atoin, in which casc 

the accidrnt would suhsist in multiple substa ates, which would be 


Morcovcr, an at:ddcnt sud» *s color is scjiocthing visiM,c, $r> an 
acudcDt ^nd a substsince togtlhcr havc comrnonalily in thc ralidity 
of a vision. Now, for a judgmcnt of cornmonality thcrc mtist bc a 
causc having commonality. And thc valid*iting causc for the vision 
is- the ■comrnonality' between suhstance and accident; 61 but thcie h 

110 commonality betwcen thcm except 'tcmporal originaiion' and 

^cMstcnoe*. 6 * 'Tcmporal origijiation 1, ia not suitable to bc a Caiiac 
becausc it is somethin^ ]ionexistcntial y being a term reterring to exis- 

tencc prerrdcd by noiiojsiciiee, and the noiieKistniliaJ is not suit- 
ablc to be a cause, TherctbrCj, 'tiaktcnce* is dctermincd to bc thc 
fajrtor, -and cxistciice is the validatin£ came ibr thc vision. b\]rrhcrmorc ? 


'eKisteince' \$ a causal Eactor having corcimon&liry beiw«en botli tbe 

Ncucssaiy £xislcni aiid whateyer is a possiblc rcality. Thus thc V*l!- 
idating cause 1 Ibr thc vision is rcaJjzcd in thc 'Ncccssaiy Esistcnt 3 

so cherc h assured validity for thc vision of [God]- 

[Our] objection is raised to this [argument] m thar we do noi 

grant that what is long** would be an object of vbi.on. Rather, thc 
objcct of vision h a composition of individual substanccs which arc 
hrought logether with each other T MS 19Ha and the compoiilion 

is an accidental quality subsisting in the part* meeting togelher, so 

wbai is seen k an accideutcil ^uality, noi a substance, The valktity 

of the vision [i.c,,, prescnl ccrtainty rcgardang thc lliturc \ision] has 
no nccd ior a causc, for the validity of the \ision is none^istciitiaL, 64 
and v\ f hat is n<inexi^lenl.i;i3 has no need Ibr a cause,. Kven if it should 

bu granted thai the validity of the vision would have [iccd lor a catwc 3 
still wc would not grant that thc aiusc nccessarily would havc to bc 

something having commonality and eristcncE' If tvi r o different causes^ 

^ 1 J he MS and MS Garrctt/Yahi.iibi -14JB6 rcv p crsc thc ordcr to bc accidjtnl- 

ffl Her^e ih^ MS is alone in rewrsinjj ihe ordtr of the iwo preceding noan^, 
** T *gain rcad» [ot-|ul| m conuwr Xo [al-^wd] in rht ochet* wuws u&ed, MS 

Gaurneit 1JfiyHa supp]ifs * gloss bclwwd co wwl: w syncinryrrMWi9 &* R^t" [jiiui-i<tif 
aw^'alan]. TIk! glchsn may re*ff!r lo Lhc anginal conccpt of a 'long/taJI ohjcut uf 

viskin" bcinpr a suthHa.rLrt t not an ajc:cLdrnt. 

M L ^l: [jid^^dj it L= a posMhility, and a poMLbility is non-cxklDLitial ? a^ in thc car- 
licr scctiDn on poaHbililv. [BL k, Scti, ] . Ch. 4, Topic S.J < [Froni lsIahaiiJ^ f?! 7d^rif] 

^ f- and T rcad, Cl lw? chinBs" [al-sFiay*ayn]. Thr MS iind MS Garrett' 9B9Ha 
rL-sid, Cl ivt) c■^A^J«. l 5 1^, [al-^Ojmbiiynlj, which rr-uding H|jpran to fit thc cauw/cii^ci con- 

wx[ beirer. 


had shareti in an r£Rxi ihat was of a singEe &j>ecies then we would 

havc granccd that thc causc would nccesjiariily havc a commonality P 
But wc do not grant cltat temporal origination is nol suitablc to be 

a cause. Your [the oppusitig dispLitant^s] statcmcnt thac tcmporal 

origiiuition is noncxislcutial is gramed But theti your statement 

conrinucs L 365 that what is noncxistential i5 not suitable to be 
a cause. We hold that that poaition is impossiblc bccausc the non- 

esistcniLal i& indeed suitable as a causc for the tioncKistcntial, and 
as thc vaJidity of thc visioii is noncKistentiaL» ii i& admissible for [the 
vision's vatidityj to bc thc caused ciiect** of somcthing tioneaisten- 
tiaL So it would be admissihle thal Lcmporal oriEjination., cvcn if it 

is nonexistential, shoulri be a cause for the validiry of the rision,, 

which is itsclf noncxistcntial. 

Now, if it is granted that the va]idating causc is ^cxistcncc*, thcn 
why would you nol say that ihc fact that it occurs as a prcrogativc 
of [Gudj Mosi High would imply thar rhc validiiy may oocur [in 
othcr conteKLsjj 1 So why would it not bc admissibk 1 ihat thc vision 
of Him the Most High be something prcvcnted on account of thc 
cessatiun of some condmun or the existence ofsome hindrancc? For 
just a& whcn an cffcct becanies rcaliwd h can. bc deduccd ihat some- 
thing rcquiring it has occurred, &o also il can br dcduccd that a 
condition cjosls or a hindrancc has ccascd. ThiiB it may bc that thc 

material quiddity of God Most High or thc tnaterial ^irictdiry of one 

of His attributes stands as hindrance io the validi(v of the visioti. 


Onr fact that would vcrify tliis [thcoryj is that thc living nature [Le., 

of humaiikind] is the va1Ldating causc for both moral stupidity and 

cvil desirej, but fin contrast] the living; nature of God Most High is 
noc a validating cause lor cither of ihem. Now this [i.c,, rejcction 

of both human traits] is cithcr 

a) becau^c thc commonality [of the two kinds of ]iving 

natures] is only in thc terrnicLoIogy* 7 or 

b) bccausc thc two ha% r c a commonality in meaning, bui 
that thc matcrial quiddiiy of thc Onc who is thc Truth 641 or ihe 
material quiddity of onc of His attribuws cxcludes both of thcse 

[human traits from thc asgurcdness of the \ision). Morcovcr t upon 

w L s T »nd MS Garreti 969Ha rcad, u thc titett of'\ [maHiUah] while che MS 

Ortiils Ltiis VNMird. 

H MS g|: And thus wOuld not be a vilid?ilins caw^c. 

w L, T and MS Glrrell 989Hii nftid s u tlw <>M whci b ihe Truth" [al-h;^q], 

whLk ih* MS mKb, LI Ou<! M«st High " 

906 2 7 SEGTIDN 2, CHAPTEK 2 

both che ahove premisos that [lattcr conclusion wouEd] bc admissi- 

ble in ihis prob!em. w 

Baydawi said: 

L 385. T 187 

j\4u c ta&lak aTgmurils al mnanee 

\fu d tazilah argurncnts [at variaiKC with thc doctrinc of thc bcatific 
visibility of God] are based on thc points that (bllow. 

a. [God*s] word is: "No sight perreives Him." [Qur*an 6:103a] 

The answer [to tliis pomtj is 

L that the pcrception is a comprehcnsivc rccognition., hut there 

is no hnplkation ihat excludmg the vision firom ihe aspecl of being 
d comprch«isive nccugnitioii would exdude ii absolutely; and 

2, thc mcaning of thc vtat is that though thc eycs of all arc 
looldng» they shall not a II pcrccivc Him s which is nol inconsislent 
with [the facr of J there being peroeption for some. 

b r [Gud's] word is: "Ycui shall never *ee Me", [Our^m 7:142JhJ 
with thc word ^ncycr" bcinc thcrc to dcclarc it ctcrnal** 

The amwer [to this pointj is that this argument is impossible, 

c, [God's] word is: "To no human heing has God ever spoken 

cxcept by inspiratioii . . ." [Qur'an 12:51] The versc ticcludcs thc 
vision at thc timc of &peakini;, &0 it should bc cxcludcd at any othcr 
time for thc lack of a siatcmcnt showing any disdnction, 

The answer [to this point] ls that mspiraELon is speech thai is 
heatd swilUy, cqua!ly whcther the s-peaker Ss curtained ofT iroiti the 

hcarcr or not. 

d. Ilc who is Prai&cworthy rcgardcd tJic dcsirc to bchold Ilim as 
a great presumptinn, and lormulatcd a wamtiig and a rehuke againsr. 

it 5 for Hc ikiid: 

" "Thcy dcmandcd of Mose& sumcihirig rnore prcsumptuous yct 

whcn thcy said, L Show us CJod plaSnly*, thcn a lightning bolt aeizcdl 

thcm in their wrongdomg." [(^4:i53J And s 

"lliose who havR no hope of nicctiiig Us have said, [*\Vhy is ii 

ihat jio arigcls Ilhvc betit sent down to us, or that we do tiot see 

our Lord? 1 . fc J M [Our^an 25:21] 


MS 0i [l-ej> th* vi$i«>ji of HLm. 

^* T JTAcb^ ,% to niakr- rhc (^cJu$ion ctcmaL^ []i-ta'bid aL-naJv). Othcr sounccs u&cd, 
L, MS Gamtt 2B3B, and MS Garrcn. 989Hb rrad, "to ckcbtrt ic cLcrnal" [lil-ialiid] . 


Thc answcr is that this [dcmand to MoscsJ was considercd prc- 
sumption becaust* thcy dcmandcri it out ol" obstinacy and wiliiul 

t:. Having $ight in ihis prc^m world ts a necessaiy result 

1 . ir die sense organs arc healthy, and 

2 + il the given concrete object is admissiblc as a \isual objcct 
and il h Locatod in fronl of ihc viewer a just as ati animaPs body 
whidi is dri% p cn befarc him or which hc gowni^ aud ju*t as acci- 

dcntal qualitics and a scnsatc fbrm lacing him arc perceivcd iii a 
mlrror, and 

3. if the object is rnrt too near, or remote, or ime^ or miaU, 
arid [if J thcre is no curtain hctwccn thc trwo M thena [i.c, viewer 
and objject]. But if it should bc othcrwiscj thcn adiriittccily ii woukl 

be possible for high 71 mountains to be right in our prcscncc that we 

would not sec Tbc last six [cxample5> i-c, in 2. and 3.] camiol be 
considcrcd hcrc with icicrcncc to the visibility pf God Most High. 
But, as^uming thnt the hcalth of the sense organs h a prescnt con- 
dition, L 3-ft6 and if the visihility of Him were snmcthing quite 

surc t thcn clie neoes&ary result would be that we would see Him 

now, But thc conclusron is ralse, ao thc prcmj&c is likcwise. 

Thc answer to this point is that what is abscnt to scnsc is nol like 
what is present to the ohservet\ So it inay b*r ihat thc visibility of 

[Gorl| is dependent upon a conctition tliai h not now in occurrcnce, 

or docs not nccc&sarily iroin thcsc [prcscnt] conditions. 

f. |God| Mo&t High is not receptive to |a facc to facc] coci- 
irontation nor to the registry of a visual impression., but wttry fother| 

v:sUvi1 •! i':iji-i ;i is snriiri hini; to liii.k ;-!l aiull [di;il] rriiik^ ;iu irriprujt 

upon the obscrver- 

Thc answcr [to this pomtj is that the major prcmisc would lx L 
impo^ible, and the two rlaiins of nccessity in [thbpointj are invalid ft 


1. thinking pcoplc disagTcc about this qucstiori, and 

2- it roniiadicts t.he Fact ihat ii is God who holds u* in His 


71 Thr ad^cLLYr, ^higJs-, [sliahiqah] b addrrt in T anrl MS Garird ^SlJlIb, hur 
is not prrsr:LiL lii I- or M^ Garrrlt 

906 2. SKGllON 2, CHAPltR 2 

IsTahani savs; 

L 3R6, T 188, MS I9fla 

Alu c ta^itah argumenis at uananct 

Mu c Ta2iIah arpuments [at v.ariance with thc doctrine ol the divine 
visiun] arc hascd on six points. 

a. [God's] word is: "No sight pcrcewcs Hiin" [Q^6:lU^aJ Thc 
argumcnl on this point has two aspccts. 

L The first [aspect] h that precedin^ this verse [just quotedJ 
there is [G<xTs] word: "That One is God, your Ma^ier; no oiher 

dcily is thcrc than Hr. thc Grcator of cvtry thing/ ■"thcrrdbrc, wor- 
ship llin^ — aiid He excrasrs liill control ovcr cvcry thing." [Q,ft:l()2| 

Thcn comes the versc r '*No sight perceivcs Him . , ." Folknving this 

is Hls word: L \ . . but Hc pcrccivcs tiicir looking; lic is kind and 

fully informed" rQfrl03b] 

F^ch of ihese iwo siaiemctus [which precede aucl follow tlw verse 
being discussedj are set forth as a prcsrnLaiion of divine praise, and 
so ihis [mtdjid] vcnic should aJso bc otie rcflecffrg praisc, MS J98b 

bccausc to sct what is not praise bctwccn two statcmcnts of prai&c 
would bc weak and considcrcd impropcr, sincc thcn thc casc would 
he as when ihey say ? "So and so i* an iliustrious man, uorarious in 

handLing bread, and a mosl worthy gentleman!" 7 - Now, if the exdu- 

sion af human sight frorn pcrccwing llim shouid bc considcrcd as 
in His praise, thcn thc affirmatinu of it would be considercd as His 
being imperlbci. but (o ascribe any impei Tectinn to God Most High 
is impossiblc. 

71 WHrrin rriure lltuil a cencury tarircr, RaiM* warsLr>n i>J" (his cpithet [op, ch„ 
]l 11-12] cnrii wich h«:aivy acniiclityi "St» aiui so ls a most illLLsirmus ctian, vlhj.l:l™s 
■in handli]]g bjvad. a Prca^ptor fbr thc hour [&pi\ al-nas akil aJ-khub^ uEtadh aJ- 
wajqt]!" In working ovcr Riwi^ T-epwls of thc d<:bal^« ulong with this schcnl stylc* 
b<^ok «amplc, [sTahani would haw rcmcmbcccd what sunly ]ic must havc reccivcd 
as gnod advK:c frorn his tutor fa,ther, fcL Bc rarctul what you say whcn. wortiicj for 
a mJcT!" Thu&, wc punnisc ihat IsEahiuii Imtururtdy st>1tL A iLcd Ra^i 1 ! shacp cndinp, 

to bcco-me: K a mo^t wuithy gmtlciAAn!" 

A? a Ibrrtno^ 10 th\$ foot(10*V F M.ihmud Isliihani succcWiity r<implftcd wriijng 
his €0^10™^.^' for hia pi-tcrtm thc Mamlttk ki™f aJ-MaJik iil-Nasir Muhamrnad Ln 
thc latlcr part uf thc ciphi ycao of thcir rriundship tKtwccn 732/1332 and 74] / 1340« 
Now, MahiELL 1 ^- coanpatciot and parallr] as a studcnl of A rtudcjit of BaydawL *Adud 
5tl Diu l)i F had !>etollK rk]j und IIiehOus ^ & lectuircr back iti Kjhij ii, Ppisiii- Buv 
apparsntty no one harl wamed him a.h>uL unj^uiacdcd words when nrcmnd pnlitk^LL 
nj]cy^. Thu?, iro^ihlc broJoc i%ui hctwccn "Iji and thc rulcr whrt thcin inwpri^ocicdl him 
in thc castlc duii.jfCi>n. It vcry wcll could bc that a sharp acid un^iiacdcd pcu or 
Trwiguc had bcought Iji inco thk tmuhlc, whcrt hc found no pardon Ln thc njlrc s 
hcart, hnalh,' d>niti^ hi prbiou, 753/1352 or 756/1333. 


2. The second [aspcct of this point] is that [GocTs] word, tt No 
si^ht pcrccives Him"j requires iha! thc searching eyes of all (Jic mul- 

titude .should not perceive Him at any momeiu in time. For us to 

say iliat eycs shalt p^rceivr Hiui wuuld be lo t-ontraditt ourseJw* if 
we thcn should say thai cycs shall not pcrccivc Ilim,, the contra- 

diction being formally mdiaited by ihe lact that tach of the two 

slacemencs is uscd to falsjfy thc other. Thc tmth of onc of thc two 
contradictory propositiom iraplics 73 that thc othcr is. Calse. So thc 
truth of [God 1 ^] word a lL No sight perceivcs Him" 4 would neccssarily 
fakily our saying thai all sight shall percewe Him, And the false- 
hood of that would necessarLly imply the falsehood [of our state- 
mcui| if we should say that thcn the cycs of onc or two wil! perceive 
Him t bccatLsc thcrc is no stalement showing a distinclion."* 

a.-a, r Tlw answer [uf Raydawi to ihis problcin] k ihat percepiion 

iii % tomprchcnsi\ r c rccognition\ which is bcing ablc to scc a thing 
from all sidcs. Its sourcc mcaning eomcs from thc idca of ovcrtak- 
inif, hut comprchcnstvc recognitinn is rcaJized only with a;] 

ohjcct which haj a mmibcr of sides- Thus, thc mcarting of thc vetse 
is the enclusion of any vision [of thc dcity] through 'comprchcnsivc 

rccognition 1 . But thc cxclusion of thc visioii thiough conipjrchcnsivc 
rccospiition docs not Imply the exclusinn of the vision absoluLely; for 

the vision through comprehensivc recogiiition h mone sprcific than 

thc \ision Ln <m absohitc scnsc + and cxdusion of something spccific 
doe& not imply a gcncra] cKclusion. 

A iiniher answer is that the mcaning of thc versc h that nol al] 

ihose lcx>lung[ wi]] |K l nt:iv<: [Cih]], r ['lial is Isrr^ni^e; *lhi.i®e lookine' 

are plural ancl are dclincd by thc dcOnilc arliclcj and ihus [thc rnean- 

iiigj has a gcncral rctcrcnccj, so it is nf)t inconsistcnt vAtU thcrc l>cing 
perccption by somc of thosc looking. 

Ihe rebuttal ui the fir$t reply is that [Bayda^Ts] starcmcnt tliat 

pcrception means to ace a thing L 387 fram all iw iidcs- is not 
truc. For pcoplc will say 3 Ll I perccived the iire", or, "1 pcrccivcd 
sojnethirig", and ihey do noi mcao by ihese stateinents thai the sight 
of them «as from all aidcs. Rathcr, the true answer would be that 
God Most High has cxcludcd perccption by a sight the precoo<titi<ni 

iy L, T aiird MS Garrett fiW9Ha rsad, '"LrrLplic-s" [yasLal^LrriJ,. but tlbc MS itads, 
l% ts a ne^ir^H.r) 1 cmw itnplyi rig™ [mijjjib irnj3fcaJzicii| f 
3+ Ler» tbft ai^iirnetn pcrhaps i$ sayinR Lh-ic perasrpuoti uf G<x1 in ihe plural is 

riiU-d !>ulu biil l]li§ ^huuUI ii-:jl cLLrrLu i^lLc ii m ihe siriguUr -*J3 iJk* dyuL 

910 fl, SUCTJON 2. CIHPTER 1£ 

of which would bc thc imprintirig oi" any likcness oi thc projectton 

of any rays of vision [Lc n to maJce contact with an object of visiou] P 

Rut by this. it is not implicd that thcrc would bc the chcIusioei of 
Liiiy &tiiie thai woukl oi;c.ui after one of these iwo thingx h;ul t&ken 
place^ but without thc othcr one of them having taken pkce.* 

b- Thc sccond [point in thc Mu'tazil&h argumcnt against thc 

divinc vision] is |God"s] word to Moscs; "You will ncver scc Mo." 

[Qur J an 7:143] Thc [important] aspcct of thc argumcnt hcrc is that 
rhe word, "neyer", impUes ihc cternity of tlie e^dusbn^ on thc indi- 
cation of [God's] wond: "Say [to them], 'You shatl never foUow us.*" 
[Q 4B: I b] So, \God\ cxduded thc visi«i forever in MS I &9a thc 
case of Moses; ihus, thc exclusion of it in the case of others is impliedj 
since there is rio statemrnt showingr a distinction, 

b.-EL "Ilie answer is that this argumeni is impossibk, in that we 

do not grant that thc word, "ncyer", is to maktr the exclu£Lon sonit** 

thjny etjernal, ;T hnl rather lo rmphasi/.c the eadusjon, w% -showii iii 

[God^J word: "Aiidl thcy would ncwr, evei\ wish for it, becausc of 

what thcir own hanris had rushcd to do." [Q 62:7] It is madc a 

rcstriction by His declaration, M ever," In spitc of this [rcatriction] it 
was not necessary to make the exdusaon. ctcmal, becausc they wished 
<br it in thc Hcrealtcr od thc ground that to cscludc tht vision for- 
cvcr jirom chem] would not logically rcquirc thc dcnial of thc vision*s 

c, [GtwTs] word U: *To no human being has God ever spoken 

except by inspirattoii p or from within curtained ]>rivacy, or by scnd- 

ing a mcsscngcr and thcrcby gi^ing inspiradon . . „" [Qur*an. 42:51] 
r l"hp [importantj aspcct of thc argumcnt is that [OodJ Most Hi^h 

ewluded any vision fol HIms*lf| H the time ofthe 5pf:aking. Indccd 

He cxcludcd aiiy form of address except by one of die liiree inrth- 

ods: by inspiration^ Ironi bchiud a cunain.. or by scnding an apos- 

tle, and each of these [methodsj necessarily hnplics the absence of 
any vision. 'Tnspiration' was not a facc to face conversadon and so 

was not irt conjuTiction with a waiori, "Spcakhig fmrn bchind a cur- 
taiii- ob\T.oiLsly irnplie-s the absence of a yision. And the "sending of 
a mcsscngcr who was inspircd^ indicatc& thc al^i:m;c of any facc to 

" MS gh |l-e.]„ wi(h respeci to oimelyes. 

35 MS gl: [I.ej,, with mespeti to God Mo*c Iligh- 

" L.T aiid MS GaiTCii %9Ha Lndwdi- ilic pln-Aw, ,s bui io tmphm^ die «clu« 

sjan ,a [hsi\ ii iikrd al-mityJ F white tKe MS omiu k, 


iace conversaikm which in mrn hnplies. the ahsence of any vision. 
Purthcr. if ihe exdiHJon or the visinn is e&tablished at the timc ol 
ihe sp^ykiij^ dien ihe vision bccomcs exdudcd al other rimes, since 

thcrc is no statcmcm showing a distinction. 


Thc answer [to this point] i& that wc do not §jrant that [GodJ 
cxcludcd thc vision at thc timc of thc spcaking. Thc statcnicnt [or 

the Mu c tazilah] is that tt is because He exduded any Torm of adctreis 

cxccpt by onc of the threc mclhods. We say that that h grantcd. 
Their statemene is that earh of these three |methr>ds] would rcquire 

<he absence of any vision; but [10 us] iliis piemise is impossible* 

Their slatcnieut, that tlic inspirarioiL would not Ijc givcn in a Face 
to iacc mccring, i$ impossible T bccausc inspiration h spccch that is 
quic.kly heard, cqual]y whethcr the speaker U curraincd off Irom rhe 

heamer or not, 

d. [Godj Most High rc^ardcd thc dcsirc to bchoid Him as a great 

presumpTion, and fomui]nted a warning and a mehuke a^ainst it, 

[God] said, 

*Thc Pcople of the Book will dcmand that you bring down to 
thcm a book T 189 trom hcavcn, but thcy had dcinandcd o( 
Moscs sorncthing morc prc&umptuous yct whcn thcy said> *Show us 
God plainly^ then the Hghtnmg holt .wi/.ed chem in their wrongdo- 

ing. w [Qur 3 an 4:153] [Godj also *aid: 

"Tliuse who havc no hopc of mccting Us havc said> l Why is it 
that no angcls havc bccn scnt down to us ? or that wc will not scc 

our Lord?' Tndeed, ihey have been anrogant in themselves and 

cxtremely prcsuniptuousa" [Q_ 25:21] L -Jtitt That is lo say s the 
unbclicvcrs askcd s "'Why is it no angcla havc bccn scnt down to 
ua* — to tell us that thc Prophct 7 * is a mcsscn6fcr a MS 19E)b *ot 
that wc will not scc our Lord' ? — so that Hc may co]nmat\d us co 

fo]]i>w [thc Prophct] and believe in him?" Thcn God Mo&t High 

iook an oath^ for Hc said, "Indccd, thcy have becti arrogaru in 

thcmsc]vca** s in dcmand]ncf thc \isioiVj and in thac thcy havc bccn 

^CKtrcmely presumptuous", [Q 25:21] that i&, they have very greatly 

cxcccdcd didr pn)j)cr bounds in ilicir dcmaiid for Ihc \ision. Moreovcr P 
[CodJ saii "Bccausc you [unt^clicrers] said to Moscs, fc Wt: will ncvcr 


MS o^: Muhannmad, pcacc upon tikn. 
^* rLc), wbcn Hc said. ■■ , Icw±Kd thcy ha\ie bccn anrocparil . . . r \ [la-qad lEtakbaru] 
brcAiii-e chc p.ictidic (]a-| ia a c;orrcialivc ol" th.c cJjdcd oalh^ ciamcly. [tbc word],. 
"'AIIhIl",, r™<l il lsJ ui^umcd tu bc ? u By AILah, ind^c! rhc^' havt' bccci ^rro^nt." 

912 2. SKr.TTON -3. CHAPTKR 2 

believc you until wc see God plainly', thcrelbrc the lightning bolt 
seized you even as you were looldng around." (Our^an 2:S5| 

ThereforCj [tell the Mu r ta?jhkh, that] it has bccn cstablished cliat 
a dcmamd for the wsion wuuld have arrayed against it both puci- 

ishmcnt and blamc, so, thcre can be no certainty of a nsion. 

d--a, The answcr [to the Mu'tazilatrs point| l& ihat this was oon- 

siidcrcd grcatly presumptuou& becausc their deinand for ihe vision 

waa out of obstmacy and willPul oppuuiiuTi» since thcy dcmandcd 
thc vision in thk [pnrscnt] worid^ beibrc Cod Most High would havc 
ereated in thcm thc kmd of sight that would havc cmpnwcrcd thcm 

to behold Him ih.e Most High, And, indccd* thc rcgarding of[thcir 

Littitudc] as grcatly presumptuous aiid the fbrmulation of thc warn- 

ing and rebukc was against that vcry [obs-tinacy and willful opposi- 

rionj; it was not [merely] on account of the demand for ihe vision, 

Eakcn as a niatter of gcncraL application, This [a&pect of thc storyj 
is 011 ther evidencc w that [OodJ Most liigh pul thc blamc on thc 
unhelievers fbr thcir lack of hopc of mccting God in thc Hcrcaltcr, 

where He said, "And those who have no hope of meeting Us have 

said . . ." [0,25:21] Therefore, it demonstrates that ihe tennination 

of [thcir] hopc for thc vision of God Most High was ort thc occa- 
sion of I Iis placing thc blamc [upon thcm], 

ThuSj it i-s known that the vision of [God] in the Ht:reaftcr \s 

a&surcd and valki. If it should be otherwiie a ihen the termination of 


hope for a vi*Lon of Hini wouJd hc adrnissibic as a mattcr of 

eral applicadon, 

e. Having sight in thi^ world, thar Ls 3 of those vimal oljjecw about 
us, nccessarily results 3f eight condhions are fulfi]led: 

1. that thc scnse organs of sight bc healiliy; if iliese sctisc urg?uis 
arc not hcaJthy thcn \ision docs noE ncccsaarily rcsult. 

?. ihat a t^h/en concrcte thing must bc admissible as a visual 
object; for anylhing that cannot jx>ssibJy \x a visual object will not 
bc sccn. 

3. that the spccial correlatimi lictween an ohscr^cr and a visual 
object musi l>e as (Jiat {>f an animaPs boriy driven by the obser\ F er 3 


T hcightcns thb poinL by tht inscrtimi of "LnJctd." 3 ' [inndi]. 
* J L nracfa ? ""^with ils niikuce" |(n-shShi<filii], T ^ckI MS G^iirelt 9S9Ha read^ 

"^riih ih<i c^tdcn«" : |trt-shah5dahj :l md clie MS re&ds* cr Ilie evideoce f&r if |Shahi- 

duliu], Acid is so vtm-¥Jled (wuh gloss» "che Itpimmit nf s semeiKe" [muboicla J ]] F 


:it ns wlwn ;i visnal objen is uncjcr che conlml ot' a pcrson kuing 

it, just as accidtnts that subsist iii a body facing au observer are 

under thc control of their subslralcs,, and as the scnsate form in a 

mirror Ikdng the otaserver, by his having subsistence in Lhc lacing 

mirror, is under thc control of the mirror. 

4. lliat thc visual objcct shoukl not bc too ncar. 
5- tliat the vi$ual object shoiJd not bc loo rcmotc. 

0. that ihe visual objcct should nol hi coo h"nc. 

7, that (he visual objcct should not be too small. 

8. that thcre should not be MS 2G0a any curiain bewccn 

thc obscrvcr and tbe visual objcct. 

We know for a certaimy that we do not see an object when any 
one of thesc conditioiis is lackiu^ and that *ve do see it if these con- 

ditions arc mcL Othcrwisc, that is. if dic sighl of an objcct should 
not resulr n c.cessariK' whcn Thesc condirions exisL then admitredly it 

would be possible for mountains and pcople to be in our presence 

without our sccing thcni. The la&t %i\ conditions, namely, a dircct 
conclation and anything govcrncd by it, bcin^ not too ncar, L 3-89 

not too remoie, not loo fine, not too smalk and ihere being no intcr- 
vemng curiain, of these, m>ne can possibily ha,ye r*ference to thc 
vision of God Most High. Thrae six have rcfcrence oiily to what 

normalily cxists iu &ojhc specitic; regionality and somc limitcd kxal« 
ityj but God Most High (ar transcends any such rcgionality and lim- 

ited locality. Two condiliocis remaiii: i.he health of the sense oigan, 

and thc iidmis&ibility of a givcn objcct aa thc Yisual ohjcct. Now 3 
assuming tliat hcalth prcvails in the scnsc of sight, thcn if thc visin[i 
of [Godj slnruld he somrihing vijltd |and admisisibEc:], then thc nec- 
essary^ resull would be that wc should scc God Most High, on ancount 
ofthc prcscnt ocmrrcncc of thc two condiiirnis. But ihe coftc]u&io[i 
is fahc t so thc prcmisc is likcwi&c. 

c ,-a. Thc answcr [to t]ie Mu*tazilah] k that what is invisfibly abscnt 
from sens£ p namely, God Most High, is not like what is visibly pre- 
sent. So it may bc that thc vision of [Godj Most High depends upon 

some condidon not presendy being attained^ namciy, somcthing that 

God Most High creates in hunian si^ht by whsch it is cmpowcrcd 

to bchold H3m. Or h [ihe condition] rnay 1m chat the \ision does not 
occur ncccssarily when these conditions ajne rca]ized ( indcc^d, that thc 
vision takc^ plaoe by the crcative act of God Most Htgh, with the 
cight conditions as [merely logical necess^iy] apparatus. But no vision 

res.uh& ncccssarily mcrcly bccausc thc [lo^ical] apparatus for it cxists. 

914 2, KECTION* 2, CHAPTTJt 2 

£ Thc sixth [point in thc Mu'Lazilah argument against the div- 

ine visinnj is. rhat |God| Mosi High does, not aocjepr the (rame of 

referciice of 'coTifrontalion* or [that] of \isual iniprinting 5 , since om- 

frontation and YisuaJ imprcssioii are ncorasary concomitants of cor- 

poreality, and God Most High is tran&ccndcndy frec Jrom corporeality, 

Therefoine, k is a certainty that God Most High does not aeccpt 
confrontation or visual imprinting. But every Sisual objcct* is aome- 
thitig that confronts and makcs a visual impression upon thc observci\ 

inhcrcnt ncccssity. Thereibrc, Cod Most Hie^h is not a l visual 


F.— au Tliis [puint] is answered by dcitying ihe major prcmise s in 

that wc would not granl diat cvery \isual objccl* is somcthing that 
confront& and makes a \isiial impresuon on the ot>server. Moreover, 

the claim that there is necessity in che major premise is inva]id, 

bccausc of thc diHercnce of opinion arnong thinking people about 
whethcr it 15 irue, and thinking pcople do not dLAer concemmg the 
truth of an inherent necessity. Ĕurthermore, che point is answered 

by the fact that whal you have sct forth in thc major prcnikc k 

Lncotimtent wilh thc lact that it is God Most High who holds us in 
His sightj, and so s betwccn us and [GudJ Mo&t High there h no con- 
llrontation nor] imprinting. 

Bayriawi said: 

L 389, T 189 



To/nc 1: (h the acls o/mmktTtd 1 

a. Varutm qf the majorily Mus&tn pasitim 

1. Shaykh [Abu al-Hasaii aJ-Ash r ari] held ihat the acts of 
mankind aU takc piacc undcr the powrr of God Must High and arc 
creations oi" His. 

2- Ojidi |Ahu Rakr «ii-Bac]illanii[ held thai whethcr they arc 
acis of ohcdicnce or discjb^dieiicc is- under the power of man. 

3- Imam al-IIaram.ayn [al-Juwayni]. and Abu al-Husayu [al- 

Rasii] and rhe philosophers held that they rake placc iinder thc powct 
of God Most High in man. 

4, Ustadh [Abu Ishaq al-Isfarayini] hctd that thc cfTectivc cauae 

in thc act is a combination of thc powcr of God Musl High and 
thc powcr of man. 

b, 7he Mu*iatilah fw$iiwn on mmtjrttihrn and its wjutetim 

L Thc majority of thc MiTtaiilah hold that niLin produces lus 
aci by hi.s own free chok^- But [our (Baydawi and Asha c irah) posi- 

ticm is diat] this is irnpossible for a nurnb+r of reasons: 

2. If abstcntion [irom an action] should be impossible for 
jman] at thc timc of thc action, thcn it would be compuisory and 
not voluntaiy. 

3. Bul if it should not be impossihle, T 190 then his action 
would havc newi for an ageut of prefcrraJ a& the nece&sary cauw, 
nric thal would not arUc irom m^nkind, lcat. thc argument shoulcl 
bc foiccd imo an intinite serics and the compulsion of human action 

would then be unplich. 

1 I ii chis Scctjpn 3 Baydawi &ldps diaplcr diybdnns and pracecds directly to top- 
ica whicti arc hi*re callcd '*quje3dQn5 ,H [ma^a^il]. 

910 2, JiT.CTlON 3, tciwcs 

4. lf [maiij should produce his action by hk awn frce choicc, 
ihcn he woukl havc knowlcdgie of all ils dc:La]Ls, and so wmjld com- 
prehcnd ihe periods t>f rest intca sperscd in thc gradual morion-change 
[of ati act] md wotild rr.rogniKe the [appointed] rangts p,c, of thc 

pcriods ofrest], a L 390 

3. If man should makc a choicc, and [if] his will should bc 

contrary to the wUI of God Most High, ihen the implicatioti would 

bc that thc tasc was dlhcr 

a) thc combining ol" both [will&J f or 
bj tbe removal of ihem both P or 

c) a prefcrral without a prderring agent, For aJthuugh [(hkJ^J 

powcr is inore indiisivc [i.-c^ than that uTman], ncvcrthclcss in rcla- 
ion co this spcciRc powcr objcci [i.c-j man 1 s willj* k would bc on 
an equality, 


L 390, T 19(X MS 200ab 



]ln this. Scction 3 BaydawiJ set forth six topics: 

l. t)n flu j act.s ol mankmd. 2. [God] Most High is ihe agenry 
iliat wills Tnunil phenomrna in all creatures. 3, On predicating thc 
good ajid thc hcinoua, 4 t [GodJ Most High h andcr no obligation 

iver, 5. [God'*] acts are «ot based on hidden purposes. 6, 

Obligations impost-d are God'5 notice to Immankind of a final hfe 

Tb^K /; <3n iAf acts qf mankind 

iiu Vamt£e5 of tht mtijonty Muslim posititm 

L Shaykh Ahu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari held that all the act» of 

niankind 3 ouuir under ihe power "f God Most High and are crr- 

1 Ci; the dkstussioi] ol" iht- icornic iheoiy ol ^ime wiih iis acoms o<" rt-si aud of 

^raduukl mobon/clULn^tr itl Mujid Pakll^s hkmtic Qctosi(mniim ¥ pp. 33 fF. 

3 MS |l: [Lt.l, lIhhc riiat are vr>luflcary. [Prcmi Jurjmirs turiirt>ertLan r on Iji's 


ahoris of His.* MaEikirjcl^ power orautnnonioiis. action has no cfficacy 

ovcr (mHii'5] powcr ubjecl at allj 5 btrt raiher, both [matrs] powcr 
and his powcr objccl opcratc undtr God Most High^s powcr of autc- 
nomous attion. 

2. C^idi Abu Bakr [al-Baqillam] taught that thc act itsclf takes 
plare by thn power of God Most High, while thc circumstances of 
an jKt*& obcdwnce as in the peribrtnance of the worship, or [itsj di&- 
obtdicncc as in adultcry., arc charactcrislu:& of thc nU which lake 

ptace by the power of man, 

3. Iinarn al-Harannayn [alJuwiiyEii], ancl Abu al-Hu&ayn al- 
Basri and tlic philosophcrs hcld that thc acts of rnan takc place by 
pmwcr thai (k>d Mosl High has crcatcd within a man n for [God| 
Most High piaces within imn hoch a power of autononious action 
and a wi[l„ and thcreupon that power aiid will become ihe *neoes^ 
sary causc" for thc cxistcncc of thcir L comrnon objcct of powcr [i.e.j 
thc hunnan act]. 

4. Ustadh Abu Eshaq aHsfard>rini & taughl thal thc "cfTictive causR 1 

in an act is thc sum of thc power ol God and thc powcr of man. 

b. 77« Afu*tazif&h pasitittn m rnoral jfreedom and itx rejutatwn 

L Thc Mu c ta/-ilah all leach ihat man produccs his aci by hia 

own frcc choicc,' unqualificd by any nccc5sity. fl But the Mu*taEilah 
doctrine is rukd out fbr a iniinber of rcasons: 

+ Gkrasts: I. MS: This is ihc doc.tcinc callcd. tai Compijlsiori n [jabr| a 
2. MS and L; |[An actj is ajcquirctl [inaksub] by rnaiL What is mcant by his 
*Lcquisitiun uJ" it is that it clcKely associates wilh his jmjwct ari-rt his wiU 5 bul m ibi-- 

[auMciaiioh maci kaLils] m eHk^K-c <^uwilhy \w*t ii\ or enwy inio ics rxt$t«Eioc- 

AKC^pi a$ hft i$ clss s^bsirare for it. ThU i$ ĕh^ d^ccrine of Abu al-Hasan al-As-h 4 aii. 
[From linjani^E commc-ntary on Iji's AtauxiififJ] 

h MS 15I: But rathcr^ God whd u praiscd and L-ialct-d made il His tuSCrtm H> 
place wthin tlir crTaJtLLrc thr piwer ol iiutoiKinicMJs iittioi:i and ul' v-ulutiLaiy chuic*. 
Soj, if there sh™kl be curttiin^ to prrwnL iL |UudJ ihcii placctl .[awjada] widliil [tlrc 
c:it'!aiun-| ihr accbn o!".i inan a* a) [O^ cIi^itipJ [iuwit ubjbtt Arnl as b) somahijig 
closely a$»wLi(cd wtih ili^m iM.iih [Le-> C3od ;^«d maiij, "Hiils^ thc acinun of rrna- 
(y^cly m&n 3s 1} h crcayorii d GchJ hs pi unique thing Htid a* a tcmporal origina- 
taon, and ii is 2) che creaLui^s own by «u.-quu;iii<jrt 

11 AImj lshaq Jbrahim tbii Muh^mmad al-lstarayiiii, d. 4IH/ltrJ7, was a lc!aje:hfr 

of . s \sh e ari chcolngy, L ^jidb thc najiit^ [al-lsfarani]. 

7 MS $: "This b thc d*>ctrine caLcd "Autonomy"" [^adarTyah, = (MS;) q»daivih . 

N"n>te cliai the rix>T Hvond h [qadar| , or che ^nimUrUing di-rr™ 1 with fkhd, and 
thc , pa.rtkulariz^d a£t' wich jiiankLiidl. bmh of whtch iniplcmcnt thc p<wcr oiauco- 
nomous action^ onc di\inc and anc humati. 

K MS gl: Lc, ni4iin's producaoc] uf his acL is nc?t ^in obJiRaLimi upan him but eL 


2, if an act from tvhich a man ahsiains shoukl be madc impoS" 
sible ai thc ttme of ihe aci, ihen ihe man would be urtder compul- 

sicin and his action would not bc of his fncc choicr. 

3. But if abstcution iroiri thc act should not be madc impos- 
siblc, ihcn his. [abslaining| action would rcquirc somc prelcrrai agcney 

iu hr tljr riiLi^sMry causr, hicawsr ol" th<- Lmpo&sibiKry of givm£ pn> 

Cbrence to one of the two terms in a possibility without therc being 

a prelerring agency- Moreovei\ that prcicrrine; agcncy as necessary 
cause may nol be derivetf Eroin man Eiimsclf- This- h so hecause if 


[the prelerring agency] ahould be from [ihe side of| man himsc]f 

thcn thc divbion [into thc forcgoing altcrnativcs in thc cascj would 
retum. It would not rcsull in an iniinite serics argument, bui rather 

li woukl [iTmiuate without doubt with a prererring ageticy as (lie 
necessarY tau&alioii riot derivablc from ihr act of niari: arid ihus, 
L compulsioii a would bc impKcit^ 

An objection has been raised thai the Muteilah hold thas che 

mraning of L frcc choice* [with reCcrcncc to mankind.] is that thc two 
tcmis. [lc^ eithcr to pcrlbrm an act or abstain Ironr it) arc equal in 
relation to [man^s] powcr of autonomous actipn by itsclf ? and that 
che necessiiy for orte of thcm to occur is, on account of [man*s] will- 

ing intention, So 3 when an agency or preTerral is obtamed, namely, 
|mari f s] MS 20 la wilL then the action becomes 'necessarjr 1 , but 

whcn [thc agcncy of prcfcjxal] is not obtaincd, thcn [thc pardcular 

actionj i-^ Hmpossible'- However, that [proccssj does not deny the 

cqualily r of thc two tcrrns in rcspctt to [nian^] powcr of dutunonious 
action by itscl£ In that casc thcn 7 if abataining firom an act should 
l>e inipossiblc for a man in vicw of [chc prcferring dcci?.ion of hisj 
will, there would bc no implicaUon of ^compulsion 1 L 391 or the 
lack of tree choice^ 'lTisit would \x. thc implication only if ilie inripos- 

of abstairring frum act should Ije because it was wiihout 

[thc prcTcning dccision of man's] will. 16 But» if [thc inifK}ssibility r of 
abstaining from the act] should hc tcsgcth^r %vith [thc prcicrring dcci- 

sion of man 5 s] will, then no, [tbc 'compnlsion 1 would not be impliecl]. 

The answcr [to thc ohjccior dcfcnding the Mu*tazilah] is that what 
you havc sct ibrth aboLiL thc Mu^tazilah is. [only] the position of Abu 

is by his frcc -chcdcc If hc [posLtivdy] "wtIIs Lt., thcn he do« ii, ;ind if hc- wLUs. lo 
]cavc it to the Writcr of his djKsdny., [theii likeiiise, tie leiLvrs il.], 
1 MS ^h BpcausL" nun is ncrt indcpcndjertt in his thoicc- 
r * Thr MS provides unly the prortOUrt &ufiix "uitlioitt it 1 "^ itot tbt tldlLn. 

ACT5 OF 0<.>n AXD AjCTS i)T MANKJND 919 

al-Husayn al-BasrL it is not ihc docirinc of all thc resi of thc Mii*tH- 

zilah. Our [IsJa.han]'&] discussion ia a lctutation of thc doctrinc of 
al] thc rcst of che Mg c tazilah, not a rcfutation of [only] thc tcach- 
ing of Abu aJ-Hnsayn [ad-Ba&rL]» 

4. [Thc Mu 4 tax3lah doctriue of Irce choicc is nilcd out also 

bccausc] if man should |iruduce liis act by his free choioe, ihen he 

would havc knowlcdge of its dctails, 5int:c\ if it should bc adinissi- 

blc ro producc an act by free choice without having such knciwl- 
cdgc. thcn thc argumcnt dcmonstrating thc ccrtaiitty of God Mosl 
High a & [cycr-present] omuiscience wouid bc invalidatcd. Now s sincc 
a uiuvcrsal ultimate purpose ,! would hc inadcquatc [to oxplain| thc 
occurrence of a particular [act], because the rclationship of a uni- 
vcrsal [purposc] to aJJ partkular [acts] would bc equal and the occur- 
rcncc of any onc of thcm would not bc prclcrable to thc occurrcnce 
of any othcr, it is neoessary p thcreibre., that a particular cnd purposc 

should becorne reaHoed, and that ihat particular end purpose shoulri 

\yc rondirinnal upon knowtcdgc of thc particular dctails. 1 '' r J "hus, it 
would be an e&tablL&hed certainty that if [man| ahoukl pmduce hi» 
action by his own frcc choice» then hc would have knowledgc of iis 

[t:c.msi:qucnt] dclails. Man the CreaturC would thcEL Ililw full com- 

prehension of [all] the periods of rest interspcrsed in &low gradual 

rnotion-changc [Lc^ thc prriods of ovcrt inactivity and activky in 
thc coursc of a single action], and he would know [intiniacrly] thc 

particular domalns of these periods of rest- But lliis conclusion would 

bc falsc 5 bccausc thc agcnt of thc slow gradual moLion-changc [of 

au action] has already placed a period nrqiiicsccncc in some domains 

and motion-change in somc others, cven wjihout any awarentns of 

ttir [Kriuds of quicsccncc ls or of thcir doniaiiis. 

Anothcr objcction has bccn raiscd that existcutial causatioti does 
not require that Lhc irxistcntial should havc kriOwlcdgc of what 
has bcen niadc to oxist. Kurtber. there is na iraplicd rejection of 

11 MS gh [This i^| l^ic reason for [Baydawi : s| stat»nei» chat [manl woukl liav«e 
knowledge of ihe [cunse^unLtl dctails [of hjs acc]. 

13 Cf. ArUtotk^s MicAimackeM Ethiti 111:3 ^rld Vll:J-4 rcJcrring to choloe ift tcrnis 
of unii r crsai -cnds and particular acts. CiLatLon farqm Bmcc Aimc, Reason arw/ Arlio^ 

pp. L ] 2 fH Cf. aJsn Aunc'& rcfcrcnct to WF.R. Haixlie's Arijbffk's Ethkat 7 S/w>-, 

an thc Practtcat SyLlogiKni." 

,: ' L and T rrad hcrc [sakaudt], whiSc thc MS and MS Garrett 9ffi»lia read 


920 2, SEcnoN 3, topics 

God Mosi IIigh'3 Jever-present] omniscience., because those who 
affirm tlie [divine] ommscience do not inler it [fmm fhe fact of 
God**] tsistcntial causation, but rather from ihe proptrtics and pcr- 
icccion of [IlisJ act. Ycs» thc cxistcntiaJ cansation [of an acl| togcthcr 
with a purpa&c docs ncccssitatc knowlcdgc, but gcncral knawlcdgr 

suRkcs. Tk 1 muLioTi-changi-s [i.e,, sugcs of an aciionj Lhai i^ue from 

us [human bcinp| closcly associatcd with a purposc for chcm arc 

[aJl] known to m in a general way, 

The answer [to this objection from the Mu c tazilah] is that the 
scparaie" particular details that wke place [consequently] with an 

action i&suin^ Jrom thc agcnt by his own purposc and frec choicc 
must become realizcd by means ol a parricular purposc* tbat par- 

lic wlar pwpose behig conduioned by particular knowledge, Thus, ihe 
implication would be that if a person &hould produce his action by 

his own free rhoice, then he would havc knowlcrdgc of its [consp- 

qucnij details. Howewr, they [i.e. ? presumably, the Mu^tarJlah] have 

thc right to rule out [an opponenl*s] conclusion. Thercforc [in thcir 
\icwj, man would havc knowtcdgc of thc particular dccails ot" his 
actiom, but this particularizcd knowlcdgc would nor rcmain in his 

memorv- ls MS 201 b 

5, [The Mu c tazilah doctrine of Free choice is mled out also 
because] if a man should make a choice and his will should be con- 
trary to the will of God Most High^ in that [man thc crcaturc] had 
willed a body to be quiescent while God Most High had willed it 

to bc in modan-changCj thcn cithcr 

a) thc will of both of thcnn would takr plat:c, implying thc 

jnining of a contradictory pair; or 

b) the will oi" [nekhcr| one of Lhcm would cakc place;, imply- 

ing the rernoval of a contraclictory pair; or 

c) thc mll of onc of the two but nol Llitr other would take 
acc, imptying T 19] a prcicncncc without a prclcrring agcnt. 
"Hils would bc so brcaijs^ e^ r en thongh |(Jod] Most High's powcr 

of autoLiomous acbon \s rnorc gcncral than man thc crcaturc^s powcr 

11 \CS ttaijta [nl*niiufa¥f}t1iLh]; 1* and T rr-iil [al-rmiEillLjilyli], MS Gamett 969H;s 
apptars to havc *n iiu<hiitrxi lcctcr n a chu> n^adSng [al-tnunfi5Jiah]. 

'"' L gL; [dhnkr] spclli^d. with a ^u. 1 * is ^liat i* [hi.Lii by ilie bc-ar* [i.r^ dic cncm- 
oryj. hnnt whcra ir ii &fH^Lfd with an ^i" it is what 5h [statcdj b^' the tcm^ui-: the 
tirst is inLcndc-d hrrc, 

Thc MS vociilizcs the word wth *\r ard adds d.s gloss: "that b. in hu hcart." 


of autonomous action, still in rcgard to & certain power objtct [thcse 
two powrrsji would bc cqual in thcir mdepcndcnce to cxcrl ciTw :tivc- 
causation upon that nnc power objrct. A singlc ohjcct L 392 woukl 
be a irue uiut ihat does uul admii t>r any variancc. r nicrcforc } thc 
two powers of ' autonomous acuon. in respect to what the existcncc 
of this objcri rcquirca. would bc equal. Thc variaiice would cxist 

only in other matters exlernal to this mcaning relercncc, and if that 

is so, then any pncfcrence woukl bc impossible. 

An objection [by thc Mu P tazilah] has bccn raiscd ihat tbc will of 
God. Mosc High wouid actually takc placc s and not thc will of man, 

when ihe two power sources would comcide. But wc„ [say the 
\fu c tazilah], clo not granl ihat the two powers would he equaJ in 
their indcpcndcncc to excrt cflfcctive causation upon that [*inglc] 

powcr object. Rathcr. thcy would bc dissimilar in their strengih and 
their weaknessr. Thus, the power of one fof theni] wotild bc ablc to 
move a givcn distancc in a givcn pcriod of tiTite» but the power of 
another would not bc able to do so in that samc spacc of linie. 1 * If 
the two powers should bc equal then thc power objecu would b« 

equal, but thcy arc not. 

FuTthcTj, thc wcak party indcpcndcrnly may pcrhajis hr. able to 

pcrfonn an att that thc strong [party] is able to pcrTurnl, wliile ibe 
strong party is ablc to hindcr [thc wcak party] from that act, bul 
|thc weak one] is unable to hinder the strong* This argumcnt is 

uken trom the fi proof of mutual prevewion' 1T that nullities any thc- 

ory that deity niay he rnore than onc. In that contcxt the argument 
would l^e v;il:dj becaiwe dcitics are nssumed lo \ye. erjual in powcr 
withr.nit any MjniaiKc, but hcrc it is uot valid, 3B 

Baydawi said: 

L 392, T 191 

Mu T tii*ilah dQttrm& ¥ "AutMMrny** m httman -acts 

The [Mu'tazilah] argumtTit [for autunomy in iiuman aclsj is> based 
on boch rcason and traclidon. 

:r ' L j.lone irf mum& u&cd otnii.s 'Hn the sanic ^paor of timc." 1 
11 Thc 1 "prtK>f vf ccLutuiiJLL prc^ndon* [daJil ai-l-anianw^l b thc prwf thHi if oa<r o!" 
iwo pitsrpusitiuns- is mw, llw irtlrar cuniw-t 1«. The phr-tw is moi in Jurja»r$ Ta r nja/. 

Tlic won\ |r,tiii-tiuii l J as e>e(jliLiEHd in I-itse^ £&&&> ai a synoiiyiii of [tahtajuz]. 

R L g|: B^cauA^ th^ power of rnan U noi «?q»ai i« ihe pwwer of Goil Mo&t Hi.tjh, 
which is *>l>vio»s rrom. what hsw prnopdicd 


a. [Thcii argumenl from reason h thai] if man ihe creatunc shoulct 

n-ot havc autonomous choicc, thcn tbc obli^ation [tt> dutiliil living 

that is divinely| iniposed upon him %\*opld be inappropriate [and 
very repugnant], 15 

a.-a. The answer [to the Mu*tazihh] is ihai ihat point is one thal 

is hcld in curnmon [with odicr groups]. [This is so>] bccausc thr 

divine commandment comes with well-balanced reasons, and any 
ambivakfice 011 [GoclV] pait ia unpussiblc. Whcn [God*s] prckrence 
is indicated* it h a neceasary duty, Morco% r cr h if [God^s prcfcrcncc] 
should bc somcthing thc occurrcncc of which ia wcll known, thcn 
its occurrcncc would be necessary; il" \t should he something the non- 

occurrence of which is well knowi, then its occurrence would be 

Noncthclcss, God Mosl High "may nol bc askcd about whal He 

dws. M [Qurtui 21:23] 

b, [Thc Mu'iaxiLah argTjmcne from tradition is bascd] on thc foI- 
lowing rcasons: 

L Thcrc are the wrae* rhat have joined actions with human 

beings and have linked the aciions to their wilU, according to the 

word of [Gwl] Mosl Migh; 


■ v \Voc to those who arc writing thc Book with their own hands"; 
[Qur'an 2:79a] 

"They heed only someones iheory"; ^6:116 10:66; 53:23, 28]; 

"So they can changc it to what is in thcmsclvcs"; [Q8:53b] 

"Rather. |the fat:t u] your own sdvps have ]ed you"; [Q 12ilfl] 


"Thus. he allowed him*df . . -"; [Q 5:30] 

"Ariyone duiiig evil will be pakl back for it H ; [Q 4:123] 

"Every man is mortgagcd lo hiy wealth"; [Q 52:2 1J 

"Anyone who wanis to a lct hiin bclievc, 

and anyonc who wants to 3 lct him disbelicvc"; [Q 18:29] 
"1X> wha.tever you waiu 1 '; [Q 41:40] 

w VVhoever wants to, will keep Him in rerjicjnbrance"; [Q 74:53] 

"So^ any of you who want to^ can advaticc or fali bacJL" [Q 74:37 [ 

19 L re?L«ds P u woukl jio( be ■appropri^tc^ pa:m y?fjihh] s whilc T, MS Gamett 283 
and GhitkU 939lib read, ri wrOuld bz vtty npuwrtuiC 3 pa-galjutiu]. 

a L Has skijjjwd thc phr;dHi: "im kwhh^ l»ha[ fi>ni.iwj : " [tiiLrii wiijnhj. 

Zl "Raydawi ejLtoi^- thc wracs having the ^eHb in ihe 3i^l per&mi p)ur»t, whik 
Is&ihaiji t|itflU^ from fQ, 6:1.48] whcn: ih« vcrb ia pei che 2"Jid pirrsim plural. 


Tbese [vr:n*es[ may be t:<»mpared with others. as in |(Jod*s] word: 

H [Hc b] ihr C leator of all things"; fQ. 13:161 

"It is God who created you and everythirjg you do;" |Q. 3 

"For whomeveT God wills, him He allows to get lost,. 

and for whomcvcr Hc wills., him Hc scls on a direcl way." 

[Q, 6:39] 

2. Therc arc thc verscs tiiat include a promise. with a warniiig 

aLso in them, atid |ihcrc arej thosc that includc praisc, with blame 

also brought alowg; A\ of these are more thaji can be reckoncd. 
b.-a. Thc answer [lo this augumciit from tradilionl is that bliss 

and miscry arc inborn dispositions that were as.signcd to [manktnd] 
betorc ht: csistcd. |IIawcvcr, man*a] actions arc thc oulward indi- 
cations. upon which rcwards and punishmcnts arc bascdj, inasmuch 
as |m^n*S actionsl are his. nwn [inteniall driinine chaiactcristks. not 

[cjtlernally causcd] ttccessary cilects. 2 * 

3, There is thc contession L 393 oPthc prophetis pcace uport 

thetn, about their sins, as in fGcKl's] word, 

quoiing from Adam: L '0 our Lord,, wc havc wronged oursclvcs"; 

[Q. 7:231* 

and from Jonah: "Prabe belongs to YoUj truly I was a wmng- 
docr"; [Q 21:87] 

and fiom Moses: O my Lord, I have wronged myseir." [i> 27:44| 
Thcsc are compared with [others in God'sJ word, quoting from 



lir rhis is only a dissension that you are permiciing, in it You allow 

whonicvcr you will to gct k>st t and [in it] You prcnidc dircctinn for 
w r homcvcr You wilT^ [0^7:155] and othcr vcrsc£ likc it. 

4. There are the vcrse» indicating chat His acts may not bc 
describcd using characterisdcs [applied co| hunian acdons., [as.J Svrong- 
doing\ iticonsistericy^ ;ujd L variance T ? iliat a^e in the word of Him 
thc Most High: 

"God docs no wronjGj c\'cn in [ainount] thc wcight of a dust spcck"; 

l<l 4:401 
"Your Lord is no tyrant ovcr tnankind ,+ ; |Q 41r46| 
"We havc nol oppresscd thcm"; |Q. 11:101, hi:lltt s 43:76] 

■ m 


[ jibiUayah) inborn dispjHLtions: [amaralj Diitward Lndiicitions; |mu c mrrifiil] [imtf- 

[khI] d^nikin,^ rhardirtrnstLn-; f[tn.LJihal] [rstcni^LUj' causnl} npct!Miiry cHttts 

924 a, SECnON g, loncs 

**If |fhc word] had b^en irom any orhcr than God rhey woukl 

have found in u much incOTMStency"; [Q, 4:82] 

4 Tn aJJ Ihc McrtiTul Onc s s trcation you scc no Yarauice." [Q^67;3| 
4- a. Thc answcr to [thia argumcnt] h that [an act] bcing 

wrongdoiug is a mental consitieration that is .applied as m acciden- 

tal qiitility lo somt of thc stttions whcrc wc arc invulvcd bccausc of 
our low caipability and mcrit- But that does not prevent the origi- 
nal production of rh^ act to Iw lirorn the Creaior Most ITigh. etuirdy 
apart from rbi.s mciitaj consideratiori. A.s to thc exchision of incon- 
sistcncy" and Variane£' T thal rclcrc lo tlicir cxcIusjuil Frurn thc Qur'an 
and from thr crcation of tlic hcaYcns», sincc thc scriptural discussion 
involvca both of thcsc. 

Isikhani sava: 

L 333> T 191, MS 201b 

i/j/A7£rAiA th€lrme 5 *Aufommy u in human acts 

fhc arjruinciit of thc Mu^ta^ilah^ tbat thc acts of mankind arc auto- 
nomously chosen, is hascd on jboth| nrason and Lradition. 

a. Thcir argument Irom reason is that if man shoukl not havc 

frce choice, that is, if hc should not he cnabled cithcr to pcribrm 
an act or to abstaifi frorn it, thcri thc obligation [to duiiful living 

that is dKnncly] itnposcd upon him would bc vcry rcpugnanL bccausc 

then his acts would proceed as if ihey were actions of inanimate 

bcings. Butj [say ihe MuHMilah] , that concJusion would bc falsc 3 
because thoughtlul pcople agree that the obligalion iniposed as not 
something rcpugnant. 

a,-a, Thc answcr to this [statement] is that what you [of the 
Mu c caEiJah] have s-n forth 15 an obligation held i.11 common^ and 
it is. so from two aspecls, 

L [This gcncral obhgation h hcld in common» bccaLLScJ an 
actiion that is divinely conimanded has well-taahmced rcasons, either 

as modvation 10 act or as motivaiion to abstain. Where thcre is 

p ' MS gl: Thar i^ ic ia dLrtributcd among aJJ thc jschooh of rhoughr. Howirwr, 
a irbuttiil w iliis mii be givea by ^uyiiig that it h j^anicd iliat the actkin of miin 
wuuU pmtcod as if i( wcre iht niovemcni <jf LctuiairEiiil.^ brings, l>ui it h m>i arajjteil 

thai [lif i>l>liigaiion Lmpoicd WkM. bc rcpugiiAtiu That would bc implLc<l [i>nly| i{" 

che acuo>ii$ *if FGorlJ _Vlfirtc High sbrvuld hp ^tl^cis ranApd hy ae^Lrtpnral ^iialiri^ 
but thar 1$ noc chc ThiiA, [tiod] Mosc HLgh mav not bc qucsdoncd abouc 

what Hc doca» [From c Ibrbh 4 s Comjiiontary- on Caydawi ? s 7iiiaA Y .J 


some ambivaleiice, no motivalion. to action is possible; but when 
thcrc ih a posirivc prcfcrcncc in thc action moti% r t\ thcii it is sonie- 

thtng ncccssajy. 'Ilius, the action ]cithcr way] would be citbcr nnpos 


siblc or ncccssary* i\nd so [thc action] would not bc thc objcct of 

powcr of nian the crealure, 24 thus makmc^ it repugnant as an oblig - - 

ation irnprjHcd on hirn. 

2, [Tliis gcncral obligaiion ia» licld Ln comrrion, alsu because] 
if a ccrtain commanciod action should bc somcthmg 1 that God knows 
[can anclj docs occur, thcn it would hc something neccssary; hut if 
it should bc somcthing that God knows |cannot and] doea not occur, 
thcn it would be impossible. And &o [the actionj would not bc thc 
powcr objrct or man the crcaturc^ ihus makuig it rcpugnam as an 

obligacion lmposed on him, 

b. Thc [Mu L Lazilah] argumcnt from traditioa has a iiumbcr of 


L There <ue. ihe verses whirh have joined aciions with human 

beiugs and havc linkcd ihe [acuuri&J lo iheir wills* such as ihe state* 

mcnl cjf Him thc Most High., 

"Woe to those who are wriiing the Book witli thcir own hands' 91 ; 
[Qur'an 2:79a] 

"Anyrjtie who wants to, let him belicve, 

and anyonc who wants to t lct hiin di&belicve**; [Q^ 18:29] 
Do whatcvcr you want**; [Q, 41:40] 
"'Whoewr wants co 3 will koep Him in remcmbrance"; fQ_. 74:55] 

"You heed only someone's iheory' 1 ; [Q. 6:148] 

"That is to tcll you God Ls not one who would changc from the 

ihat He Uvishcs upon a ]>uoplc, so T 192 ihcy can chatig** ii 
to what is in thcrnscKcs"; [Q, 8:53] 
"Rathcr, L 3*)4 your uwn sclvcs havc scduccd you to this thing! 
Rut now a [lct myl paticncc bc fuU o.f gracc/* [Q 12: IH, H^J* 7 

"Soj he made himac]f ohedient [to ihe. urgc-| to kill his broihcr^; 


10, 5:30] 

'* L and T IrtcraLly. " , thc powier objc-rt of iiian" fniaqdijr al-^abei], Tttink: 

thc MS ajid MS Garnfti FJ!J!Mla rc-ad n ""a poww objoct Ebr maji"' Jjnaqdursin Gl-'abd]. 
21 Tliii formu]j:i pnrrwles c-ach quotation in the ibur sourcm used, but wiLI hv 

cransLiriri here oisly wiih ilit Snsi i>nt. 

Jft For liis quocaTkin 3 Isjahatiii rhonses The ^rse hAving ihc vrrb in th^- 2t*d p^r- 
son pJurd. 

27 [. . . J"4i-sabn.?n jsmJluin], 

926 2, &RCT10N 3- topics 

"Anyone doing evil will be paid hack for it"; [Q_ 4:123] 

"Every tnaii is niortgsigi-d to his wralth"; [ 0,52:21] 

"Soj, any of you who want to c»n iulvuntc ur fall back. 11 [Q. 74:37] 
Vcrscs quotcd [here] to support tlic argumcnt from tradition 
may bc comparcd with thc vcrses indkating that all acts are by thc 
creation of ( Jod, as in this [sclcrtion from chcj word o( [Gim:1|l 

"He is the Creator of all thmgs"; [Q, 13:16] 

tL lt is God who crcatcd you and evcrythin£ you do"; [O 37r96| 

"For whomever God wills, him He allows to get lost, 

atid for whomever Hc wilk hiin He scis oii a dircct way." 

2. There arc thc verses that carry bolh a promisc and a warn- 

ing, praise and hlame go tngether, as in |GmFs] word, 

"Every«nc will gct what hc has carned that day"; [0,40:17] 
"You will bc paid that day for what you wcrc doing**; [Q_ 45:28] 

"So that everyonc will be paid for his work"; [Q 20:15] 

"Would the payment fbr good wofk be anything but good?" 

"Would you hc paid ihr anything except what you have donc?" 
[Q_ 27:90] 

"Whoeuer can. report [at least] one good decd 
will find ihai len oiore like ii arc to bi.a. trcdii"; [0,6:160] 

"Whoeucr turns away Irom whal I havc said. . ."; [Q 20: 12 4 J 
"Aha, thcy arc the oiies- who purchased this workTs lile 

for '[only] the price of ihc heredler?"™ [O 2M\ MS 202b 

"rndccd* whocucr has rcnounccd thcir faith aftcr thcy had bc- 

licvcd ■ ■ .f |Q, 3:5 

h How is it that you rcnotincc Jkith in God?" [Q^ 2:28] 

b_-a* Verses oi this kind are more th*in can he counted- The 

an:swcr [co rhe argument l>ased on tbem| is thiit ihe only thing that 

ncccsBurily gocs with reward and praisc or wkh pu.nishmcnt and 
blamc, is happincss or miscry- God Most High has said: 

^Where are those who arc happy? They are in the Garden"^ 


"Where are those who arc miserahlc? They arc in the Fine + H 


M L and T shortcn Lhc quotatioru ornilLing, Cl for \hv pricc of Lltc hercaJtrr",, bul 
Lhc MS arid MS GarnrLi 9S9Ha haw (ilkil ii owc. 


Happincss and niiscry arc inborn dispositions thai wcrc writtcii 
down for Immaiikind cven bef ore [[hcirj cxktoi<:c. As cvidence for 

this there is the &aymg of [the Propbi r]„ peace b€ upoti hini: 

"Tln: raan of happiiujs* 5* hc who was tunppy in his mothcrs 
womb, and thc man of misery is he who was in misery in liis motherls 

™b. Mffl 

Good dccds arc thc outward indicatinns of an inward happintas^ 

but e«l deeds are the signs of an inward m»ery r A rcward will bc 

based u on good docds, and puimhmcnt on c%il tktds, since [a man's] 
acts are his Melining characterktks 1 [that niake his intcraaJ charac- 

ter known, lea-dang] eithcr to reward or pimishmcni; they are not 

'[cxlemaUy causrd] ncccssaary cllrcts'. 

3. Thcrc arc thc vcrscs jjoiniing to dic pruphcts* ojiifc5sion ol 
thrir siiLs, sutli as thc word of [God| Mosl High. 

quoting from Adam; "O our Lord h wc havc wrongcrd Qurselve^*, 

[Q 7 =23] 

quotiug fi?ornjonah: "Tiuly., I was onc of thc wrongdocrs", [0,21:87] 


quoting from Mosrs; "O iny Lord a TruJy^ I havc wrongtd myselT " 

[Cl 27:44] 

This cYidcracc is Lo bc coinparcd wiLh thc statcmcnt of [Cod] Must 
High : qu.otkig Irom Mgats: 

"This is only a dhsenjuon tliat you are prrmitiinjk 

in it you allow whoinever you wiJJ to gei losl, 

and [in itj you pirwidc dinx:tion Ibr whcjmcvcr you will," [Q.7:l55] 

And thcre are othcr vcrscs. Hkc it, such as: 

"For whorcnever God wills, him Hc allows 10 get lost, 
and for whonicvcr Hc wills, him Hc scts on a direct way." [Q.6:39j 
4. Thcre are the verses indicating that thc acta of God Most 

1 Iig"h rnay not be described using rhe charactcristics of hunian actiona, 

'wrongdomg', ^inconsistcncy^ and -yariance'. 

w Hadilli, wA located lii Wi-nsiitck^ Handhwk w M^jam Aifit^ al-Hud?th aI\ft'ab&wL 
L SS4'14 jal-sa^Td nian sa'ida 1T bH.(ii urnrnih]|. 

w L gl: This is the antwer to * wppo»ed ^itcuion that jn summary ls k thai Lf 

happincss and nni&ciy arc 3jilxirti disposiuuna atid JhLLLYuii] accicms do nat havc any 
access fto modiJy thcni"| ? then why would rcwaid and punishnient bc set up aii thc 
ba-sis of ihrm? Sl^ IB^iydiiwil <uis.wercd b>' sayisg th-ii.L newand wiU br bjiswl h €lt- 

Thu^. thcre muld l>r ikihc ntiht iurplLcii fiji>lishnc$4 aci<1 rfpitgtian^c ttm yciu [chc 
disputam] havc nicniioncd. [from *Ibri*s oolr!mclllar> , <m Baydiwi"s 7iwaiP r .) 

928 a, sectlon 3. topics 

a) 'Wrongdoing 1 is cxduded according to |GocT&| word: 
"God does no wrong cvcn in [chc amount oi ] the weight of a 
dust sptck." [CL 4:40] 

"Your Lord is no tyraiit ovcr nrankind", [Q Vl;46] L 

lL Wc havc not oppresscd thcm, but thcy havc wrongcd thcmselyca." 
[Q .11:101| 

inconsistency 1 h excluded according to [God's| w 

lL If it had bccn frorn any othcr than God thcy would havc found 
in jt much inconsistcncy 11 , |Q^ 4:82] 

*Variance' is extluded according ro [God's] word; 
"Li all thc Modful Onc*s crcation you sce no yariance," [0,67:3] 

Thu5. if Svrongdoiing\ Hnconsistcncy 5 " and L variance a arc cxcludcd 
Irom the acts of God Most Highj. then thc impJkaricn is that che 

acts of human beings are not ihe acts of God, because the acts of 

human bcings arc chanictcii^rd by wrorigdoing, inconsistcncy aud 

varianoe- MS 203a ThercKjre, ihe acis of human beings are not 

creatious of God Mos« High. 

4,— a. Thc answcr [to this argurncnl] is that thc vcrscs mcn- 
tioned do not indicatc that thc acts of human bcings arc not cre- 
ations of His. 

a} Rcgarding thc vcrsc& indicating that 'wiongdping 1 is to 
be eKcludcd [Le^ frx>m appKcation to any act sakl to be GocTs crc- 

alion], since an act's bctng wrongdoing con&tituics * rnental consid- 

cration applicd as an accidcntal qLLaE]ty to it whcrcin wc arc im/olycd., 

[ihai considcration] is not central to tlie reality of th* wrongdoing, 

nor is it a charactcrisdc that h tnio and concomitant to it [i.c, s to 
man p s act]_ For it is admissible that acls mvolving huinnn Ircings 

should 1101 be dcscribcd as wmngdoing whcrcin He the Moat Uigh 
rs jnvolved, becausc JJc is the 5ovcreign of all ehings by right. but 
[tt is admissible also] that they ihould be dcscribcd |a.s wrongdoing] 
whcTcin wc arc involved 5 becausc ol our low capability or our low 
rncrit. Morcovcr. thc iact that an act would constitutc wTongdoing 
wherein we are involved would not proliibit thc onginal producdon 

of thc act irom bcing dcrivcd from thc Crcutor Mosl Higli, cniircly 

apait from any considcration of it as wrongdoing, sincc thcrc is noch- 
ing about an action that dcrives from Him thc Most Jiigh ihat makcs 
it inipossible to havc applkrd to it as an accidcntal quality thc mcn- 
tal considcration thai it comtitutcs wrongdoing whcrcin wc [huinan 

beings] arc involved. 

ACf!L"5 Q¥ GOU AND ACT-S Q¥ HA_\K1jNJ> 929 

b)j c) Atid regarding the exclusion of inconsistency* and 

Srariance 1 that the two verses indic.ate> that [rcfcrs to their cxdu- 

sion] from sl the Qiir*an ancj fln* crealion of ihe heavens respectiycly,, 
sHir.ii thr dcKLrim:* mIjioui iht: Qiar 5 iiTi anti iht- creaiion of the heav- 

ens are jci[t]*-ai;rd by ihe contexi of ri^ Iwo ■werees, not the ckcIu- 

siois cir inonmstciicy and yariance fmm the acls of Hin* the 
High in ais ahsolutc scnsc. Irulrcci, thc inanilbld trtntioiia of God 
Mosl Htgh sbow inconsistriidcs and variancc:s both in rankmg and 
in distinction, and in other kinds of hiconsistency and variancc_ 

Baydawi said; 

L 395, T I 92 

Ashdtrah doctnne, ' 'Compulsim** m hitman acis 

Yoli should undcrstand ihat when our collcagucs [of thc Asha'irah] 
found diai there was a self-evident dillercnce between what we havc 

in praciioe and whal we find iti ii.;mm.alc beings, atid [that when] 

cstablishcd authoritativc pnw>f prcventcd thcm froi¥i iticiking the 
adjunction IhHwcol an acl man^s Irce choicc in any absohitc 

scnse they proeeeded to elTeci a combination of the two factors- 

Their doctrinc was thal [human] acts take placc 
a_ by thc powcr of God Most High, and 

b. by iheir ac:qum£ion by niaii. Ln the sense that this happcns 
whcn man is oompletcly firm in his will and God Mosr High cro 

ates thc act in him, [As a doclrine] ihis is problematic, and Irecause 

of the diffku]ty of tliis position thc caiiy scholars disavowed tho&e 

who cntcrcd into disputation ovcr thc mattcr. 

Islahani says: 

L 395, T 192, MS 203* 

Asha K irah doctnm^ w Comfmisim n m hi&nati mts 

You should utidcrslaml tliLil when nur trolieagues [of thc Aaha^irahJ 

fouiid that ihere- was a self-evidetjt dilTr-rence beiween what we have 

Li pra<:doc s that is h [bt^^ccn] what wc [humau beingsj perlbni] in 

" L g^:, whal is rneaiail by (he 'eKduswii al" imwisasleii^ 13 its cKdusL™ 

aiittit n-f ilwr heavcm. [Fmm che S&arh ~f&qrif-\ 

930 tf, sectiun 3, TOPIttt 

thc way of voluntary acts,. and what wc scnsc [happcns] in inani- 
male l>eingft in the way of motion-changes. that go on withnut therc 

being atiy r.nn&riou&ncRs or choice, iht-n they hituitwely tinderstood 

Lhat T 193 trcc choice waa invoked L 396 Ici thc former bnt 

not in <he latter. Moreover, when logical prooF— bidicaling that God 
Most Higli is the Creator of all things and is iheir Produccr — pifr 

vcntcd ihem, that is» madc it impossiblc and rcpcllcd them imm 

adjoining an act lo man 1 * irre choicc in any absohire sen&e, [then 

onr colleagucs] proceeded to oombinc thc two Pactors. Thcir doo 

trine was that [human| acts take place 

a B by the power of God Most High and 

b. by thcir aoqin^i(ion by mankiiid. This is in thc serisc ihat God 
Most High has eseeuled Bh tustomary hww 1 - in that when man has 

bccn complctdy firm in his wUl io obcy. God crcatcd obcdicnt action 
in him, and whcn man has bcen complctcly firm in his will to di&- 

obey, [God] csneaied discbedienl act»>n iii him, So in this way man 
has been as if hc were the cjcktciitial t:ansc of his actioii, akhough 

he was not its existcnrial cause. This fdivinej 'paiticulariung powcr 

of autonoinoui aetion'^ \s sufficicnt for both commandtncnt and 


Our autbor [Baydawi]* 1 said that [as a doctrinc] this [position] is 

problcmatic. MS 203b Indcod s [in itsclf] coming to a firm dcci- 

sion is also an act and a creation of God Most High and thcrc is 

no invo]vemetit in ii for man at alh Because of (he cliffici.i]xy of this 

pusition thc eariy schdars disavowcd tho&e who cntered into dispu- 

tation ovcr this mattcr, sincc ibr the most part> to do so would movc 

the d^puiation [^idierj towarck a suspenyion of romniandm^m 

and [a conscqucnt] inicrdiclion,, or towards [thc hcrctical ntuion of] 
a partncrship ^illi God MosL High. Inwsligating scholars say rcgard- 
ing tliis mattcr, thaL thcrc is ncithcr divinc ^compulsion 1 nor [humanj 

'dclegation 1 L'- e ^ ■csc^P 1 '- of responsihilityjg, but thai thcrc i& a mid- 
dle posiiion heiwcen thc two- ITiis is the iriith, acid the right ^iatc- 

rncnt of it is that God produccs I^lc powt-r and thc will in maii and 

imp]cmcnta tlicm bodi in stich a way that ihcy arc involvcd in ihc 

act. It is not that thc divinc power and [humanj will of them&elvcs 


[ajra 1 'adatahu] has «ccrntwl His L citstomarv - law^ 
35 [id-qadairl 'thc 'pt*rtic«tiiri¥.ing pow*r of uuturiuillOus AcliOil 1 . 

M L and "1" Add: hcrc ? ""God^s mcrcy upon liii»' 1 , buc thi^ ks noc Ln thi^ MS, MS 
GajTctt <>fi9ITa o-r MS Garrctc/Yahucia 4486- 


are iixvolved in the act, but llieir bcing involved i* from thc^ aspcct 
whcrein thcy arc _nvolvcd 111 thc crcation of it by God Most Higb; 

thiui the act occurs on accmint of them. laJdng into account all 

things iti creation, God Must Htgh crttatjjs Aornc of ili^jit without 
nsing any intcrmcdiatc mcans and sotthl" of tlirm ihrougli bolh an 
mtcirnodi-uc rncans and sccondary eauacs-* It is not tliat ihc imer- 
mcdiatc nicans and sccondaiy arc of thcinsclvcs ncucssarily 

involved in the esdsicnce of the causcd c__ĕcts- but rather that God 

Mosi High has createcl [thcsc means and causes] in man. and has 

implemcnted thcm in such a way that ihey would be involved. Thu* 
the voiuntary acts- that arc relatcd to man would bc both cTcatiouK 

uf God Most High and subjected to thc power of man through a 

power which God crcalcd in man and implcrncntcd in such & way 
that it wnuki b« involwri in the acL 

Thc htst ihiug fo_- us to c3o wkh lopic is to ibllow [he method 
of ihe carly scholar» by ceaskig lo argue- over it and by commltting 
the knowlcdgc of it to God_ 

Baydawi saki: 

L 396. T 193 

Topk 2; Gud is tftt rtgmgr that mth moml phmomma » aU myatoras 36 

a. [Our Asha c irah argumenl is (hai God| Mcwi High is the agcncy 
that wills the [moral] phcnomcna of good and evil-. and of faiih and 
unbclicC |Thb is trucj bccausc 

"■ L Sr»Yinddfv rjuws 11 |&ibiib» Ashsbl* as dtailngutah* 1 *:! from % [-_irci4U\ ,? .".ausira [ c iJIal- a 

10 [. . - £t atui-khu niijrir! liJ-Lyinal). F.D. Razi {AlidmiaL. p. 1D9) adds thc phrasc- 
lli-jami*] *s!\i\ jirwpding % cmturci>\ but Raydawi ajid Iafahacii. onait 5t as bcing 

alrrndy inwpJird. Hrrr w>- asdump ihar mr>ral ph<!nnmcna Hn all {■n^rures 1, implic- 
itly rctcrs [as a ca^gory] to thc h ac.[s of humankind 1 , whilc iJic : acts of Cod 1 are 
a catcgpry of djvinit\ . Both oui writrrs uhc ihc matcriai thal thcn ToLlow^ fmOm 
Razi h s COnipcndiuin CpaRra I99-200J. co-mraiiicliiiR the arpnTienlS of ihe Mu c CAE3kih. 

There h a maji_>r problcni. Tor ihsuikLnd, of how co c-oiisL-dcr and < with 
rru.tikitwls^ct moral tehayior. This b thc fLcld of "cthics 1 - Thcci thctrc Ls 
anothcr uia}c>r ijroblnn, for Eiiai-ldnd. af hcm to -coTisidcr what apppars to bc cv_l 
and irnprricctLn-Ti in thc acts oPGod Most IILgh. This is rhc problcm of 'thradtcy' 
hi tl.e field of 'di^-inLty'. l^ was ii ^rrisomc pro-Wcnl lO Idaimic (heolopans anrl 
philosophcrs for ccnturies. Baydawi uuuclwa on this cnastcr, but it a lilse some olhrr 
iridividu_al pr-i.lilcms^ w* Lw la^e Cr? iiulucdr wkliiai hi$ sijrticoary of fslamic d_c- 

fjlngy r Scudencs will wani co ^j io a m&ceni wwk b>- Eric L Ormsby, 7iK«Sgf im 
NJ,: F_-Ln«ti_ni L*mverxity F]«s f c. ISW4,} li luis a full aurvey of thc f$Hamiic (tchatu 

932 3 H section 3, TOPTCS 

L Hc is thc Extsiciiiia!I Gau&e of thc uniwn>c and is its Crcator, 


2, Hc krtows that for any* me who dies in his unbclicf that onc's 
noncxistcnt taith can ncvcr comc into cxwicncc. II thc casc should 

bc othcrwisCj thcn it would havc bccn possabk for [God^sJ knowl- 
cdge to bc imcrted to ignorancc t and thcn the divinc wiH would 
not havc had. any linkagc with [the divitic knowlcdgie]. 

b, The Mu c la^Llah argumejtit, [howc^er], ^ based 011 thc Jbltaw- 

ing points. 

1. Unbdiclis not the rcsult of a [divinc| command, and therr:- 

fore it would tiot be a [divinely] willed object»ve s since thc will is 

indicatcd by thc conunand, or* 7 is infcrrtd froni it. 

2. lf unbc!icf had bccn a [divincly] willcd objectivc thcn appmva] 

of it would be obligatory; but [the very] appmva1 of wnbdief ilself 
constitutes L 397 tmbHief. 

3. If [unbcltcf] had bccrt a [di^indy] will-ed objcctivc thcn an 
unbclicYcr would bc showing obcdicncc throu^h his Linbeliel", sincc 

obedience consists in bringing about the willed objcctUe ol ihe une 

to bc ubryrd. 

4. Thcrc is thc word ol [Godj Most High: 

"He does not approvc uiibclief aniong humankind, who are Hi* 

own"j [Q]iiPan 39:7] thei approval heitig Hu will, 

b.-a. The answcr [to rhis argoment] is that a 'command' may be 

scparatcd irum a 'wSlling wilh appro% r al\ as for in&tancc, with thc 
command of an invcstigaring ofticct\ Appraval would bc ncccssary 

only in regard to the "divine primcval decision', 1 * aside from ihc 
objective decrecd. *Obedjctice' ia something appropriate to the com- 

mand, although it might not bc a Svilling wiih approval\ Approval 
011 the parl ol (iod Most Hi^h cither 

1. woulil hr for His will to providc a [tlivinc] rrward [for Tnan*5 
act], or 

2. would. bc His abandoning of" oppoaidon [lo it]. 

Thc philosophcrs said ihat what aJrcady cxi^ts is cithcr somcthintr 
of pure goodnpas» such as. thc angch and ihc cclcstiaJ spheres, or 

otl (hi§. mattc^! aii^l hf>w [hcy bccarnc rcbtcrl io thf rhinlung of Christi^n schol^ii, 

ttom thc Vhh U? thc l$(h ccmurir^ ;'of common cra timc noiation). 

17 Reading with T, M$ G*mxt m»b a^id NfS Garreti 2^3^: V H, L 
akai^ irads '"and" [v.".i]. 

3,1 b Thc diiinc primcvaiE dcci^ion 1 faL-qada^]; 
Lhc objcctiw dcrrecd [a]-Tniic|di]. 


&omething| in whir.h the Rood prcdominates. [An act] thc esscncc 

of which would be the result oi" a decision, wouJd bc cither good or 
evil as thc consrquciH.c [of thc dcci&ion]. Indcrd, 

E to ahandon an abundant good, 
in seM-protection from a miall cvi!, 

woukl be an abundanl evil ! , w 

Isfahani says: 

L 397, T 193 t MS 203b 

7ci/JZf Z" God is th? tigmrp ikut wills morul pkmomma m ull cfmltif£$ 

[Scliolars] have diHered ovcr thc qucstioti whcther God Most High 
k thc agtncy that willa thc moral phcnomena oi all [human] bcings 

or noL 

Generai nnmmarjp qf fmsitions 

a. Thc Asha*Lrah took thc position that Hc is thc agcitcy that 

wills all ihc |moral] phenomena of goori and evil,. taith and unbe- 

liel, obedience and disobedicnce, Hw wili is &ulKequcnt lo His knowl- 
edge, Hnd CTciytliing th-it God Most High biows [cati and] dws 

Qccur n that lic wills |to occur| n and cvcrything God Most High 

knows [cannot and] docs not occur, that He doe* not wiU to occur. 
h. The Mu c fazila}i took the po&itkiti ihar [God] Most High h noi 
ihe agency (hat wills i-yil, unbelief aiid diittbedience, whether or not 
lliey [can suid] do occur, but that llc dws will gpodiit-ss, MS 204ii 
Gtith and obcdience., whcthcr or noc thcy [can and] do occur. His 

will U in accord wkh His command, for everything God Most High 
cotnmands He so wilb it to be. 

Fartkutar ajgutn&its 

c, Baydawi, our author, has argucd against the Asha c irah scbool 
on two poitns: 

L [Baydawi holds tliat God] Most High is tlie exisiciidal cause 

of CYCiyLhing from among ihc rcalidcs po&siblc that has [actualiy] 
enlered imo exi&tenc.e 7 and He is the Greator of [this exis.ting totaiity | 

m Qm jtrrcmgly anspecis chir chis msiy be an old Oreek rmxim rvr prcrvcrh a but 
wc hawe ncw craccd ir. S^c nore al ihis pnint in I^ahani^ commmtary. 


by [His own] free choice. Amitkt this totaliiy tbere arc [examples 

of ] tvi\ y unbclicf and disobcdience; thcrctijn^ Hc is ihc existcntial 
cau&e of eyil^ unbclief and disohediencc hy |Hi&] iree chrnce- Fur- 
rhemiore, for e very clii ti.g" of wltich He is the ejcistential cau&e by [His] 
(h^ choice, He. is aisn the agency that wilU tf, &c> God Mbst High 
is ihe Hgcncy thal wills ihcsc [inont! phcnorncna] , 

An objcction could bc raiscd that this point is bascd upon thc 

doctrine that [GodJ Most Hij*h \$ the Creator of the acis of inankirid, 
a doctrinc that for [the Mu c iazilah] J|0 is impo&sible, 

2. [Baydawi argues iurther that God] Most High knows that 

the lack of faiih in someone ahom lo rfie in unbelief is such thal 

faitii on [ihis unbeliever*s] part could not possibly cxiat ! — oiherwise, 
[Gotlj Most Hagh^s knowlcdgc could bc iiivcrtcd lo ignuranoc — so 

if thc cxiisicncc of laiih should bc irnpossiblc on the part of [any- 
onc dying in unhclief J „ ihen thc divinc will would not be linked with 

[the nonexistent Caith], becausc an inf\possihi.]iiy wonld not become 
an objcct of thc divinc wilL 

An ohjcction conld bc raiscd chat thc eadstcncc of faith fin such 
a person] wouid nol be a [reaTj 'impossibiJily 1 ' in view of [God's] 
'omnipotcncc in autonomons action 3 * nor would it bc an Hmposai- 
bility 1, in vicw of [God's) 4 [cvcr-prcscnt] omnisckrncc\ Thus, it would 
be admissible that [GodJ Mosi High 3 s will should he. link^d to tht* 
faith [of such a pcrson] whcn that [faith| would bc rakcn m a ; pc^- 

sibility% but not when it wouild be takcn as an 'irnpossibility 1 . 

AiioeImt objcctiorL ouuki bc raiscd thnt blowkdgc, [i.c, ns a struclun:], 

aj dcvclops aflcr thc [exi5tcnrc of an] intclligiblc [that has 
beconic knownj. anri [the knowledgp] 

b) Es not the necessary p uiuse uf ? [th^ tnrclligible]. TJius, the 

di\inc knowlcdgc would not bc thc "ncccssary cansc* of unbclicf and 
disobcdience,, nor would the will hc linkcd uich unbcJicf and dis- 

ohcdiencc. 41 

d. The Mu^ta^ilah, [on the contrary r |, prescnt an argument wiih 
four points., 42 

** Thi» ii- su nyted \n is MS gloss. 

*' Th* MS 4feEcni4! u£ 5*>urtT3 lasrd Iiun a vanMiil iruding: [wa-li y^mcanr la^iIJuii 
a!-iifidn.h bi-hima]. MS Gyrren 939Ha aRrt-cs wiih L and T im reiulhig: [Ek-lsi tata c al- 
Jaq al-b5dah bi-al-kufr wa-AUmsi^yah^ 

* 2 L and I H dd here "on this [marccrp pahuj; tbc MS and MS Garrell 5ft9Hft 

1.J0 JlOl. 


1 . Unbclicf has not bccn [dkinely] commanded, arid ihis is by 
[scholarly] con&cnsua; thcrctbrc,, it is not a [divinely] willcd objco 

ti%'e. This is so, 

a) bccausc rlic will is a Ikci hiticnrtd from ihr rommand, 

L 39 8 ory [in othcr words], what is inicrrcd firom tlic coinmaud 
1' 194 is a ncccssary conscqncncc of thr will and is equivalent lj to 

it; and 

b; bccsiusc thi; corriTnand is cuIkt ihe nnie as ihe will, or 

is conditional upon thc willj thc will bcing a condition that is insep- 
arablc from |the cornmand|. M Whichevcr way it is. scparation of thc 

command froni the will would be impossLbk:; thus^ whac has not 

bccn conimandcd would not have bccn a willcd objecixve f and as 

unbclict" has not been coninianded it would noc havc bccn thc willcd 


2. If uiibdid" had bccn a |divinelyj wiilcd obj<?ct)ve then 

[rnankind t s] approva] of it would be ohligatory. But this conclu&ion 
is false, betause the approval of unbelieT [reallyj comtitutes un 
lief ? and thiis, is not obligatory. An exp]anaiion of ihe [MuHa^ilah] 
icLisoning licrc is that unbclicr, in thai case, would havc been the 
willcd objcctiw of God Most High s and thc wiUcd objcctivc of Ciod 
Most Iligh would have bccn Ilis primcval dccrccj and approval of 

the pdmevaj decree woutd have been obligaiory. 

3. If unbclicf MS 204b had bccn a [divindy| wiiled objec- 

rivc> thcn an unbclicvcr would bc showing ohcdicnce ihrough liis 
unbclicf But cliis conclusion is lalisc s bccause an unbclicvcr [rcally] 

shows disobediencc through his unbclief. An explanation of chc 

[Mu c ta^ilahJ reasoning herc b tliat sintc obedience coiuJ&ts in bring- 

ing lo pass. thc willcd objcctivc of thc onc to bc obcycd, thcn if 
unbeliel" shoulci have b(*en rhe [divinely] willed objecdve then Lhc 
iinbeliever ihrou^h hLs unbelie.r would lifive caused ih^ willed objec- 

tivc of God to occuTj, and thus would bc showing obcdicncc dirougli 
his unbclicf. 

4. Thcrc is thc word of [God] M-ost lligh: 

Only L ol" lhf &Qur-f.t$ u^r ii omscs thc ^orH " i fijur. B,fc 

Aji MS gloss cxpJaLn:i: [Lc, ihcy prcsmicd thcir posLtioiiJ;, that God Most Hi^h 
waa not thc willin^ »|f(!iic>' cjf all |moraT' phcnornnna but only cifsome ? uameiy thc 
commandmcnLS; in rour pobits. [From 'Ihri 1 ^ comnicntaiy on Baydzn,vi s s Tmvatf.\ 

** T has a mbprinL whcrc thc corrcct icading is tahS]. 

S1 MS gl: Le., fram thc commaud. 

936 a, bection 3, toptcs 

"Hc does not approvc unbclicf among humankind, who arc His 

own." [Our^an 39:7] [Clcarly in ihis verse], approral ia His wilL 

Thus if unbelief had bccn thc [divinc] wiU s thcn GckJ Most lligh 
would have approved iL But such a conclusion is falsc. 

Answtrs to the M« € iaiitah 

1 — a. Thc answcr to thc lirst [puint in the Mu*tazilah argumcnlj 
Ls that a command may be [analyticaJJy] scparated Irom the wiJL 

for a mmmand is noi the will ilspIE, nor is it conditional upon it. 

Thttt [casc^ i.e.„ that a comniaiid shoukl bc ihc will itsclf] a would 
bc likc an invetfigating ofiiccr^s command. Indeed, 

a) if a sultan should disappro-ve of a master who beat his 

slrtvc ? and ahould put tht- master under [he warning of punislimem 
for hcating his slavc for no fuult 9 and 

b) if the mastrr |on his part] should claim that Ehe slavc 

was contrary- wiih him, and the master should seek io ftnd an excuse 

for liimsclf by claiiniiig that thc slavc liad disobeycd his ordcr to gu 
for thc sultan*s inspcction [i.c^ to chcck for bruiscs on the slavc] a 

c) hc would give such a command to his slave, but would 
not l>c willing for him to carry it out. [This is] because, if the mas- 

tcr should be willing for the slave to carry out thc conimandj, h-c 
would bc willing hh own punishmcnt — thc sultan having put him 

umler the waniing of punishment— when the slave would obcy his 
eommand [i.c tl by showing his brui&es to the sultan]! But now, no 
intcLligcnl person wiHs his. own pumshmcnt! Thc Mu.'taziJah havc 
proposed somelhing like chi?; m saying that a commanri constitLites 
goHl-scekjng;, but no inl^Uigent perso^i would scek liis <?wii putuKhmenl. 

An objcction is raiscd that it would bc prcfcrablc to say that if command should bc thc wiil ilscilj, or should bc condilional upon 
il ? then al] things commanded would. comc to pass- But this con- 
clusion would he. fake- An explanation of this [objrctor^s] reasnnin^ 

here k that bccause llie will is a characierisiic that pertains sjseciTically 

to llac occurrcncc of am aclion at soinc particular lintc ralhcr than 
anothcr, thcrcforc thc linkagicr of thc will to an objcctivc cvcnt mcans. 
that [thc will | pcrtains spccitically to thc tirm: of its occurrcncc. 

Therefbrc s if an objecdvc <vent does not have existcnce ? theti it 

wouid not havc bccn spccitically qualificd by a [particular] timc for 

its occurrence^ and^ if it has not bccn spccificalty qualificd by a rimc 


for it to orcur, ihen no will woukl havc hoen Knkcri lo it. The impli- 

iMijnn Irorri ihrsr rwo prrmisrs is (luil if llir ohjeriaV£ etrnc shijulrt 

havc no eaislcnce no will wuuld havc bccn linkcd to it^ ancl 
this impHcs 4 * that if thcrc had bccn a Hnkagc of thc witl lo thc objcc- 

dve event tlien it would have had escistence- 

Bnt on thc assumption that thc command itsclP would be the will, 
or 4h wciuld bc condltional upon it T thcn thc implication would bc 
that ihe oommarLcPs objechw would cnmc inlo bring. L 399 sinccr 

it already would bc a willcd objcclive having ejdslence. MS 205a 

A dcinonstration that thia ccinclu&ion [i.e.j, that thc comiiiand ii&clf 
is thc will] is (ake is that cvcn though God Most High knows that 
a certaiti man vvi]l die in his unbelicT, that person is still undcr thc 
commancJmenr to bclieuCj although belief on his part does not take 

You niust understand thai tbe proposal — that the Mu*ta2ilah havc 
olTeird iel dirir docirine of h ihe tuTflm*md a$ ihe search fo: a goaT — 
is noi a viable propo&al. Pbr an intelligent peraon may seek as a goal 

somcthing hc hatcs, but hc wills nothing unlcss hc irccly chooses it, 

It is admissible For a masier u> ^ek from his slave a given com- 
mand objcciiw wiihout bcing wiUing for h to or.cur, antl ibis would 
not imply tliat hc was secking his owii punishment; Ihat would be 

implicd only if thc aclual cvcnt Irccly should bc what hc had 

commajided. Ratber^ he would only scek il so that thc s]ave would bc 

contrary wilh thc niastcr in what he soughl, thus the sultan would 
iiot punish hini. Thcrcforc> to scck his oommand^ objcctivc would 
not imply that hc was ^ccking his own punishmcnt. 

But the Mu c ta7ilab could object and say that they do not grant 

thai the logical process rcsults iri what [I, Isfahani] am sa\ing, namely, 

that it is bccausc thc will is a charactcristic that pertains spccifically 
to thc occurrcncc ol" an act at a particular tinic rathcr than anothcr- 

Wc [(sfahanij takr dir [josiiion that 

a) thc will of thc agcnt^ for his act i^ a characteristic 

spc<:ilica]ly pcrtaining to the occuitcikc of thc ac:t at a particular 
time rather than another, buc 


MS g|: [KyJ toiHiMyositwn. 

« h ^Jone reads "and" lv*J, whil* T, ihe MS and MS Gamctt 989Hit rcad "or 


* 7 MS ^gl: A.s ihc will o( God Mo-Si High for Ilts omi atticin. 

938 a, sectidn 3, topics 

b; the \%i.ll of somconc otbcr than^ the agcnt for an act to 
be produced by the agent would not be a characteristic spccihcally 

prrtaininK to thc occurrencc of the acl sA a partitiular tirnc rather 
than another. Furthcr 3 (hfahani holds], tlic iviU that would bc idcn- 
cical with ihe command, or would bc conditional upon it., would bc 

the lauer [i.c, of ihose two mcnttoncdj * Buc ihere i* no implica- 
ion, from the fact that the commaikTs fibjective is the willed objec- 

rivc of the latter will. that [thc ■uiHcd objcctivc] will occur^ fbr thc 
latter wHl does not require thc occurrcncc of thc willcd objccrive fc 

2. a.. The atiswer to the second [point in the Mu c tazilah argu- 

mentj ts to thc eOect ihai ihe wElled objcctivc is the drcrced objec- 

tivc„ not the decrcc itsclf; thus thc unbclicf that h thc willcd objcttht 
is not a [mancr of the divine] decrec, but it ia a derreed objectiw. 
Thc upproval [of rnankind] k obligalory only for the decree, 1101 for 
thc dccrccd objcctivc. 

An objcction couLd bc rai.*cd that ior us to sriy that thc approval 
[of humunkind] ts obligatoiy only lor the decrce and not for the 

objective dccrced is not sound, fbr wbat a person says, "T appiwe 

of God*s decreCj" hc docs not rnean that hc approvcs of onc of thc 
attributcs of God Most High. but rathcr hc rncans thac hc approvcs 

of what tiial attribute require^ namely, thc dccreed ohjcctive r The 

truc rcsponsc to this (objcction] is in sayirtg that to appruvc of unbe- 

ikl" whcrein it derives Irorn nhc dccrcc of God Most High woikld bc 
an acl of ohrdience, and lo approvc of unbclicf Irom this standpoint 
woti]d not con.MJiiire 

3,-a, Thc an&wer lo ihe diird [point of the Mu c iazilah] is That 

obcdicn< :c is bcing in ac:c:ordancc with thc tommand. tht comiTiand 
bcing somcthing othcr than thc will; thus obcdicncc MS 205b 
woukl be in carrying out what has been corninatLded, not in caua- 

ing the willcd objective to oocur, 

[Another] objcction h raiscd that 111 somcunc could say that obc- 
dience i& being in accordancc wrth thc lattcr will f sincc thc com- 
mand is identical urith the lattcr will, 51 or is conditional uj>on it. Thc 
answer [lo ihis sccond nhjcctiorij is that thc command is something 
other (\\aii thc latter will, nnd ii is not condition^.1 iiji-i m. it 3 because 

^ MA .gl: As il\c wiU nt Clod Moa" High Ibr tht: aciciou ol" man H5s creature. 
19 MS gl: 1^^ lii?e kiler ^ill bclungs rn (h$ Crcator Mosl High. 
M ITic MS alorw of sourifs nvd here omits {qrta]- 

11 MS gl: 1,e. H ihc latcc^r mIL ia from thr Crca.cor Mo.M High. 


ihc cotnrnand cjcisLi apart Itotti th-e I&iht will, as itj ihe case of the 

command of an invcs.tiga.ting officcr. 

4^a. The answer to die fourth fpoint in thc Mu'tazilah argu 

ment] h that approval on ihe part of God Most High is* not thc 
samc as a will lor thc act, but rathcr approv;d on thc part of God 
Most High i& both His will [i.e*, to provide] ibr a rcward for pcr- 
lorming the act I. 400 and Hi.s abandoning of all objection to it. 

Hi>wever^ it is- not Implted here by excludirig ijie will for the reward 
for pcribnning thc act aiid by cncluding lh« abandomnent of all 
objcction w to it, that thcrc would bc any cxclusmii of l 1 195 the 

will for thc act 

c Ibn Sina €xptains how €vit mighi rtsultjrom fht dwine dtcm 

The position takcri by the pliilosopher physirian [Ihn SinaJ, in sct- 

tiiig furth an explanatioii of how it happcna that evil would be iti 
thc dccrcc of [GodJ Most High for rcalitics possiblc that cnter into 

cxistcncc ? is that 

L some of [ihe reajiries possiblej are entitie* whose existcnce 
may he bare of cvil totally, such as the intclleets that have no author- 
Ity over potentiality; these bcirig an uiimixed gorjdness, our author 

giving as csainplcs ihc angcls and thc cclcstial sphcrcs; and 

2- others of [the reahties possible] are entities that carmot fuHy 
C0T?vey thc good icature appropriate to tiicm unless thcir exL*tcnce 
is such that evil bccorncs manilcst on thcir part whcn thcy meet 
somcthing of cxtrcmc concrast. ]'1rc is such a casc. for it docs. not 

convey its good featurc nor is its coopr ration availablc toward thc 

peileciing of esistciicc, unless it bccomes aTi iiyury an<3 patn 10 what- 

ever lidng brxlics it happcns to concact 9 and unless it is such thar 
it contributcs to thc disintcgradon of thc parts of somc corapounds 

throiigh incincration- 

All things, with RHi{K7t a t to thc txislencc and noneKistence of e^il, 

may bc classiCicd into 

(L) what has no evil at all in it^ and 

(2-) that in which thc good in it predominatcs ovcr its cvilj** 
thes^ two wc havf: a!i'eady nuenrjonedl; (thc^-' may bc classificdf aJso into 

MS $: [It.J, wiih ibe iiwAtiittg of oecmire 

MS p: As ihv bteUecis. 

M.S glr An ex-LrnpJc m-J" whicli is Jke, 


3. that which is evil absolutch^ and 

4. that m which the evil prcdominates. 56 and 

5. that io which good and evil are equal. H 

NoWj, if" pim: <iivinc gcjodness is thc origin for thc oulj>oijring cjI" 
an cxistcncc ihat is good and right^ thcn an outpouring into cxis- 
tence of the iirst t-lass [of thtngsj beconies nw^ossaiy, sutrh as the 
«dstence of the miellecTual siahstances. Sim.ilarly, an outpnurittg [iuto 
r^isitocej of the srcond tlass beeoines riccessary, for 

l to abandoji an abundant good^ 
in sclf*prorc(:tion Irom a sniail evil r 

would be an abundant eyii 1 - 5 * 

[Esamplcs of j chat would br such as firc and IJving bodics. MS 206a 

li is impossible to convey [ftre p s] good feature unlt-s* it T s iiature Ls 
such that jts varied slatcs ki their moikm-chaiigrs artd dieir quies- 
ccnces cati lcad to contacts and collisions that arc harmful. Kurthcr- 
murc, [it ia impossiblc [i.c^ for bccicSts to bc achicvcd without riskJJ 
unlcss its statcs and thc siatcs of [alJ] othcr things in the world 

develop ^teadUy up to the point where thc> become ftt risk le*t an 
error should befail ihem, some deed haimful eithcr in [the homr- 

coTning toj thc hcrcattcr to which nl) mankind rctums or hcrc within 

the rcaJity of crration;' 9|M or sornc cxccsdve turmoil nther of pas- 
sion or anger chat precipkatcly overcorne$ [a person], somethmg 

estreniely harmllil in regard to the hcreafler for whkh the [humari j 


° vv MS rI: Lc, an absoluidy cii! bcing, as is Satan. 
Jt MS gl; .-Vtl ^Kiiniple of whkh ]& y. Iwhkl c*f prey. 

"'" MS gl: An exatiiplc oPwhkh i* manlciod. 

M A$ tn>ied jit tht «l<I uf Ba^dsnwi.'^ "rojric 2\ ntiLs mny bc act old CjiTck itklkieii 
prx?v«e3lj r linr 2; Baydawi |li-ajl;; I^rnliani Cta^Hrnmm min] 8 
S! * [tt al-iii;d c 5.ri hiw ff :Ll-h:i<|q] u in ihi 1 : homt-rriming co ilie hewKer . . , w he^t 
wichm thc rcaliiy of r.rcarion./* Rcgardmg ihc sc-cond phraAet, our Ro-urrcs; vajy in 

L: "wuhin cre^Eioii" [1t ul-khsdcjl wiih a |Joss: ,4: or r in reality" fff 3l-hiqq" . 
M& *withjn crcnnon" 1 wi* glosscs: (1} "in snesJicy^i (2) ''i.e., on ihe accea rtmte 

io rcaliw [i-c, G«l <l^e l"™e Onc]" [ft al-^'u?Gl ila* al-iirum]. 

T: s, in rcaJity" [ft aJ-hwctcJ. 

MS Gam:tt flftyHa; "in rcaJiry"" with Elnss: "^ ^ithin crcation; and thcrc i^ 
aJtcmj^ion fin thc Tcndtnjpl" fw3-kbiUar3n]. Ilcr-c an crasure sccms prubablc, rcmo\ r - 
ing a 4l lam" and changin^ [khalq] lo |haqq]. 

MS Garn-u/Yahnda 44«b: "ir. re<Jifev. ? " 

w See ihc articlcs, 'W5d" and "kh^iD;" by R. Anialdra, acid "ljakk ,s bj^ D.B. 
Macdwald, ruyiscd by KE. Cttlvcrl<ry, &U in En-1'2. 


powcrs mcntioned 15 ' arc of 110 vaJue. That calamity occurs in pcoplc 

[they arej far fewer than the heahhy population, and [it hap- 

pcns] in times that are far lcss frequcnt than thc times of security, 

Bccau&c [thc risk of evil| was alrcady known in [God'»] prinneval 
providcnt concerii 52 it is as if it were thcrc purposcly as an acci- 

denlal quy.liiy, Thus wil has entry within [GotTs] particu[arizing 

dtrm:* 1 as an accidcntat quality% as if, for raarnplc, it had roc«v«l 
appnwal to bc an arddcntal quality. h ' 

.Bavdawi sairi: 

L 4*10, T l!>5 

TbpK 5: Ott predkating ihe good atid ihe keinou^ 

a, [G*nerally speakingj, nothhig heinous may stand in any rclauon- 

&hip to the csscnre uf God Mo&t High, tbr lle. h &ovcrcit»;n L 401 

ovcr all mattera absoluijft]v. He perlhtms whatever acdon Hc wills 

and Freely chooses, there bring 310 extertial causation 111 wliatever 

He makes. nor any hidden purpose in tvhatrver He doea. BiU m 

relation to [humankind] 5 thc hcinous is whatcvcr is csdudcd by reli- 

giotLs Jaw, and thc good is whatevcr is not so. 

h. The Mu c tazikih doctrine is that 

bl MS b;I: Namcty, ihr fivc catcmai iind inccraal scrucs. 

,:,! l-d-^inayah aL-uLa*] MS ^bsscs: I. Cairhilncas; namcly, knowlcd£c [aJ-^naynh 

wa-hiya al-*ilm; 2. PrimraiJ.: i.-e.. Iroin etrnuty pusi laHkla*— ^ay. al-4acidt]. 
MS Garrcn SNJSHa &]: L* , tlic primcval awarciiess |>l- c Llm ftl-azalrj. 

In ducussing thc dcb*W oNbn Sina anr( oih^T IsJamic ptiilc^jph^rs aiud [hralogjanR 
as to whclhcr ot nmi Cnd^s crralion was h\ r "natiiral nccpsialy*, a icccnl Hludy statcs, 
tm T\w \wcrHn.rv ordtr of thincrs c-m.ttiatinjj troii-: the ctivinc ^c: irrnrd '.vith [Gr^d 1 :-;! 
perictl kjiowlrdRt n. describwl aa pravidcncc PmSyiiil . . ." ^H-ric L. Onnsby, Timj'^ 
yt hlamk TTt&ugh^ p. 187. Frincclon v NJ.: PrLnccCOn Uni^nsiry Prcsa,, t, 1384,] 

!,v Rcading wLih L. T arwi MS Garrect 9&SHa: "the particulamlr^g dreiw n [al- 
qacbrj r "ITie MS ^eads: 'dic jm>wcf of aut<iiit»rrii>u« aclujn' [qudrah]. [Thc termi- 
iinlipgy is ^uggi^ii-d ih>m I.. G^rdet^ suiidc H al-l^ariA* wa =, l-KiuJar" ,r in Kn-l-2 (v. 4l 
p. -t^rta;, which presenti two cldliutioiu fti>m Jurjani^ 7Vr^ I) "che rclatirmship 
of thf E.:$sciiiiil U13L wiih [hingis in ilirir particular rcatiutlcn' 1 , and 2} ^Kr pas&agirt 
u-f po^ylJc cntilJca frotn ncKn-bc-Liig icilo l-Kiiijg. onc by on^, in accorduincc witJi 

^ l"his rruU'ri4il wt Ib[t Simy ciiay bc foii3id in Ids td-hhmni wfl-#l-Twbihut (Tphwait 

ed. 2nd priulLng, L"EMi2/K3-^ v. 'A, pp. 3lB ff 3 ;inri in c^jrrcspMindin^ locaisons tn his 
■$kifa\ as Kis.'cii in ihc- ToBrjwing artklrs. Valu.iblc discutssioriE of Lhc topic aud of 
Ibn Sina'5 consribucion are in L Ganlet K s En-I-2 artidcs '"Inaya" and ^Kada 3 wa- 
KA<kr> n 

** F.D. RiwcL 1 » CrtrupcTidiutrt., jWbiWish/, has thc dift.-ussKm of thJi kipic <m p^cs 

942 2, section 3, topics 

1. the l heinous* is somcthing jjudgcd] hoinous in itseLH its 

hcinousness bclonging to its es^nce or to somc attribute inhering in 
it. Thus, it would bc judged hemuu& by Gocl jiist a& it would Ih* 

judgcd hdncjus by [humankindj. 

2. Thc casc is likewisc wilh che "gcx>d\ 

3. Kijrthcr, These two [categories^ \.e. n thc good and the heinous, 
include] whntmT [action man's] intellect indcpendcntly perceives 

and judges tt> be either 

immcdiatcly rmpcrativc s as to 5ave thc drowning and th 
pcTi&hing and 10 dcnouncc thc hcinotisnes* of a wronj^, or 

h) logically indicated, as the inner ugliness in a truth that 

hantis and the Jiupcrior good in a falsity that benefit&* w ' For ttus rca- 
son a pcrson having a religioij* laith. and other& snch as ihe Hrahmans, 

will furtn judgnicnis about [the aosj. 

Othcr actions are not likc thal» [maltcra] such as thc cxccl3cncc 
of lastmg on thc las-t day of Ramadan and thc rcpugnancc of fast- 
ing on thc tirst day of ShawwaL* 7 

c- Our [BaydawiJ doctrine i* [hat if (he objective predicated to 

bc good or hcinous .should bc tithcr an attribute of perTcctiuin: such 

as knowlcdgc, or of imj>crfcction such as ignorancc. or somcthing in 

contbrmancc with naturc or at variantc with it. thcn thcrc would 

be no differeiice of opinton about whether tliese were intellectual 

judginciits. And cven though the linkage of cach judgmem to thc 

hcrcaltcr should bc reward or punishmcnt* stiil thc intcLlccl without 

doubt would have some discrction over iL, although it has been madc 

clear that man does not have [absolutcly] frcc choice in his act nor 
does he havc independcui abitiiy lo bring it aboui. 

lsfakani says: 

L 4UL T 195. MS 20fia 

Tofnc 3: On prediaUiJig tke gowt criul the heimus 

a. [Gcnerally spcaking], to predicatc thc good. is to form and 
pronouncc a judgment as to [an actsj goodnnsLS^ and to pitidicate 

* "inncr ue^lhcss. . - P [qubh »!-fidq al-darr]; L £ii|H'riof g-n<?d* . . . [husn aL-lddhb aU 


b " Ramadaii, thc annira] mc:«cith of Jhsiinp; Stia^^ul, \hn imct month aftcr R^unadan. 
[lc, aftcr tb- cdhcJuslcmi oi thc aiiciuai Eait], 


thc hcirious is tu form and pronouncc a judgmmt as 10 [an act*s] 

l . Nothing hcnnous may staind in any relationship to thc essence 
of God Mom High. [This is tme] whethcr it wonld he 

a) in rdation to [God ? s] own acts t because the conscnsus of 

all thinking pcoplc is that no act originati r ig with Hini may bc dc- 
scribcd as heinous, as such would bc a defkicncy, and for a deficiency 

lo be ascribcd to God Most High would be impossible; oi 

b} in rclation to thc acts of humankmd [i.c, objcctiycly], 
becausc He is soYerciqu o\ r er all mattcrs ahsolutely, and He per- 

iorms whatcvcr action He witls and ffr*ely chootses, there bcing no 

externaJ caiisation iti whatcver Hc makcK, nor hiddcn purpuse in 
whatevcr Hc dcK:s; or 

c) in rclation to us [human beings, kc m subjecrivcly] , bccausc 
rhe hcinoii* 15 w]iatsocver is eschided by religinus law, namdy, wcry- 
thing (-omprised within thc categury of the unlawfuE, whether one 
mcans by cxclusion the e^chiding by proscription or onc iraans by 
^Hcltision the excliidinp; of an impropriely, Therefore, the heinous is 
what is unlawTul and rcpugnarU, 

2, Thc gpod 15 noiliHig of that kind, that is 3 h 13 nothing that 
may be csdudcd JawfuUy; hence it would bc thc act of God Most 
i ligh. There£bre, a necessary duty, or somethiug recomniendeid legally 
or permissible, or an act of nne not under the imposed ohligations 

[uf a religionj would bc prcdk;atcd 'a good thing\ It wonld bc liko- 
wisc with wJiat is rcpuj^nant, if onc means by cxclusion thc cxclud- 
ing by proscription. 

br The Mu'ta*ilah ductrine h that 

L tbe hcinous is somcthing [judgcd] heinous in itsclf, its hctnous- 
ncss eithcr bclonging to its csscncc or to an attributc concomitant 
to its csscncc, or bcing [hcinous] in its obvious intcnt and hcncc 
would bc $0 as a Irn^ical considcration., [tlie latiier option] as in the 

doctrine of al-Jubba 1 ]. Thus it woiJd be judgcd hdnous by God 

Mosi High^ just as it woutd bc judgcd hcinous by us, 

2. IJkewisej the good is something [jiwigedj gwd in itself, ils 

[oodness cither brlctnging to its own csscjlcc or to an attributc con- 

coTniiHiii to its csscncc MS 20ftb or bcing [good] in its ob\Hous 
irite^rit nnd hcnce (asj a logical cunsidcration. 

3r Furthermore, thc good and thc heinous include 

a) whatcYcr m*in"s intcJtect indcpcndcntly pcrccives and 
judpcs without spcculation or inierenra Uy be somelhing immediately 

944 2, £f.gtion j, topjcs 

imperative 3 as $aving ijie rirowning and fhc perishing, and knowing 
a bcneficial truth, or as dcuouncing thc hcinoumcss uf a wrong or 

a harm-bcaring Jalscbood; and 

bj whatcver man^s iiitctlect indcpcndcntly pcrcehes to he 

logically indicated, as thc inner ugliness of a truth that harms 7 and 

the superior good in a falsity that benefits. 

NoWj what showa than the intcUect indcpendently perrcives thcsc 
two kinds [of rnoral] is ilie fact that a prrson wili rnake 

judgments 011 the basis ot thcm, whcther tliat onc has a rrligiuus 

fkith 3 that i*., rccognize5 a prophrthood and holds to a prophctic 
rdigion, or is otherwisc,, such as arc thc Brahniam. 

There are ocher actions of both good and evil that *rc not like 
that, that is, thc iniellect doe* not indcpcndcnily pcrceive T 196 

thcm to bc cithcr immcdiately imperativc or mattcrs of s-pcculation 
and inierence* matters such as the e*crllence a£ Fasiing on the last 

day of Ramadan» and ihe rcpugnance of lasiing on the first day of 

Shawwal. Thc intcllect docs not procccd indcpcndcntly to pcrccivc 
iuch mattcrs, but rathcr it dcpcnds upon thc rcligious law and tra- 
ditional ajthority, 

t Our [IsFahani's and Baydawi fc s Sunni] position h thai ihe £oocl 
aiid the heinous are predieated of mHtlers some of which inay char- 
actcrizc jjcricction or charactcrize impcdcciion, and othcrs may bc 
in conforniancc wkh nature or at variancc with it, whilr somc niay 

be linked. with the reward or thc punishment of the hercafte-r. 

Now, if onc means by tbe good whatevcr may characterizc pcr- 
fccrion and by thc hcinous whatcvcr may characterize imperfcc rion h 
or if one mcans by the g^ood whatever conFonns to ]iature and by 

thc hcinous whatcvcr is at variancc with it r thcn thcrc would he no 

dilTcrcncc of opinion whether both of these would be intellectual 

But if onc mcans by thc gocnd whatcvci has linkcd to it some 

reward in the hereatter and by the heinous whatever has linked lo 

it somc punishmcnt in tlic hcrcaflcr r thcn thc intcllcct would havc 
uo discr<rtion as- to whatcvcr linkagc thnc might bc in Lhe hereattcr^ 
whetlier for reward or punishmcnt. For how cotild the intellect have: 
any discretion in the mattcr whcn it is apparent that man has no 

choicc in his aets nor docs hc have independcnt ability to bring 

them about. If tJiac l>e so, then his act may not l>e characterised 

rationally aa good or hcino-us. Indccd, no acdona takcn mndcr coin- 


pulsion or that arc tuiiitidental in naLun; roay h^ characierized aa 

good or hcinous in ariy rational suusr , 

Haydawi said: 

L 402, T ISti 

T$pic 4; God is wd*r m> obbgitiw whatwwtr 

a, [God] Most High is under no obligating; respomibility whatso 

ever, as ihenr ss no one who govertis over Him,* 8 

t. lndccd, if somcihing shoukl bc made an obligation upon 

Hiui and if Hc should not dcscne blamc for abstainiug from it (hen 
thcre would hc no realixalion of obligations, but 

2. if Hl- should riescrve blarne tlien He wnulri l>e jmperfect in 
Hia csscnce bnt madc pcricct by His act, wliich would be an ini- 

jn >ssibility . 

b, The Mu c caziLah have poshed certain matters as nhligations 

[upon God]; thcsc includc: 

L The obligaiion to show kindness, this hcing to do whatcvcr 

wouid bring man nearer to ohedieuce. Objection is raised that such 

an approach could be in&cle ai ihe beginnlng., sincc &3 ai* intcr- 

mediaie step it woulcl be to rio avail. 

'Jr Anothcr is [the obligation upon God] to givc [mankimll 
crcdil and a lulure rcward for obcdicnce. Objcction is rai&cd that 
such dccds. [as those oi mankindj havc not becn worth [all] thc 

[<livinc] ktyurs shuwn m ihe past, s» huw i^ould any finiher recom- 

pcnsc bc rcquircd? 

3. Anothcr is [ihc obligation uporii God] to c:any out thc pun- 
ishmeot for thc drearlFul great sins t,J prior m rcpcntancc» Objcction 
is miscd that [that woulri iiol be an uhhgation upoti God becauscj 

it is His prcru^ali.YC. llirriTun^ Co jmrclon an His OpiiOtl. 

M Ra^i, Muhattttiy p. 204. Thc chicl" and ncarly thc only opponcnts to thc orlhcjiiox 
Asha^irah \*icws arc thc M u*tiLtilah, whci wcrc thc original dcinctopen and. prdcti- 
tioncTs c>f Kalam. Stmaetinira a topic ls apjjanMatly -jualiJiEd'' by having as subti- 
tlc s . . /tonLrary to iht ^dj^taLEilah'!! 

m 0+$ und^r ih« attkli 1 : "KhajjT^a" \ht En-l-2] hy AJ. Wtminuk a^ ii|.jdaifd by 

I- (Jard^t fc Scctinn 3 ? suh^ectiona 1 — "Thc rKsdnclion biiwecn (piv^ sins and ksscr 

•om^ and 2 — "'SiTininR aiid repmtamT." PerriisWrtCc tn sin is seen as a prime racior 
Ln tts bein^ a grave otw fc wWlc rcpeniAace fs a priroe facior in irs adjusnwnr in 
rhf: fccord, in accor<fa.iice with Ihe justtoc u-f ihc Deicy, m che Mw^taiilah cmphaHzc. 

946 &, SEcrnoN -j. topics 

4. Annther is [ihe ohliearinn upon Godl to rio wha~cvn j is mnat 

■ ■ ~ ~H ~Ti ■ ■ ^~T ■ I ■ r T 

bendicial to humankirjd in thas workL Objection is raised that the 

bcst thing for h poor unbclicvcr would bc that hc should not havc 
bccn crcatcd. 

5. Anothcr is- [thc ohHgation upon God] to ab^tain from any- 

ihing that would be heinous intellectually [Le- f invisibly], because Hc 

would know that it w&s hcinous and that thcrc was no nccd for it } 
by comparison to thc world vi~.iblc! to the ob&erver. lint you have 
alreariy Lcamed hciw corrupt such an argunicnt is_ 

IsTahani ^ys: L 402/3, T 196, MS 20bb 

Tajw 4: God is tBid& no ohligntiim «j/w/.«wt»sr 

a„ |GodJ MosT High is nnder no obligacing re-ponsibility w 


1. [Tliis is tme| tiecause au ohligntion ia a goYeniing judg- 
mcnt, and a govcrning judgmcnt may not bc cstabiishcd cxccpl by 
law, hut thcre h no ont 1 gcwnrning over the divine Lawgivcr; there- 
Cote^ He is undcr no obligaritig re&ponsihility at alL 

2. [Tt is truc] also berause 

a) if soinc act wcre tu be made an obligation for Him and 
if He shuuld not dcscrvc biamc ibr n.bstaining ironi it thcn thcrc 

would be no rea!ization of obligations, sincc an obligarion means 
that a givcn actiori i& such thal to neglect ii would deseruc blamc. 

bi But if to abstnm from it wotild descrve blame, thcn thc 
Creator Most High would bc impcrTcct in IJis csacncc„ whilc being 
madc pcrlcct by His act» so in tbat casc Hc would bc savcd by His 

own &i:t trom blame, whieh would be an iunpossibility^ 

b. The Mu'tazilah liave po«ited certai» matters as obligcuory for 
God Most High. Among thcm arc [the following]: 

]. to show kindness [to mankindf: 

2. tc> gi%* credtt and a futurc reward for [man's] obcdience; 

!5. to cany out punisiimciit ibr tlic drcadful. grcat sins prior to 

4. to do vihatcvcr is most bcncficial to m^rtkind in this lifc; 

5. to ahstain firom any intcllrctuaily hcinous act. 

(L) Kindness f [to be shown mankind as an obligation upon 

Godjj, ii> to clo whats(.»rvcr brings tnan ricarcr lo obedienoe and. ^ith- 


draws him Irom disobcdicncc. sumc action whcrcin [maii] would uul 
[merck | bc led into taking [moral] .shcltcr. 70 

a) This matlĕr iwould be an obligation m the scnse that to 
abstain from it woiild deserwc blamc. according lo thc Mu^iaaibh, 
This is beeausc kindncss is whai achicves the [divme] pnrpose m the 

imposltion of religious dutics [upon mankind], this puiposc beiiig 
[lor iiicUiJ to present hinrueiras candidate for future rewand. 71 [Kindncss 
docs thjs] bccausc whatcvcr rcconcilcs. a pcrson to obey a rdigious 
duty that hr has. or draws that pcrson back from disobcdicncc [of 

k] would [surely] caU for the eanymg out of thc duty that has bccn 
imposed, a dmy made necessary through ats owi puspos^. 

b) Moreowrj, whatcvcr achieves the purpose of an imposed 

duty will itseJf bc an obligation, Now, thc imposcd duty is an ublig- 
ation and it will not be fulfilled cxcept through dic divinc kindncss; 
therefore, whatevcr stands as the neoessary condition for the com- 
pletion of an obiigation would itscll" bc an. ohligation* 

Objcctinn is raised that such a. 'hringing n-ear 1 i& a rciality thc cxis.- 
icticc of which would bc posaibk in itself> and God Most High has 

all powcr oYcr all rcaJitics possiblc^ thus God iieccssarily has. power 
to crcat this rcconciJiation. It would be possiblc for Him to providc 
for it 7a at thc bcginning without an inicrmcdiatc stcp.. and thus tlic 

intermediate atep would be fmile," 

[2,\ Regarding thc [obligation upon God to givc mankind crcdit 
atid a] future reward» this would br to gjve a desemd benetit and 

would he linkcd to [a person^ dcmonsis'atcd[ eminence and prcstigc- 

It would be hi] ohligation u|>on Gf?d to provide as reconipense 74 for 

[niiin*5 pcribrmancc of] thc imposcd duli«, aad [acts of] obcdience. 
Objcction has bccn rai&c<i that on thc part ol Cod lhcrc havc 

^ MS gl: J,e,, in crercion |iJ=.a J a]-w)iirSr] \}^ reqiiiritig no efi"n offree moral 


"' MS gl: I.c-, ptTs^asion of Ood io bc incljncd to grant a rcward AUah 
musta^drlan liMhawab]. 

; " MS a)l: [!.!'.. Il ^i^iEdE bc: ^ica-.ahtc: for Hlhl] wj ]-iT".:.vidr tbx [yaf\.±P i iIl».v rcc- 
onciELacioii [iaqrlh] ai thr bcginning-, without tiaving fin>t eo pcrlbnn a rKoncUii^ 
action [muqartth] chcn to apply chc bcncfi.ts of that rcconciKng action to thii fpar- 
LwriJar LnstanccJ of retcmcilLadon; Lhus thr intcrmediatc rcconciling iittion woiJd Ijc 

LO fbO dLVALl. 

rs MS gl: Atid what is Ibcik would noi be aji obiigation- 

11 MS gl: [Rt-lcirnce i^l to tlic ward of |GodJ, "A paymcnt fdr thcir labor 

L^nr^iiii 5&;241- Ari tApJanatur)* rcsponsc tu this mm* wWd. ljt ihAl ihe Lubor in 

our \1ew b a disiiiigiiishiri^ mark ihat 1.I1* newaTid has b«n wceiwdi ir is rwi a 

rrasnn ibr amy obligACi&n, 

948 a a 3E.GTION *i. TOPICS 


been many favor& shown jn times past> taut the deeds [of mankind] 
haw noi bccn worth thcse fkvors shown in timcs past ? so hoiv should 
thcy reqinre any |i"urther| rccompensc 

(3.) Ejtactin^ purjLsliment for dic drcadiul grcat »n& prior to 

man's repentance of ihem has becn assumed to bc an ubligatioii 

upon God by thc Mu*ta2ilah of Baghdad. 

An objciction has hecn raiscd thai to carry oiU the punishment is 
[reaJly God'&] prcrogative, [not merely an obligation]. And thcrc 

would bc ncirhcr bcncht from cxacting thc pcnalty duc nor would 
thcre bc any harm in ahrogatmg it; thcrclibrc^ it is Hb opiion whcther 

to pardon. Aiid indecd, to pardon |i r e. ? for the Hereatter] would be 
a good things just as it would bc in thk Presmi Worid. 

(4.) Regarding [what k] most bendkial, this is thc obligation 
upon God to do whatever is most beneHcial MS 207a for hwnan- 

kind, say the Baghdad Mu^tarilah. 

An objcction to this. [point] has bccn raiscd that what [actually] 
would bc best ibr a poor unbeHever would br that hc should noi 
have been created [at all], so that he would not have troubles in 

bodi lyorldi. 

(5,) Rcgarding thc [intdlcctually] hcinous^ it is that thcrc would 
bc an obligation upon God to abstain from any inccllcctuaEy hcinous 
act. God Most High knows that what is hcinouj is wickcd and thrrc 

is no need for it, aiid therefore it k an obligation [upon Him] L 404 

to absLain [irom it inteilectually, i.c. T imisibly], just as in thc world 
of th« visible. liut you have alicady leamed how r.orrupl that argu- 

mem is, fbr nothmg heinous may starid in any rdauonihip to God 
Most High. 

Baydawi said: 

L 404. T 1% 

Tvpk 5: God*s ^cts m ft*4 h&s&l ™ hidtkn /wrpmti 


a. [ This is true| for a mimher of reasons: 

I. If [God] wcre to perform an act bccause of some *hidden 
purpasc\ thcn He would be dchri^nii in Himsclf bui prrfcctiy rultilled 

?i T omits lh.c Lntroduclary statcment ~m the objccdon as rcdmniunt;, and bcgins 
herc: ^Thcar (kcds havc ncri. hceia worth ■ . ," 
w MS gl; [Lc t | iii this world ffi" alHluii)^ . 

73 FJ3. Ka£i T g compcrHtum. ha* tliis io|ac 0]i p-a^-s 205 207. Ht says ic is "wn- 

traiy lo Che Mn = UizJ]ah ajid to ftir>sl of cikc judspnjdtftls [fuqsiha*] ."■ 


through sumelhing oiher than Hicnsel^ which would be impossible* 
Let no one say that [GodV| hiddcn purpose is [merely] to bring 

about thc welfarc of humankjnd., Ibr if that [purposc] arid its oppo- 
ske ^tLOiild bodi be held tqual in His view, then [thc formcr option 
aione] woulri not he adequatc tn aerve a* a purposc motivating to 

an actj and ifii should br oihei-wise, ihen the need for [God 1 * pcr- 

fcct] iulhllmcnl would Ikt implicd. 

2, To bring about the reaIization of [;l]]J purpcwes at thc out- 

sel k [wcll] wtthin the powtt of God Most High, therefore t to set 

thcm up as ullimatc goals would bc iutikj and thi* then excludes 

[thc neccssity forj any L hiddcn purpose^ 

3- irthe p-urpose — T 197 that speciBes the particular momoit 
[to bccoiric cxbienlj fbi d particuUr ternporal phenomenon— -should 

liavc exi&lcncc prior to thal phenorncnon, thcn the iniplication would 
be ihat the phenomenon would have heing ai ihat [prior] time. But 

if the purposc ahould not be thc [specifyingj purpo&e for this ph< - 

nomcnon, and if it should exisc simultaneously with [thc phcnomc- 
nonjj. then the riiscussion a? tn heing the specitying Eactor ror it would 

he repeatcd* which impiies that either the argumem would be an 

innnitc, or ctoc that fdivitie actitm] would be free of any hid- 

den purposc. 

b. Thc Mu e tazilah atl agrce that [God's] acts and judgmems are 

cau&cd bv a conccrn for the wclrare of humankind, sincc an action 

hnying no purpose [at all] in it would he futile, and it is irnpossiblc 

lo ascribr sucli aii action to [God] who is ^Ail-Wisc. *llic answcr to 
I hts- [argiiment] h that ifa t\m\?. act is v, hat is, dcvoid ora 'hiddcn 

purposc', then that is ihe vcrv rnoiivaiion l>cing claimcd, Bui if ir is 

somcthitig clse, thcn first it must hv formulatcd conccprually h mu\ 

thcn scrondly h rnust bc statcd formal!y. 

Islahani sa^: I. 404, T 197, MS 207b 

Tvpk 5: God's acts are net ktsed ott hidden purposcs 

a. [This is true] contrary to the vtews of dic \1u'iaxilah atid inosi 
of the le^jil scholars, ^Liur a purpose 18 th« reasan on ciccoarit oT 
which an act issue * Prom its ageni. 

[Baydawijj our auihor, argtir.s that rlie acts of [GrjdJ Most Tligh 

aic not derivcd from l hiddcri purposcs", and pr<:sents a mimbcr of 

950 a, SECTioN 3. topics 

L lf [GodJ actcd 011 thc basis of a 'hiddcn purposc\ thcn Hc 
would be deficient in Hiniseli' and ibliilkd by something other than 
Fltmsclf; but thw conclusion would be impossiblc. An expUnation of 

thc logical nccessiry used hcrc is that c\ eryonc who pcrforms an act 
because of a purposc would be fulfillcd by pcrtbrrniiig that act^, and 

whoever is fulfifl«l by something other Lhan himseU" wouJd be dehcient 

iii hiiiaseir Lel no one say that [God's] purpo&e is [incrcly] to achicvc 

ibc wcllare of humanldnd: thus, thcrc would bc no implkation that 
He would be. fulfiltcd hy .somethincr other thaii Himscll" 

Our [T&tkhanrs and Baydawi'g| position h tbat if hoth ihe achiev- 

ing and the not achicviiig of thc wdfare of huTnanldnd should bc 

cqual in rclation to [Godj Most High s thcn [the formcr] wonld not 
Idc an adequate purposc tnotiuating to action, beeause of the impo^- 

sibility of there being & *prefercncc without a preferring agenr, 

However, if the [two actiomj should not bc cquaJ to one another 
in relaLicm to [(Slod], bur rathct ihe achtevemenl of jhuman] wd- 

farc would be the preferable heiielit in relation to Him, thcn this 

easc would iiTiply that tbcrc was a [divinc] sclWultJlltncnt in having 
[thc rrsult that was] prcfcrabic 111 rclalion lo Himscli. 

2. To bring about the realizalion of final purposcs at the begin- 
ning 15 somcthing [wcllj wichin the power oi' LJod Most I Jigh ? tiecause 
every purpose that could t>e proposed would he from amonc* the 

rcalities possiblc» and God Most High has thc autonomous powcr 

10 bring k into esbtenoe at the beginning P Thus, it would be fucfle 
to iuake [human] acts an iiitermediary step, am.l 10 sct up [ihe 'liid- 
dtn purposcs' of God| K 35 [uJtimatej objectives ? L 405 sincc what- 
cvcr is Putilc would bc impossibie for God according to His word; 
"Thcn havc you rcckoncd : [thc mattcr as iact] that Wc crcatcd you 
only as somcthing futilc?" |Qur'an 23:115] 

Tjet no one say that it would bp impossible 10 achieve a [divine 
ultimate] purpose exccpt by s-uch a» btcimediate step, because indeed, 

wc hold that what would bc [truly] suitablc as a [ ultimatc] 
purpose is noihittg tmher rhan biinging ha[jpiness to hnmankind, and 

ihat would bc an object ol Ciod Mort High's autonomous power 

without aijylhing al hLI bcirig intenTiediat> r . 

3- Tf the purpose hchind the ^peolying— for a patttrular tetn- 

:! I"hc ajiiw<lem ifl 50 r:mJed iri thr. MS 


poral phenom^n nn of it^ particular nioment [to hecomc cxistentj- 
should have e>:i.stence prior to the momeni. of ihe particular tcm- 
porat phcnoincnouj thcn iu that case thc impUcaiion would be ihai 
thc phcnomcnon [ilsclf| woukl cnmc into bcing also, thal i*,. prior 
to that [spociBcd] momcnt, on account of thc iinpussibility for an 

cntity 10 retard beyonrl [thc moment of] its own [spccifying] pur- 

pose. Morcovcr, Ihcrc would be thc implication that the purpose 
[itsclfj woulri not be a purpose [of speeihcaiion], on account of thc 
Tmpihssibility for the purpose r>f a thing to have being prior to its 
object. But, if thc purposc behind thc spcrifying---for a particular 
ternporal phcnomcnon of its paiikular moincnt to bccoirie cxisteiil 
should (itse]fj hccomc cxistcnt at thai [vcry samtj momcnt. then 
thc discugsion aboui the purposc specifyhig that parricular momrni 

wcmlil bc rrpcattd, 

Thus„ if [rhe spccifyin«; of thc inomcnt] should not bc duc to kottic 

[hidden| puirpcise, then (he [mpHcaiion would be that it was far 
rcinoved from [any hiddciij purpoac But if [thc spedfying of tlic 
momcntj should be due to somc [new seeondj puiposc, and if [this| 
second purpose shrmlri havc exislt:nc<* prior to [the above speciHed 
motnentj, thcti eIlc implication woukl bt- 

a) that the firsr purposs jbehind the sperifying| woulri also 

bc prior to [the above spcdlicd rnomcnt] 5 and 

that thc [ncw sccond] purposc would not bc a [sperilyiiig] 

purposc. But if the latcer [ncw] purpose shoutd bccomc cxistcnt 
sirnuhancously with [thc abovc spccUicd moincnt], then the discus- 

sion about it would be repcatcd, with tlic impLication bcing cithcr 
that the argumeiLl was an infinite series, or elfce that [rhe whole mat- 
ter of thc speciHcalion of the momcutj was far removed from any 
tudden purposc. 

b, Thc Mu*tazilah ail agrec thai [God 9 s] acts md judgments are 
causal^ hascd on a conccrn for thc wcliarc of humankind, [This ii] 
hecause an act having no purpo5e in it would he futHe> and it would 

be impossiblc lo u&cribe something fuiile to [God] who is AU-Wise. 

Thc answcr [to this ar^umcntj is chat if what is mcaiit by futilc 

shoLild be [an act] devoid of purpose, then that is the very motiva- 
tion being claimcd [for it] ? bccausc it would lx? a deirionstration of 
thc inatter on its owtl e^idertce, But if what is meant by fulilc should 
not bc [an acl| devoid of purposc, thtin first it must bc ibrmulaccd 

ooncepiuttlly, and ihcii seoondly, it must be stale<J (brmatly. 

932 2, sjlCTIon % ropics 

c. Summttrp stetemint. On^ *hotild undcrstand thc followiiig factsi 

l r Thc Mi/tazilah hold thai an act of [God] thc All-Wise is 
not devoid of m puiposc muiivaling thai act; otherwise, the impli- 

cation would bc of a prdcrrncc without a prctcrring agcnt, 

2. Legal scholars hold that rhe jurigment to execute punish- 
menl Goniea Irom the Ijawgiver only ho ihai ttie populace rnay be 

rc&trauncd trorn killing, and that u what its purposc is. 

3. Thcn the hncrpreters, of constitutional law draw practical 

corollaries from the material cnming from the T-a\vgiver regarding 

prostnptioii an_d pLTinissaion in m*mxT5 wlicre the Lawgivcr gavc (10 
clcar judgmcnt in a way appropriatc for thc purposc [of intcrprctadon], 

4, Some peoplc hold that -purpose* h the drivinqj ibrce that 

morcs imperfect chings [e.g.> human situations] on to their periect 
statesL Indccd s somc s.tatc«i of pcricctioji are not amunable without 
such an impulse, just aa a body can not (ransit fnom one pkce to 
ariothtT unlcss il is causcd to iikwc, which would bc thc iiitcndcd 
purposc in its bcing movcd. Thns a givcn purpo&c may not havc 
MS 20Sb any spccial action lor an intcimcdiate stcp, and so could 
not possihly be Ailtilleri., although the factor of impnsaihility woulri 

not h^ particiilarly decrecd agaitist it- 

5, Sunni Muslims hold that [God] Most High is the active 

tigcnt of whatcvcr Hc wills. L 406 Notliing pcrtaining to His acts 

may be described as heinous, Many are the inipedect ones that He 

wipes oul of cxistciicc bcforc lliey arc inadc pcriccrt. And maiiy 
arc ihosc moving thcmschcs whoin Ilc will move away fmm thc 
epoals oi their own motioii-change. Moreover, 

|Cxod| u not to bc cjucstioncd on what He does . . ." JCi 21:23] 
by ^why' or *how T . 


Bayttawn ;-aid: 

L 406, T 397 

Topk 6: Ob^gations imposed are God*s natice of a Jinai kfe ioahtatiotP 

a. Thc doctrinc of thc Mu c ta7ilah is that thc di^inc purposc in 
thc imposition of human obligations is [for alt humankind] to makc 

79 MS sjl: Hwh is thft faith i^' an cHihryni in Thft mDTh^r 1 "* womb beto«? if haR 
bccn bccmgbLt to complctkm. 


a prcsentation [hefore Gnd| jusiifylng some [pcrsonalj promotion in 

eminetice, Bl Ibr [GwTs] deigning to grant s-uch eminence without 
[cnan*s] riglu 10 it wuuki bc repugiiant, 

b, Our [Raydawi s Sunni] posmon ts that [the Mu c iazilah doc- 

Lrine] is bastd on thc doctrinc of thc gjood and the heinous as applied 
to [God^J attion^. In spite of thatj thc dcigning to grant [thc enli- 
dementj would be repugnant oniy if [to do soj would be on thc 

part of one who imaginitl [this acLioii] lo coiUain some beneiit or 

hann for himscH'. 

c. Those who deny that there is any impo^ition upon mankind of 

[rehgioua] obligaiions argue 

1. that man h undcr compulsion, for rcasons alrcady givcn, 
thus imposition of ohligalion 011 liim would bc rcpiigiiant; and 

2. that if [tlie imposilion] shouid be dewid of purpose then it 
would bc fu lile s and thus. would be repuguatn; atul 

3. that if it should bc Ibr a purposc a thcn that purposc would 
noL bdong to [Godj bcruuse Hc Ss lar too exaltcd ihr that, nor 

vvr>uld it belong to any other than He^ because [God] Most Hi^h 

|;ilone] has thc power to achicvc k from thc outsct. Thcrcfore 3 it 
would. bc rcpugnant for obligations to bc irnposcdL T 198 

c--a. Thc answcr [to thosc who dcny any such imposition] is that. 
in mm^ the [divine] imposicion of obligations 33 a prodamation from 
the divinely True One to all creadon 83, regarding 

L. the handing down of reward, and the arrival at hand [of 

thc mcans] of punishment, for thow gointr to thc Gardcn and thosc 

going to ihe Fire, and regarding 

2. thc final abyss of clcavugc to bc madc bclwcen thc hlissliil 

and thc miscrable, 

d, The "Why^ of [GodV| judgment may not be pursucd.. 
or may He he quesiioncd for any rcason. 

He it i* who raises ihe objecnon, 

but 110 01 ic inay raisc aei objection bcfore Hjcri. 
He it is who puts thc qucstion; 

but He may nol bc qucstionod on a.nything. 


Bl [^1-ca'rid li^srLhqat| al-Ut^Tm]. 

m For chc rercptLnn ot ihc. verb"s Jtctio*! Kcre L and MS Garreit 9flQHb mia- 
c-ikcnly rrpcat fa]-haqq] B whilc T coirccts ihis to rcad flil-khalc(j N and GannrCl 2R3B 

npacls [ilii 3 al-khn.lq]. In IdaluLtii 1 » commciruuiry ai ihis poim ;dl sourc«4 \md havc 

rhc rrae^Ttr ru>un ys [ £d ■ ldliilt| ] 

954 a, secttion 3, tdpig* 

Ti shall bc as God Most High haa sairi: 

^[God] is nol to be qucslioncd on what Hc does; 

whilc [all human bcin^sj shill bc qucs.tioncd. 71 [Qiir , an 21:23] 

ls.fa.hani says: 

L 40fi, T 198, MS 208b 

"1'opic 6: Ohltgatians hnposed are G&d*.i n&tia ofajinat lifs eoatuaticn 

a. Thc doctrinc of thc Mu'tazilah is thut ihc [divinc] purpo&c in 
thc imposition of human obligalions*-* is for all huniankind to makc 
a prrs^ntation [befbre GodJ jusdlying aome pcrsonal prornotion. in 

eminence, fbr [God'sj drignjng to grant such erniiience without any 

cnlidcrncnl to cmincncc** would bc repugnanL, 

b. Our [Islahani^s and Baydawi's Sunni} position i& diat this |Mu'ta~ 
zilah doctrine] is, bascd on tbc doctrine of thc good and the heinous 

as applicd to [God**] actions, and [llic docirine] iliat obligation may 

bc ascribcd to God Most High* But all thc&c things arc faUe in our 

view. And besides that^ that is ? even if we shouid grant ihese things, 

we do not gram: rhat to deign to grant [humankindl the cminence 
would he lepugnant in an aljsolute sense, but raiher, deigiung to 
graiit emiuericc woutd lx^ rcpugnant only if [to do so] s-hould be on 

thc part of one who woLild imaginc that it containcd tbr him somc 

bendit or harm. R - But if it should be granted that deigning to grant 

rhc eminence would be repugnant in an absoluce sense^ tlien thc 

cntidcmcnt to cmincncc would not dcpcnd upon whcthcr thc impoacd 
obligation was to pcriorm diHicult tasks. Pmnouncing the word of 

the testimony [to tlie faith] h easier than the waging of war and 

fa&t:iiig, althongh thf: inmtnencc tliat is d«ervrd for the pronoLjncing 
of th<: word of testimony would l>fi greater. 

c Hic arguTTictu prcwjntcd by those who deny that there h any 
imposition |upon humankind] of [rcligious] obligations is that 

I. man is under cotnpulsion in regard to liis acc^, for reasons 
alrcady givcn^ to thc cffect that thc whole uiiiv r crse exists by the cre- 

11 MS gl; T.c, in thc impoaiiicm ftaklTf] upon nia-ntind fal- £ ib*kT| of thc duties 
of religiwi [sd-^liadlt]; whik- the acts ol"obtdiicii« [al-$5 c 3t] ccrostiurte the pri-stri- 

r.iriom [to Ood) fa|-t3*rTd| om, mankincl^ pan- 

** I, h foUohvd. by T 7 hn dri>pped chr Lmponaiit qLialif\ing < iausc (tn-dun mkhr|ar| 
al-ta^mj,. whLlc chc MS ar>d MS Garrett SHSHa tndude Lt for thc scnw. 
te MS gl: In r-cigard to C^id Most Hinh ihb w^ould be im[MB,sible. 


ation and will of [Cod] Most High,. so it would be nrpugnant to 

impose as an obligation upon rciankind something that is not suh- 
ject to his thoice. Further [their argumcnt is that] 

2. if thc imposltion of a difticult act should not bc for a pur- 
posc., then it would bc futile» and thus it would bc rcpugnant as an 
actioii ksuing irom [God] who is All-Wise; but 

3, if it should be for a purposc\ i >■■ ■ ■ n ii woutd be impossible 

ior that purposc to bclong to [Cod] 9 for Hc is far loo cxrthed Ebf 
thc purposc to bc I Iis s and it would hc impassiblc for that purposc 
to hrlnng to any nther than He ? tor God Most High alnne has power 

L 407 to achievc that purposc from thc out&et with no intermcdi- 

atc stcp« % Thus, [divinc purposc in the| imposition of obligation 
would bc lost, hccausc in that casc making die imposition of" oblig- 


ation an iniermediatc step would be luiile. 

c-a. The amwer 10 bodi of thtse poitits is ihat [the argnnient 

thc imposition of obligation] i* based upon thc ultimate 
^ue&tioii, "Why?" This- is an imaltd ha.sis, hccausc thcrc is no ncccs- 

sity for everylhing to be by reasoii of a < ause; odierwise, thc causal- 

ity of tlmt causc would bc causatly d.crivcd frorn soinc othcr causc, 
MS 209a and tlien argumcnt in an infinke serics would bc impliciL 
Ratherj there must be a terminarion [for (lie argument] with somc- 
thing haying no cause whaiewr. And the most appropriate of all 
thingi for ihat* T woukl be the acts of God Most High,, and His final 

d. In summary., thc imposition of obligations |upon nianktnd] is 

thc ibrmal aunouncement from [God] the Truc One to all crcation 


I . thc handing down of rcward and the amval at hand of (thc 
mf:ans of | punishment, [Lhe: (irst ] for diose going to the Gardens [ot 

.Pai J and [ihe secondj for those ^in^ 10 thc Klames [of FireJ, 
and rcgarding 

2. the final ataysa of deavage to bc madc bctween the blis$ful 

for whom thcrc arc stcps of asccnt^, and the miscrable for whom 
thcre are only steps of" dcscent. 56 

\FS aJonc -oJ" tht solltccs uscd indiirira ttiis laitcr dausr as comDl-cmcnt 

irii^ thf! se 

81 MS j^t; l.f.. I>llti.l^ not cauaced lty laiiiiL puip 

956 2. SECTlON 3 ? TttPlCS 

[(itnPsJ judgmcnt is riot lo bc quc&tioncd as to its causcr, 

It is I lit right to dircct an objcction at anyonc other than Himsclf, 

hut no o-ther may dirccl an objection at Him. 
He it is who piais the quc5tion, 

but no qucstion may be directed al Him, 

It is as God Most High has said^ 

"[God] is- not to !>c ^Liestioned on what He doesj 

while [all human beings] shall be questtcmedL" [Qiir J an 21:23] 


** In this sc ctiuri Itaydawi and hf*ih<ini sketch thc tondition of h unianily as they 

s« it rtiaking. iti way taiwten rhe ooiilrdEiitig awareftttA«s of eaLenial realiLy with 

ici ambacrLiiups and myslcrics in Jiuman hchavinr and knowHcriirr: wrsus intemal rtal- 
icy {that is mcnLal arwf u vhtual M ; with ita cerdtuctcs and gralilicacjon.E in thc tanir 
firli_k, In a drcnc gr-r-iitly trrtLmiali&edl fnsm thrirs in direcLwin of vkw, in -\t]<Mx and 

in lime {a cenlury beFore Bavd:iwF; a wcsicni wriur [John WalbrUjgc, TSr imsw* 

*/ {fe .^rarj>flJSr, fc S&hrmtmdt -W 2ft* IlnHt^ 4jf (4* &¥Bb, Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Pm$ s 
C- 2000, pp r ^16 f-] skptchcs a philowphical awAiencs* rnarking a hjsttjcical COn- 
irasu lieLwwn m£c3L4!-val Europc anri Nidni. "Thrcp mu-lJrt tual fiLcu>ra ^cmibaneri to 
lcad IsJajnic thmi^ht away from tliL- p.nhs Kh.nt maphi hav4- L*nH co an Islamir scicnriJic 

rcvolLitLtHi." Tbcsc wcic: ]) philosophcrs acccptcd thc ■ctc^rLic> , of thc world thcory; 
2) theoloj^ans acccpicd «lei rxireaic i i<".ca.iLonaJisi.u thcor\' iti how God rdaln to thc 
wcnrld; : S) thinlcrrs. cjjKrcially thc: inysdcR, asscrccd GcmI wa* abov* confornimi!; co a3l 
of Lcj^c n s ncccssiLi«-. 

Th* philosopher ol" myuirism, Ysihya ibn H^ish Suhr^w-irdi ;1I5+-H9I) wm 
rnnccmpnrary with Fakhr at-Dii-L Raai (135(1-1 2 10)» ihr hb.mnaia of chcolo^y. Thc^ 
paths of chc&c two scholars probably would Jiavc crosscd in onc or auochcr of thc 
asscmbly hoJJs of mcdicva] Iran ? but thcir rcpucatkins and tcachings havc no Tamous 
linka^cs of cichcr combathT or su|iportivc mutual intcrcst. Nn onc would considcr 
Razi ot Bayda\ii a.% Ijcing" an outslanding mysiic:. U i* trur that B^TLiiwi onc:c may 

h*ve taken k-;Kcirts in mysucLn^ irom a sLaykli Iti TAbriz f but ihe «ingle refertnce 
to chat Pacl is wrapjwd m ihe nuat lowly -tkpreued si^ge of hk persttia] and pro- 
fts&0]]cJ caittr. Aiicl il is Erue ()ii» I^hani ^mks approYir^y of tfie itui^r puiifieAUOfrx 
im^i by ihe Sufe a& an addirtiMal and "riRhi 1 " inethod for ssiirinu i i^rtomO 
knowkdgc of Cod [Iniroduaion, cbapLcr 4], This Lartter is prcscnicd as »i contrast 

lo ihe opinions of ihe Istna^iliyali aitd thf Buddhists. 

Razi and Baydawi wrotc and lccturcd as straight^orwaDdly bb \h<rf could;, honorins 

in Lhi:ir sLanoe boili Iwijiu and Lheir chcwcn theolujpcid subjccts. Thrir CD-iitribulioiis 

clcaily ajad uscAilLy ooiltUiuc: as Jactt of CKWJ 1 !^ rcaliiy,, and arnrnig sludcnts thjpy 
Cioncinur to kccp npcn dic inLcmal cJonrH of mc:diLalion and aspiraLion. 



This page mrentionally hft blank 

Baydkmi said: 

L 407, T 198 



Tof)k I: Mankindlt .'.*r./ ,% fkt Propkti 

Sirtcc man would havc no cxisicncc froin thc &tandpoii"it of bemg 
mdcpcndcnt rc^Lirdin^ himsclt", and thc mattcr oi" his daily living 

wouid l>e unlultill^d unless ihere should be 

a. a commonyJity with anothcr of his own kind in 
and hartcring^ 1 and 

b. an a^tive comnierce of mnmaJ rnnc^m hetwcr-n Lhe two of 
them in ihe thinss. upnn whlHi ihe wHlare of the mrliyidiial or chr 
[wliulrj speries [of maiikiiid] drpunds, [it is therelbre maniEest ihal 

nian] has nccd for 

] . a system of fair rdationships 

2- tbat is preserved by a law, 

3- that [in tum] i& prcscribcd by a lawgivcr» 

4. who is specifically endowed by outward signs and clcar 


thai mouvate obedience lo him, 

b) prompt a positive respunse to him, hikI 

c) givc conviction to his pronounccmcnts, 

I) whercin lie threatens. an evildoer with punt&hmcnt and 
gives promi&p of a reward to an obedtrnt disciple. 

This Pawgiver] is tliL' Prophci, peacc bc tipon hiin. 


1 L and MS Ganrcti 989Hb and MS Garatt 28 SB: [mu*a\vadah wa-:mn<aradah] ; 
T: [mu^awa^ah wa-nnj^awiLuadh]- 

960 j, skction i, TOPira 

[sfobani says: L 407, T 198, MS 209a 


When [Haydawi] had tmishcd wkh Hook 2 on Realitics DLvine he 

begati Bcx>k 3 on Realkies Prophetic, Tn it h« sci fotnh thmee sectionsi 

l. ProplK-lhoud, 2, *The Rcsurrcction As-seittbly and \hv Rccom- 
pcnsc, and 3, ITic Suprcmc Lcadcrship of the Muslim Community. 


StcliUTj 1 un PruphclliiHw] cuTil^Jiris six topic.„sL 

I. MankiiKTs necd for thc Prophct, 2. Thr Pussibilily of Mirades 
[m Psychology and Rcligion]> 3. Thc Prophcthood of thc- Prophcl 

Muhammadj 4. Thc Sinicssiicss of thc Pruphcts, 5_ Thc Supcrioriiy 

of Prophcts over AngeU. and 6. \he Signs of Divine Favor [given 

to Sairits and Plrophcts]. 

Topic J: Manldnd*s netd jor iht pmpkel 

a. Thc languagc aspcct of thc tcrm 'prophct*. 
The tcnn "prophct" [habiyj on thc pattcrn of thc intcnsivc vcr- 
bal noun [Ia c il[^ is eithcr 

1, from j al-Jiabwah] p 3 which h 'ground that is clcvated', in 

which case its incankig is *that which is raised above t]ic rest of 

cicalion', as its root is without a hamzah and it is L 40B the 

[fa'I1] pattern in the sen&e of the passivc partiripLe, its pluraJ bcing 

[anbiya 1 ]; or 

2. it is from [al-naba^ that is a c infonnation\ fur you say., 5 
[naba'a] — "he borc inlbrmation", [anba^a] — "hc madc knc>wn" s and 
[nabba^aj— tL he aiinoimccd/* So thc [nabiyj is onc who brought 
information about [(lodj Who is lo be praiscd, being thc [fa*llj pat- 

tem in the scnse of ihe active partiriple.. 

2 I.*3 scrihc aksne jnari.vmcLirty ™ic: [al-nabwaw".. 

1 Syrusnyms wiih ampIitWL ijitensily and rangc as thry pass throLu;h \ r L-rh Forma 
l, l 2 iiiiri 4 ;here ilu 1 - ssqui!ru:« fc hctng i : *^2 ■. 


Sibawayh said.. "Thcre is not onc Arab who docs not say, L Musay- 
limah^ thc liar s prctenderl to be a prophct 1 [tanabba^aj, saying" it 

with the hamzah, although they omitted the hamaah in the word 

"prophct" [nabiy] .. just as thcy omittcd it iii [al-dhurlyah] and [al- 
kliabiyah};* [thcsr Arab spcalttrs being] all exc:epl thc pcoplc of 
M^cca, for they give thc sound of harnzah tu thesc words, but do 

not give the soinul of hamzab iri any others, and they difler lirom 

tlie olhcr Arabes MS 209b in that,"* i,c. T Llicy du uot give the 

sound of harnzah in any othcr than thcsc words» 

3. Onc plural of [al-nabiy] is (miba']. A poet has declaimcd, 7 

"O Sagnct Scal concluding [otir book of all] propheis, 

You wcre sent in goodnc&s. indetdj, 
For evcry sign of s^uidarLce found in liiVs way 

Proves lo bc yours Ibr our need. 


4. Another plural is in thr fbrm of |anbiya*j, bctause when 
thc [hamzah] consonant if> changcd to thc lcttcr [wawj, the cxchangc 
implicitly rcquirc5 it to havc as plural that plural whosc original third 
radical is a weak consonant: as in [ c id| and fa'y*dj, and in "I set 
oui on a jouniey [iiaba*tu ns&b*an] froin land to land } whcn I deparled 
Jrom onc land to anothcr.* 1, This is what Ibn al-A E rabi 9 mcant whcn 
hc said, hfc O wandcrcr of God" | Ya nabya AlLah], that h f one scttin^ 

4 MS gl: [I.c.,1 and it [thc hamiahl h noC soundcd in [thc cerms] fal-dhur a ah] 
aild [Al-kh3bi a £ii]l|. Cf. J. Hhym,, tf/-JPWirf aHhniyakl al-dhur^ah = huarines-i on (he 

fo»reh*ad; ^l-kkabL^h = large >r. 

u A gloss m MS Gamrtt 989H* c«cs Irom aljawhari** $&fih thf Sibawayh qunn 

tcition with minor i hangcs. umitting 4fc the har"' 1 and adding" aa a thirri co thf: titm- 
hamz:a[ed ^^mplrs, "crcaEion 11 fbartyah]. Abo, in this jJoh» thc qiKit.icion 1 s tcrmLnus 
i% clear. 

3 Tlie fMK't i? A3- c Abbas ibn MLrdas aJ-Sulaymi, cncnliDnrd Ln £j"mr at- c Arab 
(v. J„ p. I57); T((/at- € Ami [aJ-^AUbaa ibn Mirdi^ al-SuUmi) (v. l„ p. L 22}; and [quuu:d 
L[iJ ahSmisk (mthout the poei's name} iv. l s p., 24). 

G.K. wn Gmnebaurn im thc ardck U AI - : AblMi ibn Mirdas . . . aL-SuUiyini" En- 

I-J fc describts hiT*n as onc uJ" th^ Mukhadrjini pu^is, sLcp-sun oF 5jJ.-Khiici.yiL 3 , His 
p. 53<J of H/^Air /jAireAi^ te Ar atrf ^" At (7jKi2r>rfrf /Vrw^ rri. hy A.PJ-, Cc:c; 

ct id. LjScrics: Gr^in^ Ilishry &f Artibtc lAttratur*] |v. ]]) Gambrid^e: Cambridgt 
UniveiMLy PtrcNK^ 1983. 
8 Va khStLm :*l*iitibfl J j inti,ika n^iu^l 
BJ-aL-khaYr kulltj huda/aJ-sabil hndaki 

Thc o.f thc poct's IJncs is so Bnarkrd in L^ T ? ^hc MS aiul MS Garrctt 

* AIju c Abd AHah Muhamnuid ibn Ziyad Ibct al-A'rabi, 1SO/767-23I/H46? a 
rurnious philOLO^isc. S** thc bio.5raphy artidc, "Ibn al-A f rabi n! . in En-I-2, v t 3„ 
pp. 706-707 ^ Fjy Charies PcDaL * l A man EkmoLLs for a knowlodge -of raLrt c^^p^!Hiofl£ :,, 

962 3„ SKCTTON 3. Toncis 

out Iruiri Makkah to MHdinah, and [Ibn al-A d Tabi] rejuctcd thc 



hamzah in i[ 

5. It is ako said that a Svcli iniccd road' [al-naby] is *thc way\ 
ln thia scnsc it is said about thc aposlics of God ihaL tlicy arc "wcli 
traced noads a * [anbiya*] bccausc thcy arc the *ways of guidance 1 to 

[ GodJ . 

All rhc ihregoing is with regard co the [topic's] langiiage aspect 

b. The idigiuus law 

1. Thc phiEo&ophcr&g, wuh respcct to dic rcligious law s took thc 
positinn thai a prophct is one who has been idcnrihed as having 

three specillc djaractcristics: 

a) Hc is oiie who is wcll acquainlcd with thc unsccn bccausc 
or the purity ol" his souTs inncr nature and his strong relaiiotiship 
to high principle*, 11 [aJthough] not having any previous experience 
in logical acquisiiioru instruciion or learnmg, 

Hc is one to whom an obedient rcsponsc is givcn by clc- 
mtnLal primat malter lii its a> l eptance of Ibrms madc distinctive L2 

and rcady lor excha»ige with one anrnher. 

t) Hc is. unc who observo aiigels in imsiginativc lorms, and 
hc hcars the spcech of God by divine rcvclarion. 

Objections to this doctrine have heen raised a* Ibllows: 

-1 lf [thc philosophers] mran by 'bt-ing weH acquaintcd\ 

an aoquaintancc with all unsccn things s then by coiisensus that would 
jiot bc a condition for an individiial to bc a prophci. If thcy mcan 
by it an acquaintancc with only somc of these unsccn diings.j thcn 

thal [also] would not speciiically clesignatc a prophet, since every- 

onc adrrassibly nuglit have sn acquiuiitajice witli surnc of thesc unsctri 
lliings without prcviou& instrucdon and lcarning. Morcaver B all human 
souls are onc in kind, and their real nature wnuld not have any 

variation in clarily or opaquciieas, so whai is admissibte fbr one 

would bc admLssiblc for anothcr. Thus to have an acquaintancc with 
these things would not bc thc spccihc dc&ignadon of a prophct- 

The Fihr?$t */ "W-.W^, Hayard Dortgo. Kditor an<| TrwisUior» u Hir^iraphicA[ IndeK 31 
v. 2, p. %1. 

I? Thc MS ali^nc omits thc wond ''haraiali 11 aftcr (hc vcrb. 

In thc quotation l^ 1". thc MS »nd \1S Gamclt-Yahuda: -"l-lB^ rtad [Ya nahya] 

while cmJy MS Garrctt 9&% b rcads [Ya nabi*a]. 
I! hlS t;'_: Lc, tlic ten [celeatLal] intclleiTts. 


MS r[: Le.;, frum one fbrm to ajiotbcr form by eK-chan^r. 

PRC >PI I JmiOOD 9ti H 

■ w- 

[b)-l turther^ what thc philosophers &ct up as a sccond dcs- 

ignatLon wouLd not belong specilically to a prophet, for thcy aLso 

aduiuwledgc thai rnatlcr in thc clcnients is obedicntly responsive to 
iho&c who arc not prophets. 

fc)-I And what they set up as L 409 a third speciiic dcs- 

igtiation is [for ihcm] not even a verified rcalily bccause tbey dis- 
avow angels, and will affirm thc certainty of nothing but cetestial 
itnmatcrial substanccs 13 which are not MS 2IOa of humankind in 

thcar tcachi 


These objections. that have beeti raised require morc con<dderaticm_ 

(a)-2 By 'bcing: acquaiiittd* [thc philosophcrs] mean bring 

acquaintcd with somc Ehings that arc not ordinarily kriown without 
previou-s iiisiruciinn and learning.. and ihere h netther objeciion nor 
dunbt that auch mattcrs bdong with nonc other than a prophet. Bisl 
ihcir position ihat human souls are of onc Jdnd, so that it wouJd be 
admissihlc to affirm of a]l whac is affirm«i of somc, is proliibited 

since it wotild be admissible thai there be dissimilarities deriving 

Itom the diiTcrent predispoa tions accordnig to vaiying cemperaoicnts, 

, c)-2 And it is likcwisc with thcir sccond and third spccific 

dcsignatiom, And cven if it should be ^rantcd chat each one of thcsc 

thrrr desigriatiotis would not be an absolutc designation but an 
adjunclive dirsigiiatio-iij, thc tatal stili would bc an absolutc designa- 

tion of a prophcr, so the objcction would be rciiitcd, 

2- The AshaHrah hold that th« prophetic offiee is a gilt from 

Ciod High siiicl a gruce fro-m Hirn lo Hi.s CrcHLure- man. Illis 

is what Go6 Mosl High has said to thc one Hc chose from atnong 
His human crcaturcs: 

"Wc have sent you", "Wc ha%^e dclegated you", 14 and "CSi^^c an 
accoum or us," n 

3. Our exj>osidon of [Baydawi 1 ; diy:ussion of itiankind*s] necd 
for thc Prophct according• to the Muslim philosophcrs^ is that hc 1 

B MS ff]: Thcsc brinij thc icn [crlrsrLaJ] inccllecr.^. 

11 Qur s art 2:119; 4:79-80 cic. M.F. Ahd ^l-Baqi fc s tt-AMjtm alMubhnu fi Affaz 
&l-Qpr*cm tii-Hhrim lists 13 usage& of farsalna]ta] : bint ncichcr onO of the otPier l\vu 
vwbs is m iht pretise runn usrrJ jij Mahacu^ p^rj|?lii^i^, dOicmgh Qu;r ? aii 5:G7 i.> 
ctoac:: [hillL^th mS lumila ibvbA min Tulitai-kiiJ. 

'» L and T: [wa-balligh .'. .]; MS, MS Garreit 9«»lla and MS Carrrtt-YahiKh 
4'tfi6 react: [fa-bkUigh . . -]. Thc twn littcr vcrhal crnnniands aor paraphra^cd 
thc Qur*"an. 

10 Thc MS alonc pn-ints thc vcrh as l$( plural. 


scates that God has created mankind such thai he does not eml 
indepciKlnilly arid by hinisc]f in thc uinticr oChis livdihoodj bccatisc 
hc hag nccd for food 7 clothing., a dwelling place and weapons, ali of 
which arc artificia1ly craftcd. Hc is not like a]l the other animal crea- 
turcs whose needs for fbod, hody covering, dwelling place aiid 
weapmiry are all naiurally prwidcd One pcrson would not be ablc 
to providc thosc things succcssrully and m*magc ihcm esocpt iii so 
long a pcriod of timc that ordinarily hc couid not possibly live 
ihrough it e ntirely, and eveo if he jhould be able to ? it woidd bc 
very diAicult. So the matter of his itvelihood wouid not bc lulRUcd, 

rather. it woulci not succeed cxcept hy having cnmimnnality with 

anoiher of liis own kind fn a barter 17 and eHchange jS of activc com- 

mcrtr bctwccn the two of thcrn in thc things upon which thc wcl- 
iarc of thc indi\idual or thc [wholc]. spccics |of mankind] would 
depciid, in that onc would Eamn for anothcr and the lattcr hakc for 

tbe formcr t or one would be tailor fnr rhc oiher atid the latter pre- 
pare ihe netdle for him. This is the manner of aU things; thus thc 

liwUhood of all of thc sons of mankind is fulfi!led by meeting togethcr, 
and by bartering and cxchanging P 

a) Therefore, becausc of his own nature man has need iu 

making his livdihood for a rcgular jsocial contact chat wilt scrvc to MS 2]Hb bartcr. cschangc and mutual assistancc- For 

chat leason man is said to he civili7.ed, for riiili^ation, according to 

them [i.e-,. the philosophers], is a way of rcferring to ihis regular 

social contact. Tliis socia! contact Hmong mL-inkind for bartcr a cxchangc 
and mutual assistancc L 410 would not takc placc and bccom-e 

well organized unless among thc peoplc rhere was [an establ.ishcd 

system of] tnutual trade relations and fair dealings, becausc cvcry 

indi\idual wants what hc nccds and gcts angry with a rival jostling 
him : anri chooscs all the good ihings. and treasnres, Ihr himself. So 

prosperity is the goal soughl for him$elf [alone]. But when this aUain- 
ing of physkal objccts and sensate dcsires cornes about for [oiily] 

11 L gt: Thk k wbcre rach onc pv« *om«JiJiig .^itabie such « his uwn Y»wrk 

as- cnmpairrd with whaL hc talu 1 ^ froin rhc nthear^s worik. 

11 Tht MS rwCTse» iht Drdcr of this pair of noucK in tbc Hrst occasian of Luajj^- 
Glo&s in L ruid MS; Fn th*lt cach oF ihcrn would clij \^ork Co match thc nork df 

thc other 

CIlbs itk L H.nd MS JbUuwinp: Thc diHcrrnc^ bctwecn ihc two es that in an 

ewchjni^r thtr<. L ii a likcncss in thc wOrk dorttj ^vhilc in ;i bartcr it is niorc pcLicral 

rlian 1x-ing sm^c ILk^tiess or othci 4 . [All iliree j^kmes f"™m ihc Sharli Taqrir.] 


one person it requires leaving hchind anyone else, and ibr that rca- 

son it leads to rivalry. Whcn a mau is joslled away from what he 
desires hc bccoines angry with his rivaJ s iind hia craving and his 

anger prompt him to bcar down upon and opprcsa thc othcr, in 
ordcr to nionnpolize for himself what hc craves. And bccausc of this 

confuf>ion and oonteiiiioti tome about and the social contaet L& spoikd 

This detcrioration wiH not bc avoidcd unlcss a systern oi inulual 
traric rclatiom and justiee arc agrccd upon. Sci thr &ocial contact 
stands in nced ofjuaticc and mutual tradc rclations. But ju»ticc and 

mutual Erade rdaiions will not cover parttcular thmg* ihat are 


ll^eretbrej there rnust he a univcrsaJ ordinancc that would 
be Uw that the divine tew would proiect 

c) And thc divine law tnust have a lawgiver who issues that 
law in tlie propcr way P so therc would have to bc a lawgivcr. And 

ihen when pcupltr gei inio a dispuu: over how to set up ihe law 

cotilusioii and lucimlt bneak out, 

So thc lawgivcr musi distincdvc]y stand out among them 
as being worthy of iheir obedicnce so that the rest might be drawn 
lo hini in acccpiancc ol" the law. That worthiness h realizcd only 
by his being distinguishcd through obvious signs and r.lear miracles 
mdicatiiig ihat hc coincs from ihcir Lord [so iti;it he h worihy to 
bc obcycdj and that prompt thcm in rcsponding to him and in 
belicvinje; T 200 what he tells (henu 

Thc next thing would bc that thc majorit> r of mankind tcnd to 
makc iight oi a dctcrioraung social ordcr whosc bcncht to them is 
oniy in mattcrs ai rcgarding thcir wholc huma]i spccies> since dic 
craving for what they want as rc^arrling t]ieniselves individually gpv- 
ertii them, So they prweed to traiisgress the divine hw- Rui il the 
obedicnt and the disobcdicnt havc rcwards or putushrncnts so thai 

hopc and lcar carry ihcm to obediencc and thc ccssation oi rcbcl- 
lEnn^ MS 21 ta ihen the ^ystcmatic regnlai-ity ol" ihc rii\,inc law 

will by that rncam bc rnorc complete than it would be without LL 
So it is ncccssarv that both thc obcdicnt and thc disobcdicnt havc 


a recompcnsc from the God who is omniscicnt of what thcy do both 
opcnly and sccrci]y, whether in words or deeds or thoughtSj la CodJ 
who is omni]M>tcnt to recompcnsc thcm and dcal with thcm cqui- 
tably ? lo lorgive those dcwning forgiveness^ and to take vengeance 
on those who desetvc vcrig^ance. Tlius, it is that the lawgivcr threat- 
^iih an cvildocr with punishmcnt and promiscs an obcdicnt disciplc 

966 % slction i, ropics 


rcwards. An cxpcricriti*iL knowlcdgc of |Ciod] who givcft bofh tbe 
roiompensc and the law must be obljgatory for them. 

Nothtng about the knowledgc of God Most Bigh should preoo 

cupy cherti beyond the knoMr-Eedge of Him that Hc k One, and Real* 

and that chere 15 nothm^ like Hiitl He dcics not 19 " charge thcrn to 

Btssent in judging that He ls prcsem wiihin ewstwice, 20 for H*r niay 

nut br rdcrrcd to as bricig in any "placc*; nor ii Hc dividcd> fbr llc 
is neither 'outsidc 1 thc univer&c L 411 nor *widiin* it; Hc h ttcjth- 
njj of this. sort. Indccd/ 1 lle rnagnities the task [Le^ of understanding] 

ft»r [\\t m m and makes rdigicjn cotiipIicaCrtP atid lcts thcrn fal[ itiLO 

sonictliirlg fnjin which thcre is no une at ali to savc thcrn. Knowlcdgc 
of this kind scldom i* a inatter of c:onviction and thus would not bc 

an estabiishcd certainiy, so there must bc along with it somc means 
to prutecL ttie knowledgc. Tliis ia the "nicmory 3 tliat gathers up |every- 

for latcr rcstatcmcnt/'- That which includcs both of thesc, i_e., 
memory and re^tatcmcntj is only a fqrm of divinc s«viee that gives 
remcmbrancc ol" the drity and h rcpeatcd ai *uceessive times^ such 

as the prayer rite and any other reguEar events like it. 

Thcrcrforc^ thcrc must bc a Lawgiver who invitcs [humankindj 

Lo givc asscnt in thc Judgincnt liial there is Onc 
who is the Omniscicnt and Gmnipotent Creator, and 

b) to place h in the T.augtvci wh.u \H scnr to thcm finofn 
thc prcscnce of Him thc Most High,, and who is truthfuL and 

c) to arknowlcdgc tliat thcrc is both a promisc and a threat^ 
hi..i]i rcward and puniahment in thc Hcrcaltcr, and 

d; to perform the various kinds of di\itte servioe in which 


;,J In tht M5 thf «.trOnj; optninR rictpitive [la.] h «crTULhcd out,. by somc carfj r 

owiicr yf die MS, perhaps ncrt wcll RiBcwing ilit arguctieni. AD ixhcr soutccs inclLMlc 

tht' ncipitiw herc. 
111 Clcatly hcte^ "cyisTtncc" is concdwd by mmc &$ bciitp; \k palpabJy prescm 

rcalm, iicarly m thc ordcr cNf *'p]acc ! " ftnt m^n i^ nnt chargtd wiiki trying 10 Richoin 
.such a ^whrrc 1 * nodcHi nf God. Nojc tlie diactissirjn abiJie m ]hr passajjc 0/11 abauluMt 
and pardcular cxistcncc i]i Book 1». Scclion l 3 Chaplcr 2 oxf boch Baydiiwi ajid 
lsdAhani. A further rcbtcd disptussioil is in S.H. Natr"s iirliile, ".Ejiistrncc {"wujudj 

iuid CJuiddily (mShiyyAh) ail yamk PhilosonJJly", in InkwUimwi /^rfe^jVi>/r/ O^rtrrty^ 

v. 29:4 (D«., 1989^ pp. 4l»-42fl. 

■ ' MS gjl: This is an csplanuory justiiicarion for his eKprcraiori;, "NcHhinii - - . should 

prcoccupy thc-m," 

K MS; [yatashawwashj; MS Garrctt &89"Ha: [yushawwish]. 
23 |,il-ticCikar al-imijanu c li]-likrajj, 
■* MS: ;, a thrcat and a promisc . /' 



tbc Crcator is mendoncd with the reverent fbrrrni]arics of His ma- 

jesty s and 

c) to [acccpt] bcing drawn to thc Law that mcn necd in 
thcir lTiutual rclations so that by that mcans chc cail may continuc 
gning out for thc justkc that supports a right ordcring of thc statc 

of mankind. The practice of the Law is l>eneficial in three ways: 

ln cxcrcising [and strciagthcning] thc [human] SouTi 
powers to preveni theni froni pursuine lower d-esires. as wcll as irom 

the fantasies and speciilatk-e estmiations-, ihe -sensatLniis and all sorts 
of aclivities MS 21 lb ihat arousc ttie lust and anger ihal hinder 

man 5 s rational soul fmm paying attcntion to thc prcscncc of holy 

In inaintaining; an active corisideration tA' things. sub- 

Itme, 3 * that a^e far remwcd frorn the accidcntal qualities of matter 

and thc discordcint dcccpdons of sense, in ordcr to obscnrc a truly 
■oyal domain.* 

3) In hringing to miiKl ihc waniings of the Lawgiver and 

His promisc to onc who docs good and His thrcat to onc who does 

cvilj, (warmiigsj that rcquirc thc cstabiishmcnt of justicc with an 

increasc of aniple recompcnsc and grcat reward in thc Hcrcaftcr. 

turthcrmorc, to thosr who havc ^xprricntial knowlcdsjjn ;oi'divirjc 

things] among all i*ho are practidng diem, 27 there will be added 
thal bcnclit whidi is rcsciTcd for thcin» inasmuch as thcy kccp their 
iaces turncd toward [ihc Law], B So thcn, considcr" thc wisdnm, 

thcn the mercy and the gracc, and you will see 30 that you are in 
the prcscncc of jl an cnecellcnce whose marvels dazzlc you, HcnccTorth 

thcn, uphold [ihe Law] H and you wiU 5tand. u 


14 MS #1; I.c, thc tcn [ccJrstial] intdkttdw. 

■* MS gl: l.*.\> |i*T | ihc initlhgiblt-s [al-ma c qillit] thst arc contTak-il Frotn ihcseiwes, 

27 MS gl: I.c, thc <Eivjnc Law, 

ffl Tf trartsJaicd, "lo^aircJ Hini , " I jhc comment iti ihe MS gloss wouid apply: Lt., 

chp Crraior Mes^T High. Thp ^St" rrpcal-pd here ccncinL^S 10 rHftVT ta che divinE I^aw. 

N<kc, howcver P iha? the Crcailor as antccetlcni wouLd seern 10 comwdict thc argu- 

tnrnt iti Bocik "2 3 Scction ] . Chaptcr 2 a Topic 2r It ^pjiHcars io bc wttl undcrstood 
?Li a dcvolional ?.tatcment : thouph nol Etru:lly conlbmiinR to sv5tcmalic to^c. 

1V MS gl: You [i.r. t you must coEisidcr] h 

" -l GIosr iji MS and MS Oarrett ItttlJlla: |I.k.,] in ri:s|mnac: to thc Jmpcratiw. 
Another j<J- Lti the Garrctt MS: A Jook [al-lahi7ahj that is -a ^lirr Lpa c [n/yah] in 
thc bliiiking of an ryc. 

11 Glos& i]": MS Garrutt 9891 la: [.£,, that is all about you [tuhitu bi-ka]_ 

K MS gl: Lt, Ihe law. 

u [lIiueiieiIĕi ::i.i.|ii]j w 4 visKyu|iinJ. 

968 3> SEtrnoN i, topics 

Bayclawi said: 

L411, T200 

lopic 2: 7he puHtbilitp c/ miractes [m pmhologp and religioRJ 

A mirade is 

a. aii cxtraordiTiary cwsit, whcthcr it is 

L. a [contrawmng of naturc] to producc a ncgarion of action^ or 
2, a [stimulation of naturc to| positivc action. [and thc cvcnt is| 

b, closely associateri wtth a chaUengirtg clainn [to prophetic sin- 


gularity] . 

(1.) A niiraclc is likc the casc of a certain pcrson who would 
ab&tain from food for an cxtraordiiiaiy length of time, so that his 

soul miglit be attracted lo the realm of holy thinp and make ihe 

powcrs. of his body follow attcr it; whcrcupon thc activitics [cf his 
brMiily powcrs| cease, and in his casc chcre is no fond di&intcgration 
and disposal as there woukd Ik: with anyone else, and $o he become*s 
ihdcpendcnt of tlirc deciiiAnds uf his budy. 35 Tbis wuuld rcscmble ihe 
casc of a sick pcrson whosc natural powcrs are divertcd frarn pro- 
oes&ing hcalchy mattcr by thc dige stive disintcgrauon and disposal of 
rehise matter, and who docs not desire nourishment for a uiiic' 

s * Hayd-ivvi qnotes rmly UHrRy IVoni K.I). R;iafs drfuiifinn [Si.-r his Atuh/Laai^ 

]i. StlT], Foc corcipArison chc fiilJ dcFknilJon W givc9 U as IaLIowa: 

"TLit- mLraculons is an tx\ raordinary ewent drady asAaciaJted with a chalk-ngiiig 
daim [lo prophetic singiilaiity, and] with-otit thrnc bcing any [succ«sful] rcbuttal. 
I. Wt «:iill it an ""rwnt 1 <raly bccausc thc : rnjraculous 3 may cotmc [posiliwly] wilh 
sorcirLlmiL* iimisuaL aild iL mfty OGitic nrejiUiydy CL>nLravei]iiig whitL is u*ual. 2, Wc 

caU il Vxir;irnxliTiary ,? to digiiiijpsish iis dahnAm Ironi -wyone else- 3- We c;ill ie a 

4 cIom ^ssoi^aiiciii wiih a rh-LlIi*nging cl-iicri [10 pnjphclk slngubriiy]: 11 ksr ;i Iiat sh-THilrl 
wak"h a mLt^lc fr>r hhiisdf out frr>m [hf pasc, .lomc thing ihac would riislangiJLsh 

[a prophct'5 HLgns] trora thc "[ircnera]] slijm ihai - pcntrnd [chc coniLci^ of| a prophct 

acid frc>in the divinr pcramal twors fgivcn Ln saLnLi and prophcu]. 4. Wc caB. u 
'[an e%nc*ntj ^-idniul any succ(!Hsful rcbutlaJ 1 to dLsiirigUiLsh tL Tram [cammon] rriiL^ir 
and slcL-ghl of hand," 

ib Bayda.vti s discussL-an of thc "niiraculoLis 1 bcgins H\iih thc delinilion of it, as 
i^.vcn \vy F.D, Rauzi <ijld ^uulcd jusl jbi>ve. 1'hcci Baydawi befjijis hert Lo prcstill 

^ampEes oJ" irLiraculou^ ^'«ifc thait are ibund in Jbu Sina : s Teinh Kind' Lal-nama! 

al-^ashir] (].c. fl of his u Remarki and Admoniuom 1 ), wt^Lc Isfahani 7 in tiii ium ? goe» 
inlo the esplLcatiDn of thc miraculniis musch motrc fully. [Sce Ibn Sina*s al-Isharat 

wt-al-TimbihGti v. 3 f f?p. 3-95^418,] Hic kinds of miraculou-s cvcrits mauh ihe p+urts 

of Ra»"» *definixiw of thc mLrjiruJous': a. I) nhe mir^cle workcr gping without food 3 

;l,Uj cht tiui;uj|c vfc-mik.iT prsi^adLng L n 1 Vi r j i i 34 ! r j ;iboui the unsccn and Jionprescnt 
wtwld [al-ghaybj, aiid b.) the mLiracLi" work^r^s p«:rionjjan<:e of snmi: inmiLtahlc fcacs 
of control owr Jiacure. Tbn Swna^s tnalcrial is qivcn finom thc jtandpwinc of psy- 
rhoLngy. Baydawi and Istahani niake brkf ^latcmcncs of miraclcs from thc stand- 
point i>f rdipon. 


Mlilniijgh if such nourishmeni wt:re io Im^ k^pt frnrn hhn iin any other 

( ircura^tancc^ hc wuuld peri&h. 

Therc is a rcfrrcncc to tliis sort of casc irt thc sayirig of ihe 

"I am not likc any of you; I lodge with my Lord» and Hc gjvcs 

mc food and drink. 11 * 

(2.) Also, a miraclc would bc as when a cercain person can 

providf: inlbnnation about ihc umre.t\ jn thal there occnrs to him 
whilc awake what wnuld occur tc> him while asleep. L 412 

Whcrrcupon his souL rhruugh its own powtr and ils rcfincmerit Crurrl 
bodiJy occupaliona, is joiricd with thc t:ckstial angcis [Lc... of intcl- 
lcct and soulj. and [his soulj becomes niarkcd all ovcr with thc par- 
tkular ftmm ihat arr witliin [the angel*] atid which occur m our 

universe. For thcsc ft>rm& arc the means and ihe causes of their ckU- 

tcnt naturcs that arc pcrccivcd both in thcir csscnccs and in what- 

evcr is based upon them r From [rhis outer layer ol thc soul] thcy 

arc transicrrcd to thc [souPs] powcr of 'imaginaLLon'., and froin chat 
to [the souPaJ *smim ol" coordination*, and so Lhcy would bc obscrv r cd 

as something visible and palpable, and this would be a revelation_ 

Morcwr, sometune* ihere will be a linkage JDuied and the bond will 

be very strong, and iheti the person will hear (brmally ordered speech 

Irom a vision that addrcsscs him. It appcars tliat thc sending dowia 
oi sciiptiircs takcs placc lti this manncr. 

b. CJti the other hand, a rniracle may be a*; when a cer tain pcr- 

son would pcrfbnffi something thc likc of which no amomu; of [humanj 

strcngth could achicve«, as for c^ainplc, whcn hc might prcvcnt H 
wacer from its normal riowing,, and rhcn it would gnsh forth from 
bctween his hngers and from his finger tips. That would he as wben 

God! Mosi High wotild give [the prophetic figure] authority 3 * ovcr 

thc phenontcrial matter of crc^ted things and thcn hc would havn 

cxccuth r c command ovcr thcm ju&t as hc has cxccutivc command 
over thc parts of his o^ti hody. This wonld be espccially truc rcgard- 

hig whatever accords with his own speciiic temperament and has a 

commonaliiy with his own iiature. and thm it is that [the prophctic 

w Hadiih; "I m* mi l^ke my <4 j ! Om. i: [T, 41 1:2^-3», L 413:17], nrw Jor^cnd 
in thc hadilh indrii^a. 

w T skips thc iwrb ^pm^ent/ 1 L: [an yumna']; MS Carrctt 2G3-H: |sn lurnn^]. 

w L: |bi-an yusaltit 'aLaH; T: [>;:-an yusaDit AUah ^ala^ MS Garrett 283B and 
MS Gamill 989Hb: [bi-an jiasaLlitahu Allkh ta c aJa 3 ]. 

970 3> section i n topils 

figiire] performs whatever h-e wills from within [his own natnre]. 

This [mueh] is in accord with the doctrine of the philosophers. 
Howcvcr 9 our [Baydawi] doctrinc is thai God who is praiscd and 

exaltcd has the auionomoua powcr to cndow spcciallY whomevcr IIc 

wills of 59 humankmdl His- creaturcs by l revtlation' and 'mirade 1 and 
by dispaichms( an angel and scTiding down Scripturcs 10 [that oncj. 

Tslahani says: 

I. 412, T 200, MS 21 lb 

7flj6xf 2: Ihe pojsibilite 0/" mmttks /?w p-yychuhg? tmd whgionj 

A mirade is 

a r an extraordtnary evem, wherher it is 

1. a [contravcning of nature co] the negation of action, or 

2- a [scimulation ol it to| posilwe acrion., |;ind the pvent isj 

b. cluscly associatcd with a t.halltiiging daiin [to propheiic sin- 

gularity]» without thcrc bcing any 5ucccssful rrhuttal* 

(aj [Baydawi, with F.D. RaziJ said thal a miraclc is onc of two 
[kinds ol'] cypnts,* 0, T 201 becauae jjust as a miracle may be a 
[posirive] aciion produring somerthitig extraordinary [in narurt:], 41 

ju&t so it may be a [ncgatiYe] action contravening somcthing ordi- 

nary [111 naturc]/ 2 " and [Rayj] said, "[Wc t-a.ll il] cxiraordinary" only 

to distirL|fLiish its claimant from anyonc clsc- 

(b.J Atid we [Razi and Isfahani]* 3 say that thi* evcnt [by its- pur- 
pose] is closcly assoriated only widi a cliallenging claim to prophctk 


1 _ in order that a liar may not takc as his own thc miracle of 
somconc in the past w as an ar^umcnt for himscir, and 

** L has omjHc-ri ilic prcpttdtion [min] hcrc. ajncly by inaiiwrtcnce; T rein- 
scrls lL 

w I&fahani rcstatcs what Baydaw has borrowed FrOM F.D. R.azi'5 MuhassttL 
p. 207. 

* L As [Ebr csamplc.l thc Proph-rt. upoii him bc (j^u:^ makir? water flow fnim 

betw*en hit Angprs, or for a persut3 to sp«ak a* if deranged [talalluim al-Ablsi 1 ]. nnd 
(h* ILIce, 

*■' MS gl: As to abstatn ftom cating and dn-nkinp. 

** The MS howcwejr, uscs ihc (hisrd singular of rhe vi>rh H ^Unljucing ihe folli>w- 
ing jTi^ccnal dircutly to Bayctawi, who is quoring frnrn Fi). R.a*i |1oc, ck.J. ldahani 
ydds Ac maiiTial Ihjiii Rtoi fcw thc cjuocaiions Ebllcvmng hete P tlicn Launchc» Lnto 

his Lnng i fc xpi5*idon ot"rhf: phtlnsr^ihcr Ihn Sina 1 » ]isycho]Qigifjil rheriTy of what *mir-- 
aclcs' may bc. [Scc Ihii Sina.'^ ai-hharat iLW-ai-Tanbikat, v. 3 ? pp. S95-4IS.] 
•^ MS gj: [Lp.,] of thc prophcEs. 


2- in orrkr that [chis miracle] mighc be distinguishcd from 
a) the divine portent* of a coming prophet 1 * and from 

thc divine favor* [of lioly powcr given to saints and 

prophi 1 w] r 

Thc author of al-Sikah [Isma d i] ibn Ilammad al-Jawhari] said [giv- 
ing as an exampkjj 'l have chalkngcd a person when I vdcd with 



hirn in somc attion and attemptcd to wrrat from him a victory. 

The B divine signs [portending tlie] immini:nt [■mming of a| propheL 
ara Lhe ocxnrrenoe& of phcnomena tliat are yiotationti of the cus- 

tomary orckr [of nainre] thai indkatc thc [iTriTnincnl] dispan hmy; 

of a prophs-t beibre he is dispan hrd. And so, it would be aa if there 

has bcen laid a foundarion for thc pillar of praphethood ? sincc thc 
term '[riha]*, spclkd wich an Y, means the first ut stones in 

a wall, and a person will say, "I laki down ihe first range of stones 

lor ihc wall in a way that will make it stand firm" 

[F,D, Raei^ with Baydawi quoting him] said, w and without there 

being any s-ucce3sful rebuluil," only to distingnish [thc miradej from 

[common] magic and slcighl of hand, 

[l.i An example of the contraveiring t>f somrthing ordinary [in 
naturc] would bc that somconc should keep himself away from nour- 
ishment lor an unu&ual period of time, [and thac] togcther with [that 
ac:£i-::-Ti tlicrc would br] ihc prcservmg of [his] liic and hcnlth» this 

[latter action ordinarily] bcing sonicthing posaiblc. [But] the cxpla- 

narion of this should hc prcccde.d by an introductoty &tatemcnt of 
the fact that each entity, human sout and human body, i& made up 

of structurcs that arc accidental lo each hosL ITins, of these stiuc- 
turcs that bclong to tJie soul MS 212a .somc ^lninLures may dcscend 
into the bodily powers, just as L 413 from the structures (brmerly 
belonging to the bodily powers some structures may cisoend 3 auajn- 
ing to rhe essence of the souL For indecd, frequcndyj some intcl- 

lectuLil structurc will bcgin and bc accidcntat to the soul, and fthcn] 

fi [arhlj] — li pl. signes qui ann&n«ni U venue d"m\ piropheu-j p. rx., cenain ecbi 

qu'c>Li croit avoif ^i] s»r h frrnu dn pi^re du proplntc" inidcr' Jr;iiha^aj in A. 
Krkziniir^d'R Dittknmiiu Arabe Fmn£ms. i. 11; hut [this p.trrk.ular s^nse] ih not tound 

/Jum>d*. W^-hr 1 » /ttrijrtnflp> (/jMwS™ Itnttm Awbk uinics Lhb rool cniirely. 

** Thc vcav^E pinndng on thc thncc vctl^. hcre appc^ to co<nfusc ihc pcr&on of 
iheir subjccis: L, thc MS arid ^ES Garrrtt yftUlIa poinL the rtrat vcrb wilh a Ul 
pcT&c^n endinsi; and Lhe second and third. verba mth a ?nd pcrson cnding, T dwH 
rn>1 add vxmt- fc l poinliriK- 


the rcLationship* 7 will transier as a rcsult from that clcmcnt immc- 

fp the bodily povvers and then lo the members 

[of the body]. Gonsidcr haw it is when you are aware of thc prcs- 
cncc of God Most Iligh and think about His rnighty power, how 

your skin quivcrs and your hair stands up> and whcn you iccl somc- 

thing wiih any one oryour members or you have iinagined or you 

longcd ft>r or wcrc angcrcd ovlt somcthing, thcn thc linkagc that is 
bctween the soul and thcsc sub&idiary arcas will form a structural 
framc of refrrence wirhin your &oiil so that yoii may think abour 
[this exprrience] over and nver in submLs.-sive reAectinn,. ye$ 7 rather 

as it habit and natiLral disposUiun which \v\]\ empuwcr thc soul with 
thc abilitics of angcls* 

Thus, as the satLsfied soul seeks to matke the powers of the human 

body tractablc, [the powcre of the body] are drawn abng aHer'** | thc 

souPsl concerns to which it has been rouscd, whethcr thc soul has 
need [I^odily] powers or nof_ Therefore, as the son]"s nnrac- 

lion upon ihese [bodilyj powers increases, just so ihe mward incli- 

nation uf thesc powere incrcasics, and thcsc powcrs- bcuome morc 
fbrccfully divcrtcd away Ironi what normally govcms ihcm, tio lo 
rcfhmi from nouriahmciit Ibr ati octraordinary rimc is in ordcr that 

ihe soul will br attracird to the uniwrse ol" holy things and will 

tiiake the powers of the bi»dy follnw after it Thereupon the naiural 

actrairics rdated to ihe vc^ctablc powcre of dic soul ccasc opcrat- 

ing, so the re is no food disintegration and dispo&al from [the prophetic 
figure 5 s physical body] iLs ordinarily there woukl \k frt?m any other 
l>udy, ^iid [die prophctic figure 9 s body] b^corries abic to get aiong 
without rcplcnishment 

This is just as whcn a sick pcrson^s natunil powcrs arc divcrtcd 
from chc digestivc disintegration oPhcnchcial mattcr and thc disposal 

* ? MS gl: I.c. ? bctwctn the soul and the bod)'_ 

H Readirij!; [khatfa] rather thaii fkhulqji| a althourgh she MS ii vowe]ltMi to re-ad. 
fkhulqa! ■afc-:naiV|. I and L and T le-iwij |kh-Ui.|] thouRh urmiwplled. MS Ganrtt 989Ha 

iitid MS CJarrotl-YsLhuriH 4+86 ;T. lfila:l^ rm&\ [khiiliaj. 

E.r,. Galvcr]cy his a nore on "hc niargjn of hoch I. 412 and MS 2l!ja: 
^'[kha^a]* says SSN, Shaykh Sayyid Nawwar/ 1 [Shaykh Sa^id Nawwar waa a 

Rjecogn^d sirholar fA:[[m] of'a[-Aa:har Umveraty wlw wa.s a tnemlwi' of tlw fac- 
dcy ]» ihc Schoo! of OricniiU Smditt, American Cmvcrsicy ac Caho, aiid wa* con- 

sultani to Prolessor Calvfrley oei d^s spanilataon m (hr ?.pri^g and symmjcr of 1945. 

IIip EdUcir was privT.kged m stL*dy in h:d hy Shaykh 5Layyid fcn lwo acad- 

cmic ytao, 1946/47- 1947/48.] 

** MS gk i.t.;, an csichangc for ^vhat has bccn dLsint^^ratcd;, mcaning focd. 

rKOPiH-rniouD 973 

of refuse maiter, ihe healthy mattcr is kepc back wilh only a littlc 

digtstiort and nocds tio rcplcniahmcnL so thc skk pcrson docs not 
ask for nourishmenL And pcrhaps thc inan would cvcn ceage froni 
taking hi& nourishmcnt for a. whilc, — if the nourishmcnt were to bc 

stoppcd for just as long in some other situation, or rather, jusi Ibr 

a tcnth of thc dme, thc man would pensh, — but for all thaL, hc is 

prcscrvcd alivie. A rclcrencc to a casc oi' this sort is in thr saying of 

the Pmphet, "I am not hke any ofyou; I Jodge wich my Lord v anri 

Hc giws me Ibod and drink." MI 

You must undcrsniLidi thiii thc proccs-s of digestion is inn-nupted 

in chc statc MS 21 2b when the soul as attracted to the presencc 

of holy things only slightly less than it is in tbe staic of sickness. 

Why should. it nol be so, when a severe illness is not without thc 
proec&scs of digcstion bccausc of thc fcvcr., cvcn though thc digcs- 
tion docs not proceed naturaily, Besides thal, in the si-ck pcrson therc 
h somethLng opposed io hirir' 1 which lowers liis strcngth bul which 
docs not cxisL in thc souPs statc of bcins attractcd that is mcntioncd 
abnve. So ir is ihat the nne who inwardly turns to holy things-' 

what a sick nian has 3 namely, the dhcrsion of nature 

Froni its procc» of thc digcsrion of bcncficial mattcr, u? wcll as 

two additional thirigs, the loss duc to & levcrish comti- 

tution poorly maintainin^ its digcstion, and the Iras duc to thc ill- 
ncss opposing his natural power; Moreover, the onc who inwardly 
curns to holy thtngj haj 

a third causal lactor, L 414 namcly, rest for his body 

froni a condition of constant bodily movcmcnts ? that bcing a favor 

Hroni the Divine Helper, for ihe one who inwiirdUy turns to holy 

ttiings htt prrtbrcncc in thc mattcr of dic prrsrrvation of his Htrcngth. 

(2.) Anothcr rx<implc of thcr Prophct pKrrlomiiilg a posilivcly 
exiraordinary act would bc his giving of intbrniarion aLwjut thc unsccn 
world. in that thcrc would occur to him whcn hc would bc wakc- 
ful what would oocur notnially to him in his sleep, For a man sonie- 
[ime.s observes the unseen ici die state of .sl«p, [and] so to obscn-e 

it whe-n Ltwakc would ako bc possiblc. 



* A hadith. Sfc tlic notc 4iL thb placc in Bciychim^ ttsL 

ss MS gli- Nvimdy, dw iDness. 

r,? [at-nniiawitjJLth ila JI jaiiab al-c|mbj„ 

hl Ibn Sijia Lakcs up thii Ĕirst cxampJc ;"a. L) tri hia zl h&arai it^-^Tanbihai v. 3 t 
pp. 595 39*? Jthis is thc Tchcran cdSiion^ rsprintcd in ihc carly IM0V|. 


ITic obstacle to observin|5 the unseen when awake is an 

tliat may l>e removed, as h for examplc, a preoccupation. with sensi- 

blc objects. But as 10 onc*s obscrt ation of thc unsccn in slcep» this 
h indkatcd. by both 

a) expcriencc and 

anaktgk-al reasoniiig, 

Resjardinjj cjcpcricncc» it consists in both 

1) direct iccognition, which h a way or dcscribiog the 
evem of an observance of the unseen in the steitc of sleep by the 
ohserver hlmscJl^ and 

2} knowing by hcarsa>v H which i& a way of dcscrihing 
thc cvcnt of the albrcsaidi ob&crvation by spmc one other than the 

observer himseir. and tJiese two p.e,, direa recogniuon and know- 

ing by hcarsayj give witness to [thc cxpcricncc]. w Thcrc i& not a 
single pcrson who has nol expericiH:ed this ibr himseir, in that he 

had an experience that itispired a be!ieving judgment in him, uiiless, 

God lbrbid> thc individual should havc a bad cempcramcnt a bcing 
disturbcd in his imaginatEon and mcmory. 

(b) Regardin^ analoeical reasoning, tt is that particulars 
J) in ihe realm of intellect^ are marked with an impres- 

sion as universals, and 

2) sunung the cclestial £ouls [thcy arc markcd] with an 
imprcssion as nnivcnjals with rcspect to thcir csscnccs^ bccauac thc 

celestial wuh arc scparacc subs-tances^. thcir matter not having an 

imprcssion but rather, having a linkagc with thc sphcrcs as our souls 
havc with our horiics,, and also 

[the parriculars] are markcd with an impres&inn m 
particulars with r&spect to the Jbrnis that art- imprtitsed up*>n rhe 

material of the ^pheres, 

In SiLmmary, pariiculars MS 213a in ihc rcalm uf intcllcct* 7 
havc tbc mark of an imprcssion ol' a uiiivcTsa] structurc, and in tiic 
realm ol' soul they have thi fc mark of wo impression^ T 202 one 

of which is of a untvers;.tl stmcture, and ihe other of a pariicular 

structurc that b &cnsilivc to thc immcdiatc moment, the Jirst imprcs- 
sion being accoiding to thc essencc |of t]ie particulars] and ihe seo 

l'lii.. . i.:i.i..i, ,:I.i:n [.il-l,. .11 11I . kj n..".-. 1 !, \y kr;i¥Hii.\ [.i.-l^.imu' . 

v MS 5jJ: JlLrrruirh inspirataDn [ilh3m|. 
H " MS sjl: Tbc tL-n ■wt-JtPLial intdlKts. 
® \1S p;J: Thc ttn ccJestial intdlccta. 


ond impression being aceoiding (o their instrnm^ntaJity- The human 

soul may bc markcd with thc imprcssion of that realm [of soul] in 

atcordancc with its own rcadincss and with thc di&appcaraiicc of 
any impcdhiicnL For it cannot bc denicd tliat somc of thc unsccn 

irom its world h impressed upon the human sotiL 

Furthemxore, the powers of ihe ssoul are boih mutually aujractivc 

and conAicting, so riiat whcn angcr is arousrd thc soul is too pre- 

occupied to havc low desires, anri vir.e vcrsa_ VVhc:n the intcrior scnse 

is extfusive]y eng^rd in its own business then the soul k coo pre- 

occupicd for cxlenial scnsation and ncarly bccouics non-sccing aiul 
non-hcaring;, and [in turnj whcn the cxtcrnal scnsc is cxclusivcly 
cngaged in its own busines* then the aoul 15 too prcoccupicd for 

interioi' actkity. Now, when the internaJ sensc is attracted 10 che 
estcrnal scnsc a thcn that sanic attraction makcs thc intcllect iiicline 
toward the extemaJ sense, so that it cca.sps tirom the rational acriv- 

ity in which the incettact often has need for its own full instrumcn- 
tality.^ Aitd, although thc suul is now uccupied with the externa] 

scnsc L 415 and is involvcd in thinking ahout what it pcrcciwcs 
Lhrotigh ihe estternaJ sense, the attr&ction of the soul m tlu direo- 
tion of this great activity^ does turn aside. Thus it becomes 

[mm its activities that are its own by monopoty, namely,. rhinking. 
Aud whcii thc soul has bccn thus busy ^nd is ablc 1 ' 1 to liuld in chetk 
thc intcmal scnsc under its own dirccdon thcn thc cxtcmal scnscs 
also become weak and nothing of the custoniaiy ]iifonnation comcs 
from th^m to the soul. 

Howcvcr, thc 'icnsc of coordinarion' is a tablet of imprcssion» rtnd 

this \^.'\y-\. |. wlicn aij iniipr». s.-ii: m on h ouj lir niacli: |[hai u idcnti- 

cai to ihe observation], oomes to have validir>' as if it were the 
ihint^ beitjg witnesscd. '1 hcri, perhaps» the sciisoi^ inipres.sion passes 
away from ihe c^teriial sense, but |hc fonn of the irTipnessioti remainsl 

MS OAinrerr 9891 lsi ^ TbU beiiig m inwm^l powtrs- 
w MS gl- Tliis bchig tbe KtKity wixh the setisanons [imaljsitesj]. 

m R^ading [takiiaJb'] n^ich thc MS :nid MS Garrctt JJtiSHa. [, and T: [tajalLt^. 
*■ L and T: [ist^maltkan^r^ rhe MS^ MS Garpett 9A1MU »nd MS Garmc-YalLu^la 

4486: (i^hta^halaii] . MS GArartcT 5*ft9Ha has glo-w: "^&S sybsnEiirioi:!"': [bhtamakkatiar 
<iy iqia.darnl]j s 

** L und T: [al-ji^ts cnijiiiijj; MS Gametl 969Ha: [al-mii^]] niinhuj; ih*.' MS aruJ 

rcadings appcar nrarly ]dc:nucaL; cmr prclcmicc comn co hc. a ^nthcsJs ol" thrsc 

64 Rcading [baqiyat| W\ih <ht MS aiad MS Garrrtt 9&9Ha. L and T: [yaghTb]. 

976 3« &EGTION 1, TOPIC5 

upon the 'sensc of roordination*; it rcmains as valid as something 

'witiiesscd', and not as soinetbing 'unctrtainly estimated', a* ihe 

imprcssioii of a falling drop i& rnadc a& a atraight linc, anri a point 

circling about is the impre&s ol" the circumlcrcncc of a circle* Then 
if the MbmrT is reprc&cnted on thc tahlct of thc L scnse of coordina- 
tion^ it hecomes something va]id!y witnesLsed ? eqnally whrthei" [the 
ionn] is 

aa] at thc first stage of its bcing imprcsscd on thc 

'sense of cootxlination* from the extemally sensed object, or it is 

bb) what remains of [rhe form] MS 2l3b aJong 

with what rctnains of the externaUy semed objecu or it is 

cc) che ccrtainty of |tlj ■ tbrm] after thc lading of thc 

sensed object, or it is 

ddj Lhe uccurrcnce of the forrn iii the "sensc of coor- 

dinauon 91 but not coming dirccdy Iroin tJic objcct scnscd. 

Onr nf the things that indicate th&t a form from rhe imaginarinn 

may be tnscribcd on the 'sense of coordination' from an imernal 

causc is thn.t pcoplc sick whh plcurisy or bilious disordcr, that is s 
thosc in whom black bilc has ovcrcornc thcir propcr constitution, 
will sometimes obserre forms that arc senscd as cxternal and pre- 

sent but having no relation to any externatly sensed object. So there- 
fore tlie impression of chem is etther from some inicnial cause, this 

bcing thc powcr of imagination that has cxccutivc control of thc 

storehouse of the imaginatian., or elge it is from some cause cttccrive 

upon an internal cause, thia being the soul from whioh tlie fonns 

arc transinittcd ** by way of tlic powcr of imaginatiun 65 that is reccp- 
Uvc to thc imprcssion of thcm 3 to thc l scnsc of coordiuadon*. "TJiis 

is bccausc thc L scnsc of coordinntion" somctimes rcccivc& imprcssion& 
from the Torms* that movc frccly in thc sourcc of imagination and 

estimation^ that is 3 the fonns* 7 to which the actions of thes* two 

powcrs [i.c, imagiiiiii^ y,nd c&liniAting] wv Lmkcd. For whcn thc 

fK)wcr oi imaginirL£r bcgins tcj cxcrt cilccliUvc conlrol ovcr Jtlic linkcd 
fomi5i] somc ol" thc icirms Linked to that control are inacribcd on the 

M L and T: [yaC^adda*]; MS: [tabL^cUa 1 ], 

65 L an.<1 T: [^t-muWiavyibh r ; MS; [aJ-rrnitath.iyyilahJ, abbreriated ftom iht pre- 

cediiig fbrm in all lhr« scpurc«: fai-qiivva]i al-mutakhayyilahj. 

* MS gl: Thc sjourop o\~ Lrnagining [ma^din iil-takJiayyul] is in the inipisinati 

I I 

[aHthavf I , while thr sinurre of «timaLiris [ci]-Lawalihu[iiJ is i]] the pu wcr of inenb- 
Owy [al-^uwah al-hSfix:Sh|r 

s; L ^nd T err, LHHrtg thĕ simgu'lar. 

PROPiu-.nioon 977 

seiue °f coordination, juat as lorms are aJ&o imprintcd upon thc 

"source of imaginatioii* anri [the 'source of] estimation 1 from thc 

tablet of the scnse of coordination, ihis being cJosely similar to what 

goes on bctwccn mirrors which faee each other. 

Twu troubling iactors hindcr™ thc iinprinting 011 the sensc of coor- 

1} The iirsc faclor [!.<■., sJeep] ls sensory and cxternaJ. 

oelc Lhat hindcrs ihe scnsc of coordinaiioii, through ihe external 

forms imprintcd on it, from rccciving forms froni an nilernal causc, 

as if the extema] sense were ricprning ihc sensc of eoordinarion of 

the power of imagimng by force and vioIating it wrongtully- 

2) And thc sccond fkctor p.c^ illncss} k mtellectu*) and 
intcmal, or s csciinative and intcmal, one that imposcs rcstraint upon 
the imaginatiori L 416 fiom hinctiotiingj — that is, operating in 
spitc of confuscd ansiety, — [and] citcrcises controJ over [the imagi- 

nation] in thc rational or csEimativc Uiings that arr ii-a conceni» so 
that the power of iitiuginatioTi is disiracted through giving obediencc 

io [this sccond faciorj frorn takinjj authority ovcr the •ensc off ooor- 
dination, and thus> thc powcr of Srnaginatian is not ablc to inake 
any imprcssion on thc scnsc of coordination bccansc [thc irnagiiiing 
powcr's] own [intellcctual] movemcnt is weak + in ihat [ils m«vcnieiit] 

follow*, but is not foLlowed. 
If one of ihesc two hindering Ikctort should be inacriw, — either 

the scnsoiy cxternal or thc rational/estiniativc iritcmalj — whilc ihe 
othcr hindcring lacior remains activc ? thcn oitcn MS 214a thc 

second [active] hitideriug factor may lack ihe strength to impose 

rcstraint* so [ihatj thc imagining powcr rcturns to iis» [iiiLcllicclual] 
action arwi ext=:rci-ses authioiicy over tlie sensc of coordinarion^ and 
thns mak«J4 Ibrms apjn^ar upon tlie sense of coordinadon as if thcy 
are bcing plainiy v\dtnessed. 

(\) Skep is an ob^ious hindrance of the otternal senae, 
Somctimcs thc soul \s hindcrcd in ftlccp s in that it is drawn aside to 
thc nalural funclion;, that is., dig^sting liic lood over which it has 
chargc, [i[ie soul thus] sRekitig rast fmm odier activitics. Ihcre arc 
Iwo aspccts lo this: 

aa) If thc sotil should not bc drawn asidc to thc na(u- 
ral funcdon 3 but should bcgin it^ own work thcn thc natural Juuction 

ffl I- and T: [jit-Nawlrir]; MS and MS Garr^cr 9B1JHa: [ad^ariri- 

978- ^ *fc*7iiorc i, topics 

\vould wait and fol!ow it; l^,,, so the soul would be distractcd from 

managing the food wad ihc concem of thc body would be dbturbed. 

But the soul is created to rnanage the body a 50 it is naturaEly drawii 

to carc for thc natural funcdonJng. 

bbj Slecp is morc iikc iilncss than heaJth., because slccp 

is a state chat give$ man, on account of his need to property man- 

agc Iiis body, a rcadincss lo take nourisbniciit ;uid to uiaiiitain the 
wcliarc of his. bodily members, whilc during Ulness thc soul is cngagcd 
in aiding the uarural iiinctiorLs- in its managcmcrii of thc body, so it 

is not free T 203 to do its sperial work nntil aiier health rctums, 
Su thcn thc two usual agciicics of aclivity'° in sletp arc inactiw:, and 
sincc that is thc casc thc intcmal powcr of imagination is the dom- 

inant power It fin<ls the sense of coordiriatiori idle, so then it inscribcs 
on [the aense of coordanation] imaginary H^ures thai are as clear as 

if thcy wcrc things bcing plamly witnc&scd; thus b in slccp various cir- 
ciimstances ane seen to lw as valad as if they were ihings hdng pbmly 

Whciicvcr illncss dominatci* thc chicf body mcmbcrs/ 3 

the soul is attractcd complctcly lowards thc illiicis. t and that altrac- 
tion huidcrs it irom its carcful control so that onc <if thc two agcn- 
cics of carciial activiiy [Lc., scnsing and reasoning] is wcakencd, and 
it would not bc hy a rerriote chance that the itnaginary fbmns being 
inscribcd upon thc tablct of ihe sense of coordinHtion -should bc 

aflcctcd by the wcakncss of onc of thc&c tw r o agcncics of carcful 


Jiul whcncvcr thc souJ is strongcr s its passivity bctbic thc atlract- 
ing ibrccs is Jess and its carcful contral of thcsc two agcncics of caro 
iul actKit^"' 7 is strongcr, and whcnc\ r cr thc situation is thc rc\ r crsc. 
that rcsult b thc rcvcrsc- Likcwisc, whcncvcr thc soul is strongcr 

ihen U h less distracted by other preoccupatioiiSj and ics abilit) 10 

SS-CSHa.: ■nluy;i c ai ! hsa] I w\ih [la-caba^ilia.] as a glo^w in rhf laHctr. T: Pa-shaba^acTiii] 
[pmb^tbly a L^pn^raphksd crror inccndcc co bc samc as L*s rcaditi^ dic tcxt oli 

which T e biiwd]. MS Gwrm-Yaluida 44»6 (C I62br3J {protoble readirtgj: [la- 

shSya^aha], MSj [ta-t4ba*at s hJi]. No prcpojiiion |'a]a H ] fblli»v$ any of th*! [ihiya^ai] 

* MS gh I.c, cxkitul1 scndrHj; ? and inLcma] rcasonlnR 01 cstLmating. 

,! MS g]: Such cis thc hcart and thc bead, 

™ MH p]: I.c. ? rhc cxttrna] iLnd ?}k: inccniaJ tcnsen. 


devotc itecir in thc oihcr dircction is appreciably gre-ater. And if [the 
soul] is mighty in ita powers^ thcn this will be a mighty cau&aJ fac- 
tor. L 417 

Now T il thc soul i* enjoyLng good health, then hoth its careful pro- 

tection ol itse]f fVorn MS 21+b anything ihat would oppose iis 

well-being and cvict it frorn the dcsirable statc of heallh it enjoys, 

and its own artivc dcportmcnt in ways that arc appropriatc and in 

accepring whatever brings it closer to (the desired state of healthj, 
thcn all thc&c [actividcs] will bc strongcr. 

But if [healthy] sensory dtsiraciions should [cssen and r.ontinue to 

be less, ihen it would noi be by a remote chance 

m) ihat ihc soul shuuld have iuicxpecied moments of 
cscape that rclcasc it iYom thc distracdng acdvity of thc imagination 
inlo the presencc of holy things, and 

hb) ihat there should lie itiscribed on it' 5 some imprcs- 

sion from the unseen world universa] in aspect. The ellect of 

then extcnds ovcr into thc rcalrn of the imagmation, and thcrc,, upon 
thc acnse of coordinacion, particular Jbrms are inscribed thac arc 
appropriate (0 that inscriptioii of intdligcncc. And aU this [would 
be] occurring cithcr in thc state of slccp^ or in the state of some ill- 

ness or othcr which distracts scnsc and weakens imagination. [This 

Ls becausej, sometimcs Lllne^ wcakens thc imagination, atid somo 

timcs k is weakened by too tnuch activity that necessitates digestive 
action by the spirii whicli is the uistrument uf thc imagiiialion r And 

when thc imagination bccomcs wcak. it bcgins to bc a litdc morc 
quiet and a ]itde hit idle, and the soul is drauTi lo the prewnr.e of 

snhliTTHj ihings uith ease. 

Thenj, if some [\i\id] imprcssion should cornc npon thc soul thcti 
tlic imagination is rou&cd toward that imprcssion and acccpts it, and 
ihat occnrs for two rcasona. Eithcr 

a) it is because something gives notic^j. with ragard to tliis 
mcoming impression,, that It is something strangt 1 , alihough thi^ MCtiv- 
ity of ihe imaginadon cumcs alicr it& h;tving bccn ai rcst and its 
hiuing bccn Icsscncrtj for the imaginadon acts swifdy in responsc to 

anything like this iiotice; or 

b) it h on account of thc radonal soul"s scr\ntudc toward 

[the iitiagiiiation] by naturc, and indccd, thc imagination is an aid 

73 The prornjun is TneUCuKnc ffihi] ullhouKh thc antcccdcnt is ihe sou] |cLiifsl 

980 % SEtrriON l, TOPICS 

to the soul at ttie timc of these good intimations.** lf tlic imagina- 
rion should rcceivc thai intimation at a timc whcn distractiom arc 

remoto fmm i.he soul, it is thein imprasswod on the tablei of the sense 
of caordination. And if che soul should he &trong in mbstancc: so 
ihat it ex[ends inco other arcas of attraction, thcn it would not be 

by a rcmotp chsuirc thnc this brief opportiinily and its qiiick use 

would occur during ihe state of wakefulness, 

Thus it is that somctimcs thc cffccl p.c., of thc imprcssLon) would 

dcsccnd into tbc vcry hcart of mcrnory 7 " and comc to a stop therc, 
bccause |of thc Prophet's| statcmcnt: 76 * r Vhc. spirit of holinesa 77 bn^athcd 

into my heart . . "™ thus and tbus, And fr«queritly tbe eflfcct of the 

imprcssion will dominaLc and shiric witli clcar brightncss. within thc 
imagiiiationj, and thc imagination will ibrcibly bring tbc tablcc of 
thc scnsc of ccordination to its sidc and thcrc on the tablct will draw 

a copy from the ineommg impressioii that had been insciil>ed on 

[thc imaginalion]. This would bc cspecially whilc thc ralional soul 

i>e heljiing ]t 7 not hinrieriiig, and this would l>e siinilar lo 

what the powcr of estimaiion someiimes does iri thc case of peuplr 

who are sick or indisposctl. 

This [i.e.j, thc cvcnt dcscribcd abovc] would bc prcfcrablc s bccausc 
indccd somcthing likc this. may bc bmught ahout MS 215a among 
pcople who are sick or indbspoiscd hy ihcir comipted power of esii- 

ination and their dlsturbc d and wealt imagmation r But among- the 

sainb and pcoplc of virlue thcir samtihcd, noblc and strong souls 

bring it about ? and in this latter case it would be more deserved 

and more appropriate than in that foraier case [i.e. 3 of thc sick and 

indisposcd] . 

Xow, thia evcnt of impression will vary in its intensity or wcak- 

ncssr Onc [timc it] iriay bc by thc ubscrva(iorL of a facndc or cur- 
tain only, onc [dnic it] may bc by hcarin^ thc sound of a voicc, 

onc [tiine it] may be by witnessing an image complete- in its apprar- 


14 MS ^ w Cood nmens"" JAl.$;i^Atiil"i] beine; ihe p^if^l or[s3iiihah] 3 tht iriiLiriiLiiini 
of wtiai: Li gortd. jTJ.B.1 ihc idngidar forni ts givcn variously as fctniiiinc or manculEnr.: 

n MS gl: ].c. ? thc Hcart. 

** R^idiihj, pi.f jnwtLh i j wiili ihc MS, MS (iarrclr IWSHa .inrt MS Carrclc-YahLi4a 
4486. L and T: [ka-qawlihi]. 

Isfahani statca in gcncric fonin the fir5t words of a hLidith scrics whcrc 5cri.ptu.rK 
wtoc comeycd tn ihc Prophel. 

r ' MS glr Narnel.y„ Jabra a il. 

lg MS rI: Ic^ 'in rny htart K , 

PRGPiirniCHiD 98 1 

ance* or by hearing L 413 speech that i-s alrcady in mcasurtd 
Ibitn Iroin one who h see-n 10 be addressing him, the obseiver, and 
it scems that 'inspiration* and the L scnding down of Scriiptures' would 
havc bccn in this manncr. And onc [tirnc it] may be in the most 

mbliTne sunrouitdings of bcauty, this being what is spoken of as wit- 
ncssing thc gracioiis face of God and hcarinej His speech with no 

You Aliouid undeniand that the power of imagination h naturally 
disposcd to adapt itsclP to cvcrythinjr ihat comcs ncar it„ whelhcr 
that 13 sometbing perceptibLe in shape or is an appcarance mixcd 
up with untkriiy, And fthe power uf irnagination] is quick to trana- 

fcr from a concrctc thing to somcthing cithcr nrsembling or con- 

trary to [a concrcte thing]. in short, [thc lmagination] is quirk lo 
transter to whatever has any linkage with [thc concrcic thing]. 

Moreover, for speciaJ cases there are particular causes without doubt, 
cven though wc oursclv« do not know thcm individually, 

Evcry intimation stirs tlic powcr of imacination in this transfcr~ 

ring it takes a grtp hoJding onc intimation fast- Thjj gripping 

is cithcr bccausc of thc soul J s strcngth opposcd Lo that intirctiuion P 

for when the soul is strong tbe imagination stops™ whcrc thc soul 
dcsircs h to stop*, and |thc sou]] hindcrs it frorn going bcyond to 

somcthing elaCj, or on account of the grcat clarity oi the imagc 
impresjcd on iht^ imaginatton, so plain that its reception is extrcmely 
clear and capablc of bcing reproduccd and evcn disiracts ihe imag- 
inatiun frorn turning right or lcft or frum nnoving Ibrward or bsw;k- 
ward, and a^ it does aLso when that powcr witncsscs somc odd 

situation the trace of it remains in the mind for quite a wliilc. 

Ihc reason lor that is that when the pcrc-epdons through thc phys- 
ical body powers are strong then tlies^ physical powcrs arc lcss able 
to rieal with weak perceptions^ so ihat the incoming spiritual cffcct 

that iiitimatesi good lo the sou5 in hoth the jtates of slecp and wakc- 

fulness is T 204 weak and will not \itaJizc the imagi- 

nation and thc hcarl^s mcmory, and &o nothing of its goud influeitce 
rcmains upon thcse two. 

Bli[ wrnelimcs [thc s.piriluaJ eJTect] is stronger than that level and 
it will vitalizc thc imaginadonj cxccpt for the fact ihat tl looks v r ery 

w TJie MS alon* reads lawqafarj with "the »wl" » che wrb^ subject and "'itw 

amajpnaLLLm* as ica objcrL 

982 % sectiok i s topics 

riirefplly st the transferring tinowments of ihe* poweir oF imiigiiiiitLon 

;md \\s l;i.:k i.\\~ Hr;n ik^h. MS 2!'jU Si i [the spirimal d]>4 l] rhu\s 

not grip ihe hcart 9 s inemory bul orily places a reslrainbig grip upon 

thc traiisfrrririg rnovcmrnts of the power ofimagiT]aliori and its rilbrts 
u> adapt itsrlf tc> its surroundings. And UGirtciirncs [thc spiritual cffi^tj 
is vcry stmng, andi thc soul rctcivcs ii w with ccrtainty artd a strong 
hearCp tso that the imagc 1$ irnprcssodl wery ctearly in the inirispna- 

tiun» thc soul hclpbig it in this. and [thc image] is strongly impressed 
in the heart^ memory, not being disturbed hy the transferring move- 

mcnts of tbe power of iniagtnatioD. 

Now thcsc various siagcs will not be apparent to you only Ln coti- 
ncction with thcsc spiritual cflecls, bul in all that you dcal with in 
your thnughts when you are awakc. Somcdmcs your thought will 

remain gripped withm your heart's memory, and soirtetimes it will 
tnmslcr from it to imaginary things which wiH csiuse you to forget 
what is important to you. Thci: you will nccd to analyzr thc mat- 

ter choTightiully 31 and move oti from the intimation sijjn that is held 

in a grip to thc intimation stgn ncxi to it s Trom which your thought 
had movcd away, w and in thc samc way on to something clsc. 
Somctimcs [onc ? s thoughtj makcs usc of somcthing it had forgottcn 
of what was prcviously importarit. but somctimcs it is cut off from 
it but makrs, llsc of it only by a kind of mcntaJ analysijs and inter- 

pretatiort, L 419 

Whatevcr was a tracc efTcct in which spo-ech was iirmly grasped 

and hcld fasl in tlic mcmory whcthcr in thc statc of wakcfulncss or 

slccp wuuld be an inspiratiun, a dear revelaiioji. ot- a dream thai 

nccdcd no intcrprclation or cxplanation. But whatcvcr had itscll 

ccascd, whilc rcprcscntations of it and continuations of il rcmainctl^ 
will havc nccd for onc of thc two [Lc^ intcrprctation ot explana- 

tionj, and ihat will vary in accordancc with thc individuals N thc timcs 

and the cusu»n^ ? Veveladojv havlng neecJ for exp[anation 7 and 'dpeams 1 

ha\ing nccd for intrrprctalion. 03 

* RcadJHg [taiaqqathu] wilh thc MS, MS Garrctt 989Ha, aiid MS Garrctt- 
Yahudii 4ii'ik lz (talLaTathuJ. T: [talaqqafathu . 

11 U T, AiDd MS Gam*t »fl9H--* ««I.; [rubalMl bwd-fikrl. Iti tbe MS rfw ^rd 

,li thc3iTJghcrMlly" ,! [3Sl: hy rhou^ht] p>i-al-fifer] i* inipmntrd and miswriTtMi, appitaritii; 
as fbi-a.l-'aks]. 

** Lj T 3md MS Gartett M9Ha; laUladhJ yalThi nitiiic^laii 'anlinj. 

The MSi: [al-Uidhi inta^ab l anhu Rkrulea]. 

" Ibn Sina then cliKCtwcs (Jif phriwinieiwi of a claimsju w prophrtic po«cfs 


b, Aitoihcr exampte of che things that pc*uively excced the cu^- 

lurnary ordcr is for a man who is a [challcnging] ckutcliUU lo prophclic 
singularity to pcrform &omcthing; ihc likc of which. cannot bc ach]cvcd 
by thc strcngth of pcoplc likc hirnscir, somcthirig ILkc thc prcventing 
of wajLcr from its tlowing; or ihc causing oi" U to (low Proni the spaccs 
bctwwn his fingcrs and his finger tips, And that wouid tre becaus.c 

God gtwea him authority over thc 'matter of all bcing$s' su that his 

soiil has [goYcrnin^] dircction ovcr it, just as hc has direction ov-cr 

ihe members of his body r ITiat would be because thc rarionaJ soul 

is not aomcthing imprcssrd in ihr buman body, but it is a substancc 

"acled from matter anri &elf-suhsistcnt, and whosc [guvcrmng] 
linkage witlii che hocly is like ihe linkage L>etwecn pLanning and acting. 
Thua, i( woukl not l>e strange if onc of the souls should posscs^ 
a natural di^posttion che inAuence of which would go beyond ii* own 
physical body to all thc othcr bodics a and that soul, on accouiit of 
iis powcr, wouki ejrist as a soul providiiig gm r emancc to mo&t of thc 

bodies of the univcrse, and just M il is an s effecttve cause' in its own 
body MS 216a in a manncr that is suitcd to lts uwu Lempcra- 
ment and that demonstrates its cwn essence,, it likewise has a 'causal 
eHect' al&o on all thc bodics of ihe univer«c in tliat there originates 
froin it within thosc bodics 4 qualilics 9 ihat arc the sources of iheir 

acts,, cspccially whatc\ r cr is in accordancc wilh its own spedfic icm- 
pcramcnl and ha& a commonadity with it in its nature. Thcrcfore, 
[thc governing soulj pcrlbrms within |ils own. spcciiic tcmpcramcnt] 

whatever it wills. 

This [intcq3rctadonJ is all in accord with tbe doctrinc nf the 

philosophcrs [primarily that of Ibn Sina].** 

However. our [Tsr^hani^ and Bayd^wi ? s SunniJ doctrine is that 
Cirxl Most High. ha\ing auionomous puwer ovcr all realitios |xwsi- 
bk'. spcoally cndows whujncycr Hc wills of Tnaulciucl His crc^rurr s 

gwing itilormniinM cmnrrmiiig" Thr: unsc^n wnrlrt i>f thf tliturc and of ihc sptrit, a 
l-raig expnsicinn (op. cit., v. S,. pp. 404J— 4U}. LsEahard foll(Jws this dLscussian in tiis 
prcBCTLLati-an of chis point in QaydawiV outlLne (a. 2_: "Anothcr esamplc of the 
Prophct pc-rlnrmini; . . . 1K J 

Kl Ibn Sina takcs yp thii hnad point (a claimant to prophctic jkjwcts heinjyj ablc 
Co tontrol thc pmwrs orf" ri.ilarc Ln a wuy no olhcr mortal can) hl die discusskHi &1" 
mirjtcks (b. Ln Bnj-dawL^ outlrnc) an his lat-c commcntiuy. al-IfAarat wo-al-T&ih.uHil, 
v. 3, pp. 411-416, 

Fazlur Ral.inaj]. m his Ryphtty in htam: Phib.iifky and Orth&d&jrpi cKp.Lc-ikt-ca Ibn 
SiciH 7 !? thtorj- of miracics prorphccy («pcclally [Chapter 2] pp. 50 91). 

984 ^ section i, topics 

by granting a revela.tion and a mirack, aiid by the riispaicbing of 
an ang« ] mcssengcr 10 him and senrlmg riown nf Scriptures to hjtn r 

Raydawi &aid; 

L4I9, T204 

Tfifric 3: Tkf propheihood of th* Prophet Alnhammad 


Thc |case ibr ihcj prophcihcicxi oi" our Propht*l MuhamniacL, ma\ 

<ic)ci l.ilrss hirn ;md piini him sahalicjn, is siippor«rd li\ f 1 1 i-i ■ f'ol- 

lowing] jKmits t*f cvid<"[icr. 

a. [As to his words and acnions]: 

] , Ht clainicd prophclhood, tliis bring a fact by consensuSj, and 
2- he produced a miracle. anoc 

he came hringing the Qur*an to us P and he ksued a chal- 

lcngc rcgarding it withoui being contradicled; and 

b) Hc gavc inlbmnation about thc things of thc unsccn world : 

1} He did so as shown by the word of [God] Most High: 

"Afkr their ddcal, thcy shall be victorious M ; [Qur a an 30:3] and ? 
"Indeed, He will bring you back as in a Homecoming"; [C^2B:85J 
"Yon will be r.allcd oiit against a peoplc who have greai strenglh'*; 
[Q,4fl:16| and, 

"God^ promise is tt> iliose of you who have believed [and have 

donc what is righij, to makc you Hij leading iTien in ihe land . . .]. 
[Q, 24:55] 



2) Mqreover ? thc Prophcr s own words are here: fi 

"The [rightful] leadership allcr me will last thircy years [sucoe*- 

sive] yeara;" 

"lic guided by those rwo who comc aftcr mc, Abu liakr and 

*Umar"; — -and [thc Ptaphct"s] statcmcnt to 'Ammar ibn Yasir, 

"Thc party covcfing powcr will kill you™ s and ['Ammaij waa killrd 
on the [Raitlc] Day of Siffin; — and [ihe Pr^phet^] statement to 
c Abbas [ibn ff Abd al-Muttalib] when [^Abbiw] dcspaircd of his Iifc„ 

** Baytlawi^ at>rf Isfahana aft?r him^ /otlow ihc material gathnrrrl hy F'.D, Raz.i 

in hi5 ^Cmipeiidhtm qf ~Tkottgf\£ Am-mt &nd A^utra" (= Mtthassal, pp_ 2l " ,p « ff.j ? but vary- 

inp sDm^whai in thc scqucncc and choitt of thc eK^mples Ty-r tht diHrrcnt pairits 


^" For thc sake of mdiiig dariiy, dic tcrrn, "thc Praiphci", %vill bc u&cd to trai!ia- 
lalc thc pronoun in thc third pcrson olien i^c<i in plhrases intrcidiKjn^ thr Prophct"s 

crwii words, Morccwei f iht formulae of eulogy tdlowing mcnii.on of God or one t>t 
more t>f tht propli«Ls r tsliphs, eit ,, ^il! 1k- uaed spttririgly, 


"Whcrc is the monty that you dcposiicd in Makkah with Umm 
al-Kadl [Luhabah^ your wifej, when no one was with tbc two of you s 
and you ^iid, lf I am killed*"' then *Abd Allah will have so much, 

and Fadl will h;ivc so much?*" 

[Another cxamplc of what thc Prophct kncw abuut 

thc un&cen world is whcn hc] pavc |advancc] informadon about 

Ehe death of the Najashi, and spoke of riots that would takc placc 
L 420 as wcll as othcr signs [m advance] that indicated his pmphct- 

hood. [signsj such as the ralamity™" of rcmotc Baghdad,, and the IVe 
that was jseen as lhi' as Busayra. 39 

Knrihermorcj the evidenoe indudea narratives from the 

cariy Muslims^ how hr had attairicd to such crxlcnsivc wisdoiTl in 
hoth theory and practice quickly and apparcndy without imtrunion 

or practical experiotitc. 

[In this category of evidenoeJ other mirar.les are tradiiionally 
rcportcd of him, such as thc Splitting of tlic Muon, the Grecting uf 
thc StonCj thc Springing of Watcr from bctwccn his FJiigcrs } llic 

Keening of thc Palni Log, the Complaint of the She-camel, [his] 
Knowing tht Poisoncd Muttori, and so on, thitigs thai are mentioTied 

in thc book titicd L The Proois of Prophcthood."*' Now, cvcq though 
not all <>f the.w [miraclc^] have a rerord of auihentir ity in tradirioii, 
th^ feature with commonality among them is well auLhenticated. 
Thercforc 3 wc roniliidc^ hc is a praphrt, 

Indccd» if a man should stand up in a great [royal] assembly and 
say d "I am sent to you as. thc mciwcngcr of [my] King a ** whoreupon 
chcy woiild rcqurst from him proof, and hc then should say, "O 
King [he., of tliis pcoplo], if in yonr sight I am speaking the truth 

in my invitation to you^ thcn divcrgc from your custom m d\i\\ risc 

from 91 your seat to siand," and if he should do so^ thcn his truth- 
fulncsa> woultl have 10 bc rccognized. 

r l^ and T wnwwcllecl; MS Garrcti 2S3Bl [ui-bt-J; MS Garrct!. 989Hb: [u^btu]. 

In ihe samc passagp Lti lsfaha.nL thc MS rcads, [ujdbiu]. 
M MS gj: [f. 217a] [IaJ "ihe fidl of" [waqi E MJ, 

Gameu-Yahuda 3081: Obu^ajTS 51 ]. Sce al*o tht- nocts lVir thc s.-nmc irsi in. lstahani^s 


w [Dala'iL at-nubuwah) Ihc artidc, "Mu*djLca H in tN-[-2 3 by AJ. Wensuick, 

menlians a bt>ok by thi.s ritle by Abu Nu'aym ."\hmad ibu C AW Atlah id-Isfuhani, 

who lived 336./&4S-43O/J03fi. Bayda-wi indicaccs a sEnglc namcd bciok, whi3c l^^h^ili 
spcak£ of icvcraJ bnoL» <m this ^jbjcct. Scc thc lillc indcxcs in BrcHrkcLiriuiu^s 

91 L oinits u frt> 


986 % aecrriON' i a TOrits 

b. [As lo his- charactcr.J 

iuithcrniorc,, thc whole of his liib and rharact£ri*tic& that have 
been autheiUically and consistently reported^-»uch aw constancy with 
truth and shunning orworldly things dmnj^hmii Iij^ li^etinie^ a whok- 
hearted dcvotton lo purpose, courage to the extent that he would 

ncver flee Ihnii anyonc cvrn though tlicrc was grcat alarm as on 

thc (Battlc| Day of Uhud ? an eloqucncc thal siknced thc stcntorian 
orators ol" rlic degcrr Arabs, a persKtence in the tnissiun of invita- 
tioii, logcthcr with clcar^y ol«seivab!e toil and hardshipj disdaiii for 
thc rich^ and huniility among 1 thc poor — all of chese charactcristicg 
would never exUt unless thcy shonld belong to pmphcis. 

Isfahani says: 

L m> T 204, MS 216a 

Titpit J: 7fa pMphethMd of the Pmphet Muhamttuut 

Muhammad is thc Mcsscngcr of God s I 1 205 pcace bc upon him. 
This doclrine is opposed hy thc Jcws, Lhc Christiaiis, rhe Zoroastrians 

and a group of the MaterialistB. In supporl of [this doctrine] we 

havc thc foUowing reasons. 

a. [As to his words. and acdotllj 

1. Hc claimcd to bc a prophct, and 

2. hc produccd a miraclc. 

Whoever has been of that sort has been a prophet. We say that 

hc claimcd to bc a prophct only bĕcause of thc authentit tradiuon 
lo that cATcct, and wc say that hc produccd a sptllhmding miracle, 

only because of three reasons, 

a) He carne bringing thc Qur*an s and thc Qur J aii ii> a spcll- 
hinding minirle,* 2 Thc fac:f that hc camc hringing it,, and that no 
onc clsc came bringing it, is bascd on condnuously recurring authen- 

lie traditioii. As for the facl that thc Qur*aji is- a speUbinding mii> 

aclc, [wc acccpt it] bccause hc issucd a challcnge on thc basis of it 

and was not oppo&ed. Indeed, hc challenged thc mosl eloquent and 

lluent Arab orators to oppo&e hLtria God Most Higis said 3 

M 'Ilie MS aione ol" sourcn used reads: wa-hnwa mu^iz]; I^, P r, MS Carrc-tt 

9B9Ha, *rtd MS GanrttAahuda 448 G W&A\ fwa-id-Quriin mu'jizi. "IT , i* transUtion 

alrftmprft co c^rry ihe ar^riw jKirihijMil Ibrcc of [mit^jii], rt^iLiely^ " l co pui \<mt] ai 

lo-ss fc \ u to rrndcT s^:"Ccchlc3E ,,, ? ctc. 


i! If you are in aiiy doubt about what We have sent down to onr 
servant, ihcn bring forward just one chaptcr portion iike il, and cali 
in witnesses for yowr*elves, apart fiom Ckwi |HĔmsclfj/ ! [O^ 2:23] 
Bui they were iiiwardly prevenied lium opposing him. in spite of 
their abundant inotivatiun to opposc hiin so as to di&play thetr own 
Ekicncy atid cioquence and to ovcrl>car him forcibly, Their inward 
prevention in spite of the abundant motivation provcs that thcy 

brcame incapable of oppo^irion, and ihai proves that the Qur*an is 

a si>cllbinding rniradc, 

Hc providcd inJbmiation about thr thirigs of [he unsceii 
world, and the providing of intomiatson about thc things oi" tlic 

unseen world is a spdlbinding mirade. 

1) 1 hc fact that He providcd inCbrmation about ihe things 
of thc uiiseen world is demonstrated through thc word of [God] 
Most High: 

**Alif iam mtm. Thc Byzantines havc been defeated in a nearby 

laiud» L 421 but alter thcir dcfcat ihcy will be vicEraious. w [Q,30: 1] 
Aiid it had come ahoul lo corrc&pond with what hc had said- Again 

His word, 

"Tnily, Hc who ordains thc Qur*an for yoic, "s Ht- who brings 
you back as in a Homccomjng. 1 * [0,28:85] iJcrc the one spokcn to 
is. the Ptophet, and] what is meant hy, **as in a IJomccoming", is 
Makkah, for a man*s place of homecorning h his own villagc ? sincc 

hc docs liis iraveling ahout in other towns and then rccunu to it. 

Again [God 3 s] word: 

. : 

Yon will he called out aj^ainst a people having MS 2 1 6b great 
strength; you will kill ihem or take Lheir surrenrler," [Q 48:101 And 
ihat had takcn placc. Indeed, what was meant by ;: a people tiaving 

grcal strcngth", according to some, was the Banu Hunajiah^ Abu 

liakr having call^d ont those lc!i of the desert Arabs against thc 

Banu Hunayfah etlher to kili tlwm or take iheir sunendcr; but oth- 
ers think ihal ihey wcre the Persians, and it wai c t."mar who callcd 
out those !.cft of ihe dt-sert Arabs against the Persiatis cichcr to kiii 

thcm or takc thcir surrcnder. Again [God"si] wordr 

"God^s promise is lo tliosc of you who havc bclicvcd and havc 
done whiit is righi, lo make you hi^ [^ading men in the land just a& 

9 ' 5m> TOwdJud ir^ U C-uj MS ^tid .VI S G<irrvU 999Ha, biLC sprJhd li. lliim^j. m 
chc En-1-2. 

988 3- ^ ' 1 ion i, topics 

He had appoiiued as Leading men tliose who were belbre you." 

[0^24:55] That is to say, He would indrod makc thcm inhcrit the 
land of tlie unbdievo>s both Arahs and non-Arabs, just as. He had 
appoincod as lcading mcii thost who wcre bdiire thcm, and ihcy in 

turn were thc sons of Israel alter rhp great opprcssors in Egypt had 

perished, and He had grantcd thcm as inheritance a land for them, 

and hcmses and belongings fbr them. All this. had taken placc accord- 
in^ co the inlbrmatioti |thc Prophct| had produccd. The refertnce 

in the phrase, "those of you who hawe believed", b to the Companions, 

evidence for this bcing in the word of [God] Most High, "of you." 
Again ibrUwr cvidencc is in JJis word, 

"And He. will siiiely give them a time oJ" s^curity in exc:h;iiige 

after ihe fear they had liad^, |Q, 24:55] Ibr they had been fearfuL 

in the earty days of Jslam. nnd God fulfiJJed His j^rotnisc to ilicm. 

2} Morcowr,, [the fact that hc pnovidcd mform;ition ahouT 

thc ihings of the unsecn world h dcmonsuatcd] through the Ptophet^s 

own word. 


Thc [rightful] leadership aftcr me will Jast rliirty [successive] 

years,"* 4 suul the duratioti of thc succession of the leaders who foJ- 

Jowcd thc right way, Abu Bakr, *Umar, 'Uthman, and 'Ali and al- 
Hasan" was thirty ycars. Again the Prophet said: 

"Bc guidcd by thosc Iwo wlio come aftcr mc, Abu Bakr and 

, Umar. w * 

Again, [che PmphelJ said to 'Ammar ibn Yasir: 

"Thc party cuwtirig puwcr will kill you > 7 and ihe paity covet- 

ing powcr did kill [*Ammar] on thc [Baltk] Day of SifTm. mcaning 

thar \Ii] r iiwiv;ih and thosf \vith liim did k. 

The Prophet's question to *Abbas [ibn c Alxi al-Muttalib]» — who 

was takcn amoiig the taptivcs of Batlr and had requtsted tht Prophct 

lo rans^iTTi hi& lifc and that of )m ncphrw ^Ucjayi ibn Abi Tatib^ 
^Abbas dcspairing" of his own raiiM)rn + — was tliis; 

* Hadiih, ind^cd anri Jouiid in Sahih al-Tirraidhi s 'TLtan" r?4«. [L 410:19-20; 


* L, 1 and MS Canrtt-Yahuda -H86 list th^e fiw; thc MS Lists in addilion, 
ol-Husayn; ^yhilc MS GarrcLi '930 1 f A lists only thc tinst fi.iur. 

* Hadilh, iiidcatjed iji Wensijick 1 ^ //«iwi&yot vf Eatty Aiu&anmttdm Trnditum (p. 3, 

eoL 2} fts briiiK in Sahih al-Tin^idhi, ^Ma.ia^ib" »15. [L 419:20; L +21:14.] 

^ 7 Hadith, inck-jc^ii Lii 'W^nsinck'9 Ifoudbacrk t bcing in Tahaqai Ihn Sa 1 d, 111/ 1. lftl, 
183 fE [L 419:21; 421:15.] 


"Whcrc is the moncy that you dcpusited io Makkah wiih Umm 
al-Fadl* and no one e3se was prcscnt with you two whcn you said, 
L lf 1 airi killed, then *Abd Allah is to have so much and al-Fadl is 
Lo have so much*?" 9 * Thtti ^Abbas replied [lo che Prophrt], "Mo&c 
ccrtainly no onc but I kncw that! By Him who *ent yuu with the 
Truth, you arc indeed the Messcngcr of God! rt Whcreupon both he 
and *Uqayl accepted Islam, 

3) There is also [thc Prophct'*] advance iiifomiation ahouE 

the dcath MS 2l7a of the Najashi.** Abu Hurayrah rclated about 

Muhanimad that hc announccd to thc pcoplc thc dcath of thc Najashi 
on thc day (that rnler] dkd, and said to his Companion^ "Say thc 
prayers for your brother, thc Najashi," and then hc went out with 

thcm lo thc place of prayer and rrcitcd with them thc doxult>gy 


F God is mosi great' p fbur rimcs- Then it hecame evideni, after the™ 
annoutioeirktfiH, thai [the Naja&hi] bid dierl on ihat day, 

There is also thc Prophri's aniiuuncemenl about riots (hai would 
tiikc pJace L 422 as wcil as otlicr signsj that h 3 portcnts uf thc 

J iour [of Rcsurrcctionl, likir Lhc calamily 111 of rcmotc Baghdad. Abu 
Bakr relatcd thnt thv. Prophet said: 

"Some of thc pcuplc; c*f my Tiatitm will go and inhahit a (crlile 

lowland that they wiU name Basrah, by a river called Dijlah [thc 
Tigris Rivcr]j, over which thcrc wil! hc a brid£rc. Its inhabitants will 
hecome many and ii will be one of the great citirs of the Muslima- 
Then at the end of the era, the Banu O^titura', 102 people with wide 
faees and srnalt cyes, until thcy inhabit one shore of thc river r Tho. 
peoplc [i.e., who livc in the lowlLtnd] will diwde into three groups: 

onc group choosing to takc hold of thc tails of thcir cattlc and sct- 

de in the wilderness^ but they will peHsh. Anochcr gronp chooscs eo 
look after thernsclvcs and they will perish. And one group will place 

their chikhcn bchind thcir backs and go out to battlc with ihe 

w Hnidiih, indrxcd m Wrnanck 1 ! HwdlNwk, h* :ing in T&Im^U fbn Sa B d, IV, l 9. 

|L 4-14:21; 431:15.] 
w Hadilh, inidf-xf!d in W-msinck^s Htmdbook, locatcd in SahiA Muslim, "Jana^ 11 

#«3 &B. [L 419:23; L 421:21.] "Tbc NaJMhi", an Ediiwpk- minl us«d m lihe 
Anibic of eAirly Tstam a& thc titlr nf ihr ™lcr of Eihiopia. Sn- thc AnkJ* H al- 

NadjiJii' 1 by E- vau Domel in clse En-J-S. 

|ip - Th* MS aUi»e insrit* n ihw' j [dhallk^ aL-»khbftr]. 

,w MS gl: T.c. a ihfi <hwtifdl [waqt 4 au]. 

IM MS gl: [(J^incuira 3 ] was tli?c hsiKliiuiid^ti oi" Abraham, peacjc be upon him. 
[From thc ccwuin-rriijjry wei Baydawi 1 * 7dHvtb f by al-*Ibri.] 


iiivadcrSj and thcy will bc martyn. Anci it was as hc had Hnnounccd, 
ior what was meant by that settkd rrgion was Baghdad. The Banu 

Oantura*, which mcans the Turks, attdckcd ii, and thc people of 
Baghdad at the time of this iiwasbn divided icno ihree groups> just 
as thc Prophct had set thc mattcr forth. 10S 

Thcrc is abo his advanoc intbrmation about thc rirc sccn fnom 
Bu*ra, a city of Syria* for tbc Prophct had saidj, 

"The Hour [of Resurrection] will not come umil a fire T 206 

gucs up irom the tcnitury of Hjjaz that will shinc upon thc nccks 
of camcls in Busra." And k was just as hc had aimounccd. for thcrc 

is a report Trorn rdiable nnthorities that fire went up out of the ter- 

ritory oi Hijaz in thc ycar 634 [a.h.] and lit up thc mountains sprcad 

out around it so much that [thc sky glarc] was sccn from Busra- W 

These IbregDmg annoimcements of intbrmation all refcr to things- 

of tYw. unst:*:n worlri that hore upon matters thgl would happpn in 

101 Haduh, noic:d ici Wmsinck'? Handbrtu*: itf t&fly AiulmmttiadaR TradititM undcr 
Ha-sra, .MLihammad's pmiictions con<:c!mmg 5, 1 dtcd as bring in Ahmad ibn HanbaTs 
Mttmad, CaLm 1313 a.h. k v_ d, pp. 40, 4+ ff , atid at-Tayaliai L s. iWksmJ, Haidarahad, 

1821, No. 670. 

,ftq H-adirh. indcscd in Wcmjnc:k v 5 Hnrtdhook probabty under "Hour — TTic tiirc tkat 
mll bum", al-Tirmidhrs StAA ¥ Cairtt, 1292, 31:42; Ahrrwd b. HAnbal ! s \fimad 3 

v. 2 t p. 8, 53, «c.; and al-Tay;»li¥i's Mmmd ¥ Ki>. 2050. 

[n cbc Mahani tcxcs uscd thc spclling of ibc lcrwn namc is unaft>iniily [busra.*], 
wJuercas in tbe Baydawi tcxts it is [busayraj wilh minor dLAcLc-nccs in thc clttmu; 
■nf tbc f]naJ towtcI- Thcrc arc &Kir t-owns wilh similar spcllLngs in ihc arca of dic 
Oitoman pEminoc ofSyria [al-ShamJ. l."ndcr thc: spwilljnp [busa^Ta] thc En-I-2 tndnc 
to Ydumes 1— S rcfcn. thc rcadcr lo thc ajiciciit narn-c fkiirl;isTyfi | Tor the tbrtrcss 
Cuwu M thi 1 junctiun oF Llto EupbruEc^ Arid KJi^bur Ri^rs. Uiidtr ihm 1 gcpdLiiig &l Bo; ra 

(Br?5ira) B , wiiti ^ims-rcleitnct lititn [Ku^riJ, itwo towns east oi i.hc Sca ol Gidilct 

: r; l";i- v:i:i li ■■ :-ixhin Syii-i. Iln-ri" ,1. H.i:dii iiiirl B jm ,l"' ;aL-S|i.irrL. ,r\- i^i:- ■ ■!■■:■: I 

Lcl m carly ErL-I-2 articU? by A. Abcl, che spelling adopwd buLrtg dcri^ £rom an 
older rofliari]zaiLon ol" ihc nainc. Howcvct, hwcIWji Jor<lan*a [BwsayraJ, S.SE. of 

che Ek-ad Sca and south of fj.l-TaJilah] and idcntiAcd wich Boira, a capical of 
ancicnt Edom. is not lislcd m thc Eci-I-2 (v. 1-6). The- Aatimai Grogmpkic Ailas qf 
th$ Kbrtdi rtv, 6tb cd. H l?92, displays hJ] four: :'phitc 75, By^aymh lcl N\E. Syria; 

pL 76, die iLmm in S. Syria and Jordati). Tbe*f ai-c all lisrcd in ih<- itides io thi* 

ailkLi, PsrtistiEtuibly, itu 1 - rwnTa rr.kKm.t: b to itii» Jtirdiiiian [liusayrS]. 

A numbrr nf icxt<cnsjvr nkl Iava fif:ldR |jdng. 3 harrahj owr 3ubcc!iTanian ^canors, 
now appc^aring aa- dcscrt arcas ccwcrcd wlh Uaclt stoncs, mark thc topography of 
al-Hijai, octc bc-ELiicig the narrw "Thc Flrc: " &cc the ^hhtmal Geogrnphk Atios of tht 
World, pl. 77, acul ttw En-I-2 anicles, "al^Hijsu' 1 and w c,iamL." Thc taMer artkk 

■citcE at-Samhudi's hisCOiy, Nmlatat at-Wtija' bi-jttJthar Dar &l-Mustafif ior a dtscrip- 
tion of a grcat cajthqnakc at McdLnah luisting sc\^cral days Ln thc ycar 654. This 
Ls cxmsistccil i^itl] -u. scrics of subL-crraniaii ^iIolclli" c^Iijhlutls aibd an cruptiun uf 

rin- iind hos F;:*\-w ■wtn^ ^m tiMikl I.M m-ki .Lr » grea( iIi-i;uLi i . 


fuiurc tirnes. Howcvcr. ihc a.nnouiiccmcTiis of hitimriatiun aboui 

things of ihc unsccn world bcaring upon mattcrs that had bcen in 

tini^s past arc a]l from the nairatiws of our tarly tbrebears. not 

trom litcrary rcsearch or citation of historians, and as a rcsultj no 
onc can charge anyone ivith an ermi- MS 217b 

c) The ihird reason wu btli«ve that Miahammad pmduced 
a miracle is. the fact tliat hc achiewd this grcat rangi-- d ihcuretical 
wisdom — as in jfl5 thc practical knowicdgc of Cod Mosl High, His 

attribulcs, His namcs and His preccpts, and indccd, in atl the rario- 
nai and traditimial scienr.cs, and some of the practical scienr es^ such 

as judgment, the managcment r>f bouseholds and the poliii- 

c;il govi'rri]CLCT.i o| alks— qim k]y und witJWjrt LT].strucnun or UiUri- 

mcj. Indrcd f he did not helong to atiy leamed cribal family, but was 
fi"om a lown whcic ihcrt was ilol a singlc scholar, and hc madc i\o 
journcy to a city of scholars. Hc travc)cd oniy Lwicc into Syria for 
a short rime and cvery one of his eneniies kncw that on both occa- 
sions hc had made no ajypointm^nl to iningle wiih schol;n>;- This 

[ihird reajonj is onc of the most importani and extraordinary mat- 
tci* in the arguincnt. 

[In this thirdi catcgory also] ochcr niiracles arc rcported of him 

in tradition, as; 

the Splitliii£f o\ thc Monij/ 11 ' Auaa rdatt-d ihat the 
pcople of Makkah askcd the Messengcr of God to show them a sign^ 
and he showed them nhe moon split in two sections and ihey evcn 

saw the mountain £n between ihe iwo parts, Also tradicion tells of 

thc Greeting of the Slonc to [the Pruphet]. Jabir ibn 

Samrah 11 " rclatcd thal thc Prophct saidj, "Truly 1 know of no olhcr 
stonc in Makkah ihat ewr greetcd mc beibre 1 was senL" And tra- 
dition tells of 


[wa-al-hLLm^h a3-i"taza.riy*h ]L«uia L rilaL AJJ-lhJ- 

Cf. Our 31 ^} 54:1, ^ljurc Llu- ?vent nf l(ic irnjriii^s spliitiij^ atiiiic:an:s thr apprciui K 
uf thr H-chit of Rcsurretiioji, aLL-d ntsa no(c l, on pagc rtlU;, of 77t£ Qur*an f & 
r. tiikTrrporar) 1 I | :T. f i ■ s-T-r :"■»". by Ahnrd Ali \ Yritwiim, 1^U'!| Krlerr-nrt le. m.i:h ! -ihrr^ 

io htaiiiic « nmmentaried, ono u<" -^hicK, by Abn .il-Oayim Raj^Kib [Al-lsJabaniJ 
jtftyMfr.] ha^ as jntcTpjnctation^ thc myon, being thc fiag symbol of tbe Quj-ay^h 

and of ArabLa, was said ijo bc ^plit whe;ti thf Ojura^ gavc only a partial acccp- 
taricc of IslaiTL Scc iujticc of chc nujon^s splittlrij as a rnLrajcil-c uf tJic: PropbcL in 
M. RfK]i[L9Hi ? 5 artide "Kamar" in En-[-2 p v. 4:Siab. 

,,>; Prohably, Jibir ibn Zayd [b. 21/642— ca 93-104/71 1-722 j, kno^n aa a 
famipus traditicinijl. Cf. En-1-2, art. ^Djalsir k Zayd. u 

992 3> sectiow l p TOPICS 

ihc Waier Springiiig out from bctween his Angcrs. 

Jabir &aid, L 423 "Thc people were ihiisiy on ihe Day oTHuday- 

biyah, 10 * and the Mcssengcr of God had a lcaihcr watcr bag with 
him and hc washcd his haatk wiih iL Then Jhe pcople came 10 him 

and sairi, "Wc ha\« mo waier for our ahluyons t>r fhr riritikitig- excej)i 
what is m the water bag," Then the Messenger of God put his harid 

iti thc ncck of ihc watcr bag and rnade ihc watcr spurt irorn bciwccn 

his Gngcrs like springwatcr and wc drank and washcd with it. Jabir 
wa& asked, "How rnany were you?" He replied, "II" we ha<| been a 
huiirlneri thonsand it would have heen eiiough f'or us, but we wcre 

fiftccn huudrcdL" Another cxarnplc of his miraclcs from tradition is 

4) the Keening of the Palm I/jg.™ Jabir sakl "When 
the Prophct was preaehlng he uscd to lean back agaimt a eertaiii 
palrn log, onc of thc culumns of thc mosquc. Thcn altcr they madc 

thc pulpit for him and hc sat upon it s thc palm log whcrc hc uscd 

to jtand and preach made a loud sound 130 as if it were about to 
sptii. So the Piophet stepped dowri and hugged il to him while it 

was makiiig a kccning sound Jikc the crying of a iittlc boy bcing 
^uieled, until il becamc stilL** Anolhcr example h: 

i) the Cottipla.ii it of thc Shc-camel for hcing overworked 
and uiidcrfed, Ya c la ibti Murrah al-Thaqafi said, lu A pcrfcct trhid of 

mcmorablc things I did oncc obscrvc in MS 21Ba thc Messcngcr 
of God whilc we wcrc trawling with him: (a) As wc passcd a camcl 
carrying water for salc thc camcl saw him and madc its rumblinjjj 

growl and bent down its upper neek and head. (b) The Prophet 

stoppcd and said, "Wt^ere is thc owner of this tamcl?" So thc man 

canic up b andl hc &aid to, lL Scll it to mc." The man rcplicd, 

"Rather, we wiil give it to you, O Mcssci^ger of God, for surely. 

membcre of Lhe household may have anytliing of whkli there is 

anothcr to nsc tbr thcir HYclihood, 1 * 1'hcn thc Prophrc said to thc 
man^, "But are you not givdng a thought Ibr tliis beast as to its wcl- 
fare? It is complaining oi" too much work and too litile Fecd; take 

better carc of it!" (c) Rumbhng oui ics voice tlic camel extended its 
upper neck and head to him. '* J Another example is: 

m L, T and the MS: [ljudaybwhj; MS Gamit 9»9Ha and MS Gamtt-Vahuda 
4496: |HuJaybfyahl. £ii-]-2; Aracle h uruler: [Uudaybiy^li], 

m Lane me-miuns sin_:h a iradirion in \m L&kon p P 633k, sts noied by l J rof, 
<_lafverLey. Biit ic is rwi m Wrndnck^ Conoordarite, 

110 ReadLng, [fab^|i ^ ^^ ^a* a. comj^tccil rrading: "i^hnked 5 ' i,f\ [ciabbahat] ■ 

3,1 Thc Ibrmula^ "ThjTC thinss 1 haue aecn," ii problomatk as a" pcrlnapa hav- 


thc Tcsrimony of thc Poisoned MutionJ 12 Jabir nar- 
ratcd that a Jewish girl firom ihe familics in Khaybar poisonc-d 113 

somc roasc mticton. aiid gave it to the Mpjjseiiger of God» So thc 
Mtsscnger of God taok the ibreleg and ate of jt p and a group of his 

oompanions were eatang wilh hiiti. 

Thcn [suddcnly] thc Messcnger of God dcdarcd» LL Lift your hands 
out of itl" he sent to fhc Jewish girl telling her to come, aiid 

he said to her* "You hawe pouoned diis muHon!*' She nid, "Who 

was it diat told you?" Hc said, "This piccc in my hand told mc, H 
mcaning thc forclcg. Shc replicd* "Ycs* becausc I said U) myscl^, lf 
he is a prophetj, it will never hurt him^ and if hc is othcr rhan a 

pniphet, we will have rest from him.*" So ihc Mcssenger of God 

cxcused her. lMIL * 

Therc is nothing following beyond this among the miraclcs rccordcd 

m the books on the indicaiors of prophethood. But even though not 

ail of thcsc [miraclcsj havc a rccord of authenticity in traditionj siill 
thc powcriul lcaturc having thc commonaiity among thcm is wcll 
auLhcntkatcd- This is bccause ihe wholc company of thc narrators 

comc up to an accepmble definitiua of auihendc soccession [in thc 

iradition],. atid ihc power of ihe fvauire of commonaliiy is rrriiy.ed 

in the iiia.rralioii of thcin all, so it dues constitutc an auihcnric suc- 

ccEsion [of tradition], 

Our p,e,, lsfahanfs and Baydawi's Sunni] position i$ that only 

onc who will claim to be d prophct;, and will produce a spcllbind- 
~mg miracJc, would bc a prophct. 

Indccd, if a man should stand up in a great asscmbly and sayj, 

"1 am scnt as the mcssenger of fmy] ¥Hng to you/ 1 whcreupon they 

iequestcd from him proof, and the man then should say^ "O kirng, 

injs a liiml referenoe w three aspetts of a composite *\ietii |che optkm cho»n snd 

iiidicatrd K^rcj, ni b) pnflsil>1y l>Hiig aj l 4JiFl-*~ i*'"j"i3 Sennitic H.gtirc of speech expr<sxm~; 

a pc-nLiltiniair [no-tc ihc txldjw?s* of mimbtr] degJre of approval and ^dmiiAiLon [o* 
oonwracJy, of disappwir^l and i^jecdon] appropriare for me by one humdti being 

r>f anntlicT human. 0«e migh( c*njecrynr- rhaT rhn- nlciinaie d^giw of th&se TgOing 
co an cvcn luiltlIht] ^^uLd bc chc &ppropria^c fonm m> u^c ui dcsciibLtig a com- 
rnunicntmn brtwccn thc divinr and tbc human. 


[shahsdyi al-sliHh al-IMStsjriiiiniih]. 

1,3 OTthDRraphy vari?& — L: [s m ? ij; l : |h m tj; MS: [i m y tj; MS Garrelt 

989Hft ™wt]fcd: sammBimat]. However. lii all these texts the story is cLearly intro* 

duccd ;is "'"thc poisorued mutton 11 fal-shah al-rnasmumah]. 

IU Tlie MS add* heir; :u acid strudk the inattrr fn>m his meccirUTY thal day,"" 
115 Tabari narracĕd rhis incidciH as part ul ihc Patdc dFKhaybftr p and it i? kUM 

.1. :hc artkle, "Khaybar" by L V t «:ia Yaglim in En-I-2, v. 4:1 140, 


if in your si^ht 1 am &pcaking thc Lruch in niy invitation to you, 

L 424 then diverge from your cu&tom and rise from lk ' your seat 
to sotid»" aiid ir the king should do so^ that is, if tliir ting should 

risc £rorri his placc, thcn tho&c prcscnt would ha% r c to rcrognizc his 
truthfu]n<e$s in making his claim. h is likewigc hcre, 

h. [.% to his character P ] 

The sccond reason demon&trating [Muhammad's] genuine prophet- 

htxxt includcs thc wholc of his iifc and characteristics that havc bccn 
authcntically and consiatcntly reported. 

An esample is his. failhful constancy in truchfuhiess, for he »ever 
j MS 2l8b whether in concerns of ihis world or in conccms 

of our rctigion. and becausc of thts none of his cucmics could con- 

nect lahehood with him iti anything whatsoever_ There is. the exam- 

ple of his shunmng worldly things lliroughout his lifcLimc, in spitc 
of T 207 his powcr ovcr thcni. As wkncss to that thcrc is thc 
offcr to him by thc Qu.ra.ys}) of wcalth, a position of leadcrshsp and 
marriage with anynnc he desircd if he wonld ahandon his daim to 
[prophethood]- and his shinining of the offer. 

Therc is [also] thc examplc of his excrcmc gcncrosity» so much 
so that God Most High rcprovcd him, sayinpjj, 

ll Do not be completely openhanded." [Q, 17:29] 
There is alscj tlie cxauiple of his courage to thc cxteiii thal hc 
would ncvcr flcc from anyonc cven tliough thcrc was grcat aiarm^ 111 
as on thr [BattleJ Day ol" Uhud and the [BattleJ Day ol~ HunayH, 1 
and lor this reason when adversity incraased the peopk would plare 

thcir coniidenct in him, 

Thcrr is al&o thc examplc of his eIoqucnce that silenced stenio- 

rian &peakcr3 s dumblbundinj hoth ihe descrt Arabs and a ccrtain 
|otherJ rrisoTjindingly iluent orator. 

There is also thc example of his persiBtenoe 119, in the mission of 

invitation, to^cther uith his elearly obsen r ahJc toil and ha.rdship. Thc 

Prophet said, 


110 L oipiib "irom. 



Thr scritw of L inadvtrtcntl)" placcd a dtrt abavc thc " :, "ayTi" 1 Lo r-rad, [raghabj. 

S« Qur T aTi 9:25-26 and En-l-2 v. S, p. 578, 

1. TollDwcd by T: [ijtiri 1 ], this ih probably a mkiY-Ading oi" an eariicr HHjrcc; 
thc MS, MS Garrctt <MttHa ajid MS Garrctt-Yahuda 4486 havc thc rcading: psrir], 
whirh nuuchcs thc rcading in tht Baydawi lcxls. 

PROPHETHonn 995 

u No prophtri has rar brcn wrongrd as I haw becn wruiigcd. 


But hr cndurrd it patiendy withoul any slackcning in resolution, 

sincc pmple of drtertninaunn will .show patienoe* 

There is also the exampLr of his disdain for the rich an<l his humil- 
ity among the poor, [aititudc» such as] ncvcr exist eacept among 

prophcta. ITiiis, cvm if we should assiime lliat each one qf thrsc 

qualitics hy icself would not indkate pmpheLhood, nevertheless thc 

sum yf ihciu is what makes knowu posithdy ihat [sudi ev)dence] 

would not occur cxcepl with a prophcL Tliis is thc mcthod that al- 
Jahiz uscd and that al-Ghazali approvcd in his [book titlcd] at- 
Munyidh [min at-DahitJ. 

c [Ii]fontiHtiun given by <-arlier pruphtts,] 

rhe third rcason dcmoratrating his gcnuinc prophcthoud is infor- 
mation givcn by carlier prophets in thcir wripngs. as appiicd to his 

prophethood, for thcsc are coBeciions of cyidencc for his prophet^ 

hood. A thorough inve*tigation of thcm h set ibrth in thc cxtcndcd 
commentarirs and in the honks specitically deaJing with the evidrncc 

lor his prophethoodJ 21 

Bayduwi saicl: 

L 424, T 207 

Ri.fulQtion qfthe Brokman*.* dactrine mi tke intellctt 

;*, TTie Brahmams 127 hold that whatercr thc intcllcct prcdicatcs ai 

good is something to acccpt. whatevcr it predicaEcs- as evH is somc- 
rhLng to reject^ and whatevcr it is unccTtain about may he oonsid- 
errd good when diere is need for it, aud rejected wh-en there is no 

need for it. I 'hereforc, [they say|, in the intcllect there is availab!e 

aii altcrnativt to thc ejuidancc of thc Prophct, 

b. Our position is that t]ic [entircly religious] mission of thc 

prophets has hrought immeasurahlc l>enefits ? among them heing the 


L It always providf!s tiie basist ibr a convincing argument, 
2. h remows uncertainty. 

im lla.diih, not looated $j>i>dfVi':ally. Tl^c Wcnsinct /Aw^AmA; "Prophccs — cndutL": 
thc s3iarp«c htows Ln ihr worJd 1 ", has a num.hrr of ciUpniiL 

111 [kutijb dala^iJ al-nuhCLwah] RKajcJiLL^ ihc pluraJ "bnokH^ a^ LiLclkatins a -sub- 
jctt cattijicjry;, othcr ihan hot^ks having ih*. fc samc nrlc. 

3E Higch-cAstc Hindns a gcnerally ^he pncsLs. Cf. thc artick- "Barahima n by Fa7tur 
R^hman in thc En-I-2. F.D. Razi distusscs LtiLs disputaiion in his Muhassal^ p, 2(2. 


3, It providcs guidance to ioi ultirnate posiiion that the inteJ- 
Ject ct»ay take a stand on, in matrers such as the rcsiirrccdon of ihc 

dcad and the cjrcuirtstaiiccs of the Gardcn and thc Firc. 

4, It ckarly presents the cxcel1ence of the posilinn upon which 
the iniellect takc* its stand., 

5, Jt deIine*il£S in its entirety whaiever it pirdicatcs as good. 
6- It assigns» to mankind ihc dutio of obcdicnt living and of 

wor&hip that arc prcscribcd as duc to thc worshippcd Onc, thosc 

that are regularly repeated m order to refresh the irLennory, as wcll 

as others r L 425 

7. It statcs thc laws in thc principles of justicc ihat prcse n-c 
thc liic of thc human spccics. 

8. It teaches necessary and useful skills that equip a person 

eomplctely foi earning a livin 

9. It teaches the hencficiaJ arwl the harmful uses fif mcdicines- 
10. The pmphetic mission teaches the sper.ial pmjwrtres of [Fic 

stars and chrir conliguratjoiis.j kiiowtedge of thc&e things being accjuircd 

only by long and cxtcnsivc c^pcrimcntation, for which human lives 

are not long enough. 

c. Moreover, thcre is a great disparity among ihc unellects of 

manktnd, and the peribct onc is rarc; so intviiably there musi be a 

tcachcr to ccach and guidc thcm in a way diat will bc approprialc 

for their inteUects. 

lsfahani says: L 425, T 207, MS 218b:l6 

R£Jutatiofi qf'tht Brahmait 7 s docirim on the mieiltci 

a. The Bralimans hoJd ihat every(hing that t]ie intcUect prcdkatcs 

as good s that i&„ everything thc goudncss of which is- known by thc 

intclkct], is somcthing to bc acccpted* whethcr the Messenger intro- 

duced it or not. Tn other words, when anything has been establishetl 
in the intcUect as something that is of bericht to mankind, and it is 

frcc of any indicadon of hamij theii thc bcncfit from it i^ good. And 
cviTything that thc intcllcct prcdicatcs as c^ilj that is> thc c\il of 

which is known by thc intcllcct, is somcthing to bc rcjccted,, cquaJly 
whcthcr thc MS 21"9a \(cs?sengcr introducecl it or not, Furthennore ? 


L: [yushir]. T : MS Gamtl 969Hh and MS Garrcti 2R3B: [>nshaTci']. 


whalcvLT the intclJcrt is unccrtain abouu that h b the intcUtct does 
not know whethcr il is good or «riL,, is- to bc approvcd as good whcn 
thcre 13 a need for the bentrht of it, and to be rcjecled as cvil whcn 
thert: is no need for iu ln olhei ivord&, anydiing that a jjerscm has 
need fnr and ihal displays nothing evil jn it is to be appmved as 

good> aud anything that a pcrson has no ncud for artd that displays 
nothing goud in it is to hc rejjcrted as cvil. sincc to procccd widi 

something that b eonceivably harmiul is basically a needlets action, 

Therefbre^ [say thc Brahmans], tiicrc is avaiiablc in thc intcltcct ao. 
alternative Eo the guidance oi the Prophel that niay bc said to gov- 

zn\ in a parlinjlar mauer as aii aliernathe option of free choice, 
or, Latitudr fdr aaion. 

An objcction haa becn raiscd that it is through raisiiig objcclion.* 
that thera is prcsentcd an aiternative to ialschood. But thc answer 
to this h that [such an argumenr] would be prcmised on gond and 

evO, iwo ciitilics tbcii are mtcUcctual in natuje, and the 5uvalidky of 

this [kind of argument] has bccn shown prcviously + 

b. Then IbHowing iliis [siaiemeni of ihcir doctrine] [Baydawi] oui 

author sct forth thc bcnelils of thc prophetic inission in full detail, 

saying that thc [cnrircly rcligious] mission of thc prophets has braughi 
iinnicasLirablc bcncfiiR> aniong them bcing thc followiiig cxamples: 

1. It cstahlishcs thc hasis for a argumcnL, in that it 

confirms whai ihc isYidlcct has independently indicated, so that ihc 

self-cjicuaing of a pcrson under rcligiou.s obligalion would be cut 

short iii cvcry rcspcrt. [Cicxl] Mmt Hif^h rcfirrrcd to this in His wortl s 
lB This is &o in order that manklnd sliould hav^ no reason to r:t>m- 
plain against God aftcr thc messengere have tome^, [0.^:163] and 
lL If Wc had ruincd them with troublc bctbrc this [rime of rcspitt 1 ], 
thcy would h^ivc said s c O our Tjord 3 why did You not scnd us a 
mcsscngcr, so we could have followcd Your i^uiding signs bclbrc wc 
wt nt astray and wcre disgraced?" 1 [Q. 20; 131] So, it has becn made 

plain that [God] Most HigJi setn ont thc Messcnger in order to cut 

iihort thcir ar^unicnt, an argumcnt in which thcrc arc thrcc pobits. 

a) They [the Brahmans] *ay (hai if God Mo«t High creatcd 
Lis to worsliip Hiitis, thcci Hc should hav p c naadc plain to us tlic wor- 

ship thal lic dcsirc^ from U&, wha^t it shoutd bc t how mnch of it 
thcrc shonld lx% and how it should bc pcribrmcd; morco\ f cr, the 
^ourcc of obcdicncc should bc in ihc intcllcct. JiSut as it is thc whole 
manncr of it is nnknown to us^ Sn God scnt thc mcsscngcrs to cnt 

998 3- section i, topics 

.siiort this cxcQsing of sclfj for whcn thc divinc laws bccamc plain in 
riciail, thcir exc_u5cs, ccascrt. 

b) They say to God- ifc You have made onr ejrislence to be 
otie of heedlessness ancl fooli.shnes>s-, anri You have pui wcr us a 
govcrnment of L 426 capricci and carnai appeutcs- So why> O 
our God-. have you not provided us with someone who would alert 
u& when wc are neglectTuU and would prevetit us when we incline 
to our capriccs? Yct ? sincc You havc abandoncd us to ourselves 

MS 2 19b ancl 10 our capriccs^ that was an cnticrment tbr us to 

dn these evil thcngsJ" 

c) Tliey say, "Suppuse that by our intellecta we should know 

thc cKcclIcncc of faith and the evil of unbclicf. but 

1) we did not know by our intcllccts that hc who did 
wrong would bc punishcd etcrnally and unlbi^ctuibly, rspcciaMy since 
wc know thai T 20W 3n ihe doh.g of cvil we have pltti&ure, and 
at thcre is no harm to you. anri that 

we did not know that any who b<?ficve and do what 
is good would be worthy of ireward, cspccially sincc we had learned 

that for You thcrc is ncithcr bcncHt nnr hann iu anyriiiug 3 [in that 
ca&cj ihis abstract knowlcdge of good and cvilj by itself, wouid bc 

nrither a motivation nor a rcstraint." But aftcr the mission [of nhc 

prophets], all these cxcuse» wcrc di^pcllcd - 

2. Another beneRt [of rhe mis^ion of the proptwis]] h thai ii 

removes, or dispds thc unccrtainty that is difficult fcr the intcllcct 

to oasi ofT. 

3. Il provides guidance to an ultimate position thai the intel- 

lecl mav takc a statid 011. but not dcmunstraie it as if discwered 
indq>endcndy of che guidanceg, in ma.uer& sucli as the resumction 
of thc dcad and thc circumstanccs of thc Gardcn and of thc Firc. 
And a!l the other topks heard of in the tradicion, mattcrs such as 

coTTir to us dirough the hearing, sight and speech of die messen- 

arc mattcrs which dcp^nd ujmjii ihc tnmsiiiiHaioA of LradiliwiL 

through heatin 

4-. It niakcs dear how est^lleni h the posiiion upon which thc 
mtcUect takcs its stnnd, and it inakcs clear tha( the inicUccl ts noi 

indcprcndcntly ntcme in thc lcnowU-dgiC c*f ll Lhmg'g atLrac:hvcm fc HS or 

rcpu]sivcncas, 5jT &$ ici a glance ai lh«c face nf an evil-eyed okl woman 

plics ttic samt word by inttrthear ittscnkiiir 



or tht of a prctty handmaid. Indecd, ihc intellect takcs its stand 
ctthcr on the thing'& goodncss or its eviL 

5* It cliffercntiates ouc in m entirely what thc intelkct has prcd- 
icated as good, in ihal ihe qukldity of wurship has been clarificri 
bolh as- to its quamily and qualily. 

6. it assigns 125, to majikiiid thc dutics of abcdarnt living and the 

Hcrriccs of wor&hip ihat are prc&rritn:ri tbr thc worshipinsd Onc., thosc 

that are rcgularly rcpeatcd in order 10 rcfresh the mcmory at their 

apprjintcd timcs td suc^cssioii, Stich as thc praycr-ritc and othcrSr 

7. It statcs thc laws in thc principlcs of justicc that prcservc 
thc iife of chc human specie^. Indeed, man h a .socially civi]ized crca- 

ture by nature, niarked by a predilettion lor disagreemeni that is 

reso!vcd in facc to facc confrontadon- So thcic is no othcr wav than 

that justicc should prc&cnc thc liic of the human specics + a justicc 

that the divine law would protecl, as was set ibrth 136 in the exposi- 
tiosi of mankincrs necd for thc Prophct according to the argument 

of thc philosophcrs. 


R. Ft teachirs thc nccr:ssaiy arts and trades that are u-wAil and 
comptementary for making a living. God Most High &aid in rcgard 

Lti iDciYid, pcuce hr upun hrrn,. 

"We taught him how to makc body-annor for you." [Q 21:80] 
And God said to Noah, 

"But build thc ark bcforc Our eyes." |Q 11:37] MS 220a Ihcrc 
is no doubl that the nccd for spinniiig, vveaviiigf T sewing and building, 
and the like, would be grcater than thc nccd Ehr body-annor and 

its bcing worn in ordcr to deliver its wearers Trom srrious hann. 

Thus ihe miasiun orthe propKels tu tcach thrsc things was neoessary. 

9r lt tcaches the beiicin ial uscs of mcdicincs which Gt>d Musl 

HigK LTcatcd on thc carth for us. A singlc cxj>criinciit v^'ilh thcm is 

not suihcicnt Ibr knowlcdgc of thcm L 427 for this comcs only 
aftcr cxtcnsivc pcriods of" limc, anil ev-en then thene is grcat dangcr 

for the mo4t part. But m the prophetic missiuii thcrc is the advan* 

tage of kiioiYing [medicinc's] varioua naturcs and udvaniages witJi- 

out toil and dangcr. 

I2i Krading wiih ihe MS ;ind MS Garrett-Yahuda -H8ti: "assigns" [yu'ay>in]. L, 
T anti MS Gam-it !Jft!)Hii rcacl: % V^s.jllaJn^ 1, [yubAyyirt]. "Assigns" i^ ihf> \f.nri umx! 

Ln tht i*orTf:Rpn-ndinp Baydawi tcxt, and suils (hc 

-ifi The MS akmc oJ ^urtcs usc-d r-ea.di: ,fc as wc; hiw. w.i Fonh H [ka-cna dhuLkarnS]. 

I2? 1 1 i '[opic J whicti preccdcs. 

1000 3^ SC^TTiON I, TOPTCS 

10. Similarly, it teachcs the spccial pro]:>eriics of thc stara. Thc 
astronomers learncd by cxpcricnce thc various naturcs of thc gradcs 

of thc cclestta] spherc^ buc it would be impossihle lo gain an under- 
sianding of them hy esperirncntation, hecausc e^perimcncation i.s 

considcred to involve rcpetition. So how could all the gencrations of 

mankind h-p sufficicnt to obsen/e thc revolutions of the fixed stars 

even two limeA? 

c, Mon:o% r cr, huiiiatt intellccts dificr aiid the pcriect one is rare, 

whilc thc divinc sccrcls arc cxcccdingly abundant, Thcrcfore, Lherc 
was no olher way than Ibr a tcachcr to tcach and guidc thcm; Lhere 
was no other way than by sending pmphcts, bringmg down scrip- 

turcbj, and delivcring; thcse scripturcs to evieiy person who would bc 

prcparcd to thc tullcjit cstcnt possibic for hiin and according to his 
indkidualityj and all this to bc done in a manncr appropriale for 

thelr iiitellccts, 

Havdawi said: 

L 427, T 208 

Refitlatttm of ike Jew*s docirint m ihe Alosaic Laut 


a. Thc Jcwii hold that thcre is no aJicniiuive; cithcr there is in 
thc Law of" Moscs a provision that iL would bc abrogatcd> or Lhcrc 
is nol any such proYision, Thcrcfore., 

L if there should be such a prcwision, then it wnulti hcj ncc- 

essary for this to bc hcld as fact in unintcrrupted succcssion, and 
become well known as a iimdamcntal ha&is of [Mnscs 1 ] rcliginn; 

'2, if there should not be any sueh a prcwi$ton t 

but 3f there sbould be anything that points to ihe con- 

tinuariee of [thc Law], then its abrogaiion. woukl be prc-vented; 

and if thcrc should not bc anything, [i.c. s that poinU to 
[he continuance of thc I^aw| [Mnsea T j law would not bc rcval- 

idared, and &o would not be in cflect except in the onc time cycle, 

b. Wc [Baydawi] hold that 

L there was in [ih?. Law of Mos^sj a provision s^ n 5 uoLicc 
ol" its abrog<iUt»n, and 

2, [the ]jaW\ was not continually re^alidated, eithrr hecause 

th-e dcmand tbr thc transmission of its original wa>; not grcat, or 



h".l). Rma disnisscs Lhis paiTinalar dispisi^rion in hbi M^m^ t J P- 2IH-213 


bccause thcrc was in k somcthing ihat pointcd to ils continuance 
only in appcarancc hut not absolutcly, and thus its abrogation would 

not hc prevented- 

Isfahani says: L 427, T 20«, MS 220a:ll 

Rsjutalion of ihe ~few*$ do£trine mi the Mos&ic Law 

a. Thc Jews say that if Muhammad had bccn a prophct, thcn all 
Ehat hc announccd woulri be truc; hut that conclusion i& EaEsc, becausc 

[Muhammad] declarcd diat che I-aw of Moses had been abrogatcd, 

and this larier statement h noi true. I hat Es so bccause when [Godj 

Most High institutcd the Law of Moscs thcrc was no altcmative 
given: cithcr thcre was a provision in it that would havc madc clcar 
that it would remain in eHcct untit a certain time only anrf then it 

would be abrogatedj or there y^as no pruvision in il thal niade clear 

that iL would bc abrogated- Thcrcfore, [a]id thc Jcws 1 argumcnt pra~ 

ceeds as Ibllouis]; 

I- if there had bctn m it a pra%isiun that tnade clear that H 
should be abrogatcd, thcn it would bc ncccssary for this fact to be 
contin-uously restatcd and becomc wcll known as a fimdamcntal part 

of [Moscs] rcligion. That is so because this point was an irnportanc 

matter for which the calis for its. transmission woukl mciease, and 
thus continuous restatement of it would bc necessary, Now 3 ari agree- 

ment to keep hiddcn a contiiniously rcstatcd lcgal provision woukl 
nerar bc admissible. And it would bc extrcmcly ncccs&ary 

[hat knowledge of the Tact that the Law uf Moaes would 

tcrminatc wilh thc mission of Jcsus, and chat the Law of Jcsus would 
tcrmmalc with thc mission of Muhammad, should bccomc gcnerally 
known aniong thc j^coplcr, MS 220b and 

that whoe^-er shtmld rcjcct ihi* inlbrmation woiald bc 

rejecting tlie successively restated traditions, arid 

that that fact should bc onc of thc strongcst dcmonslra- 
n proofs ior Jcsus and Muhammad from God in support of thc 

claims of ihem both. 

Rut T [say thc Jcws], sincc thc maticr w^as not thus 3 wc undcrstood 
the coraruption of this |tir&c] di%ision ol' thc probicm^ 

2, Now, if it had not bccn madc cJcar tliat [the Law of Moses] 
would be abrosjatcd, but 

aj ]fj m \he. Law of Moses^ a provision had been clearly 
made L 428 indicatiug that it should continue and tliat it should 

1002 ^ SECTION l ? TOPIC& 

remain unlil ihti Dav ol" rhe: Resurrcction, then its abroijation would 

he prevented. This would h\- implied bncause 

l) whrn |(u.k1] Mnst Hiljh rnndc l! jiLliii rh;il tnr 1 jjw 

of Moscs had bccn csiablishcd ttcrnally, so s ilit should not rcmain 
cstablishcd thcn that dcclaration would bc a fakity ; but. falschood as 

applied to God Most High is impossibte, 

2) and if it siiould bc adrnissihlc thal God Most iiigh 
would add a lt*gal provision of pcrpetuaLion in spile of Lhe fact that 
pcipetuation would not occur, then serure tnist would he remowl 

from what [GodJ says. in bolh His promtae and His thieat. This 

also would bc an invalidatioij, by thc coiisHrn&us [pi schoLars]. 

"fi Kurther, [say thcjcwsj, iJ " il sliouid bc admisaibtr lor 
God Most High [Eirs-tJ to declarc that the Law ol" Moses w ould Iw 

established etcmally and then [lo dcclare] tliat it would not remain 

ctemalLy, thcn why would it not bc admissiblc that God Most I ligh 
shoiJtld add a legal pro^sion that ihe Law of Muhammad would be 
esiablished etcnially. akhough in fact it would not be establishcd 

ctcmally? Thcrcfore a it is necessary for you [Le.T, thc Muslinris] to 
grant thc admissibility of thc abrogation of your own Law. 

b) But if there should bc no provision within [the Law of" 
Moses| indicating that it would cominue» but only that tt was c.lear 

withui the Law of Moses that it was established, while neither its 

uml^mimrc mrr als prcris;*.' Lj r r j - - ''■xU , ci^ia»i wrjuJd h;\vt M \htu rmidt; 

ctcar, thcn there would bc no rcstatctncnt of thc Law of Moscs, and 

rt would be esitablishcd for one time cycle only, This would be in 
accordance with the prindples of kw 3 in that a given tommatid thst 

no information aa to its continuance or its prccisc rimc 
CKtcnsion rcquircs compliancc for onc timc cyclc only. 

Howcvcr t it Ls. wcll known that thc Law of Moscs is not of that 

sort, for rcligious oblig^dons had been direcced by the l&w of Moses 
toward mankind until thc time of Je&us, and this is by the conscn- 

sus |of scholars]. Furthcrniorc a fsay thcjcwis-h disputants-] sincc thc 

itwalitlity of the first and ihe thirtl divisions of the problem [l, 3 2-b) 
abovc] has bccomc obviouK h ihcn Lhe Y^lidiiy of thc second onc [2.a)j 
may bc sccn distincdy^ and it impiics that thc abro^ation was prc- 



b. [To this, Baydawi] our author replicd thai God Most High 


1. had set forth quke clcarly and fully in thc Law of Moses 
what woh pcrccived to bc a noiice of its abrogation, but the lcngth 

niurni: mouu 1 003 

of time [yet cemaining] was not iircade cleai \ and this faci v^a$ not 
continuously re&iated aa tbe calls for [ihe Law*s] tmnsmisskin were 
so rare in comparison to ihc many calls to transmit thc iiindamental 

principlc of [Mosca'] rdigion„ indccd;. thc abundancc of" calk for thc 
transmbiiion of thc principlc was so much grcatcr than thc trequcncy 
of the calls to transmit tlie manner of [the I-aw's] function; or, 

2. [God.] Imd kcI Ibrih in Maaes* Law somrihing indicatiug thal 
[thc Law*sj continuariion would be in appearance, but not absolutcly; 
jirid thc.rt- is. nothing impossible in the abrogation of somethitig thsit 
jndkates that [ihe Law 1 s] continuance wa* [merely] in appcarance. 

Baydawi !iaid; 

L 428, T 209 

7'opk -1: Ihe blamekssness of the prophets 

a. /1/ter the mwtaiim &f tonumssianaig them 

Thc majority [of scholans] arc agrced 1 '"* upon thc fact of thc btame- 
Icssncss ,M of thc prophcts as rcgards unbclicf and disohrdicncc aftc 
ihe revelalioii kommissinnin 


Thc Fudaykiyah l3J scct of thc Khawarij hold that it n achrtissiblc 

rhat [the propheraj might commii acts of disobedien.ce, but at tho 

&amc time they bclieve that cvery act of disobcdicnce is onc of un- 

Some others grantcd that [the prnphets| might practice unbclict" 

as pious 'dissimulation*;"* indccdj thcy madc it obligatoiy bccause, 
thcy said, to throw tht: shijJ into morLal! dangcr i_s. forbiddcn. m Bnl 

Ia The vcrb^ *1navL , -/arc ajprrcd" [irtafaqa]., is ormrtcd in L, T, thc MS and MS 
Garrctl-Yah uda 44843; it is prcscnt in MS GaTTCtt 9B9Hii. 

m [*i$mah] l.c, "an immuriity Jrain eitor and sin. ?1 Cf. tbc artidcj ""isnuT, tci 

Ltt-l-2 bry WiJfrrd Myilelung. Irl bis A7M Bl-'l'x*njfiit. AJ-Sharif al-Jnrjani JtltnMs 
[ - ifimah] B5 ,fc a naiural dis]Wrticirm To avold sih anri the pnwer ro do $0. 

Ii! kc-ading [l'"ndaylkiya!h] wi|h thc MS tn pan, wrth Shahnaateni [A^/ur i&rts 
W Akiurrjs [ransLaied by A.K, Ku^i andJ.G. Rynn ilronj tSt&b #l-Mtte£ wd^-AlyWJj 
Ijondrnn: K_ Paul, [ISK4], pp. 104— 105J, ^nd with thi> Kn-i-2 ^irricte "Abu Ridayk 

1 Abd -\]Lah tbn ThawT 8 ", (d. 693) hy M.Th. Ilaiarama. In che tf:xts *e haw rdicd 
onj, the letcen fd3l] and |kaf | haw bccn corrupicd to r^ad [-dadj a.nd pam] rcspcc- 

rii^ly, iti thp: iiAme of ihe sect and its founeler. Only ihe MS rertdb lFu4ftyfci>^h]. 

T,: TadlEyah- T 3 MS Garrct; 2fl3B anrf Carirti !lfl!5JHb: Fu4avl!vah- MS Garirec* 

98SHk RidalLiyah. 

:M " Sec thu anklc u takiyya H ? by R. Strudiiruiiici and Makiar Djchli, in dic En-I-2j, 
V. 10:13+5. wheiT it h rtoted as^ :l oI" sptcial sigiulicijincr Ear thr Shi c a." 

131 Cr [Q.ti ! > 5ji 12:195] <L Do tui be ihrowia inco moriaJ danjprr lM. r your own hands." 

1004 3* kectiok 1* 1'OPICS 

[this practkc of dis&inniLlattori] was pmhibitcd; since if ii shaultl havc 
bccn madc altowahle, thcn thc prcfcrrcd timc for it would havc bccn 
whcn chc summons (i.c„ co prophcthoodj would be prcsentod, and 
rhus it would have lcd to thc conccaluicnt of religion complctcLy» 

The Hashwiyah 13 * gtanted thal the prophecs miglit venture itito 

major sins. hut a suh-scct [of thcir school] (orbade thc idca of [thc 
pmphets] commiiring [majoi sinsj intentkmaJly, whil^ yratuing that 

ihey might coinmit minur sins iiiieiuionally, 

Our [AshaSrah] colleagucs forbadc absolutrly thc idea of thc 
prophcts committing major tiins, but grantcd that minor sdna might 

hn commttted h^wdlessly, 

Our [i,e. s BaydawTs Surmi] posidon is that if it ahould ever hap- 

pcn that unbclicf or bliamcworthincss would cornc Irom [thc pruphcts], 

1. aH a c:oilscquenoe it wouJd bc ncccssary to follow thein in 
it, according to thc word of [GodJ Mosl High.. "So ibllow along [in 
God\ straight path]" [Q,6:153|; and then atso 

2, [a cc"isequenc^ would Iw that mch prophcta] would he pun- 

L 429 wiih *everiiy, 

II would bc as whcn [the Pruphel Muhamiiiad] had wanicd his 
womcn, according to [God + s] word, "Fur [anyonc of you who com- 
mits a plain abommationj thc punishmcnt will bc made double. 1 * 

[0, 33:30] d for free persons [Godj increased the prescribed pun- 

ishmcnt: thcy wcrc conaidcrcd mcrnbcre of thc party of Satan btcausc 
they did whatever they wished^ their tcstimony was not acceptnd. 

and they <ieserved to be rehuked and insulted. God Most High had 

*"God wUl curse those who insult God and Tlis messetiger both ui 
this world and thc next, M [Q 33:57] And thus, ihey were dismis&ed 

from their prophcthood; bccau&c a sinncr is a wrongdoejj, and a 
wrongdoer nill not hold thc commission of prophcthood^ according 

to ilic [God f s] wordj "Wrongdocrs s»h»]l ncvcr rcccivc iny cotnniis- 
sion: 1 (0.2:124] 

Let no one say thcit the 'commission 1 wa» a commission to polit- 

cond<Jc;3t:'d Ijy \.hc majority o? Mu$lim-i tn. hc wonislan as scholAn, md «ircmwi 
in thdr s.irachn*fint m "crwWy anihrDpomorpWc tradii]c>iis. ,,i S*-*: thc hri^f anJclo^ 

''Hiishwiyah"* hy an Rdimr ol' thc Kn-I-2. 


ical lcadcnrtup K bccausc* cvcn if that idca should l>c grantcd.. tht 
commissioii to prophcthood would bc far prclcrablc to tlic othcr 
[comio issionj . 

The atst (ff ihe Prtphtt Aluhammad 

NoWj rcgarding thc word of the Most Iligh, ^May God «ccusc you^ 

[Q 9:43J and His stalement, "May God pardon for you aU your 

sins oi days past and of days to camc", [O^ 48:2] as wcll as oihcr 
similar quotaikm^ [our poskion is that argumentation along thcsc 
linesj should bt* prcdicated on the nejection of a rnuch moie oon- 
vincing casc. 

Kcgardmg thc Fall of Adara, that faH was bclbrc his commission lo 

prophcthood, sincc at ihat time he did 1101 hav<? a peoplc, aiid accorcl- 

ing to the word of [GodJ, "Thcn [it was that] his Lord chosc him„ 

lorgave him and guided him," [Q 20: 122] 

'Dte case qfAbraham 

Rcgarding Abraham*s &aying, "ITiis is My Lord[?]* [Q, 6:715] that 
circumstancc is in the manncr of slalhig a [duhiousj as&umption, 
while his. statenienu rather hig action, [with respcct to] "their big 

rhief" [i.e., of iheir idols], i-s eithor a kind of mockAEyj or is a trac- 

ing of [liisj aclion to iis cause. sincc thc unbclicycrs 5 custom of mag- 

ntiying thc grcatest of thcir idolj induced him co do that. And his 

looking up at the siars was to gathcr [thc divine] evidencc and 
become acquaintcd with his Makcr, [God] Most High. Abraham's 
statemcnt, u l am iU". [Q 37:89] was to give noticc eithcr of a ( sick- 

nc&s" thcn prcscnt* [or s of chcir sickcning rcligious atdtudcs| 9 or of 

a fact aaiticipatcd in tlic luturc, fi r c? z l am gohig to he ill 1 ] as hc 

did mot lic. 

Ihe qfJosfpk 

In ilw case ofJosrph*s hiding tlic fact of his frce status, it waa becauw 

of his awarrncss that hc would bc killcd. And aa Ibr hia d<.^iiv |i,e^ 

toward his niaster'5 wifc], \tj^ 12:24] that was [only an automauc] 

namral dispositionj, not somcthing voluntary. Aiid his pkcing his 

cup in thc travel luggagc of his brother was on aecount of his secrct 

plan. And whatcvcr [wrongj came frojn his bicthrcn was not diir- 


ing their prophetJiood, if it ^hould h^ grantcd {hat thfiy we : re prophete. 

3-. sF.cT[f>N i, Tonca 

In thc easc of thc iiarmtivc about David 5 [cf Q_ 3ti;21-24j it docs 
not ronhnn what [some dkputants] have ytatcd., and thc vcrse can 

bear another meaning. 

b. Be/ore the rewlabon ainmisswmng th&n 

With regard tt> what happens hHore ilie rewkttion. [commission- 
ing thc prophcts], Oie majority [of schdarsj have pruhihiied [thc; 
idca that a prophet would br guilly of] mil>elief or fahricatiiig a lic 
and i>crscvcring in it, lcst conTidcncc Ln [thc Prophtt] should ceasc 
complcLcly, allhough thcy do grant [that it mighl pos&ibly happcnj 

;is ii rarilyj ;-us Ijl tiu- stoiy i>i' thi: lii rrhrt jj ■ =f". |i.ihc g jb. Thr iTiijjiiUcal 

Rajidah [sectj, howwer, have made blaineTessncss ;in absohue re- 

quircrncot. 13 * 

biahani savii; 

L 429, T 200, MS 22la:l 

Topic 4: TTrd? bimmtesstiA^ qf ihe pntphet 


a. 4/^r '^* rtr^kUio7i qf ceminissiontng thtm 

Thc niajority [of scholars] are agnTd upon ihc fact of the blauic- 
tcssncss of thc prophcH, as rcgards untjdk^ and disobcdiciKC altcr 
chc rcvelation jcommisHitmmg ihcrn 

The Fudaykiyah scct of the Khawarij admit thc pussibility that 

prophcts cvcn thcn might comniit acts of di!K>bcdicncc.. whilc at thc 
same time the bclicf [of thc Fudaykiyah] is that every act of dis- 
obedi^nce would be unbeJicf Thus, they admit ihe possibility also 
that propheta even [after their coirimis&ion] miglit be guilty of un- 

Thcrc wcrc somc pcoplc who did not grani thc possibiiity of unbe- 
lief iii prophets, but they did grant that [prophcts] could givc thc of unbelief through pious 'dissimiilation 1 . Rather, they 

madc [such dissirnulation] obligatory for thcm 3 bccau&c» thcy said., 
to manitest Tslani^ when lt would learl to hcing Idllcd, would be to 
[hrow one"s soul into mortal danger, and to thmw one's. soul into 
cn[M-(;i3 dang^r h ^ ieligifnj-s prohihiiion, accordirjg co Uie woid of 

ia r Fh<f Riaf]dai] [or t RawaJid] bmutie n Jcadin^ pany of ihc Shi c A]i who straii^Ly 
s rejrcLtxf llic Sucieil cUlbns uis lo t^Iio shoukl tu^tr gw.wrrded ihe Prupliet M uKiirrLULiHl 

by righB. Itistead, they d^unned i!iat c AJi and liia lAmUy ^ere che proper sucoe»- 
sttrt. See E. KolJberg 1 ? anide, il atRafida ,a in En-I-2. 


[GohcI] Most High, u And do not b* thrown imo mortal danger by 
your own hands*" [Q, 2:1125] Thus, if manilcsting onc 1 s IslLtm should 
bc a rcligious prohibition, chcn manifesting unbelief would bc oblig- 
atory! L 430 

But the argument [supporting sueh dissimulauon] was prohibited, 

iw:i:ausc if rnanifc5Ung unbcllef should bc admissiblc as pious dis- 
simulation, then thc prcicrrcd tmic For it would be at thc timc whcu 

the siimrnons [ie, s to propheihood] would bc preseiued, since 

L all thc pcoplc at that momciit would bc rcjccring [the sutu- 

nr?ons]j and, 

2".. it would not bc admissible to pre&ent the summom [pri- 
yately] to any T 210 of the prophets. Thus, thc situarion would 

lead lo thc concealmcnt of rdigion cornpletely. 

Thc Ha&hwiyah grant ncithcr the pos&Lhility of unbclkf |in thc 

prophctsj nor the appearance of it, bui they do grant the possibil- 

ity that [thc prophcts] might vcntuic into grcat sins, A sub-scct [of 
thcir school| forbadc |lhc idca thal] the prophets intcnLionatly would 
commit grcat sins, hut granted thac [ihey intenttonally might com- 
rnit] minor sins. 

Our [Asha^irah] collcagucs forhadc absokitdy tbe idca thal the 

prophcts might commit grcat siriSj whcthcr intcnrionally or not> but 

thcy did grant chat minor oncs might be commktcd hccdlcssly but 
not intentionally. 

Our p.e^ Baydawi 5 s and IsfahanPs Sunnij position is that if it 

should ever happpn that any unbelief or sin should come £rom [thc 
pmphets) :J then 

1 . as a GOdLHcqiHriice u would bc a rrligious oblijgatiun for the 

pcoplc to Ibllow them 5 accordiiig to [God*s] Kiatnncnt, L Tollow along 

[in God*s straight path] 1 *; [Q 6:153 and 155] and tbus, [this first 

c0.n5cqucn.cej wotild lead lo joining a religious obligation with a rcli- 
gioLLs prohihition! — But rurthcr, if any unl^iier or sin should comc 

[jrom the propiiecs, then 

2. [a conscqucncc would lx: that thosc prophcts] would bc pun- 

ished with extreme severity, To exp]ain the logical necessity r here it 
is that since the slattis of ihe prophets h one of extreme honor, for 

sin to originaLo wiifi anyone in this catrt;Ory would he somt:thing 
moat ahnminahle, and therefore that one'8 punishment would l>e 

<:x1rnrLrJv seVKntp 

t would bc] as whcn thc womcn of thc Prophet wcrc wt*n]od 
by thc statcmcnt of thc \1ost Tlijgh, "O women of thc Prophctj for 

1008 3« section" u toptc-s 

anycmc of you who commliLs a plain abonunaiioTi. thc punishmciit 
wiO be made double™ m 33:30] S 22 lh Mort:over, the legally 
prescribed puniahments of frcc pcr&ons- wcre increased, for a slave*$ 

penalty was only half that of ihc free, 

if unbclicf or sin should originatc with [such prophcts]» tlicy would 
be reckoned or the Party of Satan, for then thcy would be doing 

wliat Saian desired. But thts conchrcion would be fal*e, &ince alt who 

arc of the Party of Satan are thosc who lose 5 according to thc worc 
of Mini thc Most Hi^h 5 "Arc not the Party of Satan thosc who losc?** 

[Q Sfi:t9j And [thc conchision| that [truej propheta would [cvcr] 

bclung ki tbe Party of Salan woukl be fal&e by the consensus [of 


Purtbcr., if unbclicf and sin should oripnatc with prophcte, thcn 

their tesiimony woukl not be adimi&sible a according to the statement 

of Him thc Most Hi^h, 1f someonc of bad reputation should come 
to you with an [important[ announccmenL then you must surcly 
clarily the matter." [Q^ 19:6] But again, this conclusion would bc 
false, othcrwise, it would be the nearcsc thing to the ahandonment 

[i.e. f of judgment] and it would bc false by con&ensus. 

Kurthcr, if unbclicf and sin should originate with [prophcts], thcy 
would de^i.nve to bc rcbukcd and insulted t bccause unbclicf and sin 
are an abominalinn, and lo i rject an abominatjon is a duty. Hnwever, 

the rcjecrion of a pruphct rcqiiircs that hc bc rcbukcd and iusulLcd» 
and to insult a [truc] prophct is a rcligious prohibition on the basis 
nf the statement of Ilini thc Most High, "God will cursc tho?c who 
insult God and His messenger in thU world and the next.™ [Q 33k57J 

Further, if unbclier and stn should originate with [prophets], then 
thcy would \x disuiisscd from thc prophclhood, bccause a sinricr k 

a ^Tongdocr^ and a wrongdocr wiU not rcccivc thc commissioii of 
a prophetj accordin^ to iGod^s stacement^ lL VVron^docrs shall ncvcr 
receh* My CommissLon," [0^2:121] 

Let no ouc say that [God] mcant by ^commisEion' thc commis- 
sjnn lo political lcadcrship, not prophethood, thc indication for that 

[imerpretation] being the body of the verse where He addressed 

Abraham wtth Hisi wordj "Indeed^ T will niake you a Itader for the 
peopkp" [Q, 2:124] and when [Abraham] asked, "Will you choo^e 

aiso from my oAspring?" [God] replicd, ^Wrongdricrs will never 
rcccive L 431 My cummi&sioii. 1 ' Indccd;, wc hold that thc com- 

mission lo leadcrship in thc versc [spcaking to Abraham] is thc com- 

mission to pr^shethood, and siiioe God Most High did tnake Abraham 


a prophet, thereJbre, by His saying, "I will make yo» a leader ibr 

the pcoplc^ He mcant, "I will niake you a prophct for the people," 

So evcn if it shouki be grantcd that the Mos-t Hi^h had mcaitt by 
leadership* scjmeihiiLg olher ihan prophcthood, still the commissioii 

of prophe ihood would be a more appropriaie inteipretation in that 

situation, that is, in that wrun^docrs wuukl nmr recEivr iL 

Among the scholars who giani that thc orlgination of sm wilii 
pmphcts would be a possibility in snme respccts, all have completeJy 
avoklrcl the facw that indicate tn che following wayi the abscnoe oi' 

atiy iin cornniitttd by the [truc] prophcts, 

Tlie case of tht! I%of>lKl AtuJi&mtnad 

There is ilie siatemctir of [God] Mosi High to Hls Pnophec, peacr 

be upon hini^ "May God cxcuse you; why did you givc permi&sion 
to them?" [t^> 9-43] And there is His. staiemcnt, c *May Gori pardon 
[nr you aU your sins of dayH paa-t arid of days to COinr." [Q 48=2 J 
Tndcrd, thc two vcrscs indicatc thc coming" of sin MS 222a froin 
the Prophet, may Uod blcss and savc him. Ilic lirst vcrsc docs so 
becaiise thc divine pardon indicates that (he sin had heen conlirmcd, 
and the second ver$e docs so bccause thc pardon coming after the 

prior occurrenee of sin is a clear staternenr as to che sin's source. 

Thc author [Baydawi], may God havc mcrcy on hini, 13 * said in 
rcpJy to this that any argunicntation about thcsc mattcrs shoukl bc 

predkated on tbe rejection of someching tnuch more convincing, tak- 

ing thc Lwo lcxLs togclhcr- 

Let no one say that, if the "rajcction of somcthing much morc 
comincing" should make necessary the **excusing and forgiving"^ 

then all the religious observances origitiatiiig u-iih the Prophet wouLd 
haw the same st»ius as thc "ex-cu$ing aud ihe forgiving/' because 

no religious ccrcmony cxiuts unksn thcrc i& aircady high above it a 
counl^rpart religious ccremony. 


Ici ihis ui|jic boiti L and T rewwtl ]afahaEU as using ih<? f&rmula imlicadng 
rcwemicc Ebr one dectasjRd, oAesi recently cWceswd "ITius, k comld favor a lacs 

dai-n- tbr Baydawi^ de-ach. Hainrl Allah Mmtav^fi Qazvicii jb. cn. bBO/ J "28 1-2^ tl. 

aitcr 740/1335 -40], in his T*TilA-i Gu&hk says that Bayda^i dird in 716/1316 17. 
".["hBs da.w U'i>uld iiL^i L^ dnring che final li>ng J^gn ^f aKM^Iik a]*Na.<cir Muhammad 

[1309-134O], and aticr thc ldng H larahaTiii patrc»n, had conuTiissioncd thi5 prcscnt 

tunuTKTitaiyj ahortly after hc mct Isfahani in 13-22. ITic MS omi!s thc formula htre 

and Lci ihc IbUow-iEg inslanccs of mcntion of thc author. Further, its use hcrc fhay 

reprcsecLl; nothicij more ihan Isfahani 1 s gcntlc disagnccmcnl wilh Ba^dawi 1 * opltiLOil 

UEh Llkis mattcr. 


Indeedj we | l&ftihaiii] holcl nhat there Ls no rlatiger thar nll reli- 

gious obsei\ p ancra should have the sarne statu* iis tlic "ex<:tising and 
thc forgi\dng T: ; and that cvcn if [such a dan^cr] should bc grantcd, 
still h would not be admkdble that all rcligious obscrvances woukl 

have the same stalus as ihc "excusing and the fargiving", Ibr the 

"cACusing and thc forgiving" cxist only whc n* con5cqiLcnt upon thc 
"rcjcction of somcthing much more comhicing", thcrc is the loss of 
some advanta£c and the occurrcnce of somc disadvamagc. 

'Utt carc of Adam 

An ocamplc of thc abscncc of blamc in prophcls is thc Fali of AdLtm, 

for [Ciod'sj staienwnt is, "Adam diaotKyed his Lord and went astray." 

[Q, 20:121] This demonstraces ckarly that ihe dssobedience origi- 

natcd with him,, Adarn bcin^ a prophct by conscnsug, In rcply, our 

aiithor |B^ydawiJ, May God'S mercy be upcm him, sairi ihat the 

Fall of Adam occurred bcfore his prophethood» sincr Adam at thai 

time had no ptoplt, and thcrc is no prophet uiilcss there is a ptro- 

plc for hiiTL It is. morcover, accordin^ to the word of [God] Most 

High ? "Then his Lord cho&e hmn, forgave him t and guided him" T 
10,20-122] ihat i% 7 He 'commisgiotied 1 him as prophcc 

Some scholars give as m excuse for the story of Adam that His 

word» u Adam disobrycd his IjnnT [Q 20: 121] reaJly mcans, a Adarn*s 
childrcn riisohcyed"; ;is whcn [God] Mosi High said, "Ask the towns- 
prople. 1 * [Q. 12:82] l37 Conhrming this [mterpreSation] is [God"s] say- 
ing in the stoiy of Adain and E^e, "When Hc had brought them a 
linc son^ thcy sct up [Hgurcs of idols as] partncrs for [God] bccausc 
of what He had donc for thcm." [Q, 7:190] Now thc consensus [of 
scholars] h that Adam and Eve were not idolators,, but only their 

chLldren were, 136 

Some scholars say that ihat was after his commissioriing [n a 

prophct]. And al-Asamm 1 " 11 * asscrtcd that it was by way of forgctful- 

n7 1-€. K ^hr siory m*y mvdvg fami]y-widi; guili; or comiminUy^wiide awart a«u of 

ifath 9 Thc 3<cQLid refcrcncc: cjohic$ from chc stoiy of JoRcph's brochcrs cfHifrot«ing 
dicir TathcT Jacob on ihrir rcturn frorn P.g^pt whcn onc of thcir nujnbcr was hcld 
hosUigc; thirrr. In cBcct. lfvr> ? tcHJacob, *If ywu du- n«H betitt* our xtixy s thc 

iciwLupeoptc [in ligyptj fcwr ihe f*cts." 

138 Rodwell m>t« in, his rraiLslarion of rhc Qjir J am ai ihis pmsic thaT Bay<3awi's 
micrprctatjoii k that Adam and Evc :L and thdr idoJaLroiJs paatnjty" sct up The 
figiLTC3 aa parttiff??. [7A/ firaif, trajisUccd from thc Arabk by J.M. RodwcSL (pArryman^s 

Libraiy) Lo»dmi: J.M. Drcit, »909 ctc. ? p. 3L2 ; n. 2.] 

1 Iy Piolnhjy Ahu ;ii-" : AhiLkii Muhamniad Lhn Wrjuh .iI-Nis t i B :;n.:n : raiLrd al-Asamm. 



tiossj, in atrord with [GoeTs] word^ :i Wc certainly had coinrnissioritd 
Adarn prcviouslyi so hc Ibrgot! 7 * [0,20:115] But an objccticm ha& 
bccn raiscd that Ihlis remmdcd Adam on die occasion of thc whispcr- 
iiij^ [0/20:120] ahout the matter of the prohibition ? when he said, 
"Your Lord rorhadc you both L 132 [to «eat of] this tree for no 
other rcason dian Irat you boih miglit bccoinc angtla." [Q. 7:20] 
And so wilh this rcmindiLig^ lorgccting would hc intpossiblc [aa Adam f s 

excuse], Thc reply to this [objection] was T 21 1 that admissbly 

thcrc inight bc an occiision for ncminding othcr tlian thc tiine or 
forgctfulncs5> othcrwi&e thcre would he no rcason lor [God] to say,, 

"So hc ibrgot! 11 [(£20; 115] MS 2221) Morewcr, God Most Higli 
rehnked [AdamJ for that by saying, "Did Wc not ibrbid you two 

ihis lrc£?" [Q 7:22] And Adani and Evc conlessed their and 
^idj, ^O oar Lord, we havc wronged ourselves"j [Q_ 7:23] so God 

Most High acccpicd iheir repcniMncej for He sakl, **So [God] for- 

him," [Q 2:37] All this evidence excludes forgctfu1ness [as 

Adam's chicf motive in his diaobcdicncc j . 

Sorne scholars have granred thar Adam was mindfiil of ths pro- 

hihiiion, ImjI tlic fkct that he came fbrward to obtain thc praphetic 
commissioTi is lo hc undcrstood by a proccss of intcq?R'tc«3on 1i4v- 

ing s*veral a&pcrcts. 

1. Al-Nazzam asscncd that Adam undcrstood from thc divinc 
word^ "13o not romc ncar to ihu trec' f , [Q 2:35J ihat it relcrrcd to 

the [trcc as an] indmdual specimen, while what waa mearit was thc 

wholc spccicsr The word» "this"* just as it may bc a rcfcrcncc to ari 
individual specimen^ may be a reference to the whole species, as it 
is in the word of thc Prophel, "ITais ahlulion h thc kind witlioui 
which God will [iot acccpi your praycr ritc 

2. Othcr& asscitcd that although thc cxcJusion was apparcnt in 
riiaking thc trec unlawtul, thcrc is no prccisc stipuladon. in thc mai- 
tcr^ so [Adam] disregarded its apparent nieaning becausc of an indi- 
catioii hr had of [ii as meaning] somcihing else. 



4fc a oclcbiaitd ducioi wid tradiiiurLisi <A th-e ShatiH -school, borri Lrt 247/661, ditd 
in 346/ 957-8."— En-I-2, art. ,B al*A*amm ff by R. Blachere, 

m TTie scribe of l*, tbll&wed by the type«ener of T p inad^rtemly concinues 

bcjrond ihc cnd of Isfahani's quotc Erom it and addLs part of th^ phraac-, *\ ,. or 
become |iTinmcnrtat^| „ %1 Thc M& arid MS Gamctt 989Ha stop wilh thr word, "angt-b " 

H1 Hadich, L432:B-9 pi*dh* ww^O' 15 y*qbA] AHah *l-sa'lah ilL» bihij tndriiMl 

traditi-on, dtcd as bcinij in .SVzAiA A/iuiKn, Iitian, t* 41. 

Mt L and T Lnsejt: "of aam-ihLnj cbe" [li-dalLl ghayrihi ^indahu); whilc thc M5, 

MS Garrcn 989Ha and MS Garrett-Yahuda. -tlStt do not. 

1011? 3> SECTION I h TOPICS 

In summary, when the poiiits of evidencc arc cGntradktory there 

is no way to rescue the matter esicepc either by an interpretatioii 
[i.c 3 of thc mcaniiit;] or by an authoritalive arbiirary dtjcision."* 

7Af £os£ o/Abroham 

And [here is ihe case of the saying of Atanihani^ "Thi* h my Ix>rd?" 

[0^6:76^77] m Tndeed, il is uiibdief 3 bul il originaied wiih Abrahsim, 
ivho is a prophct by conscn.sus.. T'o thia [Baydawi] replicd that 
Abraham*s saying, "Thi* h my Lord? >T [or ? "Would this be my 
Lord?* 8 ] was by way of rtaiing a 'dubious assumpiion\ For if any- 
o-ric wishcs to invalidate a statement» he makes it as a positivc onc 
at first 3 tlien he invalidatcs it. 

An cxamp]e of this ia the »uuemetit of Ahraham, "No, but ratii- - 
their l big chieP over there surely did it", [Q 21:63] whkh was a 
Jic- 24 = But lying u a sin ? and so a sin is&ucd frorn a prophcL [Baydawi] 
replied to fhis in lwo waysi 

1. Abrahain madc rhis staietncnt by way of mocking the unbdicv- 
cra, as if you wcrc to say to your companion who ia blind but bclicv r cs 
that hc is ablc to writc^ "You wrote thi»?" hy way of mockcry. 

2- llic ascription of thc dccd to thcir "big chicP* was. an ascrip- 
tion of the deed to thc cause, iince thc magniiying of the idol on 
thc part of the unbelicvcrs induced Abraham to smash it to pieccs, 

Anothcr cxamplc is Abraham + 3 lookiiig up at the stars to lcarn 
his own siruation from thc inHuence of thc stars, according to the 

wurd of the Most High, "St> hc lookcd once at the stare and sakt, 

L l am ill." 1 [Q 37:89] Now, looking at thc stars with this point of 
vicw in mind i& ibrbiddcn. His statement, '"I am ill", was a lic, 
bccause he was not sick and a lic is sin. 

| BaydawTs] reply is 

1+,i [ia'wil| or [tawqif]_ 

3H ln Ahmcd AlPs Ai-Qiir*&JT 7 a OuiiempGTaTy Tronstatitm [Gnl puhlishcd in 1934]. 

an iltrmalivr rcadinp is prracntcd. an fihe hasis that thc passagt includcs thc dia- 

lojjue bcn^. 1 ™! Ahraham and Uis iachcr, a Sabcan ^tar-worsldppir, To AbraJiam^s 

fathcr is ^Kttl thc cscbimaLiiHis,, "Tha \s my I/jrd!" wkilc Aljratiain himsclf cxpr«scs 

■mtLcism cf the impcrf«aions he 4wn in thc ort)s of ih^ slty, ;inid Jinally rtSt>lv08 
tht- cn;aiu x r l>y liis ccjctiLon of 3ia.r-^vntihjp. l-utthcir, in thia OuHan u^nslatuHi, chc-rc 

ii thc intcrprctation ofAbraham T s saying that ht was ill jls his rcsponsc to thc p„'o- 

pk^s star-wDrshij.1 

llS T}jis is a «Itrenoe to c]ie Q^ir ? Aii siory cil" Abraham whcn he ^i^s Iwwtiing 
his lather srndl lus rclyitw* for chcir ^llierenoe i«> idol worthip. Hf was left alonc 

for $ ijirie, M> he hsnoke aU tlw idols eHT^pt the Larg*!flc onc. Thcy ariupd Ahr^ham 
if he dkl it, bi5l ho rrplird accnstng tho Largr idol ^chcir hig chicf'\ and mrK^.kingK' 
addod, "'Ask hini, pcrhaps they fi.c- ? thc idob] can spcak! 11 ' 


1. chat *-\brahairTs looking MS 223-a at thc sturs was not to 
know about his situation from thc inAuencc of the gtars, but rathcr 

hh lookitig at the siars was to gaihtT evidencc [of \hc divine hand- 
iworkl and to know his Maker thc Most High, and so obserytng the 

stars. with this point of vicw in mind would bc obcdiencc. because 

of the statemcnt of the Most Ilighj "Ihey ponder thc crcation of 

die heavens anii ihe earlh-" [Q, 3=1911 And also 

2. tliai [Abrahait^sJ sLatcmmi, "I am ilT\ is admi&ibly infor- 

mation about a prcscnt 'sickncss 1 [i.e^ nausca?] or a sickncss [that 

was goingj to occur in the tiiture, L 433 and in Lhat r.asc ir would 

not consiirute lyin 

TTit taa o/Josepti 

There is the case of Joseph's hiding the fact of his frcc s-tatus at thc 

(ime of hk salc> tliis bcing a conccalment of thc iruth, and con- 
ccalmcnt of thc truth bcing a sin. [Baydawi] rcplicd that Joscph hid 

his f"ree status only hccause he was snre oj" heing killed if he should 

irvc»l liis Irecdom; aJso it happcncd bcforc his prophelhood. 

Anothcr mattcr was Joscph^s dcsirc for aduitcry.. according lo tlic 

statcmcnt of thc Moat High» *'Hc dcsircd hcr\ [Q, 12:24] dcsirc for 

adullery bcing sin. [Raydawi] rcplicd that thc dcsirc of Joscph was 

only] natural [actracuon] betause the mdimuion of a man ibr a 
wornan is natural; it is not a deficicncy in the prerogativc of men 

but ratJicr it is an attributc that is hcalthy and involuhtary. 

Anothcrr csample is Joseph'5 placing his drinking cup in thc htg- 

gagc of his brother to chaige hin] with stealing, wbich is perfidy, 

pcrJiidy bcing sin. [J3aydawEJ rcplicd Ltiat that was donc wdtlL thc 

ajnstnl ijI" L Lj.-i hjinluj, tu ordej" lo s\ci\ witli him. so ic wmuJc! not 
b* perfidy T and so is not 5in. 

Annther case is what gri|3(inated with Joscph 1 » brothcrs iti thcir 
ihrowitig him to chc boltom of thc pit, thus harming their fa[herj 
amd thcir lying [to thcir iathcr] that a wolf atc Joscph, all of whk*h 
was sin. [Baydawi| replied tJiat we do not grant that Joscph^s broth- 

ers were propliets, Also, even if ii shonlH bc granted that they wcrc 

prophcts, what originatcd with thcm w r as not during the statc of thcir 

The case qfDwid 

And then there is thc r.asc of David and his coveting the wile of his 
hmth^r [soldi^r] Uriah. As Crod Most High lold it by ihe tongu-e of 
one of tlie [pmpJsetic] angeh. [spcaking as Uriah]; 

1014 3- SKGTION l t TOPICS 

HThis mari who is my brother has (br hirnsclf nincty-ninc iemalc 
sheep, azid 1 havc [butj onc Icmakr shccp. Thcn hc said to me., Tut 
her under my responsibiIily\ and he was too overbearing for mc iu 

lalking in Jront of everyoiie-" |Q, 38:23] All thal was sirj. [BaydawT] 

leplied thal ihe vaiidit>- ofthe narr<iiive aboul David is noi conhrmcd 

hy what [ihc dispiLtatits] havc sct forth^ nor docs thc vcrsc indicatc 
what Lhcry have sct Ibrth, hut ralhcr it can bcar anothcr meaning, 

Thi* is [ati oulline of] the skuation regarding the doctrinc of thc 

prophcts" blamclcssDCss after thc rcvelat]on ccmniissioning thcm. 

b. Befmv the reueiatwu. commissionuig them 

As fbr the rime before thc revclation [cnmmissioning them], most 
of iht scholars prohibited ariy admission of the idca tbat thc pruphcts 

could bc guilty of uabclicf, of &preading ialschuod,, and of per- 
sistcnce Ln sin> lcst a prophct should losc rcliability compktaly. How- 

ever, they admiticd the possihility uf disobedience on rare uccasbns, 

MS 223b as in the stoiy of Joseph's brcrthcra» 

Thc fanatical Ratidnh [or^ Rawaftd[ tnadc it an absoluie obliga- 
tion iha[ rhe prophcts should he held hlamelcss from all sin and dis- 
c rfHxfrcnce 3 whethcr sins nrere great or small, whcther donc intcarionsilly 

or hecdks&iy, or whcthcr bcfore or nftcr thcir commissionin^ |a& 

Uaydawi said: 

1,433, T 211 

Biamelessness is a psyehic possession pmsmting miquily 

h should be noted here ihat blamc .-Irssness 1 * 5s a psychic habicual 

po&session that makes U impossible [ior the hiimanity of ihe pniplictn] 

to fall into iaiquity. It is based upon a knowledge of the slianicful 

vittz in acts of disobcdicnoe and ihc glorious virtucs in acts of obc- 
dicncc- It 15 vcrilicd in thc prophets by thc facl that thc revelation 
[romraissionijicj ihem] regubrly ihllows upon tli^ia' ri.-inprabtning lliis 

ktiowledge, llieir tuniing away fixuTi thc habit of acting hccdlessly, 

and thcir rebuke 14j for rcjccting a morc appropriate choicc of action. 



F.l>. R;i7i : fli suinm-ic3i>n., CnittpttuiikM #f r Ihougfii Ammt n?uf Altti/m (= Mn&osMii) 

haa thc dtscu^oLi of ihc hliairnctcuncRs of thc. pmph«;(i on pp. I2LS-2'JI. 

1,17 Rc-adirig [^itabj K n=bukc i% foUqwkig MSS Garr^tt ^Hh, Garrctt 26:1B and 
Garrrti-YahLKk :i()ftl |f., 1 53h: 1 B). L and T md ['iqah]. Tmcts (dt thc Islahani 
coInmc^ta^) , portioii show dirHcrcni sciilhal hands: ],: Letrcr "t" indislinct at trvp as 


Objeclinn has been. rajsed ihal [blamelessnessj is due XO tbc fact 

thai an in<|ivtdual^ nature is such ihat sin is pncvcnted from con- 
trollirtg bim by a spcdal pruperty in his soul or his body. Rut this 

objoction b impossiblc bccausc if [lnankind] wcrc such ilitn he would 
not bc worthy of praisc for his blamclcssness, and ihc imposition of 
any religiou& obljgation upon hirn would bc prcvcntcd; morcovcr., 

The objeclion is iinpowiible by iht* word of [Godl Most High, 

*'Say, 4 I am only a human bcini; likc yourscKcs. I do whatcvt:r h 

revealed to me/ t! [Q 18:110] and, 

"Whai if We had not firmly cstablished you?" LQ 17:74] 


ani savs: 

Lm t T2ll a MS 223b 

Rtamekssness is n psychic pttssession prwmtittg iniyuity 

Whcn [Baydawi] had dcmonstratcd thc blamelessncss of thc prophets 

he addcd a note on ihe mcaning of tlic prophcts 1 bJamelcssncss. 

Il is a psychic habitual posscssiou thai makes ii jmpossihle for tts 

host to fhll into miquityi and it is based upou L 434 a knowledgc 
cf both thc disgrace in acts- of disobcdicncc and thc glory in dccds 
of T 212 obedicnce. You. shotild undcrstand that if a given p&ychic 
stmcture |in a pcraon] is nnt wcll fhundcd then. it is calEed a L state\ 

while ifit 3S well (bunded then it is caJled a 'habiuial posse&SHtti'. 

A psychk structure that makcs it irnposaiblc fbr its host to 
into wrongdoing, which b thc purming of acts of disobcdicncc and 

the avoiding of acts of obcdicnce, becomes- 

i. a habituai posscssiou only by rcason of thc fact that its host 
knows aboul boih the dugracc in acts of dLsobcdicncc s or^ thcir 
shameHilness, and the glory in deeds of obedience. And this is becausc 
whcn thc structure prevcntin£ its ]iost from WTongdoini^ is rcalizcd 

hi t]^c soul,, and when its hosi unclersi;arids what iiijuncs are entailcd 

3n disobedience and whnt benetits arc cntaile<l in obediencC;. then 

[thc structurc] becomes 

if $cfap^d offi T: PiLabJi Garreit 9B9Hft. [ E itab] bul tt*e Letccir 4 *t" is sKghtly liKipcd 
■as Ln Lhc icitcr 4t q"; Guittt-Vahuda 44^6: probably [*itab| but the 'V 1 looth x 

|H * Thc notc »cklcd by Baydawi is distuHcd Ln Ba^i r 3 CtimpeiKtiurn vit the begin- 
ning of ihc «ection uis Ijbimcl^suiew. Sw tlse i^oic in B^bwi^ <ex* ihmc i^ litr* 

Li>nnTH fc niixi upi>u. 

1016 3? SECTION l ? Torics 

2- well foiinded. And this is because, when [the hnst] knows 

ihe disgrace iu acl* of dLsobedience and tlie gloiy in acts of ubcdi- 

cnccj, thcn 

3. he will dcsirc to tum to acts of obcdicncc and he will desirc 
to turn against acts of disobcdicncc, so hc obcys and docs not dis- 

obey, and chis stmcture [of psychic habitual possession] becotnes well 

tbkindcd. This habitual posscssion h vcrificd in the prophets by the 
faci ihat ihe revelation oottnmlssioiiing them irgnUirly Ibllows upim 

4. thdr remtrmbcrring thal knuwlwlgr and 

5. thcir turning away Jruin a habii of hccdk-ss action s and 

(>. thcir bcing rcbukcd for ncjccting a prcicrable choicc of action. 

lndeed, if any heedless aclion comes Eroin thcm or il" thcy rejcct 

«onne preferable action, they are. not rejert«d lw a* if unimportant, 

but rathtr.. thcy are relmked and made to taktt nutc about il, and 

thc mattcr is. hcavily imprcsscd upon thcm in conSmiation of that 

habitual possession, 

An objcction has bccn raiscd that "blamdcssncss 5 is due to thc 
tact that an indLYiduaTs naturc makcs it impossiblc for sin to con- 
trol hini on aecount of a special property either in his soul or hLs 
body. But ihat objection is rendcred impossibk by arguments irom 

both reason aud tradkion. 150 

By *reasoii\ [thc objcctkm] is iinpossiblc. because if ii aliuuJd be 
so thcn 

1 . tht- host of this special pmperty would nol he woithy of 

praisc for his blamclcssne&^ arad 

2, thc imposidon of any rcligious obligadon upon him would 

bc impo&iiblcj thus both command and prohibition, both rcward and 
punishmcnt would bc usclcss, 

By "tradition', |the objectionj is impossible of th^ word 

of [God]: 

ll Tcll [thcm], L I am only a hiiman bcing Kkc yoursclvcs 3 but a 
rev r elation has come to me, 111 \Q^ 18:1 10) and [God 3 s| word, 

ll VVhac if Wc had not PLrmly established you? You were about 

rcady to lcan toward thcir sidc ju^L a litdc." [Q 17:74] The first 

1W L, thc MS and MS Carr-ctl-V r ahL>da 44S6 rcact [lam yuriak|; T and MS 
GarrcU 9&9IIa r^ad: [lam yutr^ku]. 

IWI Tradilion [naql] incluclcs thc Qur^an as wcll ai Muhammad^s word or act, 
as rcJatcd in thii; Hasiith. 

]'Ji0FHETHOOD 1017 

vcr&c [of ihcsc iwo] provcs that dicr prophct is likc thc rcst of tlic 

natinn in havmg tlie right, udmissihly, to originate an act of dis- 

obedicnce. And the second verae MS 224a imlicates that Gori 

Mnsi High liHcl Grmly esublkht:*] [the prophfi| in not leaning co- 

watd thcnij othcnwLw. hc woukl have lean«l loward them; thus, 

[hisj lcaning toward thtiis., whkh would hc a sin s was nol sort 




Bavda.wi said: 

L434 y T2I2 

Topit 5: Tke prupfats are snperior tu ittt angets 

Most o!" our coilcagucs [ol thc Asha^irah] and of the Shi c ah havc 
taken .his pcnsiiicsn. [i.e., that (ht prophcis arc snperior to thc angcb]^ 
in oppositian to ihe pliilosophi-r* and (he Mu^/ilnli, as weU as to 
Q»di [Abu Bakr al-Raqillani] and Abu *Ahd Allah aJ-Hulaymi of 
out colIeagucSj on thc subject of thc 'highcr angcls 1 . 

a. The (brmer [group f i.e. K the ]arger of the iwo divcrging groups 



of schnlars] have presentcd their ar^ument based on scvcral points; 

I. [God] Most High commandcd thc angcls to bow down 
bclbrc Adam, and [God] ihe AI]-VVisc Onc wnuld not commartd a 
supcrior to be sulisei"vieni m a subordinatc. 

lil [al-iruL^ikah a]-Sihvi,wih]. Piuiraaor Calwrley ha* iioicd hjemc that ^th-L'- iHljcc- 
Llvc [*u£wTv»h] , ■^l^ghc^ ,, i.s not Found adjaoent to tfor ward ""anRels" in Qur*anic 

", Hu( "the conccpt .and chc ic.rm ^arrhang^h 1 * camr latcr." We add that the 
tcrms [alrjnala^kah al-muqarra!ifkn] apjir-ar tugcdjcr at'aji +:172 and we havc 
heen tranalaring this phrasc as ^Ati^ls ■:>]" the Dlylllc l^csc:nce" ? i.c-, thc Aiigicls 

*ih-eil liaw bf-™ brmjght ncur' to (iod's thronr. Jt sccms wry prubnblcp dterefore,. 

iliat iJw "ATigels od"tbe DtyLne Prwncer 1 were lacer equaiedi in con^pc amd tcnni- 

iiolus^' Mih the- "hu^hpr angds*, ro hi u a palring wiih the iciwcr an^Ls 1 . Wc bc][rvc 
it is prcfcrablc to use thc phrasc. ''highcr angcls." 1 whrre ['ulwlynhj is uycil Ij-y 
Biiyihtwi and Isfahajii. 

ISi Thc majority argiuncnt is ncrt Donfincd tu onc ]>arty. D.B, M^odoniild^ Ei^ 
I- ] irliclr ^Mala^ika". JLstusses Llir dc^cLupmriit i>J thc Islumic iheoiy »f angck- 

Ht? rrporu iha? Abu Haf* c Umar a]*Ny,safi (cl I1+2J a( rhe ertcl of hts M^trf(Crecd) 

hricHy *et torch ih^ iwperioriry" oTpropheu w^l - chat of ang^U aknig wiih rda.l«L 

coLidderatirtcis. &x c d Al-Dtii Mas*ud ibn : Ut»ar al-Tattaaiaiji (1322-1390} wrotc a 

comm-cnrar\ r npr>Ti ihia Crcnd, eieparuiiTi^ ou ihis paRsage. Thc whole test of NasaTi^ 
f.'r: , ": , d with Taftaz.ini ,, 5 coirimenlaiy on n is tranĔJatcct in FllL1 in A CommmioTy cr Itit 
Gted qf Isiam: (** .a/-7fi/feT-ffjT4" m ike Cmd ^/". . .-^-Aai^^ trAnsLnre/d mlh Lnlcodiu:-' 
lion aiid nows by I : «iifL K. Kkler. (Mew Voi"k: Goluambia Uniwmiiy \*rv*H 9 (4fiQ.) 
N^afi's ^mJLjding aiatcmonl aiid "r.ilr.^., a :Li"s rxp.iLL-ii.iiL uprm h arc on pp. I6B-170. 
In this ccsmmentary we src thc fuU outlinc of Baydawi^s and Is^aluni^ pn^i-ntalion. 

1018 3, section i. topics 

2. Adam was morc Icamcd chan the angcis bccausc he knew 
the nanics [Le fc , of aU things] while they did npt, Hc was mperior^ 

in accordance with [God'sJ woird, 

"Ask [thomlp 'Are those who know and those who do not know 
equal? ,w [Q 39:9] 

3. Obedicnec by humankind is morc difficult. bccausc it is 
achteved along with thc pi ohibitions against desire, anger anri dev- 
ihsh insiiiuarkm, and becausc it is a rcligious rjbligaiion L 435 that 
iriusl be discovcrcd through pcn»onai endcavor. But obcdic ncc by an 
angcl is in accord witli the [angelY| cssence, a natural disposiuon 
where [obedience] h already inscrtbt"»!. ThercTorCj in manktnd [obe- 
diencc] is a superior thing. in accordancc with ihe Prophct H s statc- 

mentj "The fincst scrviccs ofdcvurion arc chose that arc most exacting s 

tliat is, tlie most difficult-" LM 

4. There is the statemeni of ihe Mosi High, "God chose Adam, 

Noah., thc Pamily of Abraham and tlic Pamily of l Imran ovcr all 

ihe inhabitants of the world/* [C^ 3:33] 

Labor in [the division of vocatk>.a therewith decrccd for human 

society] was thus lcft to anyonc who was not a prophct in cithcr of 
thc two fftmilia, and [thia arrangcincnc] rcmains \r\ forcc as a prc- 
ro£ativc of thc prophcts. 1 ™ 

b- Thc ochcrs, [i.c, thc smallcr group of scholans who favored thc 
higher angcls rwcr thn prophctsj presented (heir [mntrary] argument 

bascd on several points: 

1 . There is thc statemmt of [God| Most High., "Ncver \^t.LI thc 

Mcssiah clisdain k> be a Servant of God, riur will ihe Angels of ihc 

Dwinc Prescncc." [0,4:172] 

2- Thcrc m thc coulinuously rccordcd prcccdcncc of [thc angclsj 
bcing mcntioncd bcforc thc nicndon of thc prophcts. 

3. In thc staicmcnt of thc Most His^h, "Thc AngcJs oi thc 

Divine Presence are not too hauglUy to worship [Godl'\ [Q 7:206] 
an inlerenioe n\ay be drawn from ilie Ikct that they lack h^ughiincss 

to [thc iactj thal thcrclbrc mankiiid shouJd not bc hauglity, And 

that verse wouJd not be appropriate to he includrd with cvideiice 
that would. iiot cert»(y [the higber angcls'] supcriority. 

JM HaditKi. ncl Jwntedl Ln thc Wcnsinck indc^cs, H-tmdbook and Mv T jam tti-AfafiakTas 

IM 'lliat is h rhc: ^jtmphcric" vwju»»rL off bnth Hsmili*^ cnttLpriAnJ ihmr Isdwr^ in 
<tis( f™ ihe rrst of Anr.Lrrv Lti man.v vocations. 

PKOJ b H1lTHOU1> I I "' 1 9 

1. There is thc statement of[God] Most High, "Nor do I say 
to you that I am an angcl"; [Q, 6:50] and also His statemtnt, "Lest 
yon two [Le. ? Adam and Eac] should then become an£eLV\ [Ct 7:2CJJ 

5. Tho amgc] was ceacher to rtu r Prophet and Mcsscngcr, and 
rhus would be supcrior to thc learner and the on^ lo whom he was 


6- Thc angcls arc spirits iiuioccnt of viccs and iauLls of tliouglit 
and action, they are privy to the secrcts of thc unsccn world,, thcy 
are mighty in marveUous. dctds, they are foremos-t in hcnewlcnt, acte, 
and thcy arc pcrscvcring in thc fincst cndeavors, according to ihe 
statement of the Most High, 

*Thrv do nol disobey God in what He has coJtnmanded them, 


and thcy pcrlbrrn what thcy have bccn commandctl 10 do", [0,60^6] 

and also His slaJLcmcnl, 

"They sing thc divinc praiscs night and day, and thcy are not 
remi»." [Q 2 1:20] 

IsJahani says: L 435, T 2 1 2, MS 224a:2 

'lopic 5: The proptiets are supmw to the angds 


Thc position holding that thc prophct* arc supcrior to the angcls 
has bccn taken hy mcst ol" our collea^ucs [of ihc AshaSrah] and. by 
the Shi^ah, this [positionj being in contrast to |that of] thc philoso- 

phers, and the Mu'tazilah 3 as well as [that of] Qadi Ahu Bakr al- 
Baqillani and Abu 'Abd Aliah al-Huiaymi from among our collcagues 

on th^: Kiihject of Uie "hi^hcr angels". Thcsc lattcr [scholars] havc 
taken thc position (hat tlie 'higher tuigels' are superior m ihe prophcts, 
as distinct from thc lowcr angcls 1 . 1 ' 

a* The formcr^ [Lc M thc lar^er of"thc tw. r o groups of scholarsj. prc- 
senttrd thcir Four pomt argumcnt that thc prophcts are supcrior to 
the angels in an ahsolute scnse: 

I- Thene ts the Jact thai [CtcmI] Mosi HLgh rommandcd thc 

ttiigels to bow dowci bcforc Adam saying: "Tlicu wc coinmandcd 

thc angcls ld bow down bclbrc Adam . . ." [Q^ 2:34] llierc i& no 

doubt that the twwing down lhat wa3 commandcd was a bowing 

down in suhsemence, not a bowing down in worship. Thuj f if Adam 


[aJ-mala*Lkah al-'ulwiyah| contragtcd with [al-m.Eila^.ikah al-suA^ah]: 


wcrc not alrcady supcrior to thc angch thcn God would iiot have 
commanderi rhcm to hovw down to him, becanse Gori is All-wise^ 

and Hc the All-wise Onc would not command & supcrior 10 be sub- 

seryient tn a suhordinatc. 

2. Adam wjjs more lcamed than the angcb because hc kncw 

all thc namcs [i.c M of crcatcd things] whilc thc angcls did not know 
them, according" to [God's] word, *'IIe taught Adam thc names of 

all thiiigs, then He showed everything to thc angeis and said, - Now 

lell me thc namcs of thcse things* if you would he my tnjstworthy 

ones\ But thcy lephed, 4 YVe give you mII the praisc; lliere is no 

knowleclge among us T 213 except whac you ]iave taughc us; 
indeed, you are Omnisdeni atid All-wisc/" [0,2:31-32] Thus Adam 

was supcrior tu the angels a in accordancc with [God'sj word saymg, 
L 43fi "Ask thenij l Are those who know and thn&e who do not 
biow «jual?*" [Q, 39:9] 

3. Obcdience by humankind is murc difficuh than obcdicntc 

by an angcl» 

a) because obedience by humankind is achieved logelhcr 

with thc pmhibitions. against dcsire, anger, ricvili&h insinuation and 
divcrsions that arc boih imcrnal and cKtcmaJt and 

bj bccau&c thc rcligious obligations of mankind [incJuding 

obcdicnce] arc religious obligations that must hc discovcrcd through 
personal cndeavor. 

al) But obedience by an angel is io atiord with its es&ence a 

a natural disposilion that ciocs n\*\ hiwr prohibkions or diwrsinns 
aJreariy inscribed in it, 

bJ) and [obedience by an angel] does not need to be dis- 

covcrcd by pcrsonal cndcavon Thcrcibrc^ since obcdicncc by manJdnd 
is morc dlAicuit» it ls. sup>crior bccausc of the saying of thc Prophct, 

"The fincst scrviccs of dcvotion are those that arc ihc niost exact- 
ing, that is, tlie most difficult." lw MS 224b 

4, 'Iliere is: [Cod's] word; "CSod chose Adani^ Nosili, the Frimily 
of AbrdliHTTi, Hnd iht; Family of linram over all (Jie inhabitanta of 
thc world.** [O^ S:33J Thc Jabor [in thc worJd, that is^ thc di\ision 

of vocaiton riecreed] was lefr for anyone who was not a prophei nf" 

thc iwo familje4ji and [this agrcement] rcrnains in Ibrce a5 a prc- 
rogati% r c of the prophcts. ThuS;, thr prciplicts anc supcrior to alt thc 


inhabitants of t\\e. wnrld, and thr: angcls are among thc inhabitant* 

of the worid, so (hc pruphcts are uipcrior io ihe angds, 

b. Thc othcr, [i-c, thc lattcr of tbc two groups of scholars] f Lhosc 
who hold that thc 'hi^Jicr angcla' arc supcrior to thc prophcts, also 
argucd» using six rcasons.: 

1. IGod^sJ word is: "Never will the Messiah disdsiiin to be thc 
Setvant of God> nor will the Angcls of the Divin« Prcsence," [Q 

4:172] Thia scqucncc would rcquirc rnaldng ihc ^Angds of thc Diviiic 
Prcscncc* supcrior to Jcsus, sincc thc rulcs of rhctoric rcquirc the 

orrter of succession 10 be from the lower co the hi^hcr, 

[Objection] r But this point rcquim cunsiderarion, for when the 

Chiisiians obserwd that Tlw hirth otje&us took placc without a fathcr 3 
ihcy firmly helieved that \w. wa^ the son ol CJod and not a sen r ant 

of God, as ihey wcre trying lo avokl the idea that a seivanl would 
bc borri whhoiit a fathcr. [God] had said "Nevcr will thc Messiah 
disdain to bc thc Scrvant of (Jod, M — bccausc [ihc McssiahJ was thc 
creation of (Jod jand wasj wirhout a (atli-: r, — **nor will the ^AttgeLs 

\>i' the OHiiie Presencc 1 ", whoro God Mosrt High had crcated wirh- 

out thc mcdiation of fathcr or mothcr. And of courscj. pro^rcssion 
Irom lowcr to higher, from thLs poinc ol" vicw 5 docs not Lmply that 

thc lii^her, (rom this point < ) F view, would be supcrior, 

2, The continuous practicc of piacing ihe metition of the angcls 
p,e., thc Angcts of thc Divine Presencej before the memion of the 

prophcts, mdicatc* that thcsc angcls arc supcrior to thc prophcta.. 
|Objcction|: Bnt cliis raqwires cnnsidcration, as thc pracccknce oi" 

mention does nut indicate iheir superiorily, since il is admis&ible that 

thcy vvcrc gi\"cn prcccdcncc oi inu rni«.in [<vnlyj wiih rcgarrj r::i 

prcccdcncc in esistence. 

3. In [God's] wordL "They [i.t. b ihe *Angcls of ihe Divine 
PresenceJ are not too haughty to worship [Godj", [Q 7:206] an 
inference tnay bc drawn froni thc fact that thcsc angels lack Jiaugh- 
tincss ii] thc worship of Cod to thc fact thal thrrclbne humankiiid 
[liJkcwiscj must not bc haughty r . ITowcwr^ thal v<tsc is not appro- 

priatc to hc included with etidence that dors not cerrify r [ihe angels 1 ] 

[Objcction]; But this rcquircs considcrationj for indccd, thc pur- 
posc of fthc vcrse] is lo show tliat the an^rLs arc supcrior Co humankind 

who are too haughty 10 worship [Godj, But it does not imply that 
[ihe angeb] are supcrior lo thc prophcts» who are not too haughty 
to worship [God]. 

1022 3 ? iEcrioN i ? iwiui» 

4. [C3odV| word is: **And 1 ain not saying to you thai I am 
an angcH, [Q,fi:50] L 437 and thcre h His &tatcment, M Lest yon 

cwo should lw«'UTit ,: iitigels." [C^ 7:20] That is to .say, lest you two 

Ih- compcllcd (o bft:Ortie iiELg^Ls. Tlie COnL£xt of llm fir*il Yrrse uicli- 

catcs tluii an Hngel is supcrior to a prnpihet, MS 225a aml thc 
contcxt of thc sccond vcrac indicatcs that an angcl is supcrior to 
Adam and Iive, 

[Objcction]; Bul this requires considcration, for indcrd, the verse 

docs not indicatc thai an angcl is supcrior s but rather, it indicatcs 
that an angei does not come altcr receiving a revelatiqn [that gives 

a divjne commissionl, while the prophet does corne [onlyj alter 

rccciviiig a ievcl;.Uioii [tliai gives a divine commisiiionj. j I liis] is indi- 
catcd in [GodYj word; "I come ojily aftcr a [divine] eomrnand is 
revealed to me. 11 [0^6:501 This docs not indicate that an angel would 
be sup^rior. 157 The second veree indkate.s che superioiity olilie atigel 

over Adain at tb^ iiioincnt Il>li-s addressed him, but il does not iitdi- 

catc any supcriority ovcr hiin aftcr his bcing cho^cn [i.c, for thc 


5. An angcl was the teachcr of the Prophet, and was a mes^ 

scngcr to him. Of coursc, thcrc is no doubl that a tcachcr is supc- 
rior i" onc who is ]camin^„ and a mcsscngcr is supcrior to tlic one 

to whoni he is scnL just as a prophct is supcrior to the pcopk to 

whom he is sent. 

[Objection]: But chis requires consideration. The teacher is supe* 

rior to thc onc who is lcarning in [thc matcrial thatj hc tcachcs 

him^ bnt not in anything el&e; nor js [ihe teac:her| mperior always 

in what he teaches [the leamer], but rather, only prior to his hsv- 

ing lcamcd. Thc analogy of thc prophct hnving supcriority in rcla- 
tion to his pcoplc is not a good onc to show th<: diAcrcncc. Whcn 
a sultan scnds an Lndivi<iual to a largc populalion to bc thcir gov- 
emor over them ? Lhen Lhat individual is supcrior to that population. 

But when he sends a single person 10 chat ind]viriual who 13 gover- 
nor in ordcr to convcy his mcssuges, thcii thcrc i^ rao iniplicacion tJaat 

that singlc pcrson is supcrior to that individua] as govcnior. 

w L and T rcad, ■"'indicatcp thit ^ prophet is supcriur," [yciciidl c ?da* an 


'lYAnduio» iblbwa ili* MS, MS Garr«r !ffl*JHa atid MS Oaimr-Yahnda 44fl6 

which rcad, H d«* na\ indicate- rhat an angd is siipnw" [ta. yaduLL c ala* an a]- 

malak .ifd^L]. 


6. Thc angete arc spirits madc innoccnt of ihc viccH and faults 

of chought and action, and made pure of evit dcsirc and angcr, rhcsc 

[lattcr] two bcing ihc source of ugly character, [The angd&J arc 
privy to thc sccrats of thc unsccn world and mighty in marvellou.s 
dccdsj including cotiirol of thc clouds atid of grcat earthquakcs, Thcy 

are foremost iti l>enevolem acts and they pcrscvere in chc rlncsi 
endeavori, and according lo the word of [God] Most High, 

^They wiil not disobcy God in amihing coniinanded of lhcm„ but 
thcy pcriorm all that thcry have bccn commandcd". [Q o'6:6'J and 

His word: 

"They sing thc divinc praises night and day, and *ux- not rerniss. 
10. 21:20] 

« >' 

Ij jvdawi sakh 

L 437. T 213 

Topic 6; Ihe rigas of the dkmeJiiG&r ginen io saints and proptiets 

The Mu c Lazihih have deiried theae [signs. ofdivine favor] 5 — with the 
cxccptioLi of Abu al-IIasan p.t, Abu al-Husayn al-Basri], — and [also 
denying thcm is] U&tadh Abu I&haq [al-lsfarayinij t who is one of 
our [AshaHrah] co]leagues r 

[Supporting chis doetriiie] we have the Slory of Asaf pbn Barakhya| 

and [the Story] of Maryam, 

[Sorncone rnijjbt objcct that] if thcsc phcnomcna had appcared 

at the handa o!" anyotie other tban |nne of thc] prophct&j thcn 

would be a case of] a prophet being confused with someone who 

[rnercly] claimcd to bc a prophct. Our positioil is that; no> rA 
thc prophct would be disringuished by his making thc challcnge [of 
prophctk singularity] and by j*iving the [prophetiej Lmkalion, Gort 

has thc most knowlcdgc [of this]. 


ani sa.vs; 

L 07, T 213, MS 

T#pk 6: 7he signs af ike dmmfmm giim lo sainis wd pr#pfttts 

Thc signs of divine favor arc admitccdly possiblc in our [Asha d irah 

Sunni| doctrine, and [also] in t]iat of Ahu al-Husayn T 214 aUBasri 
of the Mu € tazilah. But thc rcst of thc Mu c tazilah deny [the existence 

of ] thesc phcnomcna» as docs also Ustadli Abu Ishaq [al-Isfarayini] 
among our [/\sha v irah] collcagucs. 

1024 3- SEcnoN i, topios 

We hold thal \f ihc signs of divinc favor MS 225b should not 
have been admittedly ptMsible, then they would not tatve occurrcd.. 

for their occurrencc prcsupposes that thcy would havc bcen possi- 
blc- liut hcrc the conckisitwi Ls falsc. and ttxia is on account of thc 


Story of Asaf fibn Barakhya]. Hc biought the thron-e of Bilqis before 
one could bliuk an eye, L 438 accordmg lo ihc slatemciit of ihc 
Most High: 

"He who had knowlcdge of thc writing [Lc, in the Story» Solnmon's 

Wa?ir, A*af ibn Barakhya] LS * said, *I will hring it to you before you 

can blink ;m cyc\ So whcn [King Solomon] saw [thc thronc] stand- 
ing bcforc him> hc said> c This. is a diyinc favor trorn my Lord, 1 " ■£} 
27:40] This biinging [of the ttirone instantancously] into their parea- 
cnce vi r as an evcnc ihat vtnlari d rhe customary orricr cA" naiure, aiKl 

AsaPwAS not & prophet. 

Thcre is also thc Story of Ma!) r am' ,M and thc prorision of daily 
food for her. God^s word is: "Whenever Zakariya camc lo her at 
litrr homcj hc fuuiid ihe provMon of daily food wilh her, so \k as.ked 3 

O Maryam, from wherc docs thia comc to you?* Shc rcplicd, l It is 
from God; Tndccd God providcs lor whomr:vcr Hc pkases without 
keeping any account. 1 " [O^S:^?] 1160 

There Ls also the Story of the Goiriimnions of ilie Cave 16] and 

!M Asaf ihn Baraldiya i& a G^urc saicL tu bc Lhc Waair of SoJornon ac thc limc 
of thc visit of thc Qliccti ol Shcba, BiLqis in Arabic histoTy. Thc ■Qur'an -docs ii-ac 
nanic Asaf in this Stoiyj bul rathcr, his rutme comcs fronn (hc tradjtion outsidc thc 

'ITicrc \s a bricf mciidon of this h.^urL- ;in che drticlc "Asar ibn Barsddiya" by 

AJ. WcnsiEicki Sjl r!i!- En I 2 i 1 1 cuniiccCiij-M ■■•ndi ;;t-hU"m;i strnr;*- "fnc L^.in^ relcrrcd 

to in -Surali 27: 15-45 art di»cu*«<l tu iho Ku4-2 «; i 1 1 ihc «rticlc "liilkis" by 

R. UllrEidoriT), b«i Auf ]s not mcndoti-cd. Thc arti^lt mcnrijcins ihac this S^irih 
*Vcflcstfl somc of dvc pnncipal d.cmcnt£ of thc Shcba ScGrend and dcscribca . . . how 
a hcwpoc (hudhud) carrics a lettcr to htr from SolcjriiLH! . . /' Anothcr discussion of 
ihis Surab h tn a iuolnolc iu Al-Qk'T 7 nn t a CoRiem/wrary Tran^(hrr t by Aluned j^, 

Print«0ti, Newjemey; Priraceton Univ*rsiiy Press, [1934J, yp. 322-323. A «rerence 

hne is made tt> tbe use af wmljotic wi>r<fe lili- |lmdhudj [iAyr| [tuirnL] an<l so tonh^ 
to niean Siistotk or legwwlary Lndividuab or p*oplc-gro«i>A a.i iribts, n^tion^ eic 
IH ThU inddent is one of ^hc ^u^antc storics about Mnt-y. inrnhcr of Jreus, « 

rdJatcd. in che ankte "Maryam ,,i by A.|. Wensiiinck, and Pcndopc johnstonCp En-l-2 


,WI F.D. Razi [op. ciL, p. 221) mcntions bricJly 3] that 'divinc fa\w%' v arc acccpt- 
ablc as rcal amony the Asha r irah 7 but thcy arc distinjjuishcd froim ^miraclcs 1 " by a 
pniphei' 1 * clialJciiB^i a.rid 2] ih+il ihe Iwu fure^iius Slorks uC\liiryWn niid A&»rarc 
aci^-pcalJt: Wiimplcs oi" ciic dLwtt- favo«. 

lfrl IL Parrt fc s artic:Lc. "Asliali al-K^liT' in iIlc Ell-1-2 (traiiiJatioii oL" Aratpk nacnc: 

■ I I I 

CompanioTis of thc Caw), relalc* thc slory of this ancicnt lcpcndj othcrwisc kno^Ti 


tiicir abiiJijji! williii] ihc Cave thrrr hundrcd ycnrs to wlmh nme 

[more] were ackiecL GotTs word is: 
"When thc youtha. soughi shelter in thr Cave and saicl, 'Our f /jrdj 

corne to ua according to Your mcrcy,, and disposc of Our contcrn 

according to Your intcgrity.* So Wc closcd iheir cars in ihe cavc 

for a grcat many years." [Q. 18:10-11] 

"And thev rcmaincd in their cavc thrcc himdrerl yeais lo which 

nitie [more] wcre addcd." [Q 1 8:25] 

Disputants who deny fthc occurrcncc of] thcsc divinr favors argue 
chat if chc yjolauons of thc laws of naluie should occur with those 
who are not prnphcLs thcn a prophet woidd be conJiised with one 

who mcrely claimed to be a prophct, because thc distinguishing of 
prophcts fmm olhers is only hccaujEC» violalions of thc customaiy laws 

of nature appear aloiig with them, since ordinaiy peoplc share in 
thrir butnaniiy and its concoiniianis, So, if there shoukl be iio appear- 

anrc of a miraclr with thenrij ihcn thcy would not bc dislinguishcd 
from anyonc cLse. and so il" it werc admissible Ibr a violaiion of thc 
customaiy laws of nature to app^ar with anyone ekc } thcn a true 
prophcl would bc coniused with Somconc mcrcly daimirtg to ht a 

Our [IsEahani^ and EaydawTs] position is that wc do not grant 

that a true prophei wouLd be confused with a pretcnder. Rath^r, a 
true prophet would be distinguished by his challenge [to prophetic 
sinKuIarity] and by his invitation [to bclief in thc message] that is 
givcn in hLs prophccy. Thcrcibrc, if thc L divinc ^a^or 1 vioLiting thc 
customary laws of naturc shoukl be accompanied by thc [prophe^s] 
'chaltenge' and 'invhalion', dien wr would know his truthfuliies& 


(Lc, autsidc thit Our^iiL and alher Arabic soutccs) a* <bc !fc ScvTn Slccpcn af Ephesus." 
Tlic lci^od br^rip: "in chc timc of ihc Chriitiian pcrsccuiion undcr iiit Krnperor 
D^^ciws (249 2SI)j aeven Chrisii-nii youih^ flcd intci a t"A\t ncur £]jhc^& and chere 

witik inro a mir^culou* ^Jeep- * . '(Tipit- anesiing pl;ifi I ' atid gtii^p was cruisiclewl, ac 
any ratc sincc ihc hcgiiuiang ot thc 6th cciiiury a.d., as a place ol' worship.' 1 " 

This page mrentionally hft blank 

Baydawi said: 

L 438, T 2 1 4 



lopk L Restoralwu qf tke oanished nmexuteat 

a. The rtstorariun of ihi- vanished nunexistent is. arimiued to he 

possiblc:, — thia doclrinc bcing bcing in contrast to that of thc philosu-*- 
phrrs and of thc Karramiyah^ and of [Ahu al-I Iusayn] al-Basri among 
thc MuHazilah/ and oui |BaydawfsJ doctriiie is ihat if die exis- 
tcncr of |ihe vanijhed noTiexistent] shotild havc Iwen imprasihle aftcr 

It h>ld htTM IHLHICKi.StCNl, 

L thon fit5 cxistcncc] woidd Iielyc bccn impossiblc, cithcr bctausc 
of itsctf or becauAe ol" on^ of irs concomilants, thqs hcing impossi- 

ble either at the outset or oit account of one of its acridents; 

2. but |the vanished nonesintent] would have bccome a po&si- 

bility upon \he. rcmuva! of that accident and hy con*ideratioii ol [the 
vanishcd nonexisterjl!] in \iew of ! ks ess-eure in and of iiseJf.* 

b, Argwumt d&iywg the arimissibiiity qf mtomtion 
[The scholars who oppose our thesis] argue on the hasis of the 
Mowing points. 

L [The Yamshcrd iKmc:xistent] is a matter of purc ncgalion; so 

it cannot be judgt^d io have any possihility of a restoration, 

2. Tf [a rcstoration of thc vanished iioiicx]sleiJi] slioiiid be po*- 

sibtc thcn it would occur, aud if it should occur, 5 thcn in thc situ- 

ation of us restoration it would not he distinguishable from its own 

likcness t\\M it had had in the bcginning. 

3- Tf [che resioraiion of thc yanished nunexi$ietu] should be 
then thc rcstoradon of thc cxact time whcn thc original 


U T Y aitd M5 Gam-u 989 Hb: [m-sd-wt^ar UilH ; MS Gamu 283Br [\A-*\- 
m?.*r ila a J. 

Thc I^HiKiini j^n^JH b [bi-iil-iin^ar ilaT. 

z RD. Rad, iti hu Cmptndium ^TImgkt [= AMami Ajkat. . .), pp. 23] 232 (in 

thc cdidon w^ ttavc). giv^s thr: Lr-adlin^ RTrtismcnt, thiMi tblLnws with thc- threc pcrints 
of tiic disscn.tLng" aj^umrnt and thc thrcc Eiriswcra to th<isr pndnte. 

3 MTie SCril>c of L rJryppn'^ thc clan« s "and ifil shcmld <*cur" |wa-Isi^v w-,iqft E J. 

1028 3- section a ? rorjcs 

event took placc would be possible, and thc rcstoration [of the van- 
is.hed nonexistcnt] would bc at jthe rcstored exact timc| b so then it 

would be a cas^ ofan 'original beginning 1 and its 'later resioration" 

hiLppriuii^ s[mu]iajn!<3usi|y, whirh wOulij lir biapo&riblr. 

b— a. Amuw t& ihejoreg&ing atgummt against a rtstorattuti 
In answer to each poinL wc say: 

L-a [The opponcnt^s) expression ? w lt cannot be judged"^ is 

iuctra judgment; but it is annullcd becausc it is a. judgnient 

a) about what no longcr cxist5., and 
about a prohibition, and 

c) ahout noiiexhtence it&cK 

2,-a In each pair of likc examples chere arc fca[urc* [hat pos- 

itively distiri£iiish each of the twu as. an indhidual in externa1 real- 
ity„ even if rccognition shouid bc duubtiul fbr us; othcrwise, 
would not be two like ■examplcs, but rather one by itsclP. L 439 

3. a Thc restorsilit>[i of thai origiual exaci lime does ikx ucc- 
cssarily imply that it would bc at thc bcgiiming; for indccd, that is 

a matter madc accidental to it as a mental consideratioit,. while in. 
itsctf it is deAniiely not preceded by any other event. 

Isfehani says: L 439, T 214, MS 225b:16 



Aftcr (inishing Section l on Pmphethond, [Baydawij hegan Section 

2 on thc RestLrrection Asscinbly and thc Recompense, and hc sct il 
fbrth in cight topics: 

L Restoralion of thc vanishcd noncxistcnt. 2. Rcsurrcctiou Asscmbiy 
of humati bodics. 3. The Gardcn and thc Firc. 4, Thc [Mu*tazilah 
;jtk3 ibe AshaSrah cnt| rrward and punisliinent. 5 B Pardon inter- 

ccasion [fbr those guilty of the dreadlul greai sinsj. 6. The certainty 
of [camcd] connent in thc gravc. 7, Othcr traditronal doctrincs.. 
8. "Ilie terminology [of faith and practiccj in thc rcligious codc. 

Tbpic I: Restoratum of tht nanished fwne.xistent 

a. Our doctrinc i& that thc rcs-tonition of thc variishcd noncxis- 
tent is admbsibJc, — this- position bcing in contrasc to that of thc 


philnsophrrg and the Karramiyah, and of Abu al-Hus&yn al-Basri of 

thc Mu e tazilah — and we hold that if thc cxisttncc of a [partieular] 
thing should bc iinpossiblc altcr having bccn noncxistcnt, 

1 . then its cxistcncc would bc impossibk cithcr bccause ol" its 
csscncc, that iSj bccauac of thc csscncc of that thing.. or bccausc of 

M>mcihing in its- concomitants, thus, its esistence would be impos^i- 

Me neces&trily ac [hc outset; 

2. but. if [the thing^s] cxistcncc aftcr its nanexistencc should 
bc impossible on account of one of ics acridents, then ks existcncc 

after its nonexistence would hauebecomc possiblt upon ihe removal 

of that attributc that had rcquircd thc impo^ibihty of its cxistcncc 

alter its noi>exktcnc:e, — by the considcration of that thing in view ai 
ils essence m and of iLselt . 

[Objcrtion]: If an objection should bc raised— 

thal [3n d cascj whcrc a particular thing thc cxistcncc 

n\ which w\i* inraj^ihlr attcT havinpf hceii nnncxi.stcnf, and 

2} whcrc thc impossthility was due to its Cjuiddity being 
describcd as noncxjstcnt afier having bceii cxist«ii, aiid 

Sj whcrc this dcscriptivc was concomitant lo thc quid~ 

dity fo]lavviiJL» irpon its nonexistem:<^ and 

wherc the impossibiliry i:uviiririg ilic- quidd[ty aft£f ils 
nonexisience was due lo this coucomitant, 

thtn [in such a casej, thc absolute impossibility of the 

quiddity [bcing - restorcd to cxistcncc] would nol bc a logical rcquin> 
mcnL Let no onc say thal a judgment against [a particular thhigj., — 

_ . 

nantdy, ihai |ii.s resioration] woukl bc impasstbk: because iA' us own 

essence or of somelhmg clsc, — would not bc valid. bccausc a judg- 

mcnt agEiinst |thc thins^j rcquircs distinj^uishing thc ching judged Ironi 

somethi ng else, and the process of distingiushing it rcquires certainty 
but oeitainty is exduded because of [thc thing*s] noncxistencc. Indeed, 

[wi[li such reaaoning,] our position is chat thc [opponcnt^s] judgment 
ri3fjdc ii] this case^ iiumĕly that thc judgmcnt against thc thing would 
not bc % r alid, is ncvcrthclcsa a c judgnicnr madp in this case\ and so 

would bc self-contradictoiy, 

-a. This [objeclion] is rcfutcd by thc lact ihut to pass 

judgmcnt upon somcthing thc cxistence of which is impossiblc would 
bc an impoRsibility iLself wherein [the tliing^] ver\* bcing is imjx>i; 

stble. Bue [at ihr. same timej als<] s [such passing of judgtTicni] would 
be a possibitiiy wherein [ihc thing^s] bcing is conccivcd with n-gnnJ 
lo this impossibLlity. And thcre would }>c no contradiclion brtwccn 

1030 3- section 2. topics 

[these iwo judgments] because of the diflerence between iht iwo 

subjccts. The right iliing 10 say is ihat to pass judgmcni upon a non- 
cxistcnE that its restoration to cxistcnce wouid bc possiblc rcquircs 
ihat it be a ccrtainly in thc mind^ and a nonexiscent doc& havc ihe 
quality of ccrtainty in thc mmd. Thc answer [lo ihis lattcr pointj h 
chat this. dcscriptiye [of certainty in the mind| wonld siot bi* a con- 

eomitaru 10 iFie qtnddity aficr its having U>m nmic<istent; tridccd, 

thc scpartttion of this descriptivc lYorn the quiddity after T 215 

nonexistence would be admis&ihle* And even if ir should be granted 
chat this descriptive would bc a concomitam of the quiddity aftcr its 

noncxB5tGncc, sttU wc do riot grant tlmt thc csist-cncc of thc 

dity MS 22tib dc&cribcd by this dcscriptivc tcrm would bc impos- 

siblc* L 440 That h so ? bccausc, just as a quiddity dcscribed as 

having esistence ailer its nonejristence would not be something ihc 
cjdstencc of which is necessary and thc nonesistcncc of which is 

impo&sible, just 50 s a quiddity dcscribcd as having noncxistcncc aitcr 

its existcnce would noi he. somelhiiig ihc exi*tence nf which is impos- 

riblc and thc noricxistcncc of which is nccessary: rathcr, [tlic quid- 

dity in iis nonori&tcnt modc] wouJd bc niorc rcccpiivc to cxistcncc, 

To this [CJod] Most High alludcd in I Ih statcmcnt. "How eAbrdess 

it is for Him" s [Q_ 30:27] cxcept 5 of couarse., whcn what is nicant by 

is thc impossihiliEy bascd on the condition nonesis- 

tence. But you have comc to know 1 thae thc ncces&ity based on ihe 

coiidiuon of cxi&tcncc, and ihc irnpossibility based on ihe oondirion 
of noncxistcncc do not cxciudc thc fact that possibility dcpcnds upon 

the essence. 

b . A rgumenl dmymg tAe admissibitit? of rest&ration 

1'hosc [scholars, i.c-j. thc i^hHosophcrSi, thc Karramiyah and Abu 
al-IIusayn al-Basri of thc Mii q tazilah] who dcny the admissibility of 
a restoration ol the vanishcd noncsistcnt ar^uc on the basis of che 

fbiIowing three points: 

I. Th-c vanishcd nonex.istcnl is a purc negatiorij having no 

establijslied individual idcnlity^ thuis, no valid judgmcnt can bc madc 
as to the poejsibiLiry c*f its restoration. 'lTiis is so because il' 

a valid judgmcut coidd bc madc as to tlic possibihty ol 
[thc vanished noncMstcnt^s] rcstorarion t and if 

* L and T; L<urifa anj; che MS, MS Garrcn 9H9H», and MS Gatrett-Yahuda 
44B6: [+M*faL w\. 


bl the mental rckrcnce as to the pos&ibility of iis rcstora- 
tion shouid be direrted lo its form in thc mind» then it could not 

possihly have esisieuce among thc inctividual qqiddities_ 

However, on ihe asNurnp 110111 ihai h could hawe cmtenoe [among 
the inditidual qmdditie$], still it would not be restorecl, because it 
would be only a likcness of thc vaiiishcd itonexistent thing that has 

bccn assiimcd will bc rcstorcd^ noL thc thing itsdf. And if 

c) the mentiil lelerencc should bc to somcthing rcscmbling 

the iorm in tlie rnind, — allhouj*h whatevrr would re&cmble the form 

in thc niirtd ncccssarily would not bc that nonexistent thirig itself 3 
the implicaiion \vou)d be ihai vvhaiever res^rnhlcs it : ' would be rcsior- 
able. But indced, thcre are a grear many things that resembic thc 
Ibnri in the mind. And i£ 

\h\; mcntal refercii<x should bc direcircl lo (h;U viinisht-ci 
noncxistcnt thing iLse]f. that has no idcndty but rathcr is purc noth- 
ingness, then reference to h as. having the possibility of a restora- 

lion would be impossible, thus, no valid judgment can be made 

about it as to the posaibility of its rtstoration, and thcrctbre, its 
restoration is impossiblc, Otherwise, ihe judgment as lo ihe po&si- 

bilily of ils t«:storation woukl bc ralid, bui ihis wuulc.1 bt coiLlrary 

[to ihc hypoihesis]. 

In summarVj thc doctrinc of thc possibilicy of a restoration leads 
cither to thc H-tatcmcnt that evciythiiig that is raiscd up agairt would 

be somcthing rcstored [fram noncKistcncc] ? or Lo ihc statcmcnt that 

a vanishcd nonexisient whilc in ibe statc of nonemstteiioe would have 

an ideniitv that it> ccrtain. Bui both of thcse statements are false, 

ThcrcrorC;, [say our disputants,] thc doctrinc of thc possibilitTr' of a 

resloration is faJsc. 

2. If thc rcstoration of thc vanishcd noncxistcnt ^hould bc pos- 
siblc 3 thcn it wouid be possibk lor a likcncss to cxist at thc timc ol 
ils rcstoration instcad of as it wsls originally, Indctd, if it shouid be 
possiblc for a single individual of a pardcular kirid of quiddity, 
MS 22 7a— a kind lliat would riot Iw limited to an individuaJ thac 

wouid be envebpcd by bdividual accidents, — to have exiitence alter 

havins bccn nonexistcuL then il would bc admissiblc Ibr it to havc 

existence as at thc: outsct in the original way, And if the one to bc 

s Fo]Iowliil-; ihc MS a MS GamtL US9Ha aiid MS GanrrU-Yahuda 4486. 

L aiul T; [kullu mS yurELkicL irui yiircuithiiijhuh 

1032 3> 3ECTTOPT 2, TOPICS 

restnrad &hould actuaUy come into escktence., then it would not hc 

distinguishable in its restored scate from the likeness of icself m che 
begirining, Thui, ihe distinguishing factor between the iwo likencsse* 

would be ncdthcr thc quiddity nor its mdMdual attnbutes, on account 
of thc lack of any diffcrcnec bctwecn thcirL 

3. Jndced, if thc rcstoration of thc vanishcd noncsistcnt should 

be possible, then the rcstoration of thc [exact| timc at which thc 
nrigijia] evcnt had occuired would be pos&ible, and L 441 its 

restonition at that vcry r time [i.e.j, rejitoratioii of thc vmnshcd non- 

cjdsicnt at the restored original timc] would be possiblc, and so U 
would [seem lo] bc c *mi original Ijcginning', but [actually] it would 
bc *the rcstoration uf a vanii>hcd noTicjdatcnl*; that i^ it would bc 
scif-contradic toiy . 

b.-au Atiiwer to lh$ Jhregaing argitm&ti against a mtarati&n 

L-a, Thc answer 10 the firsi point is that the staiement [oiade 

by you thc disputants], lL No valid judgrncnt can bc made as to ihc 
possibiliry of ii.s restoration^ is stili a jurigment, and it is selP-con- 
iradicLory. A surnniary of ihis amwer i[i a plainer staiement would 

bc that when you say that it woukl not be valid to judgc that therc 
is thc possibility of a rcstoration, slill that is a judgmcnt about it. 
ITicrclbrCj. tbcre is nc> odier alternatiwe, cithcr tlus judgincnt is valid, 
or it is not, 

If [this judgtnent] should be [valid], [hen the judgnwnt on the 

noncxistcnt wonld bc Yalid, and if thc judgmcnt on it should bc 

valid tlien rhe reierence to it is Yiitid, so thcrc would bc no i 

sibilit> r in judging in favor of the possibility of a restoration. 


Bui if this judgment should not bc vaJid s ihcn its oppositc^ namclya, 
rmr position that a judgmcnt validly can bc madc favoring thc pos- 
$ibility of a re&toration;, would be valid. And this is thc locjkal goaJ 
we have sought. Howcver } this rcply has bccn rcfutcd bccausc this 

particular judgtnent is valid r 

[BaydawTsj statcmcnt is that if [this partkular judgment] ahould 
be valid, then thc othcr judgmcnt^ that isj. thc judspncnt about thc 

noiiexJstent^ would l>e valid, 

Rut our [Isfkhani 5 s] position is that thc validity of tiiiii particular 

judgment doe& not imply that thc othcr judgmcnt about thc non- 
eadstent would bc valid, for this particalar judgmcnt is a judgmcnt 
oti thc judgmcnt about thc validity of thc rcsioration to cxistcn«.% 
not about the nonexistent. 


[Objcction]: An objcction has becn raiscd against this point, naniely, 

che poini stating that since ihe nonexi$tent is pure nothingncss. and 
has no indivkLual idcntity at all, thererore, a judgment based on it 

niaking a rcstoralion impossiblt woulil tiot bc v<ilid» [The objeclion 

is rahcd] bceause, if 

a} thc judgmcnt ba&cd on [thc vanishcd noncxistcnt] mak- 
ing inipoHuhle a resioration ^hould be valid, and if 

the mentaJ reTerence about (h* impossibiJiiy of restora- 

Lion should bc dircctcd to its form in thc mind, ihcn t tiis would 
intpiy that [the restoration] would not occur in extcrnal reahty,. but 
it would not irnply thc |absoiutc| impossibility of a restonitiui» oTlhe 
vanishcd noncxi5tcnL And ii" 

[thc mental rcference| should be ctircctcd to somc 
rcsemhling |the vanished nonexistent]> — and that woiild be a multi- 

plicity of ihings,— then therc would be an implirit inipassibility for 

every candidalc for rcstoration. And if 

[the mcntal rcfcrencej should bc dircetcd to thc yanished 

noiKMStiem rhing useir, which now has no itidividual identity, then 

thc irnpossibility would }>c of any rcfcrcncc to it as 
impossiblc MS 22 7b of rcstoration; and so thcrj 

2) the judgment based on [rhc vanishcd nonexjstent] mak- 
ing irnpossiblc a restoration wouldj not be vaiid; arid so then 

the restoration itsclf would not be impossible, 

If thc case should bc othcrwisc s then thc judgmcnt regarding it 
niaking impossiblc any rcstoration would bc valid; but wc havc takcn 
the pnsition that rhat judgment would be impossibte. And so th 

summary resuh [Le., of this reasoning] is that the statement tnaking 

impossible a rcatoration kads either Lq the statement making impus- 
sible every candidalc for rcstoration, or thc statement that a non- 

estisl? ni, in the st&Ur of iionexistenue T has a rjrmly eslabtished indhidual 

both ol ihese siatements being fa].se. So ihe &ialcment mak- 

m% a restoratkui unpossible would be false. 

LObjcction — Answered]: Thc answcr to this objcctiun is thiit therc 
is no impossibility in referring to [tlie vanished noncxi«lentj as bcin^ 

inipussible to rcsion-j because tbc rclerence [to ilj aa being impos- 

siblc to rcstou 1 is not bascd upon its cstablishcd individual idculiiy. 

Indccds, somcthing that is not an established certainty admissibly may 
be referrcd to as bein^ impossible to resiore, althouph that L^ oppo- 
site to being referred to as being possible to resEore. Something that 



lacks an iiidKidual identity may bc impossiblc lo rcicr to as ltaving 

thc possibility of rcstoration on aocount oi" ils lack of an established 

indi\idual idcntity; so it would bc admis&ible to reier co it as bctng 

impoasiblc of restoration by reason. of its lack of an esiablished indi- 

vidua] identity, Moreower» having ihe possibility of re&toraiion would 
nol be on account of its lack of ara establishcd iridividu;d idcntity s 
so it would not bc admissiblr to refcr to it as havin£ thc possihility 

of restoration on account L 442 of it& lack of an escablished iodi- 

vidual idcndty. 

In summary, the judgment that the restoration* [of the vanlshed 

nonexistent] wouJd bc impossible h valid in view of the fact that the 
form of it is prcsent in *he mind. The iinpossibility of the restora- 
tkm T 216 3s in view of tbc fact that fthc ranishcd noncxistcciiJ 

is a purc nothingnca having no individual idcntity acccptable to the 
intelkcL And as for the judppuent that a restoration would he pos- 

sible, [ihat judgment] is vahd in view of tlw fact ihat the foriii t>( 
it is prcsciit iri thc inindL Thc validity of thc rcstoration [itsclT]*— 
in view of the fact that [the vanished nonexistent] is a pure nothing- 
ness having no iiidividital idetmty, — ia. incoricrirable and uuacccptahie 

to thc intellccL 

[Baydawi] said that this point [ijG. t "d)" in the opponents* argu- 

mcnt] was 

1) annulkd as bcinp a judjjpnent upon somcthing that no 
longer estists, ju*t as if a judgment should be rendered on someone 
who was going io be born that he had the possibility of cxisting; 

and Likewisc 

2} it was annulli rl as bcing a judgmcnT about jsomcthing 

iinjwsdble, someihuig opposite to a possiblc realily; and likcwisc 

; it was ariiiullcd as Ijcing a judgrneni alx>til noi]cxist- 

ence, something opposite to existencc. Now a jiLdgrnent about a non- 

existent [11015] a or ^bout somcthing Lmpossible, or about nonexistence 
|it$e1f| 7 logically doss not requiie that jaiiy one of thes* object^ of 

judgiiicni:] should have an estsblislicd teilainty among ihc ii]divid- 

ual quiddibes. Thm:forc, thc statcmcnc madc by you [disputants] is 

fa.].sified wherein the object of a judgmcnt must have an established 

certaint> p in cxttrn;i] reality. 

* In thcsc two con&ccudvc placcs, L and T add a parcpi>sidonaJ phra&c: ^. . . thc 
judgmcnt that thc rcHtoration to itojf [^alayhi] . . , ,% 


lo take a closcr look at ihe answer in which it was. statcd that 

ihe mciital refcrcncc of thc pcjssibiliiy of a re$(oration i» direcied to 

what rcscmblra thc form of it in the iriind [i.e^ "b/"], [Baydawt's] 

statcmcril wjs that thcrc is no implicalioii ihat what rcsembta the" 

Ibnn of [thc vanishcd noncxistcnt] in the niind MS 228a would 

Ijc that very samc noncxistcnL thing. YVc [lslahanij say to ihis that 
it is granted that [whai rcscmbleSi thc ft>rm in th^ mindj need not 

be tbat none*istent thing, v but thcre is no implicit iinpossibiliry in 

its bcing that noncxistcnt [thingji for indecd, tbc nonesi&tcnce of a 

necessity iogically does not rcquire the necessiry of a nonexistence. 
In that casc thcn, it would bc admissiblc for fw.hat resembJes ihe 

lorm in thc mindj to bc that noncxistcnt thing, which was the log- 
ical goal soughL For our di&cussion is on thc '"admissibitity 91 of a 

restonatton, not on its s necessiiy > . 
Rcgardiug [thr upptrcing dispuiani^] stateirtent that chen the im- 

pikation would bc that cvcrything rcscrnbling [thc vamshcd nou- 
existcntj would be somcthing rcstorable [Le^ "c)"], our poaition is 

that the lack of any necessity for it to be that noncwstcnt thing itsdf 

docs not imply chat whatcwr rcscmblcs it would bc a candidatc for 

2. a. The answer to thc [disputants 1 ] sccond point is that cach 
pair would be individually distinguLshable in external rcality without 

any doubt even though thtry wouM be dubious to us. If it shouJd 

be olhcrwise, diat is> cven if thc two likcnesses shoutd nol be dis- 

tingiiishable indhidually, stiU, they would not bc two likcncsscs but 

would be ilie thing iisdf. 

To takc a cIobct look, thc adniissibiliiy of [tbe ihing^s] likeness 
occui nri^ does not iniply an occunrcncc of its likcncss to thc cxtcnt 
of implying there would not be any diHbrcnoe bstwccn thc original 
iliing and rhe one restored. If the occur.rence of ils. likeness should 
be gramed, thcn ii would be aidrnissiMe Ihat the two be diElerenUated 
by sume of thcir accidcntal attribuirs, Moreover^ if this argurnent 

should bc valid. then it would imply thc admissibility of tv^ r o indi- 
vidual cxample5 occurring of the original, cxacdy as you havc mcn» 

tioned, and no dMcrcncc would remaiti bctwecn the two. 

3. -a. The answer to the jdbputants 1 ] third point is that thc 
resloration uf Lliat original [exactj timc logically docs ]iot rcquirc 

JV1S: H iue\r [hi^aynihi] 

1036 3- section ^ TOPICS 

that [thc %'anishcd noncxistcnt] ahould bc at thc bcginninj^ for in- 
dced, ihe thing 1 * hcing at thc beginning i& [onlyj madc an accidcntal 
quaHty of ir as a mcntal considcratinn, and that menra] considcra- 

tion 15 the Eact that it is not preceded by any kind of occutrence 


This |parucular] rmttter may not bc verifkd in thc thing that is 
rc3tored ? since thc thing rcstored is prcccdcd by an occurrencc that 

is its owii trmporal originatbn on the firsi occasion, So, the impli- 

cation is not L 443 that. it would bc both an original and a 
restored one at the same time^ but rather that it woutd be a restorcd 


onCj, while bcfhre the time of its noncmLencc it was an original one. 

And mj iL would be admtssible for one thitig to he both an original 

and a rcstorcd onc h as two scparatc mcntaJ considcrations- 

Baydawi satd: 

L 443, T 216 

Topic 2: 7h$ mumdion assembh of human kodies 

a. Thc pcople of the [three niaiuj rctigious cocmmmitics p.CjJcws. 
ChristianSj and Muslims] <ire agrccd on the bclief that |Cod) Most 

High will restore human bodics to Life sdter their death and disin- 

tcgration, becausc this is a possiblc rcality Intcllcctually. 

h. [MuhamtnadJ thc Truthliil Onc has givcn inibmiation to this 

eHcct, tli^rufore it will be a reality,* 

(a-) Thc first stalement is inade because die alomk particks of a 
dead person are receptiwc [both] to bcing gathcrcd together and to 
[the fkcl oF being] a ]iving nacure, otherwiiw they would uot have 
had thcsc two [attributcs] pre^ously, God Most High has ktiowledge 

oF thc alomic p;-ul3ilt\s ■: if cvcr% r 3m.lividu.ii1 iu djtUul, ui accordanri* 

with prcvious discussiotis^ 9 and Hc has the power to gathcr theni 
togerher and to causbC a Kving naturc to cxist in thcm again^ on 

acoount of His corriprchensive omnipotcnt aiJtonnmous powrr over 
all realitics pusssible, Thus, at is an established Fact that thc raising 

up of human bodics [again] in a JiYing naturc is a pussiblc rcality* 


rdigjous oonimtmici^s, chc M Pcoplc of th^ 0ook H , chcn hc nnovcs to thc scricch 

I^laiYiic vgu£ncLit&- F.D. Razi fop. cic. ? p. 232) takcs up thc iEJamk arguintnt diratly. 
4 Cl". BiKik I, Sccdon 3, Chapter L, Tapic 2 ? on thc atomic pajlides of a bocty. 


(b.) 'l*he second statcnicnt is tna-de becausc it has hccn cstablishcd 
hy au[.horitai[v€! [Tslamic] tradkion that thc Pnophct used to aHirm 
a* a cXTia»ify ihc rcstoratiori of thc human body and to tcach U as 

ductnnr- The rrkrence was to this dncijiiie, [111 thr vct3e] wherc 

[God] the Mighty and Glorious said^ "Tcll thern, Hc who reslores 
thcm as a livrn£ naturc is Hc who crcated thcm thc first tlme., for 

I Lc knows. wcll euery creature," [Q. 36:79] 

1 . An ohjeciion has beoi raised, ihat if onc man shouJd can- 

nibaltzc anothcr, anri if the &econd onc sJiouLd bcconie a part of 

(ihe firsi onej, then the one who was cannibali-^ed would hr restored 

either wilhm ihe cannihal or as the one who was caiiiiibalizcxt; but, 

whichcvcr ca&e it would bc s onc of thc two would not bc r-estored 

complctdy as hiitiscUl 

f i. Anothcr objer.tion 101 ls that thc intcntion of thc re&urroction 

is either 

Lo CauHr suHtring, or 

to ^ive plcasurc, or 

to rdieve suiTering. 

Thc first intcntion is not appropriatc for [God] thc AJi-Wisc, thc 
sccond is. impossiblcj for cvcrylhing iniagincd to bc plcasurc in our 
world h only somcthing tliat rciicves suffcring and invcstigadon tcsti- 
fi.cs to this, and for thc third it would bc satisCactoiy just to rcmain 

in noncsistcncc. Thus the arginnent Ibr thc resurrection comcs to 


1.-*. Thc answcr to thc firsL objcction is that rcstoration jm 

thc casc of cach individnal involves thc original atomic body pard- 

clrs wliich constidiic (he tnan, Ibr tln^e reiriHin fforn iW begmmng 

of his ]ifc to thc cnd of it, and arc prcscnt with thc eouL [Thr 

nrstoration] docs not invotvc thc body structurc that was cxchangcd.. 

as it is forgottcn in most circuni&ianccs, nor woold it involvc thc 

potlion cannibalizerd as the residuc of digeslion^ for ihh wotild not 

be r^ior^d sti liiiti. 

2.-a. Thc answcr to thc sccond objcttion is ihat [CJod^s] cution 
docs not rcquirc that thcrc bc any cnd purposc. But cvcn ti' [such 

an end pinposcj should be granted, thcn the puipose would bc to 

B F.D. Kazi (ot>. cit. h pp. 233 234; itiak« Iht-se iwi ubjuctioiH lt> ihc thErd and 
fQiLinh poinia oC a suhargiirti^ni, whlcJi are thctti arts.wsr^d. pnint by pnhH. Wt prr- 
fcr to cicat thc-m cm thcir eywn as nhjcclii>ns. [lid.] 

1038 $, SEtniON 2, topics 

givc pleasure, and an uwtrsiigation of this would be forbiddcn, And 
even if chat shoiild be granted, tbeti wby wonld it not be arlmissi- 

blc that thc plcaaurcs of thc hcrcaTtcr should rcsurnblc tbc plcasures 
of thc prc&cnt world in fbrm but not in rcality? 

Mahani sny* L 443, T 216, MS 228a:16 

T&pic 2: TIm rssurmctkn aumthlp qf htmmn hadks 

a. Pcuplc have hcld diffcrinbr vicws about ihe rcstoralion [in llitt 

hcrcrtiter]. Howcvcr s thc [dircc m&m] rcligous toiluiluintics arr agrccd 
on bclicving in thc fact of thc bodi.y rcstoration^ aiicr having diATcrcd 
ahnut thc mcaning of it. Thosp whn hold that the rostoration of thc 

vanished nonexistent is possible state as their position that indeed* 

God Most Iligh will annihilatc pcrsom having the obtigations of rcli- 

pon mA ihni wjll rasmre ihc:m 1-1 eaisunic-e. Thos« who hold [hai 

thc rc&toration of thc vanishcd noncxklciit is impossiblc statc as thcir 
posiiion that God Most High MS 228b will dispcrse thc atomk: 
partLclcs of their original hodies and thcn will again compose them 
togethiri- and create within them. a living naturc. 

KLegarriing thc prophets who came belore our Pmphet, it appears 

from thc siatements of schoUrs ihat Moses L 444 riki not speak 
of thc rcstorndon of the body» noiic:e of it not being sciit down to 

him in tbc Torah," 3 but that inlbnnalioii canic in thc liooks of thc 

Propheis who carne after him, as l ; -/.<*kifil and Isajah, On that account 
thcjcws do acknowicdgc [thc rcstoration] . In tbe Gospcl it has bccn 

scatcd that [in the Hcreaftcr| thc bcst peoplc will hcconic like thc 
angcls^ and wiU havc a living naturc that is ctcnia] T 217 and 
full of great happincs& a ,:? AIro, it is most apparcnt that wliat is sct 
forth in [ihe flospelJ is a spirituaJ rostoration. 

As for thc Nobic Opr^an, notice has come in it of both a spbi- 

tual and a bodily rcstoration. Rcgardin^ thc spirituaJ rcstoration., it 

is found in placcs like thesc statemcnts of Him who i* Mighty and 

"Not a noul knows how much to dctight thc cycs has hccn kcpt 

in sccrct for Ehem", [Q^ 32:17] and 

11 L, MS and MS GarrclL M9Ha: [al-TawiyaJiJ; T: [al-Tawrahl. 

12 C£ Mait. 22:3C, aJoriR i%ith thc parcJlcl lesls in Mark 12:25 and Liike 20:35-36. 


M For those whn have pracoc^d benevolenee there will be r]ie divine 
goodncss iii Sts pleniy", [Q 10:26] and 

""Thc happincss that corncs from God is cxceediug great." [t^9-72] 

Aricl irgarding thc rcstoratioiL of the body, in thc Glorious Ojur^ym 

ibere is more informatioEi than can be ]istcd s most of it not bcing 

rcccptive to allcgorica] intcrprctarion, as [God] Most ITigh said in 

thp loltowing staiements; 

"To the man who asks, s Who will evcr givc lifc again to bones 

whcn thcy havc decayed?* say, L He who restorcs thcm as a living 

nature k He who crcah-d them thc first lime, for Hr knows well 

ewiy crealurc*"; [0,36:78-79] and 

"Sce thcm huirying Irom thc gravcs to ihcir Lord"; [Q 3t>;5l] 

"Thcy will say, "Wlio vs^ill resmre ws? 5 T« -] them, 5 He who gavc 

you l«ing ihe firsi dmc" "; [Q 17:51] and, 

"Ducs a man fcar that Wc ncver will bring liis boncs back k>- 
gether? Surcly, yes, [Wc wjII!] Wc can set straight evcn his fingcr 

tips"; [Q 75:3-4] and, 

Ll What„ cvcn if wc arc dccaycd boncs?" [O, 79:11] and, 

"They said to thcir own skins,. c Why dici you witncss against ua?* IH 

and thcy rcpiicd. L It was God who let us speaL llc who lets cvcry- 

thingspcak^ [Q .41:21], 

"As thdr skins become Fully scorched We will «xchange thcm for 
other skins"; [Q 4:56] and, 

"On. thc day thc carlh suddcnly spliis open bcforc chem, galhering 
che Resurreccion Asseitihly wiLE take \ "s cmly a shnrt time"; [(.^.10:441 


L i-ook at thc bones. scc how Wc pick thcrn up and sct thcm 
cogcthcr tlicn clothc them with ticsh"'; [Cj^ 2:259] and, 

"You think ch( fc n ? man does not know that whatcver is in graves 
sud.denly will he. laid hare» and what«ver i.s in hearis made known?" 

|Q, 100:9 ]()j and ? 

"Tcll ihcm, Tcoplc of all carlicr and latcr agcs will bc bruught 
togcthcr Ibr a strict appointmcnc on that wcll-known day, 1? ' [Qi 


Bc&idcs thcsc [versesj thcrc are coundes^ morc. Thcrelore^ sincc 
you havc lcamed Uii^ much, we shal] proceed with our statemcnt 

Jof doctrinc]- 

11 Thc MS qfuolc cnds hcrc. 

1040 3« SECTTON 2, TOPICS 

b. Muslims arc agrced fin bclieving] that God Most Htgh will 

rastore hiiman bodit?* (o hfc aftcr rheir dcath anri disintcgration, 
because this is a possibk- reality jmdleciUHlly, MS 229.* atid 

[Muhrimmad] thc Tn.ithful Om: gavc informatiorL to this cflcct s so 

it will bc a rcality. 

{aj The first |icason for bclicf in thc rcstoration of human bod- 

ies], namely, that it is a possible reality intellectually, is based only 

on thc lact that possibility bccomc& an cstablishcd ccrtainty through 
a con.sideriition of both its passive and active Jjaclors. 

Considering the pas*ive Tactor^ [the rertoranon is a rattonal po&- 

because the atomic particles of a dead person. are reccptive 

to bcing gaihcrcd and to [bciug givcn againj a living iiattirc, II i.t 
should bcr otherwisc,, ihat is, if thcy should not bc rec:cptivc to bc> 
ing gathcrcd and to [bein^ given againj a 1iving natun*, then thcy 

cuuld ttot have bcen de&cribed as hawig bcen gathered and having 

had a Iiviniz naturc urior to dcath. But this condusion would bc 



Gonsidering the acriue faetor T fthe restoration is a rational possi- 

bility] bccausc God Most High knows thc indhidual quiddilics of 

the atomic particles of cvcry person in dctail, bctausc His omni- 

sciencc is cver-prcscnt with all particulars [of the facts of esistcncc]. 
lunher, Ile is omnipotcntly autonomous [in II is] power to pacher 
thcse pariicles and to cause a Iiving nature to e»st [again] wtthin 
ihem 5 bccau&e His powcr [cojiiprthcn,sively] includcs all ptiasibit/ rcid- 
itics. Whcn that is. L 445 thc casc, ihc implication is that thc 

rcstoralion of a living naturc to human bodics is a possible realiiy. 
(b.) The sccond [rcason for bciief in. thc restoration of human 

bwKcs], namcly r j that [Muhamrn;id] thc Truthful Onc gavc infor- 
m^tion to that cflcct, is that it is cstablishcd Irom »uehc>ritaiivc tra- 
dition that thc Prophct tiJlirmcd thc rcstoration ol human bodic&. 
Further, in the Nobh Qjjr'an. thc rcsLoratioti qf human bodics is 

affirrned more timca than can l>c counted- [God] Most High reCbrrod 

to its possibilit)" and to its. occuircncc whcn II c said^ 

"TeU them, He who restores them as a living nature h He Who 

crcalcd thcm thc first timr> f(]r Hc kjiows wcll cvcrv crcaturc." 

LQl 36:79] 

1. An objcclion has boed r;«scd that thc Rcstoration of human 
bodics would not b? possible because, if a man should cannibaliie 

anothcr man and part of thc man cannibali^ed should bccome part 

of the caiintbal, then the portion cannibali^ed would be restored to 


Hle eilher within the catmibal 01 iri the one who was caninUaliiaed, 

and whichcvcr it would bt% onc of tlic two would not bc rcstorcd 
to Iifc complctcLy as himsc]f. Moreovcr, thc rcstoradon of part of 
thc body of onc of ihem would not bc prcfeiabtc to thc rcatoration 
of part of thc body of thc other, and making [thc portion canni- 
bali/.r.d] a part of l>oth their bodics simuUaneoiasly would hc impos- 
sibk ! } so thc only akematiw that rcmains i& that onc of them would 
not bc rescorcd co Iifc. 

2. FurthermoR% [the dispuianl raises a second objeclion], ihal 

thc uumosc ol thc Rcsunrcticm h cithcr 




a) to cauHc suHcriiig, 

to sriw plcasure, or 

to rclieve snlTeiing. 

"ITie lirst is not appmpriatc as a purpo&c ol |God] thc All-Wisc 

sincc it is not worthy of Him. Thc sccond is impostiblc bccausc 

thcrc is iio plcasnrc in exi&tence; all that we imaginc to bc picastirc 

m imje- world is reaHy iLoi pleasurc. but raihcr, i.t is all ui avoidance 

of suHcrin^ and tcstimony to that comcs. Irom a study of il Thc 

third also is Eaulty because for that imlter it would be enough just 

lo remairi in nottejuHtrm:^ Thuji the argumenl for the RL^surrection 

conies to uaughl, 

1, a. Thc answcr lo dic Grst objcction is that the resioratlon 
of each of ihc two [Le., thc cannibal and ihe onc cantiibalized| 

wonld involvc hi& original [atomic bodyj particlcs that constitutc thc 
man, nr>[ what was exclianged [i,e, 3 btitween them], nur ilie body^s 
skcletoiL structurc, of which tlic indiridual is heedlcss in musL cir- 
cumstanre.s. For the original atomk pardcles MS 229h arc tho^c 
rhat. remairi from the first to the Ihsc oF hijs lite. present with his souL 
Tlie original atomic particles of ihe one cannibaJbed would be residue 
for ihe cannibal, and thc rcsioradon of ii to fhe onc camiibaliaed 
would be prcrcry.blc :i so it would not bc rcstorcd in thc cannibu] who 
was £c:d. 

2--a. Thc reply to tlie second objection is tliat the acts of the 
Most Hi^h do not rcqitnc any end purposc,, 

"Nor may Hc bc askcd about what Hc docs." fQLir'an 21:23] ^^lso, 
il' it slioukl he grAM«d ihal Hift icls- shnulrl it^uire an e.nd purjw^se, 

ihen it woukl he admi^ihle for fhe put^Kkse of the Resun ec.iion to 
l>e the giving of pteasure, 

[The opjx>nenrs] statcmcnt that there is no pleasure u» e^isteiicc 
cannor possibly be imc f becrtuse of what hai been said in the earljer 

1042 3, SKCTION 2, TUPICS 

diMTUiision oii pleasure and paln, 14 We do not giani ihal aJl that we 

imagine lo be pleasure is rnerely the relief of suileritig; but ra«hci% 

ihcrc arc in cxislcnce rcal plcasures in Oui world. Again. Jf it should 
bc gnmtcd that pkasurc docs not havc any esrislcnec iri our world, 
thcn why would it nol bc admi&sLhlc that thc pleasurcs of thc HcreaTtcr 

shonld rcscmblo che plcasi.ires of tMs world in form but be diRerenl 
from tlwm in reality? Thtis the pleasures of the I Icrcafter would not 
be to relieve sutiering, but r&cher they would bc pleasurcs free fmm 
ihe suspkion of bring mer-ely to refieve sulTering. 

Baydawi said: 

L 445, T 217 

I4 J ftrfftff ife idrfj'^ atomk pdrtirks Mtual[f witl ht QW2iMtated Afow mtomi 

As a notc herc., one should uitderetait-d that L has nut bccn cstab- 

lishcd that [GodJ Most High [actuaJIyj will aniiihilatc thc atomic 

particks [of the hurnan body] tben restore them. Therefcre, hold- 

ing fast [without reason] to something Likc thc Most Higtrs word^ 

"Evcry thing is dc&tructiblc cxccpt His coimtcnancc".. [Q^ 28:KH] 
would bc a wcak position. bccausc thc disintcgration [of human bod- 
ics] is also [a kind of| dcstrucrion» 

hlahani says: L 445/6, T 217, MS 229b:9 

Whetker the hody 3 s atamie partktes a£tmlfy witl he annihitated then restomt 

Xotc that thc doctrinc of thc Rcstoration of human bodics ia not 
bascd on thc [actual] complctc annihilation of thc [human body*s] 

atomic parricks. INor has it bccn cstablishcd by convinring proof 
cithcr lrom rcason or from tradiriou thac God Most High will anni- 
hiLiir aiomir panicks thcn reslorc \ \ioreovrj. boldin^ 

fasl to boiriething likc the Most Ulghh staiement, M Ewry thing i& 
dcstnictiblc cxccpt His countciiancc 3 * [Q^ 2fl:lH4] — dcslruction hcrc 
would rn^an ^yanishing into* 1 — iA r nu]d be a weak po$i- 

tioii. Indecd, wc do not grant that destruction would be a vatiisJi- 

ing hito nonc^kccncc^ but rathcr^ dcstmction is an cxit bciyond thc 

Jimit of uscfulncss, And. thc disintcgration of thc atomic particlcs is 

thcir cxit bcyond thc limit of uscfulncss, so thcy arc dcstructibk. 

'* Cf. Book L SKtion 2, Chapicr 3, Topic 2, Subtopk 4. 


The trurh of ihe matter is that the teim, ^thing", in the versc p.e., 

» li 

Q, 28; 88] has ihe meaning of "someihing willed to be a ihing", 
mj che mcaning of the vrrsc is chat whateuer ha* been "willcd to be 
a thing 3 * 1 * is dcstructiblc within thc limits of ics. own essence, but it 

is not destructiblc in regamd to L; His couatcnanee," And that is the 

case, Ibr inriced, whatever is "willed to be a thing 1 ', that is, every 
possible reality, 1 ' in rcgard to its own essence has no exitiiciice, but 

in rcgartt to God Most High it is cxi&Lcnt. So it docs not nccd to 
Iw dismissed Irrjm i(.s obvious meaning, 

Baydawi said: 

L 446, T 218 

T$p& 3: TJit g&tdm tind tht jirt 

ISchoJars] itjccting this doctrinc 1 * say that thc Gardcn and thc Firc 
would bc cithcr 

a, wichin ihis world, thus ihey would exisi 

1. cithcr [upj hi thc rcalra of thc oclcstia] sphcrca., whkh is 
impossihie becausc (rlie rcalm of ihc sphcrcsj is not hcing torn up 
nor is it mixed witli anything comiptiblc, 

2. or [down] in the realm of the [fotir] elcments [i,c., earth, 

air, lire, water]., where ihc Rcsurrei-tiori Asscnibly thcn would con- 

sisi [rncrely of a succcssion of souts from onc individual to anathcr]„ 
i.c^ a "mcicmps.ychosis 3 ; 1 * or 

h. thcy wonld be in some orher world, which would be Lmpossible 

L. thi& wurld is a spherc^ and if il should bc postu- 
lated that thcrc is anothcr sphcre, ihen a void would cxisi hctwccn 

the [two spheresl, which would be impossiblej and 

2- because the id worid :l if it should come as an oecur- 
rcnoe among the elemcnts, 

a) would rescmhlc thcsc eJements, bcing inclincd toward 
their spacei and bcing rcquircd to movc toward thcm + and it 

i5 T naA "|KKi!iible reaJity 1 " |mujnkiii| inEtcad ol" "uiJJed inecntion" [muphay^ 1 ]. 
MS Garn-it 9891 la iti«dicat4.^ (ha t: tashdEd" o^xr thc "ya*" but vow^liing i* wricer- 
tainty inclicated. T has darilicd its m«Mi(?g m y vl ]WHible." 

,lk T rcads, "r-vcry thiiig 1 [kuU. 3hay°*|. 

'' T rcads H "tvrry thin^ that is ? possiblt reality" [kuJJ ^Jiay' ay mumkin]. 

18 IM>. Ra^i (op r CiU p. 233) JisLs fomr argumcnU by opponenls of tliis d(>CtJfbe. 

,q [Eaiiasukhati] a 'mcLempayclioas*. 

1044 3* SWrnrtN 2, topecs 

would be quiesccni within the spaces of ihat [seamd] 

worltL cithcr naturally or by iorce permanently, both of which would 
be impossiblc* 

a.-a. The answer to lhia point is to ask why it would nol. be 
arimissiblr f*ir hot.b [llie Garden and the Kirej to 1:h: in this worlri, 

(1.) as Gie Garden k said lo be iii the Seventh Hcaven, accord- 

ing to [God ? s| word: "By thc flotus] boundaiy trcc** thcrc h thc 

Garden of PeacefiJ Dwelling 1 *, [Q 53:14-15] and [as it is in] ihe 

Prophct's word, fcW The roof of the Gardcn is the Throne of [God] 
thc McrciTul Onc.' 1 " 1 Furthcr s thc impossibility of thc tcaring up 

|of thc sphercs] is itsclf an impossibibty,, and thc iirc would bc undcr 

the two wodds. 

(2.) The dincrcEKC beiwwu tliis 33 and l metempsychosis 9> is that 

Lhis [relurn] is a rcturning of thc souJ to its bod>% cithcr 

a) in a Homecoming restoration 01 

b) in ;i rccomposition of \U i.iriginal atomic body pattide^ 

whilc a ^mctcmpsychosis* would bc thc returning of thc soul cithcr 
to some [otlicr soul aa] bcginnin^ poinc or to somc other world. 

b,-a, [The answer to the second part is that] tlie necessity 

every sumnmding limii be simple in natuve> and diat it be lo^ically 

recpiincd to be spherical in foim 9 and that any void be impossiblc. 

arc all impossiblc [sls prcmists]. But cvcn if [all] this shotild bc 
granced, why would it not he admissihle for this world and that 

olher [seoond world] both to be included within the volume of a 

sphcrr grcater than the two of tiiem? Furthcr, ihc ncccssity for thc 
rcscmblancc bctwccn thc clcmcnts of thc two worlds to bc abso 

lute would be impossible, twrcause of the possibility tbat there would 

he a di^Tcrcnce [between chenn] in form and primal matter, ewen 

ihough there mighi be some commonality among tlie attributes and 

t oiicomitanta. 

10 (adrat al-muntah^^j ,j: thc l-cKua boundary ir«." t ifc « - . thc lotins trcc majkJTii r Lti^ 
boucidary \m the Stvcnlh Hcaw»]). 1 ' Ci". Haus VVchr s A DkiiQtf&7y qfMtritem WrilteR 


21 H^iiirh. nnc Ldciirilird wiih rrdainty 111 Wcnsiiick*A HoRdlwtk iindc^r 4i BuJ)diiig5- 
in P^radiic": wlwthrr Tirmidhi 3£:2,3; Darimi 20:100: Tayalisi ^2Sfl3? 
w MS Garirtt 28SB gk Thai 15, ihc Rciaumr.ti™ Asscirih^ [ay al-kashrj. 


Isfahani says: L 44«, T 218 r MS 229b:l6 

Tepic 3: Tke gard&i <md tht jire 

[ScholarsJ rejecting thc doctrine of the The Gardcn and thc Hrc 
hold thaL Lhe Gartjen L 447 and ihe Rre wotild be 
a. eilher in (\m wurld 2S 

b. or in somc othcr world. 

(a.) [They hold that] if both shonld be in this world., then ihey 

would be either 

1 , [up] in thc rcalin of thc sphcrcs or 

2. [down| in thc rcalm of tlic clcmcnts. 

(L) The first [o£ the lauer two a]ternatives] would be inipossi- 

ble because thc ccleslial sphcrcs. are nekhcr bcing corn up noi are 

they rnbccd wilh anylhiiig corruptiblc, And ihcir bcing in thc cclcs- 
lial sphcres would recjuire their being torn np, because the riwrs 

and irees MS 230a and layers of heat in whieh the conAagration 

in thc sphercs mges would requirc chcir bcing torn up and mixcd 
with corruptible bodics., which would hc impossiMc. 

(2J The second [of the two altertiatiYtsl, which h tliat both of 
them |l.e. a the Garden and the Fire] would be down in rhe realm 
of th^ elemems, would require that the Resurrection As&rmbh of 
human bodics bc [rncrcly a suoces&ion of souls frorn onc individual 

lo anothcr; i-c.j, a L mctempsycho.sL5 ? . 

(b,) If ihey shouLd be in some other world, Ihen tliat would be a 
fkully thcory; Ijccjjluh?: this wurld is sphcrica], — a cdcsiial wurld bcing 
simplc siccording to prcccding discussions, and its shapc thus bcing 

a spherc,*— and so if some other woHd should bc posited. h also 

J be spherical. But then 5f another sphcre should be positcd, 

sontĕ void would uci:ur Jwtwrcn thcin T which wuuld be iiniwssible. 
Further s if ihis sccond world should bc positcd to cxisl t and if die 
Gardcn and thc Firc should occur in itj, thcn thc (_four] cicmcnls 

would occur there [also] as a resulT. And if the elements should 
occur in [the second world] 3 thcn [the second world"s elemeiits] 

would R^cmblc thcsc prcscnt clcments a thcy w r ould bc inciincd towards 


2H In th-c irans-latbrai, tkw tct ni, ^uniTCrsK", may bc us#A i!f>mctimcs tn hclp clar- 
ify itie ™wt's mcBtninp, Louis Gardct^s a.rticlc 1 , " fi Aiam'\ lr the En-1-2 fv. I, pp. 
J+U-WSJ di&LiJKMs iIk" various uses <jl'llic Arnhic wurcl. ""ITi*' wi>rkl Itjniis a whntc^ 
a «nity in phiraljiy , . , 'llie wciilrl i$ a plura.Mlv [p- 330}. 

1016 3, SKCTJON 3. TOPTCS 

rheir spaccs and be rcquired to move towards Them ? and chey would 
be quiesw:at in the spaces of tbis world by nature. This would imply 

ibat ibr d singic body thcre would bc two places by naturc, whkh 
would bc inipossibic. And cvcn if thcy should bc quicscciit in thc 
spaces of this world by force pennanently, this [theory] also would 

h* an impossibility. 

a.-a. Thr answer [to thost who rejcct the doctrinc of thc Gardcn 
and che )*lrc] is |a cjucstioii asking| why it wonld not he admis&ihle 
for the Ciarden to be ln>th in tliis world and in the world of thc 

<;e!cstiiil SDhercs? For it is *nid that the Gardcn is in the ScYcmh 

Hcavcrij by thc [totus] boundary tree. This would br atcording to 
[God a s word: 

"By thc potusj boundary tree, rhere is rhe Gardcn of Pcqcefu^ 
Dwclling»" [Q^ 53: 14-15] the lotus boundary trcc being in the Seventh 

Hcavcn. Morco% r cr b [it would bc] according to thc saying of thc 


"Thc roof of thc Gardcn is thc llironc of thc McreiluL Onc w > thc 

Thronc bcing idcntiiicd with tlic Eighdi Sphcrc aocording to thc 

early scholars. 

c. lsfafumi*s diffir£M££ with Baydawi*s iktoty 

1. Regarding [KLiydawLV| slatement that the ceta&tial sphcres 

arc not heing iom up, we [Isfahani] say iliat rlrc iiTipossibitity oPihe 
cclcstial aphcrcs bcing torn up would itsclf bc an Hnpos&ibihty. 

Morcoyer, whv wouLd it not bc admissihlc for thc Firc in tliis- world 

to bc under the twu worlds? 

2. [Baydawi] has said that if [the Gardcn and thc Firc should 
occur dowti in thc rcalm of thc elements) thcn thc Resurrection 
Assembly would bc [mercly a succcssion of souls from one mdi^id- 
ual to anotherj '- c ] 3 a c mctenipaychosis 7 . But we do not granc tha[ 

posit5on r The dtHerence between ihe 4 ReHirrectton AssembJy in thi* 

world* and 'mctcmpsychosb 9 is 

ihat the Rcrsurrccdon in this world wonld bc thc rcLtirn- 

ing of the soul either to its [originaij body tbat had been restored^ 
if thc rcstorcd budy shotild bc tlie idcniical one, or to the body that 

has bccn recomposcd from its original atomic body particlcs,, if thc 
bod^ r should not be the idenrical one that is restored; while 

[tliatj ^metcmpsychosis 1 would bt the rcturning of thc 
soul to thc body of sonic [othcr sonl as] bcginning point. Or s thcrc 
is ihe a]temaiive that ihe R.esiin , eclion would be in some othrr world. 


15. [Baydawi's] positiun is thai since a cclcstial spbere woulri 

bc rimple thcn its forrn would bc a sphcre. Our position h thai wc 
do not grant that cvcry surrounding Hmit would bc a simpit? cntity, 

And even if that shouLd be granced, still wc would not grant thc 
neccs&ity of (hat siaiiple entity being sph^rkal in shapc; L 448 and 
even if the neeessity for that simpie entity to be sphcrical m shapc 

should bc grantcd and thcrc wouid occur a void between thc two 
of thcm, stilt wc would not grant thac thc void would bc inipossi- 

ble, MS 230b Iu surrimary, thc bnpos&ibility of them both [the 

Gardcn and thc Firc] bcing in anothcr worid would bs based 

a) upon thc siniple nature of cvcry surrounding limit s and 
b) ijpon thc nenessity of thc sirnplr ttntity hcing spherical in 

shape, and 

upon thc rcjtction of thc void, all. of thesc prcmiscs being 


But if a!I or tlicse premises shoukl be granted* tbcn why would it 
not be adntissible that this world and the worid in which ihe f jarden 

and the Hrc are should boih he spherical and flxcd within the voi- 
nme of a sphere grearer than both of them so ther^ would not hc 

a \tm\ bctwccn thon? 

Purthcrmore, we do nol grant that iftheie shuukl be elcment* in 
that othcr world, that thcn thcy would be aimilar 10 the elemems 
of ttiia worid in complctc rcality, T 219 For indced, thc nccca- 
sity tbr rhe elemenls of the two worlris to be absolutcty similar, thal 

is, in their complele quiddity 9 would be irnpossible on account of 

thc possibility of thcrc bcing a diRcrcncc in fomn or prirnal matier, 

jn spiie of ihe fact rhat there woukl be some commonality among 

both tlic cmributcs iind ajncordiants. For eKaniple,, the heat [aa an 
element] of that world might bc dry and ficry and extend out to 
the conca\ity of thc spherc of that w r orld's moon D like thc ficiy heat 

ol" this world of ouns. And thc samc can bc said aboitt tbc n fc sL of 
thc ctements because of ihe ad]nissib]lit> r of tliere bcing a common- 
ality arnoiig the ditTerent componenti of a quiddity in both attrib- 
utes and concomilants. 

104R 3, &F.cT[ON 3, TOPicst 

Baydawi aaid: 

L448, T 219 

The eardsn atid the /ire aw created entiti&i 


a, A eoroHaiY nn ihis is that Lhe Gardrti and Fire ait hoih cre- 

alcd cntities, a docmnt^ opposrd by Abu Hashim [nl-Jul iba*i] and 

Qadi <Abd al-Jabbar. 

L We havc [GmTs] word, w . - . |There is a Garden] wide as 
the heaven& atid the earth, prepared for the God-rearing," [Q^ 3: 1 33] av 

a; Let no onc say that [thc Gardcn.*sJ brcadth would cqual 
the brcadth of thcsc two |Le- + heaven and carth} only if it shouid 
happen to fit within their spaces, nor that that would happen only 
flficr both of them had vanished, becaussc- of die impossibilky of thc 
intcrpcnctration of bodics. This is hccausc 

the rneaning [ofthe verae| is that [riic GardenY| breadth 

is like the hreadth ol ihe JwOj, according to [GkxFsJ word, w Its breadth 
is like that of hcavcn and carth"' t [£^57:21] and bccausc 

c) Lts hrcaddi is not cxactly the same as thc brcadth of the 

two of them. 

2. We aJso have [God's] wotd, "Have GocOy fear regarding 

the Fire, the fuel oTwhich is both men and stones; 11 has been pre- 

parcd for unbdiewra." [Q, 2:24] ^ And further, Adam waa givcn rcs- 
idence in the Gardcn, and his. cxpulsion was from it. 

b P [Those who reject both the Garden and Fire] *ay that if the 

Gardcn should be soinedLiEig trealed then. it would have 110 pcr- 
manenoc, bccausc of thc wurd of [God] , 

rL F.verything is dcstrunihle, except His cotiiM^nance." |Q. 2fi:flfl] 
to ihis. conclusion is (ahVj on ao:<junt of rhe Mo-st High's statementj 

"pbi ihe GardenJ hs food is alway* ready," that is, the food ready 
to \k caten. LQ 13:35] 

] a Our posiiioi] h that thc mcaning of I lis. statcmcnt^ "Ewiything 
is destnac.rible/* is in othcr words, FA"eryrhing, othcr than [C3od] ? is 
destrucdble. being nonexistent within the limtt of it* own essence, 

n (aK^wli] ( Abd al-jabbar Lbn Ahniad, d„ lOB5 f a Mu 4 tazititc thca]c>gian and 
kad^r, IIis main work ii a^Mugkm. 

J5 Srt Lhc artklc "Djsnna" Ln ?hc Kn-I-2 l«y L. GiuJeL for & coretpJtie sumnia^ 

Cif iciiirhings abouL Lhc Gardcii. 

^ Scc tht En-J-^" for thc two anklcs fc! I>jzLhacuiam M by L, GardcL anid "Nar" by 
T. Fahd. Il would bc ^:>ud aJso iti ctmsullEn-J-] fcir thc articlc ''DjiihiiJirittiTi^ by 
H. Carra de YAiUs, wllich did no[ separarc thc d>o concepi*. 

TliE lttSUllItliCllON ASShMELA A.ND THE Rj\COMPE.\SE 1049 

whilc in rcgard to [God] and in view of Who Hc is. it is not so, 
for noncKistcncc overtakcs [everything elsc]. And evcn if {thcir argu- 
mcnt agaiiiNt che Garden and the Fire] should be grantcd it wouid 
be based 011 some particular meatiiiig [dciivcd from] bringing proof 

te«ts logeiher. 

2. Kurthcrmortj [God's] word, "[In thc Garden] its food is 

always ready", [0,13:35] has. abandoncd thc lilcral meariulg, bccause 
Tood to be eatcn 1 without doubt vanishcs away hy bcing cateri; but 

rathiT, tlic mcanirig is (liat whciicver any of [thc Tood to be eaten'] 

vanishc& away, thcn more likc ic comcs into cxistcncc immedjatcly 

aftc rwards. But that fact does not deny ihc nonexistcncc of thc 

Garden by one fc>lit\k of thc eyes [1» rimc]. 

Isiahani savs: L 448, T 219, MS 230b;9 

77*? gardtrt and tht Jpt &n crtated ttitiUts 

a. This lact is a corolJary dcrived frotn the admissibiJity of thc 
eni?stence of thc Gardcn and Firc, Now, assuming the admissibility 

of the cxisteiice of the Gardcn and ihc Fue, [scholans] have diiTered 
ovcr whcthcr [the Gartlen and Firc] cxist as crcatcd e ritirie.s at the 
prc&ent timt, with thc majority holdiug ihat thc Garden L 449 

and the Firc do cxist as creatcd entities at thc prcscnt rJrne, this 
doctrine being in opposition to the doctrine of Abu ilashim. [al- 

jubba^j] and Qadi *Abd nl-Jabbar. 

I. Our posicion is bascd on the statcmcnt of the Most High 
in che descripiiou of the Garden, ^['Ihcre is a Garden] widc as thc 
heavens and chc carth, prcparcd for ihc God-fearing, " [Q3:I33] Iti 
diis statcmcnt God Most High gave intbj tTUition about the prepa- 
ration oi' thc Gardcn in tcrms of thc past tcnsc; thus, He itidicatrd 
that it is a crcatcd entity at thc prescnt time, If it should be othcr- 
wise, the implieation would be tliac a falschood had comc from God 

Most High, which would be ircipossible, 

a} Lct no one say that if thc Garderi shoukl be a cneated 

cntity iiow, thcn its brcadth would bc onty thc brcadth of the heav- 

ens and earth, That conclusion would be lidse, and the logic;at ticces^ 
sity in u^e here is liieral- Tiie coiH-lusio^ would bc faJsc becausc 

[ihe GatYien^] breadth would be the breadth of rhe 

lieaveris and tlic carth only if it ^Jiould fit witJiin the space oecu- 
pied by both thc hca\cns and carth, since if it should be placed 

1050 % SECTION 2 n TOPICS 

somewhere other than in their space or in unly psart o\* their space 
then its- hreadlh would noi Id^ preciiely their breadlh, and 

its hciug plaoedi in all ihcir space wuuld bc posaiblc 

aftrr thc hcaycns and thc carth wouLd Lwvc vanisht"d away 
bccausc the iiitci^Hrnctrdtitm of bodies is irnpossibLe, so this [placc- 
nicnt] would bc impossiblc, 

Indeed, our position is (hai the meaning inrended by 

[GodsJ word, *"[A Garden] widc as the heavcns MS Zila and 
the earth" |Q. 3:133] is diat it is like the brcadth of die heavens 

atid the earth, in accorclanoc wiih Hi* sutiement, "Likc ihe breadlh 
of ihc heawtis and ihe earih." [0^57:21] 

■c) Morco% r cr„ sincc it would \yc imj>os&ibLc for the brcadth 
of" tlie two to bt? identical to the hreadth of" the Garden. thcrcfore 


? ? 

in that case k would bc admis?ible tLiat thcre be ahove ihe Sevetuh 
Hcaven an eiriply space whosc brcadth Would match dic breadlh 
ot" thc hcavcns and thc carth, and that thc Gardcn bc [ptaoc 

within il- 

2. And there is [GodV| word, u Havc Godly fear regarding thc 

lirc; its fucl is both mcn and stoncs, and it has bccn prcparcd fbr 
unbclLcvcrs." [Q,2:24] Indccd, llc^ has givcn information in tcrms 
of the past tcnsc that the Firc has becn prcparcd and crcatcd, and 

so it exi3U a.s a created entity ac tlie prcsent lime- If it ghould be 
oiherwise, the implication woukl be thal therr was falsehood in ihe 

inibrmation givcn by [God] Most High, Also, we hotd that Cod 

Mosl HigLTs scttling of Adam in tht? Garricn and then his 

from it becausc of liis eating from tht trcc aftcr being prohibited 

from doing &o dcmonstnncij clcarly that thc Gardcn is a creatcd 
cmity at thc prrscnt timc. 

b, Abu Hashiin [aljubba^i] and Qadi *Abd al Jabhar hcld that il" 
rhe Ciardcn sliould be a crcated cnuty at thc prescnt timt^ thttn ic 

woutd not be anythrng permanently continuous. 

l. Thcir coriclusioTi is (aliCj and thcir iogic ht^r^ h ihal thc 
statcmcnt of thc Most Hijjh^ "EycrythiiiGj is dcstrucdblc cxccpt His 

countenance" [Q 28:88] indicates ihat anyihtng otber than His couti- 

tcnancc would bc dcstructiblc and 5-ubjccl to \anishina[ away to non^ 

i? ,^]lho«J5ii lIip irat aA Q}ir*an 57:2] i? siTi^ulHr^ rejiding, [ku-^r^i ^d-KMiia 1 , . ]j, 

brsnhjLiii freely mtik?$ il "heaven" pluraL I., T ? the MS acid MS CJarrew 989Ha all 
readinj». [?I-«iTiiiwa( . . -j, a.? in (^«r^an 3:L33- 

n MS: [fa-imia Allah ra*da* althbanral- 


cxi&tcncc, and sincc the Garden h somcthin^ other than God Most 

High it might ihereEbre v.ani&h away to uonescistence, so h would 

not be peimanenL 

2. Tlie condusion is false bccause of thc slatcmem o( the Mosi 


u [In thc Gardcn] ils food is aJways rcady", [Q, 13:33] that is, thc 
food of the Garden |prepared| L to be eaten" would be always- raady. 
And if thc fc food to bc catcn 5 of thc Carden should be always teady» 
thcn the emtenee of jhe Gardcn would be permanent, since the 
permanent readiness of die Garden's *Jbod to be caten' without the 
Garden havit^ pcnnancnce would bc unthinkablc. 

C, PurthcrmorCj [thc&c dis&cnting scholars hold]> if it shotild bc 
cstabl^hcd that thc Gardcn would not be a creatcd cntity at the 

prcscnt nime T then chat would iniply also that ihe Firp would not be 
a crcated emity ar the present time. 

Our aiLthor. [Baydawi], rcplitd to this iirst [conditional part of 

ihe preceding &uncence] that the inferen.ce here wouk) be disaJlowedj 
and tu the second [biCcretitiat part of itj that thc false conclusion 
would bc disallowcd, Rcgarding the disallowance of the in£crencc 
niadc hcrc., ic i& bccause ihe fact ihai [thc Gardcn] would bc a cre- 
atcd cntity at the prescnt time does not imply that ics permanence 

would be lacking. 

d, Boih [Abu Hashim al-Jubba 3 ] and Qadi e Abd al-Jabbar] 

that thc statcmcnt of thc Most Hi^h, "Everything is dcstiuttiblc 
cxccpt Jlis countcnancc/ 1 f(^ 28:88] mdjcatra that everything cjcccpt 

God Most Higli will brcome noneusKul. 

I . Wc [IsJiihani] do not gnmt tliat [Gnd'&] sLatemcnt, * 'Ewrything 
is destructible cxcept His countcnanoe", ancticaces. rhat everything 

exccpt God Most High L 4!i0 will become, Indeed, 
its mcaning is that evctything except God Most Htgh wilt be Eion- 
esistetn within tlic limit of ibs own css«jicc, as w<:lt as in rcgard to 
[God v s.] esscncc and in vicw of Who IIc is ? but not in rcgard to thc 
lact of [CiodJ hcing th^ K?dstential (lause, 'ITii* is hecause e^rythiiig" 

oiher than Ciod Mosi High 2R is merely a possiblc resility, and a pos- 

rcality,, in rcgurd to iis otati esscncc,, is not cligiblc for cxist- 

cncc, so with rcgard co its own essence, it would not bc an e^dstent. 

19 L, T, and Ms Oarren SNB c »Ha read ? |^vv3h]i but ihe MS rtames the Aiwecedem 

lii plarp o-i" the rel.iiKr prcmCKlii, 

1052 3-« SEcriow 2, Toric& 

And the statement*s mcaning is tiot ihat nonesdstence overtakes evexy- 

ihing rxccpc God Most High. So ? ihcrc is no irnpKcatioTi MS 231 
from thc fact that thc Gardcn is a crcatcd cntity at thc prcscnt 

timc — that noncsistcncc wiL overtakc it. And., cvcn if it should bc 
grantcd that ics mcaning is that noncsistcncc will ovcrfake every- 

thing aside from God Most High, T 220 

2* thnc is a spedtic refercncc to this quc5.tinn in (tocTs state* 

ment, "[ln the Garden] its food is always ready, M This indicates that 

the Gyndcn would havc pcrni^ncnce for rCAsons that havc prctcdcd; 
so thcn thc mcaning would be that nr>ncxisEcncc ovcrtakcs cvcry- 
thing a&idc from God Most High and thc Gardcn. and tbe spcciiRc 
icference is onty thc joining" togrther of thcse cwn prooik. And since 
it was a $pcdfic reference 3 ihere is no implication from the fact that 
thc Gardcn i§ a created cntity at ihe prescm timc that nonexistence 
will ovcrtake it. Rc£farding thc disalbwanct of the faJsc conclusion, 
that is betausc wc do 1101 graiit ihat [God's] word, "[In thc Gardcn] 
its food is always rcady/' |C> 13:35] indicatcs the pcrmanent con- 

rinuance of the Gardcn. Yhat is hccause the statement nf ihe Most 
Highj "|[Tn the Garden] its faod is always ready", abandons the lil- 
eral nwHrung since thc mcaning of lC [its] fuod" is Ll food lo 1« cuwn 1 *, 
and tbc permancnt continuance of thc *food to bc catcrr wodd hc 

imposiiihlc bccausc thc l food to bc catcn* without doubt would van- 
ish away in bcing catcn, so it could not possibly bc pcrmancnt. 

Rather, the rneaning is that whenever any of the *ftwd to be eaten' 
vanishes away by bcing caterij inorc like it comcs icito cxistcncc 
iinmediately atierwards. B111 that fact docs not deny ihe. nonexis- 

tence of ihe Garden by on^ blink of Llie eyes [in time]. 

Baydawi said: 

1 . 450, T 220 

Topk 4a: 'Iht Afiftazilah <m reward <md pimiskmeni 

a. RamnL Ilic Mu^taailah of Basrah hold ihal a reward for htunan 
obcdicncc is a duty of God Most High.,. an obligacinn upon Him. I his 
Es hecause Hc prcscribcd biirdcnsome durics as part of onr rcligion 
for iist only Rir a purpo^, since it i^ impossiblt: to iinput^ to Him 
an action empty of any purposjc t and thc crcdit ihr any hcnetits docs 

helong to Hinru Ihat purpose would be either 

]* ihc occurrence of some bendit for us 3 or 

!^. our protcction from somc Jo&s. Ihc sccond allcmativc is 


fakc t bccausc if [Gori| should have continucd us jii iioncxisteiic.e 
then we would have had rest and wc would not have cieedcd thraw 
hard&hips. Thc first aJtcrnative is that tluTe woulct be ciihcr some 

bcncfit thnt prcccdod [thc Rcsurrcction], but chat would br rrpujp- 

naut to reason, or onc that was sub*GqutMit [to the RcaurreciionJ , 

which is our lcjcpca] goal. 

Furthcr, thc Most HigiYs statcment., ". - . As d rccompcnsc for thcir 

[gocxt] doeds", [Q .32:17] and others like it a indicates iha* [goodj 

deeds call fur a rcward. 

Our [Raydawi] position i* rhat we have made it plain that thcre 

is neidier a hiddcn purpusr lur His action nor a cause bchind His 

judgmcnL Still 3 wc woutd asl^ why would not all thc prcvious cxam- 
plcs ol" [HisJ grariom treatinent be suiHcicnl in rtckoniiig bcnctits 
rcccivcd, [and why would notj all di&cocilent bc prohibitedi* llow 

should it noi be so, whcci ihe Mu*Uuulah require it as a dnty to be 
actiw bnth in thankftilncsy and in logical reasoiiing about onc*s expe- 
ricntiaJ knowlcdgc* as an intcllcctual task rcgardang all previous cxam- 
ples of His grarious tneatmeiit? The vcrse does not pnwe that thcre 

is an obligation, but thc fact of [human] action bcing a sign ancl 

indication is sullicictit to cnakc usc of" thc tcrtn "rcward." 

b. PimishmenL In aridhinn, the Mi/tasilah and thc Khawarij hold 
that it is, ati obljgation for [God] lo puni&h [now in the present] an 
unbdicver and anyone vtho eommits a drcaclful great sin, M bccausr 

1. a pardon would amount to an equalizalion bctween a ]>er- 

son who ii> obcdient and onc who h di&obcdicnt., and bccause 

2, thc appetite lor evildoiEig is built into U5 so that if \vc wcrc 

not capable orbdng interrupted by punishment, ihat appetii^ would 

[sccm to] bc a tcmptation to [c\nl, placcd bcfure us oil God's parl]j SI 
and bccausc 

^* Thc -Promisc |qf rcwardj arul thc Thrcat (of punKhrrLcnt; 11 is onc of thc fivc 
fundiimcnt»L principlcs ot Mu E LazLLah doctrinc. Scc chc articl^ "Mu^taaila^j by 
D. Gicnarcl in llic Kn-l-2^ v. 7, pp. 7R6 f. 'Ihc Mu E ui/]Lah arc jcrincd with tLic 

KF;:w;biij hl \h\< iJnctriTlt bl-i:ai.!^ frv l^ltLcr pruup w^ mi^il fi>r \v <:nc\ :i^i-i l : .i:n 

oi njii : .!::ii i'.ilh.:]iy anc icj^rprLUinur.. S.-. U" \L \\u\. hi'mk Pk?'*>>f.'iv .■Jrf.?' 

Tlwlotp, w jEwwriW 5irt«, ik-eotnl tdition. Fxlinburgti Univcniiiy l^res, [J9S5J, pp. 

12 and 32. 

31 [ighri^an 4 a3ayhi] hc^c in B^ydawi^ icstt prmidcR r>n]y a wcal^ unspdkjcn snfer- 
encc chal God woyldl icicitc to cctnptadori. Mcntion of God coulrl jugr as wcLl ho 
onutLed herc. Buc JiJatianL, in the matching section of hia cocnmcntary, spccilicaUy 
indLcatcs ttwil Gcxl is the anteccdcnl of ["'alaytiL] by addiuR [i.4L c ttli* a ] , ntaking* il an 

umch inkabi c i ri Ici j c ruct 


3, thc Mosi High anriounced ihat boih thc unbclicvcr and the 

evildocr would cntcr thc Firc in a numi^r of placcs [in thc Qur*an], 

and anything contrary L 451 to His- anriouuccincnt would bc 




I — a- In amwcr to thc first point» it is that cvcn if [God] should 
not punish a disohrdicni p^rsnn biit shoulri not give him thc reward 

due an obedient pcrson, then it woukl not be a case of cquaIization. 

2.-a. And to the second point the ariswcr is. that an over- 

whelming emphasis on t.he side of punishment by warning ancl ihreat- 

c^ning w[>uld l)c suIEcicnt lo rcslnuii [a wningdocr], acid Uie aiilicipad^ii 
of pardon beiorc rcpcntancc woudd bc ihc sainc a* thc aniicipauan 
of it ailer repentance. 

3. a. And to the third point the answer is that there is not a 

[i,t. s iri the Iraditional eyidencc] to inditate thal puiiishinriil 

is a neccssity in and of iturir 

Thcn [the Mu*tazi];ih and Khawarij] saici that thc ihrcat agaimt 

a person who comnuts a dreMdtiil great sin would not be suspttiided 

[in thc futurc]— jus-t as is thc thrcat aguinst an unbclicvcr [is not 
suspendedj, — for the Ibllowinsy reanons: 

a) Tht:ie are verses that inelude the expression, fcfi eternity" 
in the threat to [a sinncr],. a* in the statemcnt of the Most High, 

"Tlunk of one who has accuniiilaied an cvil record and is now 

surroundcd with [the aequircd rcsidt of] his sin . . . [pcople like that 
are well acquaintcd wilh thc Firc, and will bc thcrc for etemilyj*\ 
[Q 2:8 1 J and 

"Whocvcr disobcys Oud and His Messenger , - , [God will put ihat 

onc into aii etcrnal Hre]" 4 |Q +:I4J and 

"Wlioever Idlls a bcliever intcntionally , A . [for him thc rccormpcnsc 

is bring in Hell for eternity]" [Q 4 <^3J 

b! There is rhe statement ofthe Mmt High desmhsng chem 3 

"Fro[ti [thcir place in llie Fire] ihey will not be ibund abseiit!" 

c) A \%ickcd sinncr ought to bc punishcd according to \m 

wickedncss^ but thai might cancel out wliar he had earned in tlic 

way of rcward, dcpcndtng on whatcver mutual caiicellation thene 

miglit he hetween the two [categorieii] . 

a)-a. fhe answer eo tlie tirsl \of tlicse jneasons] is that eter* 

nily is a very long sojourn, and its use in this sense is frequent 

h)-a. To the sccond [reason] the answer is that the niean- 

ing iritcnded }>y "insolem libertines" is those who are completcly 


wickcd, and thcy arc unbc]icveri>> as is indicatcd by [God s s] word: 
"Thcy arc unbdicvcr& 1 iiisolcnt libcrtincs"* [Q 80:42] arid as is shown 

the agreement betweeu [this versc] and verscs indicating that 

thera 5s a special putnshmeni for unbcl]fvRr&, as [Gocl] has &aid- 

"Today shame and evi) have cotnc upon unbeMevers." [Q 1 6:27J 

"Indccd, it has bccn rcvcalcd to us that tormcnt Ss for anyonc 

who has disbelieved and tumed away«" [Q_ 20:48] 

: Whenever a group [of iuibelieverej wouicl bc ihrowti iikio [the 

Fircj its guards. would ask thcm, fc Did no onc comc to warn you? 1 

and they would say, k O yes 7 someono came to warn us, but wc 
treated them as lian." [Q, 67:8-9] 

"No onc will bc buming in [thc Fin_j cxccpt chc wonrt, wlio said 

it was ~A lic and thcn turncd away [irom thc mcssagc]. 31 [Q_ 92: 15-16] 

: \ . . ()n thc day whcn God iviH noc lct shanie comc ou thc Prophct 

or thosc who believed with him." |Q. 66:8j 

Purlhcr, a sitir.nisr wranijdocr mio;ht bc & !jdicvcr, LiccordTig in 

[God's] word: 

"And if two parties of bdicvers should be killing each oiher - , ™ 

[0,49:9] On account of this [vcrsej Muqatil itm Sulayman and thc 
MurjTah dccided that they would ntyt be punished. 

c}-a. The third [reason] is answered by rejccting both their 
earnini^ and iheEr debts* and by the fact that the earning would he. 

of puriishtnenr if tbe earning of reward shonkl HiiL But thcn the casc 
would bc cithcr that 

1. somcthing would be canccllcd Ironi [chcir account] by way 

of an equalizaiion p as is the doctrine of Abu Hasiiim [al-Jul?ba , i] 3 
or that 

2- no cancsllation w<Mild be mad-e, as is the doctrins ol" his 

fattHT [Ahu *A]i Miihainrnad Hljubba'i], l.K>th of them bcing lalse 

lr a. [To answerj, thc first [of thcse atlcniatives] i& (auhy, 

because thc cffccdvc causation of cach of thcm [resuliing in] the 

tioncxistcncc of thc nther would be eithcr siiiiultancouslY or succcs- 
sivf:ly. J"hc fir^L of ihes^ fl;iiier twoj would be irnpossiblB 1 :, b^cause 
i requires Oic cxiHtciice of }>oth of thcin whiV thcy are both noti- 
rxistcnt; and Hkcwisc, thc sccond of thcsc would bc impossiblc s 
becausc thc one that would he. owrcome a.^ failed would never rctum 
as yictorious, 

2.-a. [To ariswer], (hc seoond [of ihcsc ahcrna(ivesj is 
hecause ii would mean ihe nullif>Hng and negjeot of obedi- 


ence ? and it would bc iiwalid hccause of IGckTsI wordr "\Vhoever 

does a mote p s wcight of good shall see ii [in lii:s account]," [<^99:7J 52 

Isiahani says: L 451, T 220, M-S 23lb:'J 

7qpv i?^; 72w A/u r £a.:?/nA an mmrd aiud pwdthmnni 

a. Rmmd. Thc position of thc Mu'taziiah of Basrah is that giv- 
ing a reward ibr human obedience is a duiy of God Most High» an 

obligation upon Him for two rcasons, 

L. Gcxl pnescril>ed burdensome duties &y pari of our rcligion. 
so onc can only condudc L 452 that tbc prcscription of thcm 
either is not for any purpose, or it is for a purpose. The ihrm-er 

allernalive is (alse, becau&e the presc riplion of them for no purpuse 

would bc an ac;t of iudliiy which h iiripossibk" [lo iinpuLc to God], 

and thc latccr altcrnativc iiic\itably would bc that thc pnrpose i* 

cithcr sumeihmg m returu fur [God] s or something in return for us. 

Of thcsc option& thc Ibmicr is false, hccausc of thc impossibility oJ' 

benelUs retuming to [God]; and the latter, nameiy, that the purpose 

T 22.] would be something in return for u$ y miist he thac ihe pur- 
posc is to obtain eithcr 

some aduantage Ibr m 7 or 

b) our protcciiun from sorae harn. 

The second altcmalivc hcrc ffa) is Iklse, if thc purpose 
sliould be to pmtect us Irnm somc hann, Then continutng lls in non- 

32 F,D. Raj.i haa pros/uii^ vr\y littLo tt>u-jird [hi$ sctuoii. Whiti he haa arc mainly 
orthotlas. Sucmi. statcnienti, noc organLed as Baydawi has diem. Hia inlrrcHL 
clcarly is- with thr orthodcuc positionE. Cf. Razi H a Atithassal, pp» 235-236, 

On the emher han<l, it b evkfcni (]i»i Biiydawi and TsfahaJii (aloniR with *Adud 

al-Din Ijt in hb ot+AtMrmji/ji f I{m til-Rhiam, pp r 376 Bt in l, Mawqir (5 ort 1"radiooiiial 

ctc>clri.n^a) ha.™ availaJhle ind chat they nia.k^ usi? of ^xcf nsiw .Yli-i^tajjLah wriiingj, 
as fqr Lnslancc thosc of chc! Mu^taiLlah Irarlrr Qadi *Abd aJJabbar abti Ahmad. 
(325? 4 ] d / 1 02.Vj in his jl/iijgftrei" and crthcr lill«. Scill wc cannDt irruijjinc thai Raii 
did ncst thc- sarac rccords availahlc tn htm„ As a sidc spmJjitkm, howcier,. ihcsc cxtcnFi'vr Mu. r tazElah writinip wcrc nui gt i nc^a]!) , ava51al)Lc to modcm 
scholarship froni Sronrccs in chc ccntral IjJamic rcgions, hnc instcad wcrc discovfrcd 
in com]3d.ra.tivcly rcccnt licncs (abouL 1959, according to Richard M. Frank in his 
Hn7.'jr.s $TJxf 'IJwrr Altniwki! p. 51 oclly m San^a*, Y-prrictL. aci Isiny^ili slEtncighi^d, it is. 
ittr^riesiiktii^ yi mnc^mpl.acf! che pnssibiliry nl"chsre having hwti Aom^ itcwmpc cn ^rArl- 

kacc lii a ihorough way any Mu f tazilah writings Ln the ccncra] IsJanuc rei(ions wherc 
only Stinni durtrinrs wcn- acrrptahle. A probablc icason for fhis survival of doc- 

uEiieiits ici Y?ifle!n h rhai it was ihe |>oli(fecAl ccrttet of the pro-Mu^ta^iLah p^ourtte., 

r.he Zaydi and. Imanii Slu^hs, 


cxislence would have bren preierable, hecause if [tiodj had contin- 
ued us in nonexisience then we woutd have had rest and wnuld not 

havc nccdcd thusc burdcns and thc hard labor thcy involve. But 
whcn II c did not continue ias in noncxi&tcncc IIc gavc an indica- 
tion that thc purpo^e [of our religious obligations] is not [mcrcly] 

to protect us from harm, So it is ihe hnt alteraative above, namely, 
(a) that ihe purpose [uf the obligations imposed] is to obtain some 

^dva.ntage for us; [and this mcansj 

1) cither that thc advantage would preccde the imposi- 

tion of dutie^ — aj for example, [advantages like] exisience 3 [hc pos- 
session of both exteniaJ aud intcrnal body members, a living nature, 

hcalth und thc provkion of daily Jbod and othcr thing* that hcallh 

depcnds upon, MS 23 2a— but this alwrnative is rcpugnant to rea- 
son, because it is not appropriate for the Noblc and All-Wise One 

in His goodness to show favor to somcone and thcn imposc 011 hinri 
hcavy [rdigious.] obligiirions without thc onc imposcd upon rcceiv- 
ing any advantagc cithcr at the Eime ot imposition or afterwards, 

2; or that the adyamagc would be secured after ihe obiig- 

atiotis had been perTonncdp which is thc desired logical goal pn our 
argumcnt], Thus a thc rcward would bc an "appropriatc advantagc* ? 
which h thc purpose fbr the irnposition of the abligations. So it is 

established thal the purpuse of ihc irnposilioiis i* ihc reward for per- 

Cnrinni^ ihrrrL Thcrdi:n.\ [say thc \lu l l;m]ah. \hv rrwardj woulr; be 

an obiigation upon God Mosi High. 

2- In thc Eccond [reason for an obligadon heing upon God to 
give a reward. tlie Mu^a^ilah hnld that (iod'sJ word: — ", - - | ITiere 
wilt l>e woineiij, cycs lovcly as hiddcu pcarla^ in recompcnsc for all 
ihcir [good] dccds 1 ^ [Q 56:22-24] — indicatcs that [a bclicvcr*sj pcr^ 
formsmcc of dut^ is a rcason for chc rcward. 

I, n. ln answcr lo iheir first rcason t out j>osition ls what we 
have rnade plain — in Book 2, Topic 5 of Scction 3., on the acts [of 

Godj — that thcrc is no Jiiddcn purposc bchind JJis action nor is 
thcre somc causc atEccdng His jud^cnicnt. Nc\"crthclcsa.. why would 
not an acknowlcdgcmcnt for previous bcncfks be surtkient as a pur- 
posc for the duties iTnjKised, with any repugTimice being rulcd out 
in either case [t^, whether it would yr would not bc sufficicnt], Tn 
fact, nothtng repugnant may stand in rcJation to God Most High; 
so how could thc pntposc of the imposed duties, najnely, the fact 

that an advaniage occurred prior to the irnpobition of thc dulies, 

havc anydiing rcpugnant about it? Punhcr^ thc Mu^ta^ilali havc 

1058 3> section a r topigs 

rei^Liired it as a [heliewi^sl duty to acknowJedge actiYely and lo apply 

r^aBoning to our expcrieritial kiiowledgc bccawe of al] thc 

paist cxamplcs of [God s s] gracious trcatmcnL 

2--a. An in answcr to thcir sccond reason, the [Qur'an] vcrsc> 
thc statcmcnt of [God] Most Jligh, w - . ■ In rccompcnsc for all thcir 

[0^56:22] does not prove that ihe reward from Gorl 
Most High is an obligation uport Him : but rather, it proves that His 

word doe& come to pass* Furthcr s thc tcrm "rcward" is a retcrcncc 
to the answer to a statcmcnt assumed to havc bccn intcrpoacd, a 

Huminary of thc Ltiteipositioti being that God made the reward as 

rccompcnsc Jbr dccds pcrformcd; and the rccompcn!vc lbr a ccrtain 
thing requiines that it be made conlbrmable to it ? as the aimmon 
saying is, "II : yon do well for me 3 then accordingly yoti will have [so 

much as a rcward].." A sunimary of the answer givcn would be to 

say, <l Wc do not grant that thc rcocnripcnse for a thing must be 
conformablc to it, but radicr^ it would bc suAicient in applying thc 

tertn L 453 Yecompcnse p to thc rcward that the accion peiformcd 
would bc a distinguSshing sign of [the recornpeTjse] atid would point 
to it." 

l>. Pujiiihmmt. In additjoii* the Mu c tazilah and the Khawarij hold 
ihai it h an uhligalion upon God [now in the present] to punis,h an 

uribdicv«v *"d anyoiie, who commiJs a dreadfuJ greal iln, fbr ihree 

] . Pardon for an unbclicvcr and for onc who cornmits a drcad- 

fiil great sin wnuld rcquire logically that then be f^quality r betwccn 
tiri nbedient pcrson and a duobedienl one oci account of this equal 

trcatmcnl of thcm in dic latk of puiLishiricnl ? but an ctitiality bctwccn 

thesc tTA r o ncccssaiiiy would cxcludc jusdcc; and [Ood] Most High 

is just by constrKus. MS 232b 

2, The appetitc for evil is built into ns, so if we were inca- 

pablc of bcing intcrnjptcd b) r punishTiirtit for thc wickedncss, thcn 
that appctitc would [scem to] bc a tcniplation cm [God's] part for 
lj_s to commit wickcdncss. [Thia is bccauscj if wc should doubt thc 
punishment for wickcdncss, wii.h thc appeiite for wit kedness and the 

motivation to it created in us 5 then we would not abandon wicked- 

nesa, bccause attaining thc objccts of our appetitcs would hc rcal- 
ixed along wiih thcre being doubt ahout pnnishrnent Ibr it. 

3. God Most High has aiinounced in numerous placea [in the 

Oiir^aiiJ i}iat Isotli tlic unbthcvcr and the evildocr would entcr thc 
EirC;, as whcn Hc said^ 


"Unbdievers wilJ b< driven to Hcll in groups", [Q39:7!] and, 
"Wc wiil drivt evildocrs to Hcll as. animak arc drivcn to a water- 
ing p]ace," [Q 1 9:86] Any contradiction of the armounremenl of 
Gotl Most High would be impossiblc, thcrcfoi\", it is an obligation 

[upun God] that thc unbclicvcr, and anyonc, who commits a drcad- 

ful grcat sin should go into rhc Flrc. 

I.--a. Thc amwer to thrir first neason &i that pardon for a dis- 

ohedient pereon would not imply necessarily ihat he is equal to an 
obedient pcrson, bccause evcn if thc Most High does not punish the 
disobcdicnt Orte, Hc will noc rcward him as He docs thc obedicnt 
pcrson. so no cquality of trcatmcnt is iiiiplied,. assuming thcrc would 

be paaiori for the disubedient onc, 

2 — a* Thc answcr to thc sccond rcason is that an intcrruption 

by punishnumt is not implicd iim scating thc prohibition againsl dis- 
obedient aitioiis. Indeed> the overwhdming dorninance of tlie pun- 

idhmenl sidc o\cr [that of thc] pardun in cKpressing warning and 

threat would bc sufficicnt to causc rcstraint, that is., in prcvcnting 
disobcdjcnt bchavior, And if pai don bdbre repentance logically should 
b* a temptation to evildoing> then pardon after repentanre logically 
would be a «mpration also, tn thc very samc way you [oppoiients] 

have mcntioncd s since you do adrnit Kupportinjj a pardon aiter repcn- 
tance tor onc who commits a dreadtiil great sin; so, this iniplicatton 

[Le„ or being a tempuuoii to evi]doing] would be a commonality to 
both opiiurm. Therefore, whanver your reply woukl be to [rhe charge 
of this tcrnptation 3 that] would aho br our rcply to it. 

3 — a. Ihc an&wcr to the third rpason is that not onc thing in 
thosc veiraes in itself indicates an ohligation to putiish a dreadful 
great sin. Rut rather,, the mo^t on rliis topit th»t any of iln m indi- 
catcs is thc fact that punishmcnt doc& occur. But it docs not indi- 
catc that a drcacltul great sin makes die punishment obligatory, which 

is the point here. 
c 7hĕ MuUazilah doctrint etmtinues\ iurthermorc, after ha\ing affirmed 

that thcrc is mi obligation [upon God„ now in thc prescnt] lo puD- 
ish \}.k pcrson who commits a drcadtul grcat sin;, thc thrcat [of pun- 
ishmcnt] to onc who commrts a grcat sm will not bc tcrminatcd [m 
ehc future] ? just a& clie threat ro ati uii?H*lic\*r will rioi he temii- 

natcd ? for a number of reasons: 

1. Thcrc arc the vcrscf^ containing \he e^prcssion, Ll ctcmity 5 \ 

in thc Lhr^iit to those who commit dreadful gr^^' iins ? as ihe Mosi 

High has said: 

1060 3* 3K«:TTON 2, TOPICS 

"Thiiik ol one who hag pikd up an cvil record and is now sm> 

rounded with [ihc acquired result of ] his sin . . , [such pcople] arr 

wcll acquaintcd with the Firc, and will bc thcrc for ctcrnityJ^ [0^2:81] 
sq Whocv r er diaobcys God and Hi& Mcsscngcr . . - [his puni&hment 
is] thc Fir? [of HeU] MS 233a wherein hc will he for eternriy." 
[Q 4; 1 4p L 454 

u Whocvcr killa a belicver intentionally . , . T 222 [his recmn- 

pcnse is Hcll whcrcin he will bc for ettTnity]." [0^4:93] 

This is bccausc thc terni^ *Vhocvcr*', in thc [prcccding] threc 

versps h incliisive anri applics to everyone who has accuniulat.ed an 

evil rccord^ cwryone who disohcys God, cvcryonc who kills, as wcll 
as anyonc who commits a drcadful grrat sin, and cvcn though he 

should be a hclievcr f hc has accunmllatcd an cvil record, disobeyed 

God> and killcd a bcticver intentionally. 

2. Thcrc is che Most High's statcment dcscribing [all] thosc 

who commit thc drcadiul orrcat sins: 

^lndcedj im&oleiH libcriines shall cenamLy bc in HelUs Mre, scorch- 

ing there on the Day of Judgment, and from k they will ncver bc 

ahscnt/* [C> B2:l4-16] This [vcrsej indkates: thai insolcnL Jibcrtincs. 
indudhu* those who comrciit thr great sins^ eonthuic pcr- 
manently in the Fire^ since ii' rhey should exit from ii rhey would 
become 'aljsem frc>m it^ but the w.rst indu^ces thry are never 'ahscnt 
froni il/ 

3, A [sinnings yct bdicying] wickcd pcrson mcriis punishmcnt 
tor his wickcdncs& ? in accordance wich what has prcccdcd; but the 
punijsh mene he would oarn for his wickedness mighl desiroy what- 
cver rewand thc wkked person had earned before he committed cvil, 

according to the degrec of mutua] cancellauon thcre would l>e betwecn 

his puni&hmetu and reward. This is because punishmem is sr>nie- 

thing permancndy harrtjlul tiiai is desen^cd, being dcvoid of reward 
and accompan.icd by contcnipl, whilc reward is somcthing pcnna- 
ncndy advantagcous that is descrv r cd, bcing accompanicd by prcs- 
tige and free of any su&picion, Tlicrc^orc., thc two [kinds of[ earnings 
would he impossahle to brinc; [ogethcr. 

di IsfAhoifli : i <|tiote paraphrases the Our^an ar [he end: O.UR^AN [4:I4J— [ytid- 

kliilliu JiAran kl^liekici dha'}; LSKAHANI.- [luliu itSr jaliann^m khAlidan JThiij, 

11 The remi itiMiJeiir libenines' [aKuyriij, wrlier ha« been appKed speclaUy co 

the dLsh^ltR^irig. Hcj^ it arcims m be hioadmrd iti ar.ope, " |, in*"ludiLng thnse whn ttic drcadlul ^reat dns. H Morc prohably, thr me B minjf is thac, of roursr. 
'dLsbclkir is sJsw joLnt 1 ^! wiih thc ™mjniHiori tif px fc at Hnd Ern^D nins. 


L-a, Thc amwcr to the fin>t rcason is that ctcmity is a vcry 
long sojoum.. and the use pf [thc tcrmj ^ctcniity" in chis scmc, that 
is, as a vcry long sojourn, is frcquent and nccds no mention because 

ii is W'fJI-knowil_ 

2.-a, Thc answcr to tbc sccond. rcason is that "insolcnt lil> 
crtincs** mcans [all] those who aie complctcly lirentious, and thcy 
ara unbcliracrs, as indicated hy the scatemcnt of rhe Most High, 
"They are unbclicvcr$, insolent libertines." [0^80:42] It is ncccssary 

ihat "insolcnt libertmes" bc prcdkatcd of "unbclicvcrs" in ordcr to 

makc thc corrclation bctween 

[Gorf's] word, "Indeed, insoleni libcrdnes shall ccrtaink- 
be in HelTs Fire", [Q 82:14] and 

b| the vcrse& indicating a sperial pumshmenc for unbeliev- 

ers> as in the [lollowing] staiemenis of the Most Htgh: 

"Today sbarnc aiad cvil havc tomc upon unbclicwrs." [Q, 16; 2 7] 
This vcrsc indicatcs that sharnc is applicd spccihcally to unbclicYers.. 
ilut thcn thcrc is thc fact that shamc comcs upon anyonc who cntcrs 
the Tirc^ according to ](iori'sj wntd: 

n O our Tjond, anyone You have made entcr the Fire You have 
mierly shHtncd," [0,3:192] So, if thc shamc should comc only upon 
unl.n/HcYerSj then thc implication would be that only yjibelie\ p crs 
would enter thc Fire- 

[God aaidj cjuoiin^ Moscs, "Indccd.. it has bccn rcvealcd to us 

ihat tormcnt is for any onc who has trcatcd thc mcssagc as a lic 
and turncd away " LQ 20:48 J This verac MS 233h indicates thai 

spccial m it lj jt! t l1 w-Ul be idjjplk-d ;o anyom: w\k\ [iha i -ratr-d the \nt\x- 

sage as a lie and turnrd awyiy, ThcreGn^j anyoiie who has not ti^euted 

tlic message as a lie and turncd away would not havc lonncnt c:om- 
ing to himj and anyone who commits a dreadlul grcat sin would 

not bc Lnecessarilyj one who ha^ disbe1ieved and ha_s tumcd away ? 

si) tormptit would not reach him, And 3 

"Wliencvcr a group fof unbclicvcrs| would bc throwm into |thc 
] : irc] its guards woiild ask thcni. L Did no one come to warn you?* 
and thcy would say ? c O yeS;, someone came to warn us 7 hut we 
trcated thcm as ]iars T and said. ^Ct<"k1 has not scnt anylhing down, 
you are greatly mi^tiken/" |Q_ 67:8 --9] This verse indicates that 
wheneuer a group of pcoplc wcre throw73 into thc Firc t they would 
say t "YtSj somcoiic camc to warn us t but wc trcatcd thcm as liars 
aud taidj L God has not sent anyching dc?wn p you are grcatly mis- 

taken. 1 " Here is cleai evidence that thc peoplc ihrown inio thc Fire 

1062 3« &KtiTiori '-?■ topic& 

are those who trear [the message] as a lic ?md dcny that God Must 

High has» scnt down ahything as a rc^clalion, [ihat is] s thcy arc 
unbclicvcr$. L 4:15 And, 

fc *No onc will he buming in [ihe FireJ cxctpl thc wor&t, anyonc 

who treated [dir message] as a Jic and tunicd away." [Q. .92: 15-16] 
[This means tha.t| anyonc who cominiticd a drcadtul grcat idn, bnt 
has not trcated [the mcssagcj a* a lic and tumed away wi!l not bc 
hurncd in Ithe Firel. And_ 

". r , ()n ihc day whtti God will rtoi; !ct shauie tomc on thc Prophct 
or ihosc who bcherccL" [Q, 66:8] 

NoWj an L insolent libertinc 1 might be a "'belic^er 1 according to 

[God*a] word: 

LL H two partics of bciicvcrs. should bc killing cach othcr then make 
peacc betwcen theni: and if one of the two should break t hc peaoe 
and commit an outrage against chc other, then you nnusl baule 

againsi *he group ihat treacherously commkied thc outrage, until 
they agree to tho authoriiy of God." [Q, 49:9] [God] callcd ihosc 
pcoplc "bcLcvcrs" in thc vcry situadon whcrc Hc describcd thcm as 
commitljng a wrong of Jneaiihery, 3 * and that was a drcadful grrai 
sin, so ? \f an insolcnL [ihcriinc should be a believer then hc would 
not bc put to shamc. It wa& on account of thcsc vcrscs indicatinjj 
that tonncnt [in thc Fire] is rcscrvcd spccitically for thc disbcliev- 
ing T iliac Muqatil ibn Sulayman and the Murji'a.h hnally decidcd 
rhat rliose [beliewrs] who commir ihc dr^adful great stns would not 

be putiished [in the Fire]. 

3.-a. Thc answcr to thc third rcason is to rulc out both kinds 
of carniiigs; wc do not grant chat thcrc is an carnin^ of cither ncward 

or puni.-shment. Such [carningj would be implied only if obedieDce 

should be the cause for the earning of reward. md disobedience the 

causc tbr the carning ol" punishmcnt^ but that is rulcd out. And 
evenj if we Ahonld grant [ihat there are] hoth kinds of earnings, 

siill vvr wtmld nol gnuLl ihr «:x..ii^ic<ci *A lnnh kinds o\ vnnr\:i^. Tlm 

exclusion of both kinds of eartiings would bc implicd only if hoth 

rcward ;ijid pumshirn.Mjr vIioiiJcl1 bc lijniied i«> fih'' ealic^i^ of"| bcin^ 

pcrrnancnt, but this h rulcd otit. Indecd,. thc rcward bcing a dclaycd 
benefit 7 and heing a delayed hami, poscs a more gen* 
eral qiie&tiniL tlian whetht-r each is peraiancnt or nol. 

* The MS tiunt reads, [bi-<d- 4 ai]|; L, T, MS Garrea 939Ha suid MS Garrea 


lunht"]' answer 10 thf ihind reason isl iu the fact thai if ihe 

eaniing of punishment shouJd canccl out the caniing of reward, then 

thc case would bc cithcr that sorne part of thc carning of punish- 
ment would be cancdlcd ouL by way of a halance, as in rhe doc- 

trine of Abu Hashim [al-Jubba 1 !]^ or that nothiiig at aU would l>e 

canccHcd from the caitiing of punishntcnt., as in the dottrinc of his 
father Abu *Ali [Muhammad at-Jubha'i[. For cxamplc 4 Lf a rnan 
should havc an eaming of tcn portiom of rcward, and thcn coni- 
mit an act Irom which thc raraing would be cen portions MS 2S4a 

of punishment, ihcn the would be eithcr 

a) thai thc eaming from Lhe ncw factor of punishmcnt would 

canccl out Lhc carning of rcward , and [in turn] [che earning of pun 

ishmeni] wuuld be cancclled out ihsclf by way of a hakuice, ot 

b) diat [tbe earning of punishmcnt] would canccl out thc 

earning of rcward, and not be cancelled oui irseM". Howcver, both 

of these alternatives are tauliy. 

a)-a. [To aiiswcr] h the Fir&t altcrnaiiw [just n.buvc is» fauhy] 

hecause thc reason ior thc disappcarancc of thc caming of rcward 

would bc thc of thc eamijig of punishment* and thc lat- 
ter likcwLsc. hccausc the rca&on for the di&appe*irajiee of the carn- 
ing of punishment woukl be the existence of the earniiig of reward. 

For cach of the carnings, — thc carning of pnnishmenl and thc carn- 
ing of reward, — ha^ eHective c.ausat.ioini in rhe nonexislence nf the 

other, so the eJIeclnr cau&ation of each of the two eaniings upon 
ihe noncxisiencc of ihe uther wuuld be cithcr 

1] simultancously ar 
2) successwely. 

]}-»- [Answeringh the first optioti here wuiild be impos- 
siblcj betau^ tlic efTcitive caussAlion of cach upon the noncxisience 

of the othcr imDlics tliat bolh would bc cxistcnc at thc samc time 

that both would bc nonc^istcnt., because the reason for thc noncx- 

istence of each of them k the ex[stencc of the other. TIius, if T 223 

both should be nonexisEent siniultaneously, thcn thcy both would be 
cxisdng sinnultancously» sincc a causc must cxi&t at thc timc its cffect 
takcs placc; so thc implication would bc that thc eid&Ecnce of both 
would bc simultancous with thc nonexistence of both. 

2)-a. [Answering], likewise die second opdon here* namcty, 


that chr cJTcct of eaeh upon the nonexistenee of the other wouW hc 
successively^ L 156 also would bc impossiblc» bccause it iinplies 
that tlic onc that was overcomc and cancelled out would retum as 

1064 J, SKCllON 2, TOPICS 

tlit" une ihiit ducs thc ovcruoiiiiiig and cancelLiig out> hut in (kcl ihr 
onc ovcrcomc and cantcllcd out docs not rclurn as thc onc that 

cancels out atid overcome&, 

bj-a. [ lo answcr], thc sccund altcrn;ilivc |abQvc] + namcl>% 
ttiat thc pumshniciit caniings ihat uccur would canccl out thc car- 
licr rcward eamings. but that thc pnLnishmcnt carnings thcmschTS 
would not be cancellcd out + — i& HiLiiry^ bccausc it would mean the 

nulliticaDon atid neglect ol~ obcdience^ and it would be imalid because 

of [God] Moat High % s statcmccU, 

"VVhocvfT docs a moic"* wcight uf guod shall sec it [in Jhu^ arcoinitj."" 

Baydawi saki- 

L 456, T 223 

Topit //?: The As/ufhah m r&mrd and pmrnhn^nl 

Thc doctrine of our collcagucs fof thc Asha c irah] is that — 

a. £Kvine leward is [an act of] favor from God Most Hi^b but 
divine panistiinciiL is [an act of] justice from Him H 

1. A pcrson 3 s bchavior is a [prcwcn] indicator [of his dcstinyj, 

jas wc say h ] **Evciyonc h casily amcnahlc to that for which hc was 
cre»ted." M 

w PpowptIj, "Kweirycnie "s tAgily amr iiahta - . .*' ^olllliJ hew ac L 456:5 j. Thfi 
ronrrxf nf \'>: usc hy iKi- Prr>phrT is givcn in Su\*u2(i Ahu Diiinl, Kirah ,il S.m-j.-ih, 
#47(JW: £htf.rfwit (dircctcd to Muhammad): 'Wrc die pcoptc dkislincd for thc Garden 
lo bc kn-own fmm thc praplc dc-s4incd for thc nrc? 11, A nswtr. "Yra. 1 " Querton: '"Thcn, 
is [rhrir dcsthiy knawn] in ihc behayior af peoplc?™ Aimw: "Ewryonc is casiK 1 
■dtincimblc! to that for which he was Orcaled." 

Notc how Baydawi and Ldkhaiii inkcorporau the saying inio tiiL- Siuint orthodtP^: 
ar^uiTiciit. Strari^ly huwwer, Iji in Ms 4H-^/«uY4^KCKn$ nui Lr^ h<t\c recurLlcd ilie 

n I 

siyici.i? in his ccwlt^i^ olthir sumc niimTiiU. TlinreEore» Iji and hi^ luu^r {usuniici^ 
Chey boch attendcd ihc leccwares) niay liLavc r;±k+»i"i ihis cm.Hsc i>riwturei p-iOi-ei" in ;m 
earlirr oir laicr cyclc Th;«i did I=tf.ihani and his iutor ratbcr^ and m cnisscd licariiig 
Bayda^i's usc of thii prcwcrb as an ]flus^Tation in tbe l^cturc. h appcan to bc an 

nnRin^J usagc in this cunioxt by Baydaw[, noc being Ibund in F.D. Raz]"s AMowir/. 

Thc contcxi in wludi the provert> was quoied hy rhe Fn.Tphci, 4^ cuUecic-di in 

Lhe Hadiich c:an bc set 1 » as cLosely rtlittcd i.o ihc docrrijr?: of 'Lacency asid appcar- 

iLr i i " ;j:-- .-ppLicd Li> chsirAt T< r 1i«Lil>; liiiI Lc.lrlki! :j;lI ;[ii.ili:irs. "I :ii- i;Lr1i<i lili^: sjssiuii 

of this d€K:triijc Jlli Book l, Scction 2^ Chapttr '.5, 'lopu: 2 "Pbychk QuaIidc3 H s 
Subt-opic "Fcr<"qjdon and Kjiowlcdgc 1 ', t^ahanrs trcatmcnt of Ibn Sina'3 Thcor^' 
of Pcrccpd<in] nimlLn-ncd al-Naziam as iui adherent iicad n-ypfMKrLc-r. and indkatcd 
a rdadonship to Siokism. So wc surmtsc that thr PtombiH) hcrc quotcd is of Crect 
Stoic orir^in. 

BayckLwi's unhappy c^pcriccicc x& julJltc in Shira^ suggc.^ls annthcr juridkal ^ 

cirtrto Tas his us^ of this proverb. IT he usccl ii; c&rdc$$ly (o necdk hb teUuw ciliien 

■nre RE&intnrcTiow assewbly and the rhcompense, 1055 

b. For che btiie% r er who is compliant to acts of obedience God 
will as&ign immortality in His Gardcns in HilhlJmcnt of His promiae: 
buc a stuhborn ciisheliiever He wil] tormetu fnrevcr in His KLamcs in 
accnrdanre wilh His waniicig thneat. 

c [Go<Ts] thirat iu a disobedient heiieuer will he ierminaied, in 

accurdancc with His word: "Whocvcr docs a motc*s wcight of good. 
shitD see it [in hi* aeooiitu]." [Q 99:7] But he shall tiot see it until 
after [\\h] deKiveranCG from turmcnt^ |for God s] word is: M God indeed 

forgives all sbs." [Q, 39:53] 

[This h also in accordance with] thc Prophc^s statcmenta: 

"Whoever says 5 There is no [oiherj god at all but God's shall 

cnlCT thc Garden",* 5 " uud also, 

lt A non-bc]icvcr striving iin camcst cndcavor and sccking guidancc 

may hope lor divine pardon ihrnugh [God 3 &| lavor and kindness." :ia 

II an objection shouid be raiscd to ihe elTcct thati 

1 . Tht physical powcrs of onc's body arc not capablc of pcr- 
ibrming actions that are unlimitcd in degrce., hccausc thcy havc bccn 
dividcd up by thc divisioii of their subscrate; so il thc body substratc 

of half of ihem, for eatample, should rnove T ihen either 

lhcv would movc with limitcd motions and thc morion 
of tlic wholc would bc twioc thc motion of Ehc part 5 bccausc the 

ratio betwccn thc two rilects would he the samc as the ratio betwecn 

the two elleciive cause-s, and half ol" something iimiied would be hmr 

itcdj or 

thcy would activatc motions unlimitcd in dcgrcc; so if 
the cotal pliygical power should not receive an incrnasc, thcn cvery- 
thing having with h somerhing else would be the same hs whar had 

nothiug wuh it s and if [ihc total physical powcr] should bc irtcrcascd, 

thcn ihc incrcasc would occur whcre thcrc was no limitation and in 

defcnd.inu whcn psuniiu; judgmcnt cili iht!in iLiluralLy Ji wnuJd dr.cpc.n ihcir ho&til- 
itji" to his prnnoujiccmcncs, aiid chnir p^abli^ supprnt of ihr truwcmmta which twir c. 
Icd lo rcmwal frqm c^AEir.e wmjld havf inrreawd. Frcwii thcac dclhais viith thcir 
pnnishment trf his &c]f-c3liccm \i appcars chat hc tinally ^aincd wisducn of 'sollI' in 
cuntroUing arul «iprcssing; his sharp "Lntcllcct". a bcndit uJtirruUcLy rcachlnjr iv all 
hti rtudcni*. Se;e p, 444, noic 126 fcrf Othcr <li^Ci!^LLKn 

1J HadLth, u Whocvcr aavs Tbcre is no god al all hui G«P. . * [sut L 456:9] „ 
iudeKci] undcr "Unity™ els bcLrLij rccunled in rrLttiijr pluccs, c-g-: &tAih al-Buk&p?K 

^ih^ **4t>; ^rA Mwim. Iman, #52. 

[at L 450:9] iindexed in Wccisintl^ Htmrihwk Liiidtr ,J ICafir™ as b-cimig. reconlcd Ln 

J6s*iB al-BiJMTt, latitabat Al-niunaddin, #3i atid &i/^'« M^Utj^ Imaiu #155-I60 S 

1066 3> SECTION 2, TOPICS 

thc aspoct in which it was not limitcd, whkh would be impossiblc; 



2. Morcvcr s [thc objcction shcrnld include ihc condition that] 

if »somrthmg should he. composcd of thc primary HemenLs and be 
in nnceasing heat thi n its moistiire wonld decreasc liniil it wonld 

vanish «:ump]ctdy and then there would come an extinction of the 

hcat and a disintcgration of thc body, so how conld rcward and 
punishment b^ continuous? — and 

3 r Furiherjnore, [the objection should include the cotidition 

liiatl tlic conlmaancc of a livm£ aaiurc k^echcr with its contmu- 
ancc in being htirncd is inconccivablc. — 

1 -au Then [to this whole ohjection (1, 2 b 3)| we would answcr 
thal ihe first point is based on 

a) dcnial of thc atcni* 

b) the eflectivcjics9t of thc physical powcr in its SLihstrate. 

c) the faci iliMt a porrion nf che power would he. a power- 

And thc dcmonstration [by you op|K>ncnts] wouid not stand upun 
thesc grDimds. Howcver, thi* powcr is countcractcd by thc movc- 
inents of the celestial sphere& and is rcpcUcd from us bccause our 

physical powcrs, according to our doctrine, are aeeidentaJ [in nalure] 

and so it may bc ihat thcy pnss away and bccomc rcncwed- 

2 — au As answer to the second point., it is riisallowcd, 

the siateinent about the phy&ical consotution and fhe composiiion 
ol things produccd from ihe primary elements is not a ceriainly, and 
ihe eHccl causcd by hcai upon moislure results iii its dis&ipation only 

if nutrimrnt should bc prcvcntcd from bcing suppiicd lo thc body 
equal ici mcasure to what it digcsts. 

3--a. Lilccwise Iti answer to the thbd point, it [also] would he 
disal]owcd s bccansc an cquilibriuin in the physicul bocty^ composi- 
iion is no[ a condition for a living naturc^ in our view. Purthcr, 

L 457 among thc animab there are hideed sorne that live in fire 
and sccm lo cnjoy it^ so there is. no distant possibUity in [the idea] 
that God would make adju&tmcnt to ihe l'M)dy of the unbcNwer 
wliLTcin it would suffcr in thc Firc bul nol dae in it. 

w E.E. Catve:E Lcy hw ih^ tiotc; ''Salaman.dcr/' "Salamandcr . . . 3 : A mythicaJ ani- 
maJ ha\'Lng \hv. pow^r to cndurc fire withoul harm. ih [from f YiAsltr'1 Jtiuiik A™ 
Coihgmto ffo!ijntiry. Mfrriam,-VVf:l>^trr. ln<!.: SpnngfirLd. Masi, 1983. 


Isfahai)i says: L 457, T 223, MS 234a:l4 

Topic 4Br 77ie Aski c irafi m rsword wd pwiishtmi 

The doetrine of our collcagiirs [of ihe Asha K irah] is rha 

a, divinc rcward for obcdicncc is [an act of] lavor from (iod 

Most High, and divine ptmishment t"or disnbcdicncc is [an act of] 

justice from Him. 

1. An act of obcdicncc ia a prcnrn indicator that a divine 
reward will comej while an act of disobcdicncc is thc sign of an 
inipending divine punishment, 

2, The reward for obedienoe is not an obligation upon God 

Most High 3 nor is the punishmcnt for disobcditrLce 5 [and this is] in 
accordanoe with what yoii have learned^ ihai God is nol undcr any 

ubli^ation whHtsocvcr. 

[Thc mattcr is as wc say]; "Evcrv'onc i& casily amcnablc to thai 

for w r hich he was ci , e , aied/ H0 M$ 234b Thus., an obedient pcrson 

is tompHant and amenable io what he wa* creatcd for, namely ? obe- 

dience, while a disobcdicnt peraon is amenable to what he was cre- 

atcd for* namcly, disobcdicncc; and in that rc^ard a human bcing" 
has no cflcctive inltucncc. 

b, God will give permanctu rasidence in IIU Gardcns to a belicYcr 
who is amenable to a Jil> of obedient actions, ihus fu]fi][ing His 

for Hr whosc word i^ rni^hly said; "Ind^rd, all wtio ijclirwd 
and havc perlormed decds of gnudness- shall havc Lhe Gardcns of 

Paradise for their dwdling ptacc; there they will live fbr et^miiy 
wiihout a wiah to lcave. M [Q L 8; 107- 108] But [God) wi]] hcap toi- 

ment in His Fircs forcvcr tipon an unbc!icver who stubbornly shuns 
divinc tnith, in accordance with llis ws^rning chrcat when I lc &aid: 
"Indcctl, all who disbelieved — aniong the People of th<^ Book and 

the idoktors — shall stay in the Firc of Hcll for eternity." [Q 98:6] 
c. Howcvcr 3 thc warning thrcat against a disobcdierit bclicwr will 
Ijc tcrminatcd For three reasons jas found in God'^] words: 

I. "Whopycr does a fnote's weight of ^ood shall see h fin his 
account]," 10^99:7] Now, a disobediem believer has performed [at 

least] a moic ? 4 wcij^ht of good,— how should it not be 50 whcn to 

w l^rowrh;, %, Everyxine i? casity ajrncnahLi": ■ - - ,H &? c th.r ckhl^ undcr Baydawi^ \c-.\t 
at chiR poLrit. 

1066 ;■{, siuchun 2, topics 

profess belief is thc greatest of good deeds — and hc shtnild sct his 

rcward* according tti this verse. But> hc shall not §ec it until aitcr 

\h\s\ ddiverance from torrnent, since there will he. no reward before 
Lhe torment by the cotLwti*u$ [of ^holars], and seeing the rewarij 

aftcr dclivLTancc frum t will rcquirc ihc L^miinatiun of thc 

thrcat waminsj him. 

2, " Say to thciHj *0 My peuplc, it is you who havc wastcd all 

yonr posscsstons, but do not despair of the mercy ol CJod, for inriceri, 
God shaJJ fo*give ali sinSr" 1, [Q. 39:53] [God] spedRed idolatry [for 

cxclusaon] from this promisc by His word: 

3. "God will not forpve when anythin^ is a&sociatcd [ias an 

idol] wiih Him; anything. except that [sin], He does forgive for 

whomcvcr Hc wishcs." [Q, 4:48^, 1 1 (>] So [this promisc] will rcrciain 
in lorce re^arding all sing except iclolatry; and [again], r]ne lbrgiving 
of sins makes it new^sary to terminate the warntng ihreat. 

Morcovcr s thcre are ihe Prt>phet*s stutcmencs: 

* H Whocvcr say» 'Thcrc Ls no [otJier] god at all but God 3 shall cntcr 
thc Gardcn." N T ow, thc disohcdicnt bdicvcr says^, There is no [other] 

god al all but God*, so he would enter the Garden and ihc divine 

wnming against him would be terminated. Again» [the Prophct has 

"A nonbeiievcr strinng in camcst cudcavor and sccking guid- 

ance" — if he has tiot meached what he sought -"may hope for divine 

parduri tlirough [Gtxl's] favor i-tnd kindncss."^ 

The posidon of al-Jahii and al- c Anbari 12 was ihat [thc unbelicvcr 
hoping for pardonj would bc cxcusablc in accordancc with. thc slate- 
rnent of iJie Most High, "|(5od] has not made T 224 Jthe rerjuire- 
meiits of] religioa injuriously iiiJTicult for you", [Q^ 22:7BJ olher 

siholarb ibrbadc [ihis Hpplicatiori] and daimcd a conscnsus lor [thcir 

One nuut und<*rsLand rhat a pcrson who ^surcasahilly jttwes iti 

[fvome] earnest endeavor 3 will eithcr procecd and arri\« [=vi his goal] 


Twd indcxcd Hadiths; scc Ba\diiwii tcxt fbr thr noccs on thKc. 


* The Lww suutlLwilin- mcnduiird art* .\l,»n TJthrcu*n "Anir Lbn Biihr alj-uhb;, 
lfiO/776?"?55/66fl or y a nn$ pr-KumaMy, Abu B^Jii"' Mnhammad ihn al-Q;isim ll>n 
sl-Anhari, ?3l/88j"328/940„ kjiown .is a iraniirionist and phiLok^^n, who was fhc 
ikiuoias srm c?f .^bii Myhanmiac! al-OjLsim al-Anbari^ d. J04 or 5/^16 or J?^ als& 
a tfLiLlLtii>jii:-,L J'.D. RajEi mentinijrt iht^c two an a hrLrl" staL^RKtnL on Lhc prk^Lhility 
of forgiv*ncsR for an unbc-Jicwcr who rcpcnti and striv^ ro do iie;hc- Gf. his Mukass^ 
p. 237. 


L 458 or 4J will lemairi in [incondusivc] ki^cal reasmiing. Boih 
[ihcso outconics iTiciy bc cottsidcrcd] succcssrul, aitd it wudd l*e 
impossibk that L an eamcst cndcavor* [ic, by a schokr] should lcad 
to disbclicl; MS 235a bccausc an iinbclicvcr is cithcr onc bound 
hy t] adition rn [hisf disbeHct" or qn ignorajims compouiidcd in igno- 

rance. And siracc both [t>pc& of disbcticver] havc falkd iii their 

aiuimpl at hidcpciidciit judgmeut, ibr that reason thcy havc bccn 

judged as actually having fallcn. suhjcct to turment |m the tirti 
Furdicrmore, tW saying of ihc Mosl High, (i Hc did noi make your 
rdigion diJTkult for >W\ [Q, 22:78] addresscd to the peuplc of the 

[Islamic] rcligion, not to thosc whp arc outsidc this rcligion or thosc 
who havc not encercd thi.s rdigion. 

NoWj, an objection might bc raiscd that the statcmcnt oti the per- 
mancrice of rcward and punishmcnt is. mcottcrivabk% and tliis would 

bc for thc chree rcasons lollowing.; 

l. The first reason [thai the permatience of reward and pun- 
ishment might bc inconccivablc] iss that thc physical powere of one*s 
body arc not capablc of pcrtorming actions unliniited in degroe, 
because thc total physicaJ power has bren dividcd up by thc divi- 
sion in iis noial physitial subsimu:, and ihus the powcr of halt thc 

would be hair ihc power of ihe ioul l*idy. 

Then-fore, if s for ntciniple,, half the powcr should mow its [part 

o\ thc] "body*^ — I mcan half of that whok twdy rcckonin^ froirt an 

[line ofj demarkation — -thcn eithcr 

[thc powcr of ha!f thc body] would aciivaie moiioas Lhn- 
ited in dcgrcc, and thcrcforc s thc modon of the wholc body would 
bc twicc the motion of its parc — -by "part" I mcan ha]f that wholc 
body from ihr. demarkation, — becansc tlie ratio betwcen ihc two 

c.Hects would be the same as the ratio between thc two eflfcctivc 

cause&, aiid sincc thc power of thc wholc body would be twicc the 

powcr oi' haJJ" thc body* thcn thc motion of all thc body would be 

twice [he motion of haJf the body; moreover, the modon of half ihc 

body would bc tiniitcd^ so dic motion of thc wholc body would. also 
bc limitcdj bccause doublc what is liniitcd would bc limitcd, Or, 


L andTappi-ar 10 irari ? "asid rrmaLns^ [wi-yahqa*); hul Jhr conjuiictkm shoukt 

br, "or 1% [aw], thc H aJif ,h m L ha\ing hccn losi in thc doublr nj]ed linc-s of ihc 

Uack tcxi lK5rdcr ? thc: typcsettcr of T fo]bvvcd L withour chccking anothtT iRariuscripe. 

Thc MS rcacbgi lC or rnnaim", whilc MS Garrclt 'iJBSHa rcads, ""'"cithcr arriws at 

his guali that lk. arriv« at [an indcpcndent fomnmLadon] c?r rcmains - . ." 

1070 3, SRCTION 2, TOPIOS 

bj [thc powcr of | half the body would activatc motions 

unliimttcd jn degree, And thereft>re 3 

1) if the total power should not ex.cced thc powcr of half 
thc body, it woiild bc a casc of a *particuLar liiing 1 logcthcr 

with somethitig elsc ? thac is, iiall the power ? tngether with sh<: other 

IihII" — wliich ia thc sainc »s ihc pHrticular dung* without aomethiiig 

clar. that is^ likc *half thc power* withnut thc othcr hal^ — and so 
thc wholc would bc cqual to thc part> which woutd bc impossiblc. 

2) if thc toiai power should exoeed the powcr of half the 
body» ihon the motions activated by thc total powcr would excced 

thc motions oP half thc power,, bccausc thc ratio bctwccu thc two 

ctiects would be the same as thc ratio between the tvi r o 

causrs, thus> thc cdbci. of thc greiUcr powcr would cxcccd thc crtcct 
of the lcsser powcr. 

Howcvcr, the prcmise was that ihe two bodies would be activated 

from one oommon starting line, but the excess came where there 

was no limit aod in thc aspcct in which ii was unlirmled; m thc 

implkarion h that what wc assumcd tc> hc unhmitcd was [actually] 
limitcd, whieh would bc impossiblc. So it is cstablishcd that thc phys- 
ical hody docs not have powcr ibr motions that are unlimitcd in 

degrce. 5o the physicai body and its powers would not bc perma- 

ncrtt contmuously, MS 235b aiid thus hoth thc divinc rcward and 
thc punishment would not b-e pcrmancnt continuously, 

2- The second reason [[hat tlie permanenee of the reward and 

the puiiishment is Lnconccivable] is that the body is a compound of 

aJl four primary clcments, carth, watcr„ uir and firc Thcreibrc s thc 

hcat docs not stop decrcasing thc finite amount of moislurc in thc 

body untU the moijture ends compietely, and this leads to the extiiic- 

tiot) of thc heat. This is because ihe moisture i& compoutided with 

thc hcat;, so whcn thc moisturc cnds. complctcly L 459 thc hcat 
is esrinjjpjislied and thts leads to the disintegrarion of ihe body. 
Th^nc::fore 5 ncitJicr tlie reward tior th« puui^hment would continuc 


3 r Tlie third reasoii [thai thc- permanence of reward arid puii- 

ishincnt is inconccivablcJ i^ thal if punishmcnt in the Firc should 
ronrinue pcrmancnily,, thcn thc lKing 1 naturc would Iw: continuiiig 
pcrmancntly, bccauae it would be impossihk: to cau&c tormcnt to 

what was not living, So 5 the implication is rhat there woukl be a 

continuance of dic living naturc togcthcr with the continuancc of its 


buraing, Bui the coiUinuanue of ihe ]iving nature logether wilh ihc 

contiiiuaricc of its burmng is not conccivablc, 

1. a, [Thcn we say iu answcr to this objcction thalj our posi- 
lion rcgarding thc lirst slatemcnt ia that it is bascd on 

a) a denial of (he atom. W the atom shou]d bc an exis1ent^ 

then a body would be composed of atoms» so there should be no 

infcrencc madc from thc division of thc body to thc division of thc 
powcr inherent in it. h woiild be admissible that the powcr should 

be inhenent m ihe whole, when taken as a whole, and (hat ihe power 
should bccome nonexi&tent whcn the [body] substrate woiild be 

dividcd. And hcrc thc argumcnt is bascd on 

the power being effĕctive in its substrate which is thc 
body. An exptanation of ihis is thai even if it shoukl be gratued ihai 

the atnm would bc cxtinguishcd while thc body would bc onc com- 
positc^ ncYcnhcless wr do not grani thai fhc power wonld bc divis- 
ible through the dM&ibility of Us subsiratc. The divisibilj!y of the 
sutatate would impSy thc dm&ibility of the powcr only when the 

puwcr would be eflcctivc wilhin its substratc; but thc cfTcctivcncss 
of thc powcr within its stibstratc is impossiblc. And [hcrc thc argu- 

nicnt] ia based upon 

c) [the assuniption] that a part of the power would be a 
power having eflective causaiity, But this would bc imposdblc bccause 
it would bc admissiblc thal thc effcclivcnc&s of thc powcr would bc 

comiiiion.-it upoii wliethcr u was a power for a spcdal rrason, Tbus 

if llic jkiwit sbmild bc dMdc c| through dir r|i\iding nf i 1 h. substratc, 

thcn in thc portion of chc powcr that wouid bc in a. part of thc 
bodv ihcrc w r ould not hc rcalizcd what had bccn thc amdition for 

ihc efleciive causaliry, so it would not have any cfTective causaliry. 

ln suimrmry, th<* logic in this point of yjrgnmcnt is bascd on 

three preinisc^: 

thc dciiial of thc att^rn^ 

(b) the cflectiveness of" the power iti its substrate, 
(c) and ihe ^ct that a part of thc powcr would bc a powcr 
[having eflfcctive causalityj. But thcsc thrcc prcmiscs Hirc al] rulcd 
out, and no pnoccss of dcmonstration can stand upon thcsc prcmiscs. 
But eve.n if tlicsc thrcc prcmiscs should bc grautcd, still thc rcason- 
ing on tliis. point would bc rciutcd by thc acrivadng niorions MS 236a 
of thc cclcstial gphcrcs, thac is ? the imprintcd [cclestial] soul^- Thcy 

are physical fonces capnblc of actK-aiing mottojis uiilimited in degree 

in their rcalm. And if it should be [hcld] truc that physical powcrs 


would be capable of activaling motkms unlimitcd in dcgree, that lact 
would be cast Ikr away Irom us a hecausc, wilh us, physka.1 power 
is an arcrdental qualily_ 

Thcrcforc 3 perhaps thc accidcnt that is physicat powcr would vnn- 
ish and bc rcstorcd as anothcr accident that would be another power 
but like thc vanished power, and it woukl pcrform another action 

like the first action, In that case, ihere would be no infercncc froin 

the contiriuancc of thc reward and thc punishmcnt that thc physi- 
cai powers of the body would bc able lo perform aclions unlimited 

iii dccpee, bui rathcr, thai duiy wui.kl hc pm\era sum^LvHy renru- 
able to an unlimhed degree, and ahle to peribrm acliona unlimited 

in dcgrec. This wouJd not bc inijHJSsiblc^ and therc is nothinjj to 
indicate tbat tt would be impossihk. This point in the ar^ument 
indicatcs oiily that it is impusnble T 225 For any aclions unlim- 

itcd in degrcc to eornc Grom a siiiglc human physicaJ powcr, 

2.-a. ln answcr to thc sccond reason [that thc permancnce of 
the rcward and thc punishment is inconceivablc ? che permaneiice| 

would be impossiblc L 4fi0 bccause there is uo certainty m the 

docirinc that bodies arc cumpostd of thc dcmcms, [a doctiine] which 
in turn is based upon thc doctrinc that the indii] spccimcns of 

mincrai^ pkmts and animals arc physically constitutcd and composed 

frum ihc primary eletncnls. 

If tbe doctrinc that the individuaJ specimcn* arc physically con- 
sbtutcd and composcd of thc primary clcmcnts should be granted, 
thcn thc causal eSect of thc heat upon the limited amounl of mois- 
turc would lead to [the moisture T s] disappearance only if the supply 
of nutrimcnt for du body should be prevcntcd from being im thc 
same amount a& what is digcsted froni it But prcvcndon of thc 
incoining nutrimcnt for thc bodj irom bcing in thc ^imc amount 
its what is digcstcd of it is irsclf impossiblc ? bccause it is admisgihly 

possible for nucriment to be supplied to the bodty in the amouni that 

wcnt out from it. In that casc thcn^ whcncvcr any of thc moisturc 
has disappcarcdi thc nutrimcnt woitld bc supplied to tlic body in 
thc amount of thc moisturc that disappcarcd;, so tlicrc would be no 
implicarion that thc moisturc would di.sappcar comptctcly and the 

hody would disintegrate. 

3-a. As an»wer to the third reason [that thc petrTiaiience of 

rcward and punishmcnt is inconceivablc] it likcwisc is prohibitcd^ for 
wc do not grant that the continuaiice of thc li^in^ nature along wiih 

tlit: coiitiiiuancc of i\% beiiig bumed would bc iiiconoeivablc, It would 


he inc otn-e iva.b!e oitly if the equilibrium of ihe physical constitution 
should bc a conditiun for ihe Irring nature, but that is impossible. 

fhc cquilibrium of thc constituiion is not a condition Tor ihc con- 
tinuancc of the living natLtrc„ but rachcr» thc living naturc conriiiiucs 
thtough the causation of m continuky by the divin« A^ent ha.ving 

fiec choice. 

Also, thcrc are indccd some amimals. that livc in (irc and [scciti 
to] enjoy it T such as the anima] called rhe saiamandcr. M So it would 

not tae a distam possibility that God Most High should make adjust- 
mcnt to t}ic body of ihc unbclicvcr such <hat h would sufler pain 

iTi ihc Firc but wouid not fall aparl and be bunicd up nor wt>uld 

it pcrith in the Firc. 

Baydawi said: 

L 460. T 225 

Topk 5: Pardtm and intmeisitm jbr thmt gmity &f ihe dwtd/ul grtat sins 

a. Pardon, tlu- hrst category j_of two] ? is in accord with what thc 
Most High has statcd, 

It Ls [God] who accepts His pei>pie T s rcp^ntanoe and forgivcs 


cheiir wrongdoing", 10, ^-S] and, 

lL Or else Hc will rcbuke thcin for thcir [inappropriHtc] weatthj 

and [thmj torgivc thcm for many jothcT things]." [Q .42:34] 

Thcrc is a conscnsus [among scholars] that [Godj is pardoning" 
of natune, but that rhis [characteriak] is rcaLizcd only through Uh 

abandoning sonic wdl descrved puni.shmenl.^ 

1. The Mn'ta/i]ah rLjlcd out piimshnicnt for mhior sins bcibrc 

[the .sinner^s] repenlancc, and |thcy naled it out] Tor the drcadiul 
c^reat &ins after [rcpeiitaiice]- Thus, [for them] what h dwincly par- 
doncd would be ihe dreadTul grcat sins conimitted bclbne [repen- 
tancc]- [Thcy quotc] thc statcmcnt of thc Most High: 

"tiod wiil not forqLve anything bcitic^ assoc.iatcd |as an idol] witli 

Him: anyihing exoqit ihat [sin] He does fot>gi% r e fbr whomever He 

** Hcrc thc word Ls spc-Ucd ||. Scc thc notc m thf Eaydawi icxL Thc 
oiL^LrkBl Ld.e5i «Knes rrom Grec.4 myiholngy, Mudi la^r,. Jiowv\^r, rhp pfiiloaoi:li:rr 

"l!*arac:cla]fl\ pflfLKiofiym of Th«!ophrastiiM vtiti HoJhenhrLm. 14fJ3-L54l ? incnrpnraied 
thc LdL s a of the saLamanda.r in his wndnps, as ncrtKl in dcfinition |2.) an the Merriaim- 
WcbstLT lVtbsttrs X\nth J&w GolttgittĔ Bictiaimy. 

* b F.D. Razi discusses the evenlual forgi^'e[LC55 of dreadtlil preat s-ijas for bdiev- 

tft citj. p. 235 Hjf liis AliiAmsaL 

10/4 3, SECTION 2 r TOPICS 

wishes," [Q 4:4K, llfij "JTiat k, [He forgiv«] heforc repentance; 

oihcrwise» according to [the Mu c tazilah], no atiention h given lo the 

dHrrraicp [in niagnitudc briwecii :sins] or tti any linkagc with God 1 ! 
willing intcnt. Al&o thcrc is His wordi: 

"Your Lord h iirdccd Onc who forgivcs j>coplc for their wrong* 
dcriiag", [Cl 13:6] and many ^milar Ytrses. 

b. Intcrcession, thc sccond catc^oiy^ k mcntioned bccause jGod] 

commanded the Prophet to ask forgivcness for the believers* sinsj, 

"Ask forgiven.ess fbr your sin and Ibr the sii» of men and wonicn 

beliwen." [CM7;19] Now s onc wlio is guilty of a dreadful great sin 

[inay bej a believer, according to the prcccdin^ discusaion. So [thc 


RrophuL] asks (br^!ven^s fbr [ihe hHievityg sinner], wlulc keepin 

himsclf blamdcss. 4 * [Thc ProphcL s s retjuc^tj will be acceplcd, and 

that will hring hini great &atisfaction in accordancc with |Ciod[ Most 
Higlrs slatcment; 
"So s your Lord will givc [it] to you and you will be .sati$fiod. 

And thcic is thc Ptophct*s statcmcnt; 

**My iiicerccssion is for all who are guilty of drcadful great sins 
aiiLong tny people." +T 

1. [In contrasi the Mu ( tazilah] argiie om the basis of The Mosc 

High'5 statemenis, 

"Revereutly tĕar ihe ilay wht.'ti one soul will he unable to dc> a 
thing for anoihcr soii)" f [Q 2-48] nm\ } 

^Wrangdocrs will havc ncithcr closc lYiend nor inlcrucssor wlm 
inigin bc heard", [d40:lo] L 461 and, 


[Act] bdorc thc day whcn thcre will bc no commcicc s nor iricnd- 

ship, nor intiTcession"., [Q 2:254] and r 

4! Wroti«docrs will have no spnnsors." [(£ 2:270] 

L Ebllowcd by T appcara to rcad 3 |siySna.ian ka- r isnnatihi]. ProfcsEr>r OaKTilcyj, 
at thc cnun&c-J of Shaykh Sa^yid Nawiv:y- fat ihc Arnciicriii Um^ersity of C-iiro^s 

ScIich.iJ of Onciiul S(udir*] iwtod Lhait ihis. is n scrilj^l ligaiirn: — npsirrnbling |lfiA-| 

bui ^tandin^ lor [li-] aiter a nuuaccd [fath.-B.hJ. In thc ]sfahajii niornmcnrary portion 
[L 465:2] thc phrasc clcarly rcads ? [li-*kiTvatihL] r and lhi& Ls cojrroborat«l by MS 
CTarrett 9fl9hb and MS OarreLt 2B3h in thc Baydawi tcxt 8 

l? Hadith. "My inlercessLun is for 4JlU ^iilty ot dnwirul srtut sins accKH3R my pco* 

plc"i \L 460:22] icidcxi. a di in Wensirm.-k'* //^SwAi, anrt locaied in Jb-jmh j-iliN Art4rf fr 
SidniL al-S4ifur ? #739; aiHd in ^&cm?! Ilm >\t'AJ&k t ^ulid, ^37. 


1.— a- Thc answrr [10 thc \Tu*tazilah argumcntj ia Lhat [thesc 
verscsj arc not gencral in relerencej either in essential mcaninjr or in 
LLjnc* and euen if some general relerencr should he eslahlished for 

lIle-3'el., ihtry still wyul<i apply $purifit'.al]y <0 whal wc haw! incntioncd. 

Isfahani says: L 46] > T 225, MS 236b 

Topk 5: Pardtm and intermsnon jbr ihosi guitty $f the dreadftd greai sins 

a. L J ardon, or the caricellation of mericcd punishment, thc tirst 

raiegory of iwo^ is rnetuioned for three reasons. 

L. Thc finsE is what thc Most High ha^ said: 

"It is [God] who acccpts His pcoplc^s repencancc and forgivcs 
thoir wmngdomg", [Q 42:25] and, 

"Or el&e He will rebuke dicm for thcir [inappropriaic] weahh» 
and [thcn| forgive them for many jother thingsj, 3 " [Q 4^:34 J 

Ihere is a consciLsus [arnong scholarsj that Godl Mosl High is of 
a paidoning naiurc» but this pardoniiig naturc is rcalized cmly through. 
His ahandoniiig some wcH dcscrwd punishincnt. 

a) [Ln contrastj, thc Mu*LaziIah havc rulcd out puiiishinent 
ior minor gsing bcfore repentance,, and for the dreadiiil great iins 
after repentance. So, thi- cancellation of punishment for a minor sin 
belbrc rcpcntancc and for a drcadful grcat sdn aftcr [npcntancc] wcmld 
bc an ohligation [upon God^ aceording to the Mu c tazilah. Therclbrc- 

what would be pardoned are thc dreadful great sins piior to repcn- 
tance, for indccd^ no othcr mcaning for pardotiiug is lcit cxccpt to 

cancel thc pimishmcnt fbr dreadiul grcat sins heibrc rcpentance. 

2. The second [rcason for thc doctrine of pardon| is |CkxTsJ 

"God will noc forgive anything being associated [as an idol] with 
llim; anyihing cxcept that [sin] He docs foj^givc fbr whomever He 

wishes. w [Q^ 4:48^ IIf>J That i3, an^thin^ clse exc.ept thc wonship of 

idob wH\ be pardoned, and tiiis involves boih the dreadM great ^ins 

and cninor sins. Thc intcndcd rcfcrcncc is to a pardon bcforc rcpcn- 
tancC;, Ibr two r-eason^: 

a} Ihc hrst [rcason] is that, if thc intended rcfercnce shonld 
not bc lo a pardon bclbrc rcpcntancc» thcn it would not bc lac ing 
thc diffcrcncc betwecn the worship of idols aiid anything except tliat 
[sinj. But the con<:]usion is* lals^j becausc of the inherent necessity 
[o establisih thc dilTerencc. An cxp]ciriation of ihc liigic uscd hcrc i.s 

1076 £■ SECTIUN J 2. TOHCS 

that aitcr repcntancc thcre would bc no diAcrcnce becween (lie uor- 
ship oHdols and any sin exeept ihat one iri granttng thcm forgi% r encs>. 

b) The sccond [rcason] is that if the intcnried rckrcnce 
should not be fto a pardon| bctbre repentancc, ihen it would not 
be faci ng ihe linkage with ihe will of God, accordhig to the posi- 
tion of thc Mu*taz]lali. Bul thc conclusion is ^alse, bccause thc Most 
liijrh did link forgivcness wich His wilL An explanalion of ihc logic 

used hcre is that ? if the intended reference should not be to a par- 

don before rcpentance but ralber, afier it, thcn it woukl not bc fm> 

ing the linkage with thc will [of God], hccaiise s bi thcir vicw% 
ibrgiwencss attcr repcntance would be an nbligaiion [upon God]r 

And an obligation may not be linked adniissibly with a wiW, bccau&r 

an obligmion is sonrLCthing riiai musl be perlbnnrd. whethcr willcd 
or not willcd. 

3, Tht third [rcason for pardon] is [GodV| statemcnt: 

"Your Lord is indccd Onc who forgivcs pcoplc for thcir wrong- 

doing." [Q^ 13:6] Llcrc thc word "ibr" has thc mcaning "j n thc cir- 
cuirwtanra of*\ as it would he said, "I saw che Amir in the drcMmsiaJicc 

ofjuscice". or, "sn the circumstanoe onnjusrice", if he were so occu* 

picd. Tlic vcrsc rcquircs tliat forgivencss should bc obtaincd whilc 
a man woutd bc engagcd in wrongdoing a for it indicatcs tht: obtain- 
ing ol" forgiveness MS 247a betbre rcpentaiice. 

Alsu, similar lo thal is what the Most High has said: 

lL O s My pcopk% you havc wastcd your&clvcs away, but do not 
despair of thc Mercy of God", |Q 39:53] and> 

"So I said 3 F Ask your I^ord for forgivenc3s; He has always been 
One who forgives, ? " |.Q.71:10J 

b- The iniermssion olOnr Prophti, T 22fi Prace he npon hint, 

Ibr those who arc giiihy of dreadful grtat ssins is thc sccond [catc- 
tjoiy mcntioncd in this topit]. It is mcntioncd becausc tlic 

High commandrd thr Prophct L 462 to ask forgivcne*s for the 
sins of thcr I>chcvcrs. God said: 

forgjv« for your sin and Ibr that of men and wnmen 

beJievers t " [Q 47:19] Now ? a person guilty of -i clreadlul greai sin 

[may be] a heli«ver in accordance with prcceding diftcussion.s. Ai^d 

so, Pro]>het] docs a*ik ff>rgiveiiess for |the sinner] in ohedience 

to [God T s| oommand wliile keeping hiniseJf btameless; that «, die 

Prophet's own blami-lessiiesb kceps liiin from uppo&iiig [Guds] com- 

niand. So whcn thc Ptophct asks forgivencs& for onc guilty of a 

dreadful giraT sin l>efore liis rcpeniHnrc, CJod Minsi High acrepts ihe 


intercession of ihe Prnphet, and hrings grear satisfacnJon to the 

Prophet, in accordancc with the word of the Most H igh: 

Ll So b your Lord will grant jyour requrat] to you and yau witl bc 
satisfied." [Q 93:5] 

Theiefore^ il h eslabljshed thai the intercession of our Prophct 

will \m accrptcd as bcirig wiihiu the right of oiic guiliy of a dread- 
ilil grcat sin^ bcfore repcntancc. 

Mun.:ovcr, according to the statemcm of thc Prophct 

"My mterccssion k for all guilty of dreadful great kim* among my 

pcoplc**, it i^ iudiccitcd that thc intcrccssion of the Piophci applies 
to all [bclicvcrs] who arc guilty of drcadfu) ^rcat sins cquyJly whether 
bcfore rcpentancc or after it, 

1. The Mu*tazJlah have argued ihai the intercession of the 

Prophct had no causal cffcct Ln cancclLaug thc future tormcnt, -quOt- 

ing verse» ahout this, [asj in these siatemcnts- of thc Most High: 

K Rcvercndy fcar thc day when onc soul will be unahlc to do a 
thing for anothcr soul." [Q2:48] jThey say that] thc vcrsc indicatcs 
that onc soul will he unahle to do a thing fnr anothcr soul in a gcn- 

eraj sense, ancl ihc dcnial In thc coniest of exdusion has a ^ miral 
applkatinn, Thc causal oJTcct of the Prophct** intercession in can- 
oelling futurc torrncnt is. rncrcly an cxclusion of the logical require- 

nicnt in thc yersc, so its causal cffcct would not bc cstablishcd, Andj, 
"Wrongdocrs will havc ndthcr closc fricnd nor intcrccssor who 

might be heanL* [Q, 40:18] [They say ihat] God Most High will 

txcludc any iiitcrccssor from wrongdnci"s as a gcncral policy. dis- 
obedicnt jwTsons heing wrangddcrs, so tbey would not havc any 

intercetisor ai ;ill; ihns, the intercession of tbe Pft)jibf[ is not esiab- 

tisihed a& being the righi ol" disobrdicnt ptirauns, And, 

Li [Actl ^Krlbrc thc day whcn dicrc i^tII \y^ no coininerce, nor friend- 
^hjp^ nor intcrccssitjn." [(j^ 2:254] [Thcy say that] thc vcrsc appar- 

cntly indicat^s ihe completc exclusion of intercesLS-ion^ and so thc 

I^mphct'* inreroes&ion i* implicidy exc)uded fiom bcing a right of 

disobcdicnt pcrsons- 

"Wrongdo^rs will have no sponsors", [Q. 2:270] and, as an intcr- 

cessor would be included arnong thc spoii.sors h there will be no 

MS 237b iiitercessor fwr the wrongdoens, and, as disobedicut peo- 
ple are wrongdocrs, thr y will have no intercessor. 

I. a. The answer to this [Mu c ta?cJlah] interprctation of diese 

verscs h that thcy arc not gcncral in application. cithcr as to csscnti»L 
mcaning or as to dmes, so they would siot apply to a casc in dSsputc. 

1078 $, kectiox 2, topics 

And cvtti if it shouid be grantcd that Lhey arc gcncraily applicable 
aa to essenrial meanitig anri tinies so that tht:y woiild b^ applicablc 

to a case in dispute, and thus would tndudc spccWcally the % f ctses 

wc havc mcntioncd that indicate thc cortainty of thc Prophcts intcr- 

ccssion as bring thc ri^lit of the disobcdicnl,, still, if the interprcta- 

tion of ihe verses should be made so as to apply speciAcally lo 

utibclievers ihen it would bc a cornbination of proof tcxts. 

Baydawi said: 

L 462 3 T 226 

Tvj)& 6: C&taittty of eamed h/mtml m tht grmw 

a„ The ccrtainty of tlie [earacd] tormcnt in thc gravc is indicatetL 

by what the Mosi High hm said regarding the Family of Pharoah: 
l Thc Fire [ragcs] whcrc thcy wiM be cxposcd moming and rvcnmg; 
[andl on a certain dav the Hour will come fcr the command, s Mnvf 
thc Family of Pharoah into the deepest torment,"' [(^40:46] AJso 3 
regarding thc people of Noah*s day: 

"Thcy wcre drowned* thcn put into thc L 4fiS Firc 3 "; [tJ^71;2JJ 
thc advcrb> L *tlien^ a mcaning "closely LbllDwing'. AIso, <juoimg [Iroin 
ihc&e pcople in thc Firc] 1 w 

**Q our [jord! You have put us to dcath L\vice and have hmughl 

us to life twiee." [0^40:11] That is an iridicatkm of thc lact tbat in 
thc ffrave thcre is anothcr lifc and deaLh. 

b. An oppcKsing dispuunt has argued on thc bash of the follovv 

ing siatements of the Most High: 

"In [thc Garden] thcy shall not tastc any death esccpt thc tirrt 

dyins"; [Q^ 44: 56] ' rt and, 

"You [Q Prophtt] cannot makc pcoplc in thcir gra\Ts tc> hcar." 
[<X 35:22] 

b.-a. The rcply to the first verse's iiu«ipretcition is that thc vcrsc 

mcans that thc bliss of thc Gardcn is not tcrminatod by dcath as 

the blis^ ofthis world is tertnitiated by it. Death \s tiot a smgl*> evientj 
for 5ndecd 3 God Moit High resiomed hfe co inany people tn thc tiirte 
of Moses and uf Jesus, and Hc madc ihem die a second timc. 

41 T adkU hcrc, u frciin thc peopk in thc Rrc." 

rt L hte mniued llic first c|iHila.liotL iicre. ImL \t is jiidiidcd in MS Gamrtt 2fl3B 

:...:! MS Garreu 9»*JHb, 


Thc rcply to thc sccond vcrsc*3 intcrprctation is that thc lack of 
[thc PropheCs] abitity to make [peoplc in thc gravc| hcar docs not 
mriply rhe laek of any perception hy the one buried. 

Mahani says: 

L 463, T 226, MS 237b 

Topk 6; Grtainty vf eam&i tormmt in ihe grwie 

a. What is meant by ihe |earned| torrncnt in thc gravc ls a tor- 
ment alter death but prior to the Rrs.urrectinn. Thh doctrine is 
proved by what the Most High has said in regard to the FamiKy of 


"ITic Firc [] ages| whcre they uill bc cxposcd mormng and cvcning; 

[atidj on a certain day thc Hour will corae for the conimand, *Move 

ihe Family of Pharaoh mto thc dcepest lorment."* [Q, 40:46] This 
is clcarly about the toi menting 10 comc aftcr dcath and bcfbrc thc 

Resurrection, Atid, iti rcgard to the people of Noalrs day: 

"They were drowncd, thcn put into die F3re"; [Q 71:25] the 

adverb. Ll theii** 5 mcaning 'closcly fbllowing 5 . So, putting thcm irilo 
thc Firc was aftcr thcir bcing drowncd but bcllbrc thc Rcsurrcction; 
ibr indccd, putting them into the Fira aftcr chc Resurroction would 
nol lw 'closcly following 5 upon iheir bemg cUowiied, [God's| word, 
quotes thcse unbcHcvrrs who wcrc thc pcoplc in thc Fire: 

"They saidj l O our Jjnrd. You have put us to dcath twicc and 

have brought u$ to life iwice,'" [Q. 4-0: 1 1 J That h a proof that in 
the gmvc thcrĕ thcre will bc another tiving and aiiuthcr dying, tlial 
is 3 after dcath and bcforc thc Rcsurrcction thcrc will bc anothcr lik 
and anothcr dcath; bccause if thcrc should not bc anolhcr tilc and 
anoLhcrr dcrath afttrr the first death and bcibrcr thc Re&urrection. tbcn 
there would tutl be [God's] act nf bringiiig mankind to life twice or 

[His] aet of ptttti[ig somc of niankind to death iwioe. 

b. An opposing disputantj that i&> onc who dcnics thcrc will bc 

corment in the grave 3 has argued on the basis of what the Most 

High has 5d\d t thc first quotadon dcstribing thc pcupte iiii thc Garden: 
"In |thc GardenJ they shall not tastc any dcath cxccpt ihc first 
dying.'* [^44:56] This indicates that thc pcople in thc Gardcn do 
not tastc dcath cxccpt lor thc fir»t dying s for if thcrc should be 
anothcr lifc and anothcr dcath in thc gravc> thcn thcy would taate 
both twice, and the situation would exclude what the verse has indi- 

cated by its clear suitement. And 5 

1080 % KKCTION 2, TOFlC5 


Yuu [O Prophet] cannol rnake people in their grav r es to hear", 

[Ci 35:22 f indicatcs that [thc Prophct] was iLiiable to makc pcoplc 
in their gra.ves to hcar, for if ihose who wcrc buricd in thcir gravcs 
should Ik alive then it woulri be possiblc to makc them hear., and 

that woitld tiegate the verse. 

b"3L An an.wcr grnng ihc rncaning of thc first vcrse is MS 23&;i 
that it means that thc bliss olchr Gasdcn will not bc tcrmi riatcd by 

death as. ihe bliss of this life is cerminated by [dcath]. Death is not 
a single evcnt, for God Most High restored life lo many T 227 

pcoplc Lii Lhc timc of Moscs and of Jcsus H and Hc cnadc thciii die 

a setond time. The answer gaving the meaning of the second versc 
is that the [Frophet's] lack of abiliiy to make those in the graves to 
hcar docs not iinpiy itiat thc oiwr who is buried Jias no pcrccpuon. 

Ba\ dawi said: 

I. 463, T 227 

Topk 7; Odtar tmditional dottrines 

Othcr traditbnal doccrines include the Bridge, rhe Balance Scales, 
Divinadon by Books of Scrijpture, and 4he Circumstantcs of the 

Gardcn L 464 and thc Firc. Thc basic principk' in thcrn is that 
lhi»se are [Al\ realkics possible, on which [Muhammad] the Truthtlil 

Qnc has givcn iJie inlbrmalktn ihai they are actual faets, M and he 

is trathtuL 

u Rdepences co ihe iteira lUwd are 

]] [al-fLrRg] p tbe Bridg*: in the Cjiir^n as Vy'*-^ t:6-7 : Q:U% 21% ctc; "In 
Muslhn (radiupn* and olhcr wrirings it 5$ morc comjnonly uacd for rhe ^brid^gc" 
acrcwH thc jnfern3l ftrc, whir.h is d^cribcd as fincr than a hair and sharpcr than a 

2) (a^mnsii)! thc BdJaricc-scaJcs — Q 12; 17; 21:4-7, rtc. — llu-lu;*, Dichoimy t pajrc 

»S 354. 

3} [aJ-taj(iyurl r D^mauon— Q.3Sci8; 7:13 L; ,e . , . by lj<w1a [of Mriplurr]^ [imayur 

])f4ii; Nfw York: E-P. Duoron, [irpr.. I^!i4j, papc L?ti7 r on usc of thc Our^an. Mm 
•.nLlwi lE, seddng whai b gow^" [athLikharah]; tt idso. Ahrnad Ajndin^ Q$mtti al- c stfat 

ihc niiretccins in bni>k* on varmij8 typ^si of diwR^ri^iu would al>o b^ iri soojie here. 

■t? [aljwa] al-jamnji.h ws-^i-iiar]^ Ri CifCtinistAncc« of ihr Gardrn ai^d r>f tbe Hrr: 


-Sec che Cn*airrirrll in i.hU pjt-sent wi>rk l>\- BayrUwi ajid, Bon-k 3, Scrii™ 

2 t Ti-'i>k 3 and tbllowng Sutwopic, 


ajn siiy*; 

L 4G4. T 227, MS 23Ba 

Tij&^ 7; OaW traditi&nal dottmm 

Othcr traditiciial doctrincs includc thc Uridgc., thc Balancc Scalcrs^ 

Divination boih by Books of Scripiure and by Intelligeiit Commu- 
nicatiun. with Hunting Animals and Birds,* 1 and the Circumstances 
of the Garden and llie Hre. The basic principlc in allirming thcir 
certainty is that they aiY: realities pnttrihle in ihrmselves, C-rod Most 

High being ever-presen(ly uimiiacieni and omiiipotenily auionomous 

of aclion in all things. [MuhaiiimadJ tlic Truihiul Oric has given 

thc inlhrniation that thcy arc actual faccs, and his inTomiation ls 

truth tliat is uscful In knowing of ihetr cxi*tenoe. 

Baydawi said: 

L 464, T 227 

Topie 3: llie ierms yhith" and *evidential practke* in the religimis code 

a. In ordinary [aiijruage^ ; belie\ing laith" 5 " is ^an asscnt [lo truth] 
by aflirmiiig it in practice 9 ; while in our rehgious code* it h a term 
for ^assent u.f thc Mcsscngcr*s truth by afFirming in practicc all hls 
coming taught us was ncocsSiiTy'* 

AincTig thc Karramiyah [this Taith'] signifks thc two statcinrnls 
iii thr |lslamic| formij]a of coniession, among the Mu^tasilah it mcans 
Compliancc with [all] obligatoiy practices and avoidaiicc of things 
rorbiddcn, and amon^ mo&t of thc carly Musiims [this tcrm] mcant 
the 4 affinriation in practice' of all [the fbreRoitijf]. 

11 IslklNirii ln.-rr adds Hnolher acthity, prcHiimiiLbly a vAriĕty ul" itmiralititi. Oilr 
Eliig.hl rtriLMJiiably sprculutt 1 iJuR huiititig wilh chwiahs, htiuiids atill Uktiil* wouk'1 

hav^ bccn * la^urite recreaijuii; of MahatiT* p^roii, Al-MaJiL aUXa*Lr Muhanunad, 

drvrLnped by him rrj ati arivanceri ^nd tmcanny skill., and warcl as ar npporiunily 
ffir practmn^ iimiitLo» and sccljnej pro^cr Sfuidan.oc froni fkid [byriUiiiM!.!]. Two 

refcrciicrs may be compmrd here: |Cl 5^] regsarding hunting aHimaU; and bLrds 

and ilicir scrYkc^ anri |0 4L:!JtJ TcgaidirLg thc <:ausuLbnri. ol vqicc artkubuan and 


H WiJirwJ Caijlw<-lJ Smiih^ arikJ*-, "Kiiiih a^ p ra9rttf|", lil hianw tffiito.iofihiHLf 

Ikeuiugy, cd. hy PanTz MorcwnMig-c. pp. 96-1 [^J^ has dariJjed our undtTstandLiig uf 
iJac unriiiTiml id ihis Topic 8^ and so has conlrihutcd to lhv. cm^riing d^Tkjpinnal 
of ihe iransLatLon. A |gLvni] rcligicms- practicc ia thc producc of a I^ctl] r^ligioi.iS 
faich 3 and is the ^lJ : ^L^m^^t^>r3i , cjtpressiun of it n^rrcuiL to a.a:f|i:-.irK;t ! of [tba(] faith. 
B;iydawi\ ^ipi.Tiing scntrjice b n raiJier close wrbauni iKHrrowing Iro ■ 5 1 K-i/L 

1082 g* section a-, toptcs 

What indicatcs that 'afiirming practicc' is> produccd by thc gcn- 
eral ttmoept \oT faith] is the. fact that there is an affinity of tlie lor- 

mer [i-e,, 'practice'] for thc latter [Le,, Maith 1 ], as shown in what thc 

Must High has said; 

"Thtisc who bclicwrd and put into prncticc what was right w , 

|Q 2:B2J and 

"Those who bc]ievtnl arid did not cloak ovfir rheir fahh bv ilnin^ 
wrong." [Q 6:02] 

As for thc Most Ui§jh*s statcincnt; "God would ncvcr di&count 

your Jaith", |Q 2:143} dm means your Hiiih |aftirmcd in practiccj 

in ihe prayer riie [thal at first you performed facing] towards Jeru- 
salem. Furthcr, chc appHcation of [thi& statement] to the prayer ritc 

alonc is [only] hy way of nictaphor. 

Also thcrc is the Ptophct & statcinem: M Faith has aboul aevcniy 

branchcs, thc bcs-t of thrm bring lo conlcss, Thcrc is no god at ail 
but God\ and thc lcast of them being to remow a hindrance irom 
the pathway." 53 This means laith 1 * many branches. [are assented to 

by an atliniiatinn In practicej. because the act of" removmg a hin- 

drancc from thc pathway is nol indudrd [Lt^ as onc of thc spccihed 
dutics of faith]„ by the conscTisus [of «h olans] . ™ 

" HadiLh. "Faith has aboul scwnty briinche^ (L 464:12). tL¥dcxcd. and qucrtc-d 
in Saki/i Mtistim^ Inian #5?— 58. 

3 ' Baydaui here assccls ihc orthodu* rcligjiutis tcHchicig of ibe Asba^irah that 
Tailb' iirid l pm<:li.oc a {the laltci Jbniieriy calkrd "woik?") must he tocreeiwd aa ;m 

imrgral pair Attd hav^e eusience m ibf hdkucr'9 actions a$ ;iii imegra] j>*ir. 'IIlit« 

are ansib /i^a to- ihis aHfiinicm iu \hc tx*o *horik 3'diirions 1 prer.sdine [Klam. Mimck, 
ihe Hcbrcw Iswgiwr,. prophccs likr- haiah. Ho&ca aiid Amus, and wTitcrs hkc: I>Avid 
and Solomon,. cshortcd chfir pK^oplc lo undcniLand diat ^common rclJRious pmo 
ticc\ puWidy aiid priy^tcly, muMt stri%x. ! lo be a 'pun. 1 rclii^un 1 . Thc Ncw TcsumicM 
Cliiisiiyii Lcacbtis, hidLLdin^ Jcsus^ Paul h.ckI Jamcs &ga\^ raTJiiidcd pcuplc of clit 
iiihccrc^ly rwn^ssaay cLm^k Jjnka^t of Taiih* wltb "p^actu:e 3, acid ejnhurttd lljvaria CO 
demonsrraie ihis Ln ih^ii 4 dailv srrions. 

Thc pr^M^liiiig of ihc ftfi>j>li<i Muhamniad was IbUnwrd by thc crti>iiA of indj- 

vidus«l chiHikeri lo bricig. inco an org&niisil 4y»cni brnh tbe Qur a 9biic di<i-unuf nml 

thc P^ophccr-s Mdc-ranging lEutiucucHis aloiiK wiih Jatcr spcciik applkalioiis. Tcaichcrs 
ici lIlc Mu^taiilah School wcre llihdtik thc first to do so. Br^nching" oul frc>cci llLcrn 
wrrc die Ashia^irali, wbu ^."^mLe, uiure «r le** by scliWtcsigHHLU.nj^ ih* !>e3it<er$ ">f 

shiiKl.iril i-Si.rinili-"- i,, s if -iiii-iis .m:l hrlliU i >: Llrir mm!<IiiaI Ii^lJim l,rin^ 

Abn al-HsLsan aJ-Aah^ari ;260/a?3 or i 324/933 or 6). Hb at-Ihwak *qn Usut irf- 
£)tyu?HTA| translated as J7ir Eittiidathn vf hfam"s Pimnrkithti by Waltcr C. Klcin (/WicricAA 
Orknuil Scries^ v. 19) Amrrksm Ori-ental Socieiy: N«w Havcn,. Cunn^ 3 940; 
Rcpaijited, Ncw York; Kraua Rcprint Corp^ 1907} oonialnj an wrly juinittary ol" 

hUrr:\ rlis-olodcnL prr ? ili:iTi Hi9 s^iirr-.rrJ.. "Wr I i-:Li • -.1 ■ II-i i !>■ <nr"vi;r ; : .:ir" «.■...-.?% 

and deeds;. acid i& subjca lo increa» and decrease; . . ^ (op. cii,, p. 53:, is bb 


IsLiliiini sa 


L 464, T 227, AIS 238a:B 

7tfj&*c #; Tke terms yaith* tmd L t®idtiifial prachce* m thi f#%h?.wx £vdt 

a. No onc disagrccs that L a bdicviiig laith 1 irt ordinaiy languagt: 

is 'assenting to the truth o(" something by aRirming u in practicc*. 

Howcvcr 3 in thc usagr r>f our doctrinc*s rcligious code the scholars 
disagree. Shaykh Abu al-Hasaii al-Ash'ari, Qadi Abu Bakr [ai-BaqillaniJ 
and [Ustadh] Abu I*ha<j [al-Tslkrayini] . and thc majority of ilie lead- 

ers of tlu- Siinrii-i ibe positioti that a 'bdicring faiih* is a term 

trnujnicr that ihe uvo iniKi gp tojgcihcr ici publrc aud privale obscnanct, ihe wwds 
acid thc deeds bciriij q.>dled uut tu thc intdiiioiKi] scrurcc sLalcinciiiis uf bJam. 

Muliammacl ibn "Abd al-KAritn al-ShahrMtaui (d. 548/1153;' wmpiLed a *hin* 
tnary of hluiHic- bdkfs, uded JWA^wr Ql-A<fttem fi 7fiw d-JTafawT (- The Parlhess S*qw 
iak*n irt ib*e Skiccice ef Thcokgical Siatewirai, cd. wich n iran&laLk>n , . . by AHied 

GiiiLUiime, Ijmridnn: C)Kliird l.niwi^ky Press., H. Vlil(nrd a 1934), jln n-jKiri^d by 
G. Monnm iti his an.i h v '"'aJ-Shahraac-ini** iri Rn-I-5- ]n liiscuBaing IuIllit chijisp.' 
and fchc un.fini.shcd prohlcrns ■ol" lifc chat a Muslirn faocs 3 on pagcs 
149-15 L o£ GuiLLaumc 1 * Enghsh tracuslauon scction, cDvcrs inosl of wtiat BaydiiwL 
Ls sayintj Ln our currcnt topLc. At timcs thcre bi a. vcrbatim borrowLng of historical 

SKMciirtnis while at timts Baydawi k<ive$ ihis author behincl 

ImI.Iii ;il l)\i: K^i\ 'T.ompr-nrijnm ol "l hii.ii.nhi.'" [- Jiliji^^i Ajkw . .) luts. Iiei-n 

a valuablc akl n> Baydawi an<l Isiah^ni m iheir piesetitauom. On. pigc* 237-244) 
Ra^L >!n ciiiclly di$cimes the 'notmLial asjic-c-is' and Lhc ""chai ^cicrlidrig «pccis" [al- 

aMtia 5 wa-jJ-ahka.m] of thc faith. Hc driips Ash^ari^s daim thai iaittL is Hntmcthirig 
rhac incrcascs and dccrcaflcs\ ard adda thc uotion thai ihc womck, "lf God wills" 
pji sha 1 ALIahJ, shouJd bc part of a pcrsrjn^j cLaim to bc a bc]icvcr_ jMso hc adds 
thac Logically. a disbchcver is onc who rcjcccs thc nicssanc of thc Mctscngcr. Rari^s 
Mroiij; pfii](iMjphical bcnt dlrccts attcciticm to *hc di£Tcrf:nc:c bclwccn Lhc mcrcly 
'TKJc.iiciar* th<a k 'wimds^ ( — llte ^iabirn^s" of phcriumcna) and dic ^ijutrte CuciCĕIII, 

ihac is, ihr p^ccioe of '■whai h;is heen d^:rilHrd^ ( thi- 'i^senL-e" oiwhai has hccn 

, n.unixl , J. 'Wurds' i::;-im.?r suTwrimte for ^raciLo^' &P ibc conicnt. 

BuLlditig lpii tlie Jiiundaciou providcd h\ ihcsc oiiiscanriLii^ s^riicrs, Baydawi and 
lifahinL prc&cnL this uscfuL guidc to thc ""aJTjjmaLLLm nf ihc faith' by bcHcvcrs. A 
studcnt may woiidcr why Baydawj. chosc thc tLtlc "'RcalLtL« Frophctic" r| for his .Bouk 
3 H in which hc dbcusses not ucrJy ^prophcthood 1 but also thc sombcr cwnb and 

doctrines of die "Last Day : aud ihc cmuro^crsial c Imamatc : , or snpreme ]ea<kr- 

ship of thc MudLm commujiity. We bclicvc it Ls iil cIchsc accord with his tiiidep- 
$UftiLdinj5 of ^iroptietlacMid" as heiriK Oh: hi^hcst quality of human abllid^s ihat Cod 

Ikmow on an individual human bei ri|f- "l"hc Prupihct uf Idiim ha* been chosen :i"d 

is. i-|ofic:rLl>rd. And thr. prinoph" reimains as pcrtCi^cd. thsl fifld 1S 3-Ne to brsJow 
hi^hcr ]cvc-U of kntmllod^c. incuicivc skills. L:haara<"tcr qtialitics K and leadership abili- 
tiw Otl ipu.liT.idyy]?; of His GttG rliddcje, Tbcsc bcLni; truly aspccls r - 1 jmipli.cthood, 

thc uindcirstandiirig of them ^ l^cing opwaii\* ici the preM-ni is mucb morc dian 

iiwdy a rcccpUon of sumcthirTg iraditicwiy!. MVin- b>^ JJayibii^j^ scco^id gcncra- 
tion "studcni\ 'AdLid aJ-Din fji, tidcs ihc comparahJc do&ing sccuon of his sum- 
mary work, al-Mmwi}if fi 7iWl tzi-A"iiiaiH ? ' : Ma.ucr$ of TradicLrm." ftl al-sam i Iy5t] 3 thus 

apparciLtly niusimj ihc brilliaiit light Baydawi $hccfc on ihc conccpt of prophcthcKKl. 

1084 2* SECTION" .?. topics 

for a hearfdt 'asseming to ihe truth of dic Mcsscngcr by affinnirig 

in practicc cvcrything that his coming taught us. was ncocssary\ 

b, A L believing £aith*, in our doctrine^s religious, code> is a term 
for the two statements in |be (ormnla oT confcssinn amnng i.he 

Karrarniya}i^ whilc airiuiig thc Mu*tazilah [*bcl]cving" ^ailh''] is cojti- 
iance with |all] obligacory praetke* and avoidance of |al]| thinjp* 
forhidden. This is dasdy siniilar to the traditional saying about the 
Mu c tazilah that they madr 'bcUoing failh* thc tcrrn for "asscnting 

tu both thc truth of God and of His Mcsscngcr [by affirming thcsc 
in practice]^ as wcll as for l ceasing che practice of disobedience\ 

C- FLirchermorr, m thc raligious code, *beli€ving FaitJy h a tercn 
that includes all of ihat, that b f k h ihe affirmatk>n in practioe of 

thc truth of thc Mcssenger in cvtrything that his coming taught u& 
was necessary. Thiis indude*: 


I. ihr. five daily i"iN j s of praycr, 

2. thc obligaiions of fasting and giving alrns^ 

3. thc ban againsi winc and adiiltery» along with 

4. Ircritine] Lhe two slatcmcnts of thc Kormula nf Gnnlcs&ion.. 

5 P complyhig with [all] obligatory practkes and 

6, avoiding [all] ihirtgs forbiddcn, 
[AIl tbesc practices were hcld ncccssaryj^ according to most of thc 
early Muslims. L 465 Indeed* they said Tahh 1 is a way of &aying 

iliat one 

aAinns asscnt [to truth] inwardly in onc s s hcarU and 
real3imi& il [outwardlyj with one a s tongue^ and 

pracdce it vitally with all ont: 3 s slrength. 


Our author. Bavdawi, said ihat whai indicaies ihai ihe atrimiation 

iji practice i& prochiced by llic genrrcd concept of Paith according lo 

dac rrligious codc is thc fact that thcrc is an aihnity of 'praclicc 1 for 

e laiih 3 MS 2liBb in thc Mos-t High a s savingB such as: "l"ho&p who 

bolicvod atid put into practice what was right." [Q2:82] Thc affinity 

indkatts that thcrc is a diffcrcncc bctvfc r «n what is attractcd and 
that to wlikh it is attractcd. 

54 T, Ulc MS aud MS Garrctt 9R9Ha give ihc plunJ, vvhi]r L giv*:K iIlc sinjiiJLtr. 
M fii]*Iniaii c ibSrdh *-uik hI-14jl^U.k[ bi-al-jsiJiSn iiva-aJ*iqrir bi-aL-U*iin ^"ii-^l- e amaJ b 

:bI ,nk^-li (X ihr -l^i iii^nm iti l?i- .;,iriy iriadic i::-li-i-:HiJri ..r"''iijfli ]|i Luilh < r:n.:l.;Is 

iiiticit;, 'lmarL 1? P=irt 1. Clemenca and L-ocidLiions of tht act d laiih, in tcL-J-2, 
V. 3 d pp. U70b-l]71a. 


Therefore, if an object should be raiscd that the 'practice' fof good 

dccds] would bc [mercly] a *part* of the gcncral concept of h faith', 
and that the L pari a naturally would dilTer iiom ihc Vholc\ so thc 
aJTmily of 'practtcc' for l faith T wonld nol Impliy that practicc was 

'prodiKCcT by the general roncept of faith, ihen the reply [to this 

objcction] wuuld be that ]f 'praclicc 1 showld not bc 'pruduoed* by 
*faith\ then implicitly thc casc would be one of mcaninglcss rcpcti- 

tion [i,e-, of 'good deeds' without a mouvarion], 

Purthermurtj the statement of thc Most Higtr "'ITiose who be1ievcd 

and did not cloak ovcr thcir iaith by wrongdoing", [Q^ 6:82] indi- 
catcs that "practicc 1 comcs as thc producc of the gencral conccpt of 

Taiih 1 for two reasons: 

L [The sccond clause in| thc divinc statcment, ". . .and did 

not cloak ovcr thcir faith by wTongdoing^ is attracted to [thc fiin>t 

dause olj His siatemcm, "'ITmse who bdieved , , ," "ITiis is hecause, 
if thĕ "practice* [i.c, of good dwds] should bc sonit-thiiig [alrcadyj 
within [thc conccpt of] Taith*, thcn somc mcaninglcss rcpctition 
would bc impticd, sincc if thc practice [of good dccds] should be 

SGmcthing [alreadyj within Taith\ then [practice ofJ wrongrioin 

would be excluded frorn Taith 1 '. Thus* thc mcntion of Vrongdom 

in His staiement, *\ . . and did not cloak ovcr thcir faith by wrong- 

doing" aitcr jthc mcntion of Maith T |, would have bccn woncts lost 

bccau&c thcn it would have bccn a useless repetiuon. 

2. Thc secoud of the two [rcaaons thai l practke' is produced 

by ^lLiiit ti* 1 is thal] if thc practicc |of good dccds] should bc [mcrcly] 
a 'part 1 ol~ the general r.oncept ol " *faifh \ thcn Taith 1 woukl esclude 

Svrongdoing' neoessarily, as soon a^ [iisj incompatibiliiy betu r een thc 

whole [i.e^ iaiilrj and ihe oppcwitc of tlic piirt [i.e.* 'practice' of 

good] woutd bc rcalizcd. Mc3rcovcr t if "wrongdoing 1 should cx(~lude 
Taith 1 , thcn "ctoaking ovcr lailh by wrongdoing 1 * would be impossi- 

ble nccessarily, liecause of the imposL-iibility of comhiiting two mutu- 

ally exdusive things. And if **clo-ildng ovcr fkith by wrtmgdoing^ 

should bc impossiblc, thcn it would not bc valid to ba&c thc cxclur 
sion of ihis 'cloakin.g ovcr of ("akth 1 upon either pfaith" or ^right prac- 

tiocTj because the cxcluding factor in something impossible is its owii 

essenoe, &o to basc it apon somcthing else would bc invalid. 

People |usuallyj arc not prai&c^d for doing somcthin^ that Ls not 

a maitcr of iheir own choice, but God Most High praiscd thein 
He s-^id; "And thuy did uoi clonk over thcir fait>i by wrongdoing. 1 " 
[Q, 6:82] 

1086 3- section a, topics. 

liaydawi^Si position is that the statcmcnt of thc Mmt Highi "Ciod 

woulri never dismimt your faith , . ," [Q 2:143] and on co the end 

of the passage, is the amwer to the two arguments of tho&e [dis- 

putants] who hold that "fflith* in thc rcligious codc would not bc a 
tcmi asscnting to thc practice of a speciBc action only. 

a) A siimmary of the hrst [opposing] argument is that if 
4 practice 5 should not be includcd within thc gcncral conccpt of fc £kith* 3 
thcn it would not bc valid to apply thc tcnn 'laith* to h practicc\ But 
their conclusion is falsc. Aii explanaiinn of their logic uscd here is 

ihat if [one's] confarming pra<:iu;e should not be induded withiii ihe 

tjrrirml rorirrpl o( bclirv]n£ [ailli. ihrn [nmr ! sj praritcr WMnJd 1)*- 

ncithcr thr rt icrcnt itscll' ol bclicvini* taith, nor a part T 228 of thc 

rcfcrcnt.> nor a concomitant of the relcrrnt. So, to apply the tcrni 

*bdic\-ing tkith* to it wotdd bc iiwalid, this being infcrred necessarily 

trom thc invalidity of using a Ecrrn for something that is not its rcfcr- 
eni, whcther by dircct appiication or by inclusion or by implication. 

Regarding ihc faJ-sity of |the dispucants'] conclusion « is 

because, if it should bc invalid to apply thc term, 
laith^ to [onc's] - practice\ thcn God Most Hijjh would 

not have so apphcd it; and [and conclusion] is false also 

2) becausc of the .ttatement of the Mosl High: *God 

would never dijcount your faiih." [Q, 2:143] That is to say, your 

[practicc of thc] praycr ritc Jacing towards Jcrusalcm would ncv r cr 
be di&coiiiLtcd, L 466 this inre rpretation bcuig reccivcd by tradi- 
lion from the commenlators. Indeed, [God] applicd thc term, Taith\, 

to thr pniyrr nt\\ si lwHrtg iiii ;LlTinn;il.::.n' p sr ^j i i i .. t ■ [u:.. -il' His rrucli]. 

a)-a. A summary of thc answcr fto thc fin>t argunicnt] k 

tliiit indccd + wc do not grant that [God] applicd thc tcrm Yaith* 
[only] to the practicc of thc pi ayer rite, but rather thc meaning of 

this verse i&, "God would never disoount your be1ieving faith" by 

continuaUy directing that thc praycr ritc bc toward Jerusalem. 5? 

Thererorc, Hc did ncjt apply the term, L bclLcviiig laith"' to [this tcni- 

porary specihcl practice. Moreover, this argumem could be ovei> 
lurned l>ecause of thc objccdon thai if 'practice 1 should he [mcrcly] 
a ^part 1 of the 'gcncral concept nf belieinng laith', then it would not 
F>e valid to apply ihe (gcnctal] terrn Taith' to [the practtcc^ and 

37 Cf. thc artide, "KibLu", Part 1, Ritud and ]cppJ aspects, in En-I-2, v. 5:82- 83, 
by AJ. Wtnsinck nnci D.A. King, Ebr a dlscnssiocj of th« rcascmK fur lLmt changL 1 
in thc qih]ah frorn Jcrusalein lo thc K.a r bah at M.ikka. 


so oii [i-c, to che end of thc argument: since "pmcrice 1 would bc 
only a l part p of 'laith 1 ]. 

Now, kt no one .wy that it woultl nol be granted that if practice 


jhould hr. [rnn-elyl & |xm of ihc Kcncral conccpt of belitf:ving faith. 

ihen it would not hc valid to apply thc [gcncraJj tcrrn, 'bri]t;ving 
Ikith*, to it- Indccd» it is valid to appiy thc name of thc wholc to a 

paii, as a metaphor, because we hold that prcdicating l f*oth > of thc 

praycr ritc alonc would bc as a mctaphor; but in principJc, [stirh 
predicalionj is omitled. 

b) A sumrtiy.ry uf tlic sccond argUTncnt i* that H brlirvm 

Tailh" in (tir rctigious code is not a tcrm fbr thc l practice «f a sprrilic 
action onJy\ bccaii&c, if Taith* in thc rcliginus c:odc should bc a term 
for thc practkc of a spccillc action only, thcn laith would not " 
sist of 'about scvcnty* hranches the best ol" them hring [lo confess] T 

There is no god at n\\ bnt God 1 , and ihe lca&t of tbeni being lo 

rcinovc a hindrancc froin thc path, 11 Indccd, wc would know by [its] 

inhercnt nece&sity that the praclice of a specilic action only would 
not be Likc that. 

But thc conclusion is- falsc. because the Prophet did say: iL Faith 
has about scvcnty branchcsj thc bc&t of them heing to conicss "Thcrc 
is no god at all but God\ and thc leaat ol" tlieni heitig to rcmovc a 

hindrance from the path." 5 * 

by-%. A summary or the answer [to the second argumem] 
is that the meaning of thJs tradition is that u chc branches produced 

by faith are ! about scvcnty/" ll is not that the Ikith itsclf cxisls. in 

ataout seventy [sepanitej p^rt^ bccasue ifthe faith itseir &hould exist 

in about scvcnty parls 3 thcn the "rcmo^ing of a hmdrance Erom thc 
path" would bc includcd within [thc faith| as a spccihc pracdcc. But 
that is no^ tlic casc s for t]ic **ttinoving ofa hindrance trora tlic path" 
[i.c i: , a.s a sptr{:ihc pracdcej h noi something includcd within thc taith,, 

consensm [of dut sctaolavs] r 

34 A TJadiih. Scc iwte lo Baydawi"s tcxi at rhls polnt. 

This page mtmiionally h*ft bhnk 

Baydiiwi said: 

L 466, T 228 



Topic I: Qti tht obligatim U* apptnnt a .mprme ItMtw 

Thc Imamiyah and thc Isma^iliyah srcts put thc obligation fuf [the 
appointrncnt t>f a SLiprcmc lcadcr af tbc Muslim community} upon 

God. Thc Mu*tazilah ruicl Zaydjyah' put the oMigation upon us 
human beings as a raliona! mauer, while our colleagues [of thc 

Asha^irah] did so as a mattcr of tradition. Thc Khawarij did not 

make it an obligaticm at. all. 

7fc Sumri Ashdimk argimiwit qf hiiman tmdilwu rtspomibihty 

V\i |oftbc Sunui Asba*irah] have two basic poinu in our argument 
bn the appnmtmenl of an Tm&rnj., (au) that the obligation for [the 

appointmentj 13 upon u& according to craditton, and (b,) ihai ihis 

obtigitiion is not upon God Most High, 

a. The fir^t point is part of our argumcnt bccausc thc Imam is 
appoirned to pmtcct thc community from haim, and therf: would 

be iio protection without hirn. [This isj because if a land shoulcl 

havc no cbicftain of proved ability to command obedicncc, put down 
rcbiillion, and avcrt tbe hards-hip of tyranny over those who niight 

be considi red i*cak 3 thcn Satan would gaii^ the rnasiety over them, 

immoralitY and st^lition would soread amnng thcm, and disorcter 

and coiifusion would prevail. But defendiug oiic's srlf Prom injury as 


1 F.D. tta^i dcucjics ihe last p.-agr?e ulhjs book, /if-AI}JM\wi t p. 240 io ihc «nd un 
p. 250, in rhe lopir of tbe Imamt. Hc ^ocs inpti much ctcuiil as co ihe argumcncs 

of she ShiH ^cLk Thr Jmrtiwiyah., J«mu c Lliyah and ZaydiyaJi are tubsĕcis of ih<- 

Shi^aJi, aJi rmphLLsudng ihr nm^ity (il ^ti LiiLam. Tli^ iTTmmiyiili, h^ldin^ a grci- 

eraj dix:tranc tkat thc ijna.nia.Ec was a dircrc line- Brrnn. ^Ali, snhdi^idcd inlr> eluelut- 

wi* sw'H wiili ihwc hrolding lo & 3in.e of l J 2 utiaptUi the IihnA-^^sh^riyAhi bwdtninp 
ihc ransc pramiLwn.L The eartL™ otily of iLi-p kiua e Llijinah h-rrlcl to a liue ot 7 imami. 

and ure named for Isma^l ibn J.iTar al-Sadiq. r rTie Zaydiyah hcld to a. 3ine of "? 

iitiHTns, ^ind ^rt narncd for thcir chanipion. Zayd Lbn *Ali, a grandson of r AH ibn 

Abi Ta]ib"> sun ^1-H^^, 


mu-ch as pos&iMe is an obligatinn, by conscnsus among thc prophets 

and by tacil agreement among all thinking people. 

If an objection should bc raised thai ihere also woukl bc a pos- 

sibility of nianifo]cl ahuscs, since perhaps (hc pcoplc might rcfusc 
L 167 to obcy [tlic ijnam] and thcn disordcr would incrcasc, or^ 

he inighl rulc over ihem severely and do ihem great wrong, or, in 

ordcr to ward off opponcnts and strcngthcn thc lcadcrship, hc might 

tieed to increase his capital wcatth aaid so would scizc wcalth from 
[hem unlawfuHy. Bnt then our position [in such a case] would he. 
that these possibilities are oucweighcd and outnumbered., for 

To abandon a gncat good, 


in sclf-protcction from a small cvil, 

would be a great evil\ 

b. Thc second point is part of our argument because, as we 

exptained earticr, ihere is no obligalion whaisoever upon [(rod|: 

rathor, He h the Necessary Cause of all rhings, 

Isfahani saya: L 467, T 22ti> MS 239a;lS 



ln Section 3 [of this Book| Haydawi ha* sct tbrth fivc topics: 

1. On ihe obligaiinii to appoint a Suprenie Jj-ader, MS 239b 

2, Thc attributcs of an Imam* 3. Critcria to bc mrt in appointing 

an Imani. 4. r Yhe rijrhtlijl Imani aiter thc Messenger: Abu Bakr [In. 
Sumii dociiine]. 5. "Ihc e&cdlencc of the Companions. 

Tapic 1: On thi obttgatim. lv appmtt a iupteme teader 

The "supreme Jeadership" is a way of rcicrring to thc succession to 
the McsscngcT by sotne [outstatidingj prrson— m order to 

thc laws of thc rcligious codc, and to protcct thc tcrritory of thc 
Muslim comniujiity 3 — [rcicmng to himj as thc onc who ought to 

J L tmnllcid "gi/.il j.rtuTtint of %> [kaLlnrj. Baydawi aniJ JslahanL quottd this provr:rb 
*!irlicr a at thc c:nd of J Bnak 2. Scc:tion 3, Topic L 

1 TbAt iij T rrarh L '\ . . thc limimah] is to protcrt thc Jhawdhat al-nulJiih]"; whilc 
L, ihc MS and MS GarreU 989Ha rcad, ptiawz-at ai-miJ]ah] IIctt two Eniall 


hc ibllowed hy thc whole nation. But the pccplc ol" thc nation tiavc 
riiflfened regarding the obligation to appoint an Tmarn. 

The Imamiyah and thc I.sma < iliyah sects have put the obligacion 

to appoint an lm»m upon God Most High. The MLi'Uzilah and thc 
Zaydiyah puc thc obligaLion to appoint the Iniam upon us human 

beings as a rational matter, while our [Sunni AshaHrahJ collcagucs 
pui the obligaiiou to appuitit tlic Itnam upoii us as a tnattcr of tra- 

dition. Thc Khawarij ahsolutcly do not niabe thc appointmcnt of an 

Tmam an obligation, neither on God Most High nor on us* neithcr 

by tradition nor by n-aaon. 


7he Ssmni Aska c irah argument of human trudition rtspomibihty 

In our [Sunni Asha^rah] argument we have cwo maiii parts, (a.) an 

ex.planation that the obligaiiun to appoiut an Imarn is on us human 

bcings as a mattcr of 'tiadition 3 , and :b.) an cxptanation that rto 
obllgation for lltis a.ppuimment h upon Gud Most High 

;i.. Thc Mi-.i point [in our argiimcnl], nsuridy. ;m cxp.lai:aiio:n ihat 
it is an obligation upon us as a mattcr of tracHtionj is part of our 

docirinc bccaiise (1) ihc appointmcrnt ol an imam prevents injuries 
lo the group that ean be preventcd only by thtr appointmenl of an 
iinam, and (2;) whatcver prevcnt& thosc injurics that are prcvenlable 
only by its means would bc an obligatiun [j.e. 3 for thc group to pro- 

vidt] j thtrclorc (3.) thc appointmcnt of an imam h art obligatiun 
[upon thc group], 

1. As for thc minor prcmise^ [Lr., that thc appointmcnt of an 
imam prcvenL* injuries that are only preventable by such an appoint- 
ment], we know hy neeessity ihat if th^ people havc a head who is 
irtesistible, wliuse puiLi.shTnent Lhey fear atui whose rrward they hope 

lor, then their state will be guarded a^ainst injuries and evil.s more 

perlectly than if tlierc should not be such a chieftain, Indccd. when 

a land h dcvoid of a powcribl chicftain who eomniands obcdicncc 
and forhids wiekedness^ and who aven.s the harm of tyranuy over 

who might bc c^nsidered w^k. thcn it i* that Satan gains 

tliAerenccs may Lrad \o a Lar^er mcaninj^ thc orLtiujucrapliy diflcrcnt.'t is onLy betwcen 

two worda sccm to ovrrJap: jhawdhat aJ-ciiiLia.hJ litcraiLy Ls: 'tcrritciry - - - latcly 
acqi]in:d by oonquc5t : . whilc [haw/.ac al-mtllah] \s: 'territoiy (alrcady) Itgally pos- 
s^Sswl 1 - The small diiRTcncc ici L'tter shapc may bc oniy a scribdil n.'<iding ^ariarlL 

1092 3- SHJ ' linN 3- topics 

power over them, and wickedness and disobedience appcar and 
inerease, and disorder and conlusion sprcad Thus a it becomcs appar- 

ent that T 229 ihc appointmcnt of an imani will ward ofI injuries 
that cannot otherwise bc avoided. 

2- Aa fbr (Iie major premise, [i.e. ? fhal wliufevrr pnivenis injurics 
that tannot othcrwise bc ayuidcd is an obligation for thc group to 
provide]. thac h true, becausc defendmg one^s self from harm as 

rnuch as possibte is obligatory by ihe unatnrnous voioe of the prophcts 
and by a consensus amon^; &H diinking pcopie. 

3. Moreover 3 whatcver would pmtnt hartn that is not othcr- 
wis* prcvcntable would be an obliEjation |Le.> for a cjroup to pro- 

vidc for ieciri, whatever is needed for the fuif!J[ment of a 
Eiecessity is iiself a necessity. 

AjI objertion is raiscd that the minor prnnise of this argummt Ls 

a rational statement taken from [an eaHierj section on the [PredieatioTi 

of the] Good and thc Hcinous, L 468 whilc its niajor premisc ia 
morc clcar rationaLly than is thc minoi"» [thus]^ it wotild be prefer- 
ahle to base the argument upon the sratemetu of the Most High, 

"Obey (lod,. and ohey che Messengrr and those arnong you whose 
responsibiluy it is to command-" [Q 4:59] 

Armihcr objcclion could be raued that thc appointrnent of an 

imarn also might bc a causc of abuscs» sincc pcrhaps thc pcoplc 

might refuse to obey him t and then disorder would increase, or per- 

haps hc might rulc ovcr MS 240a thc people scverely and do 
thcm grcat wrong, oar pcrhaps, in ordcr to delcnd against opponcms 

and scrcngthen hLs kadership he might necd to increase his capital 
wealth and so would sei?:e wealth unlawTnlly from the peuple, [But 
then] war position [in stich a case] wotjld be that thr po-sstbiliries 

mcntionctl although thcy are conccwabtc, ncvcrthc]css arc poijsibil- 
itics that arc outwcighcd and outnumbcrcd. lf thc cvih that niLpjht 
po&sibly come from appoinring an imam should be compared vvith 
the cvils that would surcly comc fnjim not appointitig an imam. thcn 

thcy would hc outwcighcd to &omc cxtcnt, fbr 

*To abandon a greal good, 
in $eLf-protection froni a smaH e^ih 

would be a g^eat eviP, 

b- Tlie second point [in our argument], namely, an esplanation 
that no obligalion for [thc apix>intment of a leadcr] rests upon God 

Most High^ is part of our argumcnt ln accordancc with our cariicr 


explanation/ that no obligation whatsocver resw upon God, but 
rathcr. that Hc is thc Ncccssary Causc of all things. And now, since 
the two main parts of our argumcnt havc been dcmon&tratcd. thc 
goal of our argumcnt is a ccrtainty,, namciy, that thc appointmcnt 

of an imani is an obligation that rests upon m hurnan beings as a 
mattpr of tradiiion, and not upoii God, 

Baydawi said: 

L 4£H. T 229 

Ihe Imamiyah argitment of tfi* dwint bmiLotena 

a* ITie Imamiyah haye argued that [ihe appoititment of m imam] 

would be ati aet of benevolente. 

I - Thcy hoid that whcn therc is an imam tlicn thc casc of a 

pcrson undcr the obligation of religious. dulies — lo acccpl whalcvcr 

rcquire& obedience and io resist whatever prompt» disobedienoe — 
woukl be morc likely [uf success] tlian when thcre is 110 suprcme 
lcadcr, and 

2- thus benevolence is an obligation upon God in proportion 

to ihe capability fof the onc obligated to obcy]. 

a,-a, The answer 10 this argumeTUj, after [you dispulants uf th^ 
Imamiyah) havc concedcd [your] ialsc prcmiscs, is that thc bcncv- 
olcncc you have mcntioned would occur only whcn thcre wouki hc 

a victorious suprcme Leader whose reward ia hoped fbr and whose 

punishment is fcared. but you do not makc him neecssary. How 
would such a one exi5l„ when it has not been possiblc from the era 
of prophecy imtil our own days for such a ]eader lo exist as you 

liave described?' 

Isiahani says: L 4fiB, T 229, MS 240a:? 

'/7« Imamiyah atgumtnl qf tht dibine bmmot&itt 

a. The Iinarniyah havc aigued that appointing un imarn [for the 
Muslim c:ommunity] would bc an obli^ation upon Cod Most High^ 

in that the appointment of the supreme leader would be an act of 

bene^oleucej sincc evcrything that Es bcncvoicncc is <m obligation 
upon God. 

Bixik 2, Sccrion 3 n Chapicr +. 

1094 % SECTION" 3. TOHCS 

L As fbr Lhe appninimenl of an imam being an act of henev- 

olence, [tkey say] rhat ls postulat.ed hecausc when clit* pcople have 
an itnain, ihcri tlit case of uiie obligatcd to Hcccpt all acta of obc- 

dicnce iind to rr.sist aJl promprings Tu disobcdicncc would bc morc 

likely [of succcssj than whcn ihcrc is no imaniu Thinking peoplc 

know by neccssicy that, if thcy should havc a chietiain whn woukl 

prohibit them from struggling among themselues and creating an 


roar and who would restrain ihcm from acts oi disobedience and 

urge Jhciri to accs of obedience T theu they wouM be nearer to good- 

ness atid farther Hrom cormptioii. 

2, And as for bcuevolcuce bcirig an obligalion upon Gocl Mosl 
tligh, diat is postulatcd bccausc bcncvotencc fo]low& thc course of 
what strengthcns t.he good and removea causes of comiption. Thns 

[bencvotence] would be obligatory in projjonioii to the strcngthcn- 

ing nccdcd- ln summary,, the strcngthcnirig and thc bcncvo!cncc 
&erve to removc any cxcusc froni a pcrson charged with rcligious 

Indccd, God Most Higti has chargcd man as His creaturc with 
the obligation to peribrm acts of obedience atid avoid acts ol" dis- 
obedience. L 469 And ii h known that [GodJ woukJ nqt ptYK v.w\ 
10 do that unless. Hc would have apj>ointed an irnain for [mankind]- 
[For] if [God] liad not appoiuied an iniam fur him, ihcn mais bcing 
undcr religious obligation could say, "Indccd* You did not want to 

tain ohedicncc from mc bccausc You did not appoint an imam 

for me/* jusi as it would. be possible fbr hiin to say, "You did not 

want nie to pcribrm a good deed bccausc You did not makc it pos- 
sible for nie to do it." So just as cmpowercd capability U nccessary 
to rcmovc this cxcusc, bcncvolcncc would also bc ncccssaw. 

a-—a. Thc an&wcr to thia argumcnt is that we do not grant that 
ihe appoincment of an iniam would be ^ hcnevolence. Indeed,, it 
wuukl be a bencvukcice only MS 240b when thc appointmcnt of 

thc suprcme lcadcr would bc frec Irom faults that causc cormplion; 

but this woukl be impossibte, hecause of t]ie probability that in thc 

appoiiiLmcnl of thc suprcnit leadcr thcrc iniglit l^- hiddcn corrup- 

tion ? kuowledgc of which would bc in Gud's cxclusive posscssion. 

Moreover, even if it should 1m! granted that tlic appoinLment of an 

imam would be a bcjievo]cnce ? s(J]] we do not granc that chc benev- 
olcncc would bc an obligalion upon God Most High- Kor do we 

grant thal giving cnan enipowered capability would be an obligaiioii 
upon God Most High; for irideed we havc niadc it tlear that thcrc 


is no obligadon at all upon God. but raiher, Hr is the Ncccssary 

eause of at! thing*. 

Even aftcr having grantcd your [i.e., thc Imainiyah dispuiants 1 ] 
lakc prcmisc^ thc bcncvolcnec you have incntioncd would comc 
only if there should be an imam who otniously had a proved abil- 

ily \o ituiki- pt-riplt: Jmjjm! Ioi his rrwanl ;mcl frar liis [lucLishmenL 

Bul you do not brlicYe in ihc nccessily of appoiiLliu&r an iiiiarn that 

woukl br likc this suprcmc lcadcr. So a how could <hc appoinlmcnt 

of an imam he a benevolence wheiri from the age of the prophcts 
co our days no suprcrnc lcadcr has bccn cmpowcrcd aa you have 

describcd^ Is it thcrcforc, a fkct that God has abandoncd His oblig- 
ation fto makc thc appointmcnt]? That would be an ujj^y situation, 
for theii an ugly action would have been committcd by CJod Most 

High! And you pcoplc do riot adinit that anything ugiy cuuld ever 
be cominiiicd by God Most High! 

Baydawi md: 

L m% T 229 

Tojric 2: The aitributes of m Imam 

a. [The imam] shoukl dihgently study thc principles and hranches 
of rcligion irt Ordcr to bc ablc to lurnkh proofs and rcsolvc doubts 
in making dccisions and lcgal pronouiiccmcnts about cvcnts. 

h, He should have good judgnient and fhe ability to manage both 
war and peace 5 and all other |>ol itical matters, 

c, He should bc bravc aud not fcarful in thc conduct oPwar^ and 
not wcakhcartcd in admuiistering lcgal pumshmcnt. 

Some schohurs are more lenienl regarding these [forcgoingj thn ir 

qualitic^ Tbry hold that [ihe im&ui?] should dcpiLii^e k>tticodc hav- 

]ng ihese charucicristics, 

d, Hc should be just, bccausc he has txccutivc control ovcr incn 
togcthcr wiLh thcir wcalih and gooda. 
e. Ile should be intdligenl- 

I. He .sliould h« a matttrc Tnan. 

g. Hc should Ijc malc, sincc [womcn] arc not pcricct in intcllcc- 

tual coniprehenaion and relis^ious conwction. 

L>ft:fB irad* [ul^lmj. 

109G j SEtr riQN 3, topiub 

h. ih': skouki bc n l V:t ctuui. bctauh^ a eUiyl* would hc disdamcd 
among me.n 7 and would bc biisy in ihe scmcc of his masttr. 
i. [Thc imam] should be from the Qiiraysh, [this point of doo 

trine bring] iri opposiiton to the Khawarij T 230 and a group of 
thc Mu'tazilah. Wc [of thc Stuini Asha c irah] liold by thc PraphcL*s 

word: "Imanis should bc froni thc Quraysh/* b the dc&iitc articlc 

with the plural, where there h no assignmcnt to another nieanning 
refercncc s has a gcneral referenee. Also. there h [ihc Prophet'*] word: 

w GovsrnoT?i should bc from thc Quraysh b as long as thcy obcy Uod 
and govem uprighdy." 




L 469, T 230, MS 24Qb:8 

Topk 2: TJ*e $Hrihui£s &f' trn Inmm 

The attributes of L 470 iinams arc ninc in numbcr; 

a. The imam should diHgcncly study thc principlc!* of rcligion and 
iti branchcs in order to be able to funiish prooC for problems in 

matters of hasic principlcg, to rc&olvc duubts and ambiguitics, to bc 
ablc to makc a lcgal pronoiuiccmcnt rcgarding evcnts, and to dcrivc 
judgmenru in siibsidiary matier<L 

b. The hnam should have gond jurignieni and thc abilaiy t.o man- 

agc cvcnt4 and thc problems of war and peace, 8 that is, peaoemak- 

ing^ and all othcr polilical affair,s- This mcaiiLs that hc sliould \k 
strong where strcngth \s rcquired and that hc should bc compas- 

sionatc whcrc mercy atid geruleness are called for, as God said in 

praising thc Companions of chc Prophct and those who bcliewd 
with him * 

"(Thosc who arc with thc Prophct arc] scvcrc agaimt disbclicv- 
crs., bu[ among thcm&c:lvc& thcy show mcrcy,* 1 [Q, 49; 2 9] 

5 Hajdilh-. ir\dv:\^d and citcd in Wmnsinclt^s A Handbo&k 0/" Earty Mnhammadan 
Tradim, utnWir u lmam H — as bclng lci Mimad a! Tayaim, #926, 2133. [L 469:21] 

7 Ma.fUlk F tIifK h iing onl^ in ihc tcim ^gowrnors" [wulahj. thc scnsc La noL difFcrcnt 
Irom ihat rccii in ttic prwnrding naLc. Ihis citatujn may bc comparcd nitli dJiollirr, 
nolcd aa bdju; m Sahih Atnsiim^ 3: 754; 4476, 

s Ttrrts v;n-ji «ligliily — I* [)iirfa.l>bir al-waq;lyi c atiir aJ-harb wa-a3-silin]; MS Garrett 
SS^lHa; [yudabbir al-waq5.yi f wumr al-hurdh wa-al-aJin]; T aud thv MS: [yud- 

amr al-harb wa--iLl-^ilrnl. 

* Tcxts i r 4iry ^Lighily- — L: lajhilb al-nabi . - . wn-all^<lhfna Jlmanrr ma^abu]; 
T: [aEL,iab al-iiabi - . . vffl-aUadhma mea^iahtj}; dif MS: [al-^sahabah wa-^tladhikia ftmanQ. 

iTW L ahu|^ MS G»m-Ll 9&yHai [al-?abftl>ah wa-AlJa<lliTrva tna c ahy]_ 


c- [The imam| should t>e courageou* and ^lrong of beart^ nol 

feurfiil in the conduct of war, and not weakhcarted in the admini^ 
tratiuii of lcgul putMshment, bui not irresponsiblc in eaating suuls to 

Somc schotars wcrc morc lcnicnt in applying thc [ibrcgoing] thrcc 
attrihute^ holdinjj; rhat if the [imam himself] should no< be char- 

acterized by these thre-e attHbuteik thcn hc should appoint as deputy 

somconc who did bave thcni. 

d. The tmani shoulri be just, because he has cxecutive rnnirol 
ovcr nicn as wcll as ovcr thcir wcalth and thcir goods. Thus, if he 
should not bc iust. thcn thcrc would. bc no socurity from his trans- 
grcssion and from his spcnding the wealth of the pcoplc for his own 
desires 7 and chns The right* of Mnslims would be lost- This attrihute 

cami s within it the implicaiion ihat hc should be a Muslim. 

e. Hc should hiwe bitclligcncc. 

f F lc shou.ld bc a man maturc [and pcrTcct in naturc]. Thc rca- 
son for this is- 

1. bccausc ncithcr a young boy nor an iusanc pcr&on would 
have fuU control over thcmsehres, so how could it be imagincd that. 
ihey Sihoukl govem all thc pcoplo? and 

2. beiause neither an insane person nor a young boy would 

h»ve tJiu aiiribuics that arc givcn considcration for thc suprcmc lcad- 
crahip» and 

3. bccausc nciihcr an insanc pcrson nor a young boy would 
be just, and rhe iraam must he jnsl, periect m comprehensioti and 


.5;. [The imam] shoiild be male; because women are not 

in intelicclual conaprehension and leligious convu:tion, and tlic supreme 

lcadiT tnu.51 bc pcrfcct ui comprchcnsion and conviction, 

h. He musi l)e a frce mjan^ bccausc a slavc would bc scorned 
among mcn, and wonld be too busy in scrving his mastcr, A suprcinc 
lcadcr must bc honorcd among men in ordrr to hc ohcycd,. and hc 

shouJd not be too busy serving someone fiom [some] legal obliga* 

liorii so iliiil lic hiituielE Eiiighl bc frcc to scrv r c thc bcsl inu:rcsts of 
thc pcoplc, 

i. *l"he imam should bt: nf the Quraysh, contrary to the opinion 
of tlic Khawarij and a gronp of thc Mu c ta7.t1aK We [i-e., of the 
Snnni orthi:>dox ^hool] have the &tatement of the Prophet: 'imams 
Ikouki he from ihe Quraysb." The icrm 3 "imwns", b plurdl, as indi- 
cated by ihe deiitiite aniclej so its rcfcrcncc is gcncrah Indccd» die 


dehnite atticlc with the pturai, where (hc meanhig i& unassignedj has 

a gcncral rdcrcnce, and as thcrc is no assignmcnt hcrc thc rcfer- 
ence Ls gctieral Al&o diere is the statement of che Prophet "Ckwemors 

should he fhjrn the QurayNh," and the assignmtint o! n^t^TiCC i* 

ihe same hs in ihe fin>t hadilh quoted. 

Qavdawi said 

L470, T230 

a. Blamcle&siiess- should not bc madc a prercquisite [quality for 
rhe imamsji but chis- doctrtne is in opposition to ihe Isma c iliyah ancl 
thc Ithna-'ash£iiiyah &ects. Wc [of the Sunni orthodoxj hotd., L 471 — 

as wc shall «tplairu God wiUing> — to tht [rightfii]J suprcme leadcr- 
ship of Ahu Bakr. And thc pcoplc of thc whole nalton wera in 

agreeitwm that ihe blamelessness of Ahu Bakr was nul m obliga- 

tion. Bnt. I (Baydawi) am not saying 111 that hc was not blamdcss. 

b_ [The I$ma c Lliyah and the Ithna-^asbariyah] argue [as Pollowsj: 

1. Thc reasoii for the need for [rhe imam] was dther 

that thc knowlcdgc of things divine would bc kamcd only 

through [thc imam], which is the belief of ihose who acccpt thc 

L divinc instructinn* [Lc, [TaMlmi] doctrincs of thc lsmaHliyah, 11 or 

b) in order co provide instruction in intcllectual ducies, and lz 
io movc mankiind nearer to accs of obedience^ as i.s the doctrine of 
Lhc Ithna-^ashariyahj, hut Lhat [instructionj would comc only whcn 
the imam would hc hlamclcss. 

2, Human bcings necd an imam, because of the possibility of 
sin rjn thcir part* And if sin should bc adrTjissible for thc imam^ thcn 

would have nced of aitolher fimam|, and thcn ihe argument 
would bc an inliniic serics. 

w Rcadiiig wiLh L and MS Garrett 9&9Hb: pss aqQl imruihu]; MS Cajmt 283B: 
[la aqiJil *$hf anTiahu]; T: [Ui B ala J anciinliu]. Hcre B-iiydi^i cLarifi.i*s, wiili a «Juubkr 
negati^, iwhait hc h sayuip. tiarmely, ihat he do« aco-pi Abu BaVr*t blartijetessrwss. 
In ihe commrrnLTry> IstAhaiii prwems the m»wer w * d&nEcaiion of wfmt rtll ihe 

j.^oplt wcrc ihinking, 

IJ WilJrcd Maddynpr, in his artidĕ "TsmaltiyyA ", [bi En-I-2, v- 4 r p. L>U-3l indi- 

.::ihv i r ; ai . . . T\u; ua! Shi : i c„kn Ijinr ni' [^ -■ ' 1 1 rr: | . i.r . iLt autlinriuilii^- li Jiihiiii» 

in rclapcni. w]]3ch could bt carri^d out orriy hy a divincly cho^cn imam Ln $vcry 
agc aAcr th^ Pnijjljst.^ 

PJ Sourcca usod for thc BajndaiAi tcst rcad^, ^or" ![avv], b«t thc corrcspondmg pas- 
sa#c in th-c Iatahani commcntary rcads, "euhJ" [waw] fc 


3. FuLrthermorc, thc imam i& necdcd bccausc of thc statcmcnt 
of thc Most High, "1 am goinjj to niakc you an imam for mankind'; 

[Abraham therk] asked, *And also my oJTspring?* [but God] replicd, 
*My eumrn^sion will iiever meludc wrongdocra.'" [0,2:124] 

h,-a. The answcr lo [thcir argumciu in itsj llrst and sccond puints 
is by rejecting the prcmisesj, and in thc third point [thc answcr] is 
that thc vcrse |Q.2:f24J indicatcs thaL che prerequisite for thc imarn 

is thai h<? should not be actK r ely enmeshed in sins [and sinfuLness>] 

by which jusricc [itseli 7 ] would bccomc unravcllcd, not that hc should 

bc *a blaineless imn\ 

IiTaluuri aays: L 471, T 230, MS 241a:L3 

Bl&mttessttcss wt a prmguirite 

a. BtamclcssTirsa is nol a prercqukke for thc imanis; but tliis doc- 
trine is in opposition to [that ofj the Ismaiiiyah and thc ithna- 

'a&hariyah,. or> [taken together as] the Imamiyah, for thcy make 

blamclcssncss a prcrequ]sitc for thc imams. Our [Sunni orthodox] 
doctrinc» — and wc shall makc that clear, God willing, — is that Abu 

hcld thc supremc lcadcr&hip, and chc pcoplc of thc 

whole nation were in agreemcnt ihat Abu Bakr was not obligcd to 

be blameless, but not that he was tiot blameless. Therefbre, blame- 

Je&STicss is nut a prcrequisitc in thc imam, bccausc if blamclessncas 
ahould bc a prcrequisitc : thcn blamclcssncss would bc obligatory for 

the imani; but that conciu&ion is lalse, because blameEessoess is not 


b. Those who favor blanidcssne^ as a pnerequi&itc, [namcly, thc 
IsrnaiHyali and the lthna- c ashariyah Tmaniiyah J base iheir argumem 
that blamele^ness should be a pro-recjumte in ihe imam on three 


L The reason for thc need for an iintun is eilher 

that thc knowlcdgc of thinpp di\rinc wouki bc lcarncd l:l 

oniy tJirough him, as is chc doetrinc of thosjE who hold the idea oi" 
di\inR instruction, or 

[la tu*raf], huL lIll conrespoitdirig RayiUwi ina Ln X1S t^rr^ct 9B9HL» rcads ? [la 

1 1 00 J, SKCTION 3, TOPTCS 

to providc instruction in intellectual dutics and to niovc 

mankind ncarcr to acts oi" obcdicncc.. which h thc doctrine of the 
Ithna-*ashariyah, buc that would not come about exccpt when the 
imam would be blamdte so thai there could be cooBdrnce in his 
word and deed. 

2. The need of humao bcings MS 24 1 b iot an imam is 
hccause of the possibility of .sin on their part. Thus, if there should 
be no iinatn who was necessarily blamelcss, ihcu it would bc admis- 

sible that bc might &in t whcrcupon tliat imam would nccd anothcr 
[iniam] [i.c, without blamc to guidr him] 7 and so tln: argument 
would become an infinite scries. 

3. Thcie is thc wotd of the Most High, in speaking to Abraham, 

'"Indccd., I arn gping t.o mstkc you an imam for mankmd/ [Ahraham 
thcn| askcd^ ( And also my oSspmijaj?' 1 [But Gnd] rcplird, "My com- 

mission will never indude wrongdoers/" [Q 2:124] So, the verse 

mdkaics that the comniission to suprcmc lcadcrship would oot includc 
wmngdoers, that is 3 it wouLd ncv r er reacli them. \forcover ? whoevcr 

h not 1 23 I blameless would 1« a sinner^ and a sinner is a wn>ng- 

doetj. and thuSj cannol bccoiiie sul irllain. 

Thc answcr lo ihc firsl two rcasons is a rcjcction of the premiacs. 

I ~a. In thc first rcason. our position docs not giant rcstrict- 
ing thc rcason for thc nccd lor an imam to tbc two matters which 

Tj 472 you hai r e mcntioncd. And evcn Lf wc shoukl grant thcm we 
would not granl that ihat conces&ion implies the necessity for blame- 

in the imam; but rather, it implics that thc justioe of thc 

imam would. l>e obligatory. 

2.-4, In the sccond rcason^ wc would not grant that> if sin 
&hr_>uki bc admittcd as a poss-ibility in ^413 imam. thcn hc would rcquirc 

anothcr imam [i.e. s for guidan.ce and hdp]. We shall makc it clcar, 

God willing, that thc suprcmc lcadcrship of Abu Bakr waa rightlul. 
that sin was admitted a* a possibility foi him, but that he did not 
have ncetl foi anothcr tmam; if ii should have becti othcrwise, thcn 
his supremc lcadership would not havc beeo righdul. 

3.— a. The angwer to the ihird poinl h ihat thc verse indicatcs 

that thc prereqnl»te Ibr an imam is that he shonld mi. bc ;jcfive!y 

[Miniesht-d in siclsi [iLrtd| hy which justlce wnuld b<" dis-- 

creditedj not thac the prereqiiisUe for an imam k that he should be 

blameless, For indeed, wrongdoing h opposed to justice, and so bis 

not bcing a wrungdocr docs not imply that hc would bc blamclcssj, 

but rather^ it implies that he would be just- 


Baydawi said: 

I. 172, T 231 

Topie 3: Criteria fr he mgt in appoiniing an Immn 

a, MTn-erc is a coiisermis that prodamations made by tiod„ by His 

Messenger, and tay ihe previoiu hmm nre $31 UNdependeiU reasons 

lrcariiig 1 on this. topic. 

b. Ncvtrthelc53 5 therc is somc diffcrcricc ovcr whcthcr 

I . the pcoplc should swear allcgiancc to someone who ha* becn 

prcparcd for them^ or wheihcr 

2. that peraon shoukl lake comml aggrc5sivdy by liis acutc 

maslery ouer 14 the priuctpl/es of Islam, 

a) Our [Sunni Ash»*irah] eollcaguCH and the Mu c lazilah 
affirm the validity of both these alternaiives, in order that the com- 

mon objectivc ol" both alieniad% r es might come about. 

1 V; The ^aydiyah hrlil that anv iiiiellic«ii h ;tiiniid who would 

go out with thc swurct and claim the aupreiae leadership would 

bccume thr [rightfiil] Irnam. 

c} But t]ie Imamiyah absolutely denied that [nolion], and 

prcscntcd an nrgumcnt having thc followitlg points, 

1) The pcoplc who swcar altegiance are given no con- 
trol ovcr the suTairs of somconc cisc. so how eould they make [such 
A pcrson aa the Zaydiyah suggcst] a governor ovcr thvm* 

2) "lhc conBrmation of the suprcmc lcadcrship by oath 

ot" alliegiance may resuli in discord becau&e of the po&Mbility that 

every (hciion wuuld swear allegianre to a diJTcrent person, md then 

warfarc would hrcak out amcins: thcin. 

3) The position of goveming judge does tiot come by an 

uath of allcgiaiicc,, and so thc suprcmc Leadcrship should be likrwise. 

4) Thc Imam i& thc dcputy of Gori and of His Measenger, 

so his [righdul] succcssion should not bc coniumcd unicss l>y a slate- 
mcnt of God and of 1 lis MesKngrr- 

] )— a. Ihe answer ifl the first point is iha.t it would bc 
refutcd by tvcry witncss and ey^ry govcmor, li 

!i I, rrads: llaw istawla 1 shawkatuhul; T: law istawUt sJiawkatuliwk MS (JaTrell 

5NB9tib and MS Giintll 2S3U: [aw iisliiwla 3 bi-shawlmtihi], iMi b*inB *he reading 


'* !.e. ? it may bc spccuLatcd, chal Baydawi staLM Lrotiicalt)' that no viitncss WDuld 

darc lo rcport odicrwLsc, and no £ovcmor would c\tT adinil it to bc otTicrwi^r- 

1102 3- section 3. Tnpics 

2y~a~ For the second tli-e answcr is that discord would 

bc a\oided if f>reference were givcn to those who were die rnost 
leanicd, the most pioua, and ilie most senior, and to Komoonc very 

closc to thc Mcsscngcr, 

3)— a. For thc third thc answcr is th;*t thc prindplc [of 
an oath of aJlcgiance] should bc prohibitcd, cspccially whcn ihe land 

i& withoui an irtiam, 

4)-a. For thcr fourlh thc ari&wer would bc to ask„ why 
would it not be admissihlc thac either a Y.hoice 1 hy the people or 
somc imlKiduara 'demonstraiioTi* of oulslHTjiling |>crsonaI capahility 

ahould constitute both the 'disdosurc 5 ' that this pcrson waa to bc thc 
imam and dcputy to God Most High and His Mcssenger, and. thc 
L proof ' that it waa hc. 


Mkhani says; L 472, T 231, MS 24ibcl2 

Topie 3: Cfittri& to be met in tippoinling mi Intam 

a. The people of" the nation are in agrecrnent that a proclama- 
cioit of God., itiid a proclamation of thc Mcssenger ot' God, and a 
proclamalion of thc previous imam supporting the suprcmc lcader- 
ship of a given person would each hc indcp-endent reasons [aup- 

poriingj hiiTij ihal ia, Ibr the conlirmaooii of his supreme leadership, 

b. Ncwrthclcss. thcre is aoiric diScrcncc ovcr whcther 


I .. thc pcople should swear aUcgiance lo a j>crson who has bccn 

prcparcd for thc suprcme lcadership, or whciher 

2. an L 4 7 !J indmdual who has bccn prcparcd Ibr £hc 
supreme leadership should takc control aggrcasL\ r cly by his. acutc ma^ 

tery over the principles of Islam, 

aj Our [Sunni Asha*irah] collcagues, loyal to custom and 

cornmunity. aiid thc Mu c tazihdi affimi boih of thcse altematives> that 
is s [thcy would supportj buth candidates for the supremc lcadership.. 

[This is] because thc objective of thc suprcmc leadership would comc 

about thiough each of these individuals. Indeed, rhe puipose ot 

appointing an imam i& lo prcvcnt thc harm ihat is prevcnlahlc only 
by the appointmcnt of an imam» and this would comc aboui thnnigh 
thcm bolis. so thc supremc leadership of both of them certainly 
would be vitlid. 

b) llie Zaydiyah hold that any intdligent Katirnid who would 
go out with his sword and claim ihe supreme leadership woukl 

bccomc thc [righiJulJ imain. 


c) Btit. the Imamiyah absohiiely rejeried thai [notionj; thal 
is, ilie Iniamiyah rcjccted MS 24 2a appointmcnt of the imam 
cithcr by oath of allcgianee of thc people of thc natioiL, or by one*s 

taking control through his aculc maslcry, or by thc clairn of an indi- 
vidual so dcscribcd, cquitlly whcther that person had becn prepared 
for il or noL Morcovcr ? thcy hcJd thal tJie suprcme leadership should 
bf «miirmed only hy a proilaination Irom God Most High, 01 from 

the Mcssengcr, or frorn the prcviou& imam. Tlie [ImaTtiiyahJ pre- 

scntcd an argument supporting that position with thc fbur points 

|BaydawL|, our author, lias set forth, 

1) Thc pcople who swcar allcgiancc havc no jurisdiccion 
ovcr ihe afiairs of other individuiils. in thc populace, cvcti with. thc 
least of thcm, so how could they place somconc cke in cotitrol ovcr 

the whole nation, Indeed, for onr who has no juri*dtctiorj over the 

lea&t inatler with tlic lcast of dic peuplc. how wouid il be possiblc 
for him to grant jurisdiction to somconc clsc over thc wholc nalion? 

2) The conhrmatton of supreme leadership by oath oV 

allegiance mighi re&ult iti discord, becatise of the possibility that every 

faction would swcar allegiancc to a dtrterent individuaL and thcn 
cvcry faction would claim prcference fbr their Imam, and wariarc 
woLtld btcak out among them ihat would leari to atrocitics and 

3) The position of govcrning jud^e does not come by thc 

oath of alltgiancej &o all thc niore thc position of suprcmc lcader- 


ship shoukl noi come by it, for indeed the supreme lcadership 

greater than the judgrship. 

4} Thc Iniam Ls thc dcputy of God 5 aiid of His Mcsscngcrj 
so hh [righclul] successiort would be cotiftntied only by a procla- 
mation of Ci<yd y or by a pioclamation of His ^ies^enger. r rhis is 
because ^n ^ippoinrrrient as dcputy fot some other person iwuer 

occui^i cKCept by t}»' prnTiissiori of ihal other pcrson, 

I ha, Thc answcr t<* thc first point h that it would bc 
n^lutcd both by a witncss and by a gowmor, Indccd, a wirncss would 
not be empowcred wiih junsdiaion in the madcr witncs$ed 7 uhile 
a governor would ht cmpowered witb jurisdktion by hk word of 

tcstimony. cven if che judgment [i,e., of hh contirmationj should bc 
against him. 

2)™a. To the seoond \hv aaswcr h that we do not grant 

ihai ih-c iiiuHliorj, &§ thcy *aid ? may lcad io discord because of (he 
probability that each t^ction would swear allcgiance to a diHerem 
individual artd then warfarc would brcak Out ainoiig thcm r OtLr 

1 1 04 3^ RT - r - TTON S to"G* 

position h that discord would hc avoidcd by prcfcrriiig thc most 
lcarnedj most piaus* most scnior s and thc onc dcsest to thc Mcsscnger 
of God, a& thc Ctjmpaiiions prcfcrrcd Abu Bakr cwcr Sa q d ibn 
c Ubadah. 

3)-a. To the third poinr thc answer is a rcjectiori nf ihr 

pti ciciple [of swearing an oath oFa3U^i;inoe]. We T 232 do not 

S£rant thal thc position of guYcming judgc docs not come by thc 

oath of allegiance. Indecdj an appointment that would set a person 

in a posidon of govcrning controk is jrcnnisjdble when thcrc is an 
imam, and c&pe-cially whcn the country would be without an imam. 
Indecd, L 474 the position of an administrator of the law may 
be nhtained by anyone wordiy ol the judgeship^ hy the oath ofalle* 
gianet to hirri by the ptople oF the counlry, 

4)^a. To thc Jburch jioint the smstwcr is that wc grant 
that a dcputy of God Most High and of 1 Iis Mcsscngcr MS 242b 

would rereive no authorization csccpt by permission oi God Most 

High and by permtsston of His. Mcsscngciu But thcrt^ why would k 
not be admissible thac either a choice by the people or the demon- 
Airation of outstanding personaJ capabiliiy by an indhidua] who kad 


bcen prrparcd. for the suprenic leadership shoukl ooraiiuue both "di*- 

do&ure' of the fact iliat that individual qualified for the supremc 
lcadcrship was to bc the irniam., deputy of Cod and of His Mcsscngcr» 
and the *prnoP sign that hc was tlie imam, thc deputy of (Jod and 

of His Messeneer? 

Baydawi said: 

L 47 4 P T 232 

Tbpk j fo; The righifui Imam afier ike thg Pmphek Abu Itekr in 

Swtnt doctrint 

a. The Shi d uh dkagrccd with ihc fSunni] Muslim majority [ovcr 
thc evidcnce for Abu Bakr as the rightfu] imani after thc Prophet] 
but [Abu Bair] ]s the one iridicated [for (hat] for a riumber oF 

rcasoni. K ' 

rE Attcsting" Iq the Goncinijin.g livc LntcrMt wuhin wd^lctli schoLarahip m ttic- quu- 
ticHrt of frwm which linc w the ri^htful succcssor to tbe Prophct and thc dcvclop- 

mtm o\' ihv majoriiy arK^ miiwritjr o^cial ^mwers ro this thcre ane r\vo 

studies whkJi tcwcw ihc cvidcncc artd appcar to lcan alLghtly in oppcj- 
sitc ctirectioni in judging" iIr wclght. W:lfrrd Madelung^s boflt, 71w Succissiim t& 
Muhammodj a Siudy qftki Earty GafiMi. , »- , ! [Londcm and Nc^v York: Gambrid^c- Univcraiiy 


L Thcrc k thc statcmcnt of thc Most High- 

fc The promise of God is to those ainong you Jaithful in bclievitig 

And lung attive in ific practice of gcjod dcccls; 

Thcm Hc will makc Ilis rcpr* a scntativcs m thc land, 
Just as H<r had dcputizcd othcrs bclbrc you. 1 * |Q, 24l55J 
3o, chosc who reccivcd thje promis^ of bcing appoinlcd to bc lils 
reprcscnratiws irj thc land and to h;ivc powcr woulid bi: cirlier 

c Ali and ihose who gowcnicd after liim, or 

b) Abu liaki and thosc aftcr him, Thc firat altcmativc is 
invalid by ronscnsus, so the second is clcarly indicatcd. 

2. There is the statcment of the Mosl High, 

"You shall hf calJed out against a pcoplc haring gnrat strcngth, 
and |eiiheij you wil! kill them or take their aurreiidcr," jC^ 48:16] 

5o ihe Cksiiiaiu \v whom disubediencc wa* Jbrbidden was not 
Muhanunad, ber-ause of the statemeiu of the Mosi High: "Tdl them p 

h You will ncvcr follow aftcr us-* M [0,4(5:15] Nor was it 'Alij, bccausc 
he did not wagc war against disbeEicwrs m chc days of his caliphate; 

nor wm> it anyone who gwcrncd alter him, by the consensns [of 

scholari). Therdbrc, somcune bcforc [*Ali] is clcarly indicatcdr 

3- [Abu Bakr] succecdcd [Muhammad] in Leading the praycr 

rite during the days of [the Prophet 1 *] illness, and [Muhammad] did 
not remove lhim 3 so his rolc h& nucccs^or in leading the prayer tite 
continucd aftcr MuharnrTiacTs death. J7 And sinee his tok as succes- 
sor wms cunhrmcd in [thc praycr ritc] it was further cunhnncd in 
othcr mattcrs t sincc no onc objcctcd by saying that therc was a di&- 

riiiction [Le,, in kipiincance between the functions]. 

Prew, 1997] supptirts lie Shi c ah puduoa in few of c A3i. A^ni^i Atsiruddua ai the 

U»iveraiLy *)( Notrt Darne^ in htr artkHc r Bl ln Pr<L\tt uf the CaliphK Re-creatiiig 

Hisrf>ry- Irom ihi^ Mana^ib 1 .LtiT-iilure 1 *, hi tbi- Inin*6tmMt Jnum&t *i/ Middk Pjist StoditA. 

voL. lll, iio. 3, (Aug. T l!)!J9) a pp. (32 9]— 3H0, bocitis C£? Kupport ihc. Sunn] position in 
ikvar of Abu. BakL. Hcr siudy is on how thc cDntcidng Sunn.i and Shi r ah arpa- 
3H?iH& wcrc ronnulatcd in rcUitaon to tath -ckIict. CjlcIi sidc k-ann 1 *! 1'rom ihe f>iln*c"» 

siaienaetHs ihai gaitw^t a pupu3iir respcmse^ And eatrh skfc develnped m:w debating 

ppcipo^iyoris simOar Lt> lho«; of cJieir oipponenl* l>ui t-ouniejrpositig diem. 
" WilTerd Madelung {op. cii., pp. 24-25) reooiuits tbe story of Abu Si-ikr^ bcing 

aslml ln Jead thp prayer rite for rhc Pmphec. Abu Mjikr was ahs^nt whr» (h<: 
l^rophcr firsl dircrtcd tha4 he bc asticd, sn thc rcqucsl i^^as changed to bc- H Umar, 
liut TJmar rL-fu5ed to procccd while Abu Bakr couJd do it. EwntLlillI). , Abu Byikr 
did it hut the Pniphet was sorrurwhat displeased with thr prrtbrntaiice. MadHuni^ 
sUgjEjesr.3 ihaL ihe intcrprrtation «f this story is thar the Prophet was riot usinjjj his 
ordi-r lo AIju Bnkr miCTcly to dcmututrrtte his thoice of Abn BaJtr »« his succewsur. 
Bi« ihcn, thi$ initrrprCLalioci is in ooiitrftdic(ii>n L^> ihc Suihil posLuoii. 

1106 3- SECT3UN 3- TOPICS 

4. Thcre is the slaieniciu of ihe Prophel: "The righiluJ suo 

ccssion to govcrnancc aitcr mr will last thirty ycars; aftcr that it will 
bctomc a dominancc by tyraiiL" 18 Thc s-ucccssion [to governaiicc.J 
of the two elder statemen [Le, s Abu Bakr asid TJmarj was rhirtccn 
ycaiEi in l^ngth, and the succession of 'ULhman was t\vdve years., 

and ihe succt-ssion t*l" *Ali was five ycars, This h cltar pruuf that thc 
succcsskm of thc first ibur lmams was rightlul, GocTs plcasurc bc 
upon thcm atL 

5. The }>eople of rhe natinn had been in conscnsus on the 

suprcmc leadcrship of one of thrcc pcrsons^ namcly^ Abu Bakr^ *AIi 

and ^Abbas. Thc casc 1 * fbr thc kadcrship of botli *Ali aml *Ahhaa 

was iiwalidated, so thc case for [Abu Bakr*$] supreme lcadership wa& 

clearly seen to pfcvail, This ls a fainowi coiMensus, and it is» jmrn- 
tioned in thc books- of biogiaphies and histurics, Thc casc for tbc 

supremc lcaderahip of the other two was invalidated Eiecause, if the 

Tight [lo ihe leadershtp] shoulrl have hecn assigned to one of tliosc 
twuj thtci hc [who was givcn thc right] would havc challengcd Abu 
Bakr, disputing with hini and displaying thc ari[fumcnt for hitn >df 

[as rightTul contenderjj, and he wouk! have dcfeated [Abu BaJer]. 20 

But [this contender] would have had no pkasurc in hl& own suc- 

ce&sion (o power* for indccd, to takc pkasure iti doing wrong is itaclf 
an act o.f wrongdoing^ 1 

13 Hadith, |at-khi[afkh ba E di tLuiLathiiri sanah thumma yasJr ba*da dhaht muLkaii 
c adu$an], {&} Tlit linsl part ajjptiirs. 10 bt in A grrtttie fort3i and is indcHtd in 

Wensinck'* 'Htodbwik under "Imam- -il-iere are thrt-e prophei khaliia^ then comi-a 
the 'idngckim/" WhLle VVVnsitick i^u^ace* thc !s*t wt>n:f [muLkj aa 'kir^JDin', ^ncr- 
lcaJly it k itu* idea of 'domiiLAtiorL'. ^hkh h± duttturL from ih* idea of 'riKhLful slh> 

c^5Joti r [khilylith]. LAcaicii in $Lift<iTt ,4£u Daud, al-Sutin^ ? #4&46 +647: [klii].H,Li 
a!-nubQwah thalauhOn sanah ? LhuELima yu^acd Allah aJ-cnatik man yashl*]. 

I^bj The smond parr of this qnntatiijn was not Joraltd in thr form Ba.ydnw."i usc^ 
This E^cL>r'id parl <|Uf»ty.lioi3 fr<jin tht f*iuphf1 i^ i^crtiaps cnharttcd by movirig' rlcist 1 

L& rhje tit*rat scn^e: H . . . aJter ihat [ihe Rucceswonj will btcmw a dowiiiiaaoii by 

fang powcr! 1 ' 

L and T cmiic "aiipnmcnt 1 * fqavd] hcirc a whiJc MSi Gaircrt 9S9Hb aiid Gaircii: 
283B incluck il 

w L alrmr of s4j*irctE uscd rearts, ^and dcftatcd hLm. |fc [wa-cjahara 'alayhij 

*' Aroimd thc tum of ihc I3th L4th ccniurics *>f thc Gommnn Era. Bayda^i 


writcs hxK abouL A Tamous con-sensui-' ijiis fifth point. ahtrv^c) ihat had conir tc? 
esist airninR '"th-e prople of the iiaiion . , . on nlie suprcmc lc^idcrship . . .^ artd hc 
incJudta "Abbas amoog the thrte oousidter^d a* mdst worthy contcndtrh;, Wc bc]icvt 
Pt-oli^tar AJsaniddiTi (op. cit., pp. 341-:t+3) is wricing oft^>e samc ihin^ whcn sbc 
\vrit« of u Mauistrcanun^ dic Goimmunity; Appcascmcnt and Gonsi Jidaoon." Ho^™r