NATURE, MAN AND GOD IN MEDJEYAL ISI.AM
4 ABD ALLAI I RAYDAWT* text
Tawali * al-A n war min Matali ' al-Angar
ALONG WITII
MAHMUD ISKAHANPs commentary
Matali l al-Anzar f Sharh Tawali f ai-Anwar
EDITLD AND TRANST.ATED
LSY
EDWLN E. CALYERLEY and JAMES W. POLLOCK
VOLUME TWO
BRILL
LEIDEN ■ BO&TON ■ KtiLN
2002
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?
r
|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
2001035904
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
ISBN9O-0+-I2IO2-L
[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.
PRINTRD IS Tilk ME.THKkl.4NL)!
CONTENTS OF YOLUME ONE
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
THE TRAMSLATTON
altiiors' introt>uctio.\
14 ■
STUDIES IN LOGlOAL KEASONlNG
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
s
RazT
liaydawi^ reply to Ra?,i
■ ■ ■
iiirsipiMiii"iiii-innniPirip"ivi"iii
3. Realnies ddinablt and <]cftnitiv<:
XVII
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
2tt
28
2S
28
28
2. Lojncal rcasoning. che mcans of such acquisition .......... 42
Chaptcr 2- Explajiatory statcme.nl* T ., r 48
L Conditions ihat govern a dehnition , „.,...,„„ 48
60
64
78
VI COPmiNTS of volmmk ONIl
Chaptcr 3: Argun^ritation ...^,..,..^.^^....^,.^., ...... ...*., «... tt2
I , KindK of argiimentatioi 1 - „.„ , , - ..
Analugical dedijctjon
«2
82
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
£5
98
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 ., ,„..„,.„
■■'■■■■
117
(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.
158
i « i ■ i r ■
161
riOOK ONK
REAUTIES POS$IKl£
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
189
A proof from negatioTi ,
3. Exis.tcn.cc is an addition to the quidditics 191
OOM ILNTS OF VOLUME ONE VII
■ ■■■■■■
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
229
229
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 --
iiirirstnrirnmrir-Tt-i-ir-t-irT"-!
242
243
Whcther iiidividuation h exis(entia) 247
Thc philosophcrs' corollary .,.„ r 250
Chapter 4: Necessity and pussibility, etcmity and
tcrnporality
I ■ I ■ ■ II IIJfcil 11.11 I Mhlh.ll .1 i II.I.IIIIIIIIJ
255
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
2*>f>
Nrithcr slatc of a possible rcality has priority ..-. 281
A possibLc rcality 3 s cjristcnc^c- d^pcnds upon an
cllcctivc causc
■ ■
m
A possiblc rcality nccds its cifcctivc catisc as long
as it exists
■ ---■■------■--»--■---■■■-■----■-■-
2H1
■ 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 ...
.
290
Chapter 5: Singularity and plurality
-- t
300
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
VIII CONTRNTB 0F YOHME ONK
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
320
326
2- Muldple causcs and ctiocts „..».-.. *.* ,....*.,... «. 329
3. Thc diHcrcncc bctween ihe cause's crTectwe pait and
us luiiiting condition
. .1.11.1.1......
m
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
341
1. Thc various Idnds of accnlcntal qualit]cs ., ,r 341
2. The impossibility of" acd dcnts sransitin^ bimrrii
substmtcs
■ ■ ■
346
3. Whether an accidcnt can suhsist in anothcr
accicJetit
■■iBi.aJlliilalBllalalhikiialBilaii ■!■■■ il i I . I k I lllil I I I I lllllll I II I ■ I k I II I II
348
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
355
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
360
3(50
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.. . .
372
The cxtfrnal csistence of time duration: argumenls
M! ■■ ■"■ ■" » - ■ ■
372
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"/
405
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
10fl
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
412
Weighl 413
Tcxi
urc
416
' -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
421
Color stretigl]]
Nnuirr of Hglii ,
■ i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■■>■ ■■ ■■ ■ ■■ *^ | ■ | r « ■■ | ■■■ *^ ■■ ■ ■ ■ *■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■■■fipii ■■ ■■ i *■ ■■ *■ i ai
,™ ,... 422
Hearing £eiisations P ....... . r . r 427
Tastc srnsationa ..... ........... ............ 431
Sindl sensations „.
■"fp"ipi"-"-"»«"-i
433
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]
dcvclopinent
Pcrccption and knowlcdgc
I JLL.. . LLILJLJI
Thc powcr of autonomous actinn and thc wiliing
tiature .....
»-- ■ -4 -
.. __ .
463
Pleasiir^ anrl pain are sdf-evidcni coticcpts .-.—,,- ..,..,., 46<J
Hcakh [ind illncss and rdatcd cmotions ..,.. 474
476
■ ■■■■■■■^■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■^■■-■■■■■■■■■■■■«■■■■■i
!J. Qualitics spccihc to quantitir&
4, Qualiti.es of prcdL^positioii ._._„_ .._.._. 477
Chapier 4: Accklei.ts ol relriiaon
■ — m
47<)
1. Whcthcr iliey appcar 3n eictcrnal existcncc 479
2. Thc tiisc of L placc-whcre +
■■.■■■■■■■■■■ H
m
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
X GONTENTS OF VO[.l.~MF. OXF.
Scctuw 3: $ttbst&7ice.i
ip^p^i^iriMr^iimiPir^iriPiiiiiir^i^niMr^irip? i"!"!^"!"!"^!!!?!
523
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 ...,*.*.................. .......... .........
3S9
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 .E...il l II.IILILJI,IILJLJI . I L I I 4 I J I . 1
tm
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
-- --■- ■ --
639
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
E . I I.JiLI.JI.I... JI.S.ILILJLLILJLII.I. II Bl
3, The souls of thc oclcstial system .«„„♦„.. --+ 661
4. Thr incorporcal naturc of human 'rational schlIs' ........... 6&6
CONTENTS OF YOLUME ONE XI
Reason providcs cvidcnce of Lhe rationaJ souTs
inco L^porcal naiure . . ... , ..,...,_. 667
The lational sou.rs 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 ■
672
Ratir>nal souta co»^ceived a* maceriat bodies eouid
not think frccly 673
Rational souls can comprchcnd inccUigibles without
liniit
■ -- ■ -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
677
Rational soute conceiued as rnaterial bod.es 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
693
697
Smcli
Tasie
t .:n3.:l i
" I
1'owcrs of iiitcrnaJ pcrccptioii
698
698
699
699
Coordination .. .. .. . .. .. »,« .. t ... ._ ._ ..... ... ._ .......
Irnaginatiion .__._ p4+ ._ „_.___-..,. 701
' - u ' '■-^ iriiiinriiiiiiiiiiiiiriiiiiiiiiiiriiiiririiiinr H iiiiiririi"ini B iiini B i * \f -H
703
704
■ ip.i. l .^faJl.l.i..l.AIII Jt.pl 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
707
Powcrs of body motion-changc that are naturaJly
antonom.c
■ 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
700
7. Thc pcrniancnt surviva. of ihc rational soul altcr
rhe body\ death P .--. .... P 716
CONTENTS OF VOLUME TWO
BOOK TWO
REAIITILS DIV1NE
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
749
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
77«
Chapter 3; Doctruie ot die divjne singularity „ 7M
I . Argunicnts of thc Musiiiu philosuphcrs and of the
MuLakallimun
i ." I ........ 1 l .... . ..III. ........ 8 . ....... ......
784
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
pos
siblc rcalities
821
2- God's cver-present omniscicncc Wl^
An argument at variancc
839
Coroikuy 1: God ijomprehcEida all iniclligibles 842
Coroliary 2: God's Tnowlcdsje* and "power* are entitics
distinct from Hi:ni&clf „* ....... ................... . .... 848
CQNTFNTS OF VOLl'ME TWO
XIII
3. (iorTs living nalurr
4. Gods will
I ■ I ■ 8
867
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
:.i.:
■ r i r* ■ ■ • ■ t r ■ r
3- CrO(fs immnrtality
4. Oihrr cji3Hlarl.es 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
.,-■...
879
1. Cotfs hraring and sight 879
2. GocTs sprech . 881
892
S96
900
915
921
929
931
941
945
948
■ ■II II
952
BOOlC THREb
RKALI ( "JES PROPHETIC
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' th.tr 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^
miquity
# ..
5. The prophrts are superior to the angels
959
968
984
995
1000
1003
■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ a
1014
1017
XIV CONTENT5 OF YOLUML TWO
ti. Thr sicnis of divinc _avor |erven tn saints and
pruphrl.sj , . - .„„ . 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.
■ -«... !-*--■-■..-. .*»-■-■-«■.!««■«!■
1080
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]
rasponsEhility
■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
1095
1098
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..
1104
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
JlI LUL j\. ILJLJI.ILJI JILII ILJIIIIJBIIIIIIIILIJIILJLJI. ILJII.LJLIIIJLJI JLIJLILILIIIJLaillLJLdllllllJL X
BOOK TWO
REAI.ITIES DIYINE
This page intentkmatly hft blank
UOOK 2: REALl IIES MVINE
SECTION 1: THE ESSENCE OF GOD
CltAETER I: COMPKP.HEVSIVE KnOWI.ETiC-K AkoLT GoT>
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- ■exislfjn.cc 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 fir.st [*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
72H 2, RECTION I, CHAPTER 1
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
BOOK 2: KHALLl IES Dl\
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.
SECTION 1: THE ESSENCE OF GOD
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 boi.li 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].
COMPREHENS7VF KNOWLEPGE ABOUT GQD 729
GhATTEK. j: CuMl a RJLl£ENSIVE KnUWUlDC£ AltOUT Gul>
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. becau.se 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
CQMPftEIIEN*IVB KNOWLEDOE ABOUT GOI> 731
|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?
cawsse.
11 MS gl: A* aii aiiMwer lo iJie scaitTiteni, "IJ whai b mcAtit..." tic.
73^ 2 B SUCTION 1, CHAKEER I
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 ca.se. 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
hypothcsis.
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: Bocau.ir ihr ^sdsi^nc^ of thr pmMnialr- cauic df[wiiris iipi>ii ihc rrmo*C
cati.sc , 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
OOMPRKHRN&IYE KNOWI*EDQE ABOIT OOD 733
£:£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 [gmu.pl 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
w
iĕIl
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.
734 2. SBCTJON I. CHAPTER I
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 realiz.cd. 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
demonstracion.
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
y
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.
COMPR*.H F:\SIVE KNOWT-T-TKJB ABOIET GOn 735
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 ca.se 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-
thctir.al 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,
COMPREHENSIYE KNGWLEDOE ABOUT OOD 737
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
1
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
cause.
[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.
r>
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.
COMPKIilihNSlYL KNOWLEDGk; A150UL GGD 73*J
3Z
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.
740 % SECTION i\ CHAPTER I
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-
nomenoti.
}, Every tcmporal phcnumcnon is a possiblc realiry 3 oihcrwisc,
it would iiot bc noiicxistcnl at onc timc and csistent at another
lsmc.
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 ri.es* 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
ari^LJincn^Ltikm.
^ 5, In Ikwk ], ScciiarL I, Chapicr 2 K Topic 3.
COMPRJiirrA^IW. KNOWLEDCiE ABOUT GO!> 741
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] hecau.se [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.
COMPRF.HF.NKJVF KXCWLfcPGE ABOLT CxOT> 743
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 cau.se 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| cxistcn.cc 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.
CQMPREH£tf5IVE KNOWLEDCE ABOUT COD 745
lRlSLh
am
says:
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,
ii
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 runni.ni^ 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
qucstion!"
MoseSj pca.cc 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
w
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 vin.th a rcccnt
yijylysis [Kictuirt] M FraiVk, /fr%r uwf Ihrit Awiiwto, p. L^, Tcchnical Ttrnis
COMPRI£Hl_N§JVH KNOWI.KDGK AHOtTT GOD 747
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 ..tj-
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
nyhi.
■
* 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 [dh.it]. <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] existcn.cc, 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.' ,,,
^HJALITIES JSOi" PROtMiKE.Y ATLRJliUTABLE TO COD 751
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 'cau.se 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'.
QUALTTIES NOT PROPERLY ATTRITHTAHT.E TO GOP 753
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 divi.de 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 Gjc.isten.cc., 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 *
QL"ALIT1ES NOT PROPERLY AlTJUBUTABLE TO GOl> 755
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 ^/
■
Isbim*
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.
QUALIT1ES NOT PROPERLY ATTlUBl Jl ABLE TO OOD 757
?H
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
irrtpos&ible.
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.
n
v-
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.
r
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 mu.st 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.
(HlALITlliS JSOT rKOPEKLY ATJIUBLTA&LE TO GOD 759
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.
7tiO 2, SECTION I, CHAPTER 2
"Thc liand of (Sod U above their hands 1 *, [Q4R:10| and
■
iH Thc CumpHSsiumi.li 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 regiona.li(y 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.
^UALITIES NOT PROPERLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO GOD 761
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$te indHWthyg
;lfi
a. Union. The hrst [of these two conccpts of accidcntal ^ualitits^
'union', is excludcdj because if [God] Most High should be untted 1
with any othcr bringj thm ii both [cndlicsj should continuc on as
41 L and T: [<atafa]; rhc MS atxt MS Garrcit U«9Ha: [ya^taT]; abo ai gLuss in
MS Gajrett %9Iia: [maW^* 7 ]-
H The MS nJone has droppcd che phraj*. 1 "an knowlcdl^-c" from tht Qur a art quot£.
M 5« thc artidcs "Hu]ul n by L. Massi^nun/G.C. Anawati and *iHi(tad H by
R, NkholsDn/G C. ArwwaLi in Lhr En-I-2. BolIi arlidra indicatt thrtl tlit LwO krms
cwrlappwl in meaning w as lo be pracrically gynonymom, anri rh=n boch termi
refcnrcd dircctty to thc doctrinc of ihe Iwcarnation a$ 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$ion of unian omt incamate imkuetkng
a, UniotL *Union* is. [the conccpt of an accidemal quality] where
a singlt entity that has h»d being in ii.s mvn ideniitj,- then it becomes
i 3fl
anothcr cntity. TThis is thc undcrstanding of [unionj in iis c rcal scnue*.
What indicates that this wouid be inipos&iblc is thc lact that if thc
Necessary Exisceni should ^unite 5 with somc othcr bcing, and
L if both thcsc beings should eoritmue after ihe union as two
ejdgtenis, then thcy would sriJl hc T 159 two diatinct cntitics, not
onr ? and ihis would esjclude the union; but
iii thc aam^ wwk ati<1 loc&tltiJi |t3t%itm,Jy dted;
K i1iC kkn of in<lv^dling was ait^c.lcwl fr4im ilur Aland|H)inl of an An.siocrliaii ocm-
rcppoii flf *suppaidtum. fr [mah:iljj" d — i.c. C!nd could not hc ccmtiKiwed as siihsbtiiiL 1 ,
]ii a '•uippiKurnm*. — H . . . wh^rris che Chrtadan chrolngjas is as mu.ch concrmcd Id
dcny (kar (ind r.an t>c cnniaiHcd ui a £U]^pcKiiujm a.s any MusLim."
A * Sec thc di3curs.sion of thc! various lyp**s of unic?n uridcr 'ntdT and "mttaplwri-
cal\ in thc aforeitwnnioned anicJe, - Ttdtiad"\ in die bti-I-2 by L. M^^ijsnon and
C-0> Aiiawaii.
^UAUJIES NUT l a KCU a EKLY ATI K]JJLTABI Jv TO GOD 763
2, if they should noi cotitinue as. two existent$, 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
Zavd.
*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&iu.se 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.]
(JUALITIO NOT I^UOPIlRLY ATI 'KlEHJI ABl.K TO GOD 765
1, It is reportcd of thc Christians that these are their doctnn.es;
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"
Inldlujibility^
* [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. $. That is, with ihc csscncc ofCjad! Mosc High.
M Scc aho ihc discusslnn of thcsc copLcs in J . W. Swcctman^s Islam and C&risiuur
7SK?ftgjF, rap. pt. lj v, 2, pp^ fl9 ff. In addLtiotl^ dit s unpublislitd disscrtations Ijy
Peter B. Dughrarnji [in 1970] on ttic Ccpplic LhcolugiHEi, Abu Ishac| Ibndiini Ibn
Al- l Assii,L [d. 1260],. and by Robcrt H. I>o-ahr [iu I973J «jii [he ChrurtjauL logkiaji
and iraiLili^Kn , Vahya ibn *Adi ^-B93— 974J p-reseni rhe writings oi iwo ol" ihft Ipad-
ing ChristLans in ihc on^oin^ <kbatc 4iwl dialogue,
A scrija of g]osscA at L 3^3 ftitloH* :
a. Thc Chhslians gay that chc McsAiah is tw^ substanccs [jawharanj. a divinc
snbstancc [l.ahutr|, i.c. rcJaccd to ih-n Lord [al-Rahh), and a hucnan substartcc
|nSstitl]-, L.c.;, rclatcd tn the incarnatc indwcLIing [hului]. Thcn thc two snbscanccs
unitcd. and bccamc thc Mcssiah. (From "M H J In thc MS thb. plos ts nearly idrn-
liujil^ cxcept for the sccoud l substance ? :
w . r ,and a hunnui suljstain-e, llint i^ reUced tO minkind [al . kh»U[j . . ,
rtic MS kIohs U Accriliiuird r:Lrjirly to Jurjani^ comtttctiLtai -. uu Jji"s ^■orl^ JttarA
b. 1'hey say iha( th-c- Messiah has two sLibttances,, divine |il»hF| mmM liuin^ii,
lins.in^, Aiid for ihac re<i£Oii thtre Lssucd tiom hitn divine acis, such as th* pn>
dur.don [Lkhtisra^ of physkal objtc^ [al-ijs&ni aiid tht gi^ing of 13 fe io she dcad,
and also human acis, mch as e-aring and drinUng, erc [Fkmtii ^he &Ait'jjn
c!. ?Mjirnc crt" chcm say iliac the diwniry ik wiih ths httmantry as the ioul is with
thc human body. It is iaid ihu[ the Word somctitnc^ w» inrroduced mto [qad
766 12, StCTiON I, CIlAPJtR 12
2, And of some Sufi groups it is reportcd chat thcsc are their
i 4
ucmnes.
a) When a mystic coracs to thc cnd of thc highrat of his
spiriiuLil s>lages thcn liis }>ersom\l identity becomes ejctinguiAhed, and
the existent person becomes God in aoliuide, This degiee L 330
L3 the annihilation [of personaJ selfHconsciousiie$.s] within tlic divine
siiigularity.
h) Cod Most High is uicarnatdy indwclling in [individual]
rnysries-
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.
^UALTTTES NOT PROPKRLY AlTEtlBUTABLE TO GOO 7fi7
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, th.cn 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 pineelu.de 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
.i:
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
impossiblc,
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.
QUALITIES. NOT PROPERLY ATTRlBUTABLE TO GOD 769
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
55
V.
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
dcrnise.
QIAIJTI&S NOT PROPERLY ATTKIBUTABLE TO COD 771
■
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 [cxampl.es 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
B7
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^rcptivT.cy 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.
(HJALrrJES lNOT PROPERlY ATTRIBUTABLE TO G01> 773
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-
774 2, SECTION I. CHAPIER 2
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
pasL
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
w.nc.e. 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-
ai
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.
OUALITIES NOT PROPERLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO GOD 777
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 irImiMS.il 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 .suhsi.st 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 rizarif.it:
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.
Ql.'AlJTl£S NOT PROPERl.Y ATTRlBtrTARI.E TO GOD 779
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 qu.al-
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 the.ro 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 on.lv
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
^m
[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 lsia.Ka.ni hcrs qLtntci Nadr al-Dm Tusi"> nhscraatian on Razi'a preccdsng r r ;a t 1 --
mcni from Ki.is 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,
QUAIJTTF.S NOT PROPF.R[.Y ATTRlBLrTABLE TO GOD 731
thc nccc&sary causc of pleasure, ncvertheless, the exclu.sion of a sin-
^le [secondary] cause would not imply that the result would bc
exduded.
"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
lopLc,
,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"
QUALITIES NOT PROPERLY ATrRlBUTARI£ TO GOD 783
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 r.an-
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 fi.ve 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 diL.inc 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
CilAPTER 3: DoCTklWE OF THE D[VINE SlNGULARlTY
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
bccausc
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 .
DOCTRINE OF THE DIVINE KLNOULAKJTY 785
I$fahani say&:
L 337, T !&3, MS 171b
CHAJTtR 3: DoCTilUME OF THE DlVLNE SrNGULARJTY
1 , A tgtmmls ftf tke MtLylitn philowf>herx: F. D. Ra^ jV_/J. Tmi,
atjd Ibn Sma
The philosophers argue from a) ihe fact that there is no other
■?
Necessary Esistcnt than thc [divinc| One to b) the fan that "neces-
saiy c^istcncc' coristitiLtcs thc very 'cssencc 3 of God Most HighJ
If any othcr bcing shouldi havc commondtity with Him in nccjK*-
sary existcnce, thcn [God] would be dLisdnguishcd from that othcr 3
l>y indi\4duaiM>iip 3 M5 ]72a ci»d [so] conif)o$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 LndLviduaLit.in
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-
coEilita.nl «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.
IJOCTRIKE OF THT P niYJNE SINGULARITY 787
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$e ? then it would bc
etthcr mteinal lo dic quiddily 13 ur extensal 10 it, 1+ L 338 boih of
which arc invalid bccaustr of what haa prcccdcd. [This is] bccause
if [thc mcessity] shnuld he a sign of certainty, then it would be thc
samc as ;-ill ilie r^sr ©r the ^uiddhies in its. [signifying generalj rer-
lainty. but ic would bc diticrcnt from them n in its particularity [i.e.,
of reierrncel- Thus its existcnce p.e,, as a general certainty] would
be something other than its quiddity [i.e,, as a particularity] P And so 7
a- if it should bc ncccssary to dcscribc its quiddity [as a partku-
larity] by its [g£Ticral] csistctioe, thcn for that ncccssity [of dcaerip-
tion] chcrc would bc anothcr nccessity and so on endltssly; 1 * 5 but
tx if that Sihould not he nccessary, then it would bc jmcrely| a
possihle realicy in its essence, 17 The Necessary Existent in Himself
would lx u thc mosi adrquatc one tu Ijc u pnssiblt 1 reality in Hirn^ll^
but this would bc contrary r to thc hypothcsis.
"Morciwer, [the objection conttnues, Imam Razi's argumetu] is
based on the [prcmisc of thcj indivLduadon being anadditional char-
actcristic sign of cstablishcd ccrtainn^ but this would bc invalid. And
again, MS 172b thcrc would bc anothcr objcction in that thc
K
II
1-2
IJ
14
l.l
MS pj: I.e. 3 chc tLidividualion-
MS g|: r.c 3 that is ?xisLent lei the concr-cLe.
MS j$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-
cswncc
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,
14
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
stot&ntnts
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^
DOCTRJNT Q¥ II IE n.|V]NE SINGUT-ARirY 7H9
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-
rh
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
|logir.al] 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,
"Thus,
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
quotaciorL
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.
DOClHtlNĔ OF TIl£ »IVINE SlNGTJLAKITY 793
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
smgukmty
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.
794 2„ SECTION I f CHAPTER 3
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 concomiian.tr
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^ $uh9lra.t«/hfOatr
IJOCTIUKK 0F THE J>JVI\"K Sl^GLHAKrET 795
'exisie]K:e > gives *ub_sisieno:e Lo hoth of them as heing ejri&tents and
it is ac_c_dcnt-.il to thcir two csscnc» which complctdy diffcr troin
each other. Or_ [accidental mhcrence. ia
dd) a ease whercin thai in which they diffcr would bc
accidental tt> that m which Ehey agree, and this would be mmething
undeniable, as thc humanhy that becomes the substrate For this or
thiit [individual] whcn cach is dcsignatcd 'this parttcular mHn' or
'that pariicular man'; lor humanity give:5 mhwajnncc to both of thcm»
and it is the substrate for the indhriduality of nature by which they
difTcr from onc aiiother.
b. The second of [Ibn Sin;i T s] two [preniises] h that it is admis-
sible T- 341 for the quiddity of a thitig to be ihe cause for one
of its own attributes, as the dtiality that is the cause of its own everi-
ncss of numbcr. and it is adinissibk for an attributc of a tliing to
bc thc causc for another of its attiibutc3 7 such as whcn thc 'diHcrcncc'
is the cause for a f properiy\ as rationaluy i$ for the quality of amazc-
ment- and such as when one properly is thc cause for another prop-
crty, as thc quality of amazcmc.it 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
,i.
'" MS [bi-sabab rnahiyatihij: L iuid T [bi-salKLlj ^J-irLatuyalil.
37 Roman^.i^l: |!a yajnz m yakDu al-$ilkh aliacT hiya aJ-wujad lil-shay 1 innaiiia
hiy^ l>i-sahab al-irnahiyah allair Laysac hirya al»wujQd aw ht-^Uahi ukhra 3 '].
w Ibn Sirta':s iwo- pi^jnLw w hU ar,gunueiM on the ■dticiruie of tJw divinc singu-
]arity may be found in his d-Ish&r&t m^ii-TMbikat* vol. J. pp, c i8 31-
^* MS gl: In chc ujpk tm. tltr bivalijdaiJon of ar^timr nc by ibe inAiiite scrics^
|Bw?k 2 Y hm L Chapter 3, T.ipic: 1J
796 2, SEOTION I, CHAPTER 3
a. A neccssiiry existent k an cxistent; and
b. jA necessary existent] is ihc csistcntial causc Ibr a possibie exisl-
etit; and
c. fA necessary ejusient] is the existentia] cau&e for a thing only
if [the esJsieiitial cause] has been individuated; because an entity
that ia not indivdduaicd may not have cxtcrnal exist«ice, aitd aiiy-
ihiiiE not havinij extemal existcnce could not possihly bc tbc cxis^
tetuial rause for something e!se; and then,
d. If ihc individuation uf thc necessaiy cxisltiit is duc to this fact,
thai i^ to the fact^ thai it is thc nccessary cxistcnt 3 and it" its indKidu-
ation is the &ame as its heing the necessary eKistent., then there would
be no other neccssaiy existcm, which is thc goal of our argumccu,
e. Birt if the individuation [of thc neccssary exi&tcm] should not
bc duc to that fact s ,M namcly, that it is thc ncccssary cnstcnt, and
if its individuaf]on shouki not he ^uch, namcly, the same as its being
ihe nccessary odstentj, but rather [the indhiduation] should be due
to aomc other factor, and [if] its individuarion should bc somcthing
other than it* bcing the necessary exi$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].
DOCJTRINE OF THE DIYINE SINGULARnY 7*1/
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,
becau.se coiicuniitance bdwccn ihc rwu lliings [i.c, tJic ntces&ary
existence and iti own indiridiialiort] wouJd not bc realkcd unlcss
thc Substratc of thc concomita.nl 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 sscri.bt jnislabcnly iciEtits tht- dau5c\ u since
llic Cfti«4C mu3t btf iiidi^iduuCciJ^ [3i-an3ia id-^illuh yajib an ya.la 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
caused-eHect,
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
anomaly.
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],
UOClTCINE OF THK F>SVINK SINGlilJUtlTY 799
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 fir.si [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 liu.il- 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
800 % SECTION I. CHAPTER 3
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 th.il it
cAn bc rcact as [maqdyr;iyn] ? as thc tcxt of T rrach.
1K3CTRINE OF Tirk ]n\TTST. S1NCUI-AIUTV Rfll
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
arguinent.
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 ca.se, 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
SECTION 2: THE ATl RIBUTKS OF GOD
GhAPTKR i; EsrrABLISHED AtTRIBU ITiS, THE BiASlS OF GOD^S ACTS
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 $ucccssivcly linkcd [in a scrics] having no bcf*iniiing> which
also would bc impossiblCr
[This would be so] becausc if the cotal of all that had happcncd
up to the time of the Rood were to bc owriaid by aH ihat has taken
placc up lo our own day, and if in thc sccond Jserics] thcrc should
not bc a portion with nothing opposite to it in thc lirst [series],, thcn
that [series] havjng morc would be cquaL to that [series] having less;
or s if the first [serics] had bccn arbitrarily cut short and ihe second
[scrira] had only a limited amount mora than Jthe fimj, then [ihe
hrst series also] woul! I l>e limiled.
Objecuon is raised that ibe univcrae would come about [rnore
suitably] afi.er [God's delibrr;-Lie <*ctj bccause of ihe impussibility of
lq.Sdir] Ptillowing Rtchiird M. FnLnt's traristarioci af [qaciir/qudrah] a& tHmnipo
leiu in [= "capablc csf]- {HjIuihittuhh amti™, 3,1 as cx]daincd icL liia Btingi cmd 7Jnr
AtMintteSi p. +4, n. 31. cic, cf. his gLrasaiy undc-r "qdr."
804 2. sccrnoN 2. ^haptpr i
u cjdsting in ctemity past- Our [Baydawi] rcE.ponse [to ihe objeo-
lion] would bc Lhat for [ihc uiihcrscj to cxist at rasl from [the time
dTiis crcaliun by] ihe 'Neoessary Cause 1 wuuld nui be an mijjo&si-
bility. and wc havc grantcd that., but [as a possibility] it could havc
prcccdcd its cmstcncc.
[Another| objection i* raiscd that Ehe two serics [of tcmjwraJ phe-
notmcna] would not ht: concrcce ewstcnts so they may not be described
a& being more and lesa; but dii=> [objectio»] is inconsisient with [thc
fact of ] timc duratian.
[Anothcr] objcction is, raised as to why it woutd not be admissi-
bie for th« Cineator of the univer$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
SECTION 2: THE AiTRIBUTES OK GOD
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 ^sis.tcru.ie 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>'
E£TABLISIi£J) A1TK1BUTE&, THE HA51S OF GOD < ACTS 805
C!lLU F IIK i: E&TABLISIIE!) AllTtlBLTES, TEIt BaSIS CJF GoD*S ActS
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 Ld.sk] 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.
LSl ABLISHED ATTRIBLTPS. THT\. BASIS OF GQI>'S ACmS R07
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] hecau.sc 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.
H08 2. SECTION 2, CHAPTEJt I
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.
ESTADLISHED ATTIHISirrES. THE 8ASIS 01- GOD S ACTS 809
ia
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.
filO 2, SF.CTION 2, CHAPTER I
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 ha.ve 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 rcp.lv 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.
ESTABLISHJiD ATlRlBtJn?S- THE BASIS OP CODS ACTS 31 1
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 cau.se would not bc frcc from onc of the two
■
S5
\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
h
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.*
awi
said:
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$fahan] prrs^nr rhir- JhLlowing d.i*rii!^iQn ticar
ihe l^iiiii[|i> of die scudy on thc divmc jvcrrib«tcs and vnr haw givcn it thr grn-
eral topic h T>iviti« orrtrtipntenr:^ n-lrm^d ro so^i^ prnlilrins of Ic^ii: r . .■MrhciLL^h rm
pcrson O^ grrjiup lcading ir is nani^d b>' Jlaydaw or l9fahani a r>r hy cjlm-WH in dir
MS K it pcrhaps can bc tnken hih shciwing 1 the ^cniTal "wwpoint uf ihc QĕLdariryah
rn&YTmcnt whLrh waa vpc!CtlUi(K , L a ftcbd nwl <iti.rihu"cd 10 a«y siiigU* tlicologjajrl. i'hi?
dWuiwioD b ?YkfcEi"Jy a cnllccnnji <jf «ta^nhcnE^ in opposirion to thc Sunni orcho-
doxy r^ardtng God^s wtII v-cr&us man^ ^iJI as che scaircc of human a-ction. Thwr
anpjmmts arc no dnubt rca] records that Jiav^ b«n piisscd on from caHLcr audi-
■cnr.cs and readrrs. Baydawi lia c iJirady givni his argumenl, in fnVnr. and like fuur
ESTABn&HF.U ATTRlBtTES, THE BASIS OF COCS ACT* 813
sary phenonienon 1 ; otherwiie^ [ihe eHect^] aclivalion at one time
aiid ils norLattivation at anoiher timc wouldi bc a casc of preicncncc
without a prdcrring au/nt. liut il [thc cause] should not asscmblc
[thc cuiidition^], ihcti [tlicr cficct] would bc impussiblc. L 34$
|Our| rc sjTons^ [to this pointj j& thai the Qnc ba.vi.tig 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,
161-164).
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.
814 2, SKCTJON 2> CIIAPTER I
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
LSTAJiLJSHlLU AiTlUEUTES. 1'ltE BASlS 0F GOD^S AClS 815
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 ca.se 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.
S16 2, SECTION 2, CHAPTER I
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 Aee.ing 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. poit.rs riLadc by Bavdawi
and T^Tahani Ln thcir rcsponsr co the Eirst part of thc lirst poini af thr opposicion
argunncLLC.
■ : ' 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,
ESTABLlSHED AITHIBUTES. THE BA&IS 0F COD*S ACTS 817
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-
r-
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 di.su 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
44
MS k.1; l.e., thc ^rtbct.
° L, T and MS CiiAi rctt 989Ha ha.vc 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
ESTA8EJSHED ATIRIBUTES. lft£ BASIS 0F GODS ACTS 819
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 cxistcn.cc 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
ii.
[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]
K&TABLISHED ATTRTBUTF,&. THE BASIS 0F COD'S ACTS 821
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
^s
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 rarii.cr 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
822 2> SBGTION 2, CHAPTER I
v:
M
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 aL-Biii.im 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
KSTAnuSIIKD ATTWBUTKS. THE BASIS 0F OOO"? ACT5 823
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-
61
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].
ESTAKUSHKD ATTHJBUim THf. BASJ.S OF GODS ACTS 825
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.
E5TAHLISHEJ) ATt "KlBimiS^ TliE. BASU OF GOD^B ACTS 827
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.
77
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^ E3d5jn.nl 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.
82J) % SECTION % CIIAPTLR I
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.
E5TABU5HED ATTRIBLTES. THE BASIS OF GOD S ACTS 829
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.^u-im-.ni,
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.
E5TABLI5HEI> ATTUDUTES» THE HASIS 0F O0]>'S ACTS R3I
and c&pcciaJly it is a prcrogativc of God Most Iligh* tbr Hc is thc
Necessary Exigtent Ln all aspects,
Tlic hi.st 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].
ESTABLISHED ATTklBirniS. IHE BASIS Ut GODS ACTS 833
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
ih!
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.
17
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
[because]
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 everyih.ing 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
I»
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-
ESTABMSHKU A ITKIKITI "FS. IUK BASlS 0F OOD^S ACTS 835
m
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
hypothesis.
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.
112
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
wt.it. 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
836 2, SECTION 2. GIIAPTER ]
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 becau.se
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.
£STABLISHEI> ATlTilDUTbS, Tllt PA5IB 0F GOD*S ApTS 837
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
ommsaaice
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-
sideration,
(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
iid
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.
F.5TAM.I5HKD ATTRTRinT.S, THE BASlS OF dOD 1 * ACTS 839
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| knowktl.ge 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|.
1.-1
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
m
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.
|j'i
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 kn.ws 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.]
liS1"ABLISHJiL> AITKIBLTK.S. THE UASlii OF GO!"VS ACTS 841
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,
:tft
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
ma.de 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 Ncces.sa.ry 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 rft.tt 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.
li5TAbLl!il]Jf.D ATTRIBUTES. THE MASIS <JF GUlTS ACTS 84 3
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 im.li-
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.
F.STABlJSliED A nTUBLTTT^ TIIE BASIS Q¥ trOD'& AOTS B4f)
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
1411
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.
L41
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-
EL5TAB1.I5HED ATTRinilTKS, TIIK BAKTS OF GOD^ AGTS R47
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.
I IA
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 nc.it 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|.
ESTABLKHED ATTRIK-TES» THE BaSIS OF OnD'S ACTS ^549
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
huiYia.il 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
either
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.
lb!i
^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 $Kr,iion 1, Cliaptcr 2, Topic 3 a abovc.
3W Bocsk l, Scrlion l, C hd.pt cr rt. Topic 4, abovc.
HST^BURHli» ATTRIBUTE^ THE BAMS OF COli'5 ACTS 351
2.— a. Our answcr [to this rcasoning] ss that thc doetrinc of the
'ctcrnity of cascnces* 15 * [is what] constitute* heresy, thi^. [doctrinc]
being' entircly apart fram the doctrine of 'erernaJ attiibuc^ s\
Although the Christians have called [the 'hypostases'], which ihey
afHrni to be certamlies, 'atiribulcs', siill thcir position is that these
[hypostascs] arc csscnces in rcaliiy. Thcy say that thc Hypostasis of
the e Word\ fby whiehj I mcAn 'knowlcdge 1 , transfcrrcd {UscH'] to
(be body of Jesus } peace bc upun him;, and anything hayiug the free*
dom to ino% r c about is an E csscncc\
rurthcrmorc* ctcrnity i& noncxistcntial in nature., so thcrc would
be tio impliracion of composkion [henng present in etcrnity] from
rhe comtnonalily in it [Le., of thc Word/knowLcdge with Jesus],
3, God Most Highs l omniscicncc* and JHis 'omnipotcncc 1 are
both ^neccssary^ swjg, tlicy would nol bc chc *<?ffect$* 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
Uirnseir.
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
intc
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 cKi.sling 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
knowkdge].
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
avoid]
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-
subsistent
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].
ESTABLISHhD- AiTKlBUTliS. THE BASIS OF GOD'S ACTTS 655
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.
\u\\
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
i-,;
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 Ka.sr 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
$bgy W<& rourid in Ibn SLn.a"s al'lsha7ni; UM-at-Ttmbihat,
ia h\ L^ T and MS Garrrtt 1)K9Ha tbc pronoun sufli\ is ]na£c:uLLn<: 4 indLciLLicLij
God as Uie am-rcedcEii, ihis bting thc logicaL wnsc; bnt in iht? MS il is rcrriinins,
rhp; srribe Apparttiily assLimiiijyr Lliai "tntirciy" [LtdiniLiJ was thu «intcccdcrLi.
856 a, sp.cn tOM 2, ckmter i
arc distinguishablc or not distingnishablc [iirom His cs&cncc,, do not
nullify thc unity of thcir Primary Causc that scrvcs a£ thcir subsiratc,
namely, thc iinity of [GkkTs] csscnce, cqually whcthcr those [abun-
dantj concomitancs are inhcring in thc esscncc of thr: Causev 7D or
they are .wparate and distinct iram it.
Tlic First [Cause], the Most High, receives [from ardent bcliw*
crs] by thc ascription [of praisc] a grcai abundancc of < omomitiints
both adjunctavc and nonadjunctivc, along with a grcal ahundanrc
of negations. On that accoum Hi& namcs havc multiplicd, but t]iat
has had no inAuence upoti His own unity, In sumrnaiy, thc Necessary
Existcnt is Onc, and His unity does not cease bccausc of the abun-
dancc of intdligiblc forms [inhcring] in Him.
Crilical mrigw of Ihn Sina^s thmiy L 364: 16,. T 177:10
Now ? in ohjcrrion to [Ibn Sina]. ihe followinfj poinLt havc heen
marie showing ihat his doctrinc ihat tbe coiicomitants of the First
[ChushiJ havc inbrmnje i 11 His cssriu-e h ihe saiiie as sayiug lluil
a anglc entity inay bc both pas&iw acccptor and active
agcnt 171 at the samc timc; and
b) the First [Cau&cj is charaetermd by attributes that arc
neitber adjunctive nor ncgattv*=:, for thc Tonrm of thc intelhgiblcs'
that are inhcrcnt in His esscncc are real attribuies; and
c) jCiodj is a substratc tor thc grcat abundancc of rcaJitics
possible that are tbc l eflects' of His s causation' ? for itideed the forcn$
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
philosophers.
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].
R9TABI.T£HFJ> ATTRIBIITKS, THE RA*IS OF f30iT5 ACHTi 837
172
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-
174
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].
858 2, SEGTION 2, CHAPTER J
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
deta.il 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 )
ESTABLISHED ATrRIBUTES, TliE BASIS OF GOD 1 ! ACTS 859
Now^ whichcvcr fof lhe.se 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 snlisi.se-
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.
EftTARIJSHF.n ATTRIBUTF.&. THK BASI& OF OOn "& ACTS 861
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
LU
IE.T
MS gl
MSgL
Li\> wkhiti y[\x eicrikiiy ol time-duratitm.
I.c. wiihLti pj.st etcmi-Ly itsdl.
862 a> section 2, chapit:r i
wouid by its own ncccssity havc no need for a causc, so the [diviiLtrJ
omniscien.ee 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 attribu1.es 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,
ESTABLI5HED ATTRlBUlJrS, THE BASIS 0F GODS ACTS
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
himseli'.
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 lh.it |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 attrihur.es 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
scrics.
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^
ivc
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 $ay 3 onc ol" [hc cwo -caiiM^i u ihc: ras<Miee ol' [tJod]
Mnst High 7 it br-ing a tausc for tlic csistcncc of the Rrst Eciiariatmn [i.c, thc "pro-
duccd"" IntcUcct], whilc thc othcr causc \s dic &c]f-knowlcdgc of Him thc Most Hi^h,
ESTAHIJSITED ATTKIEI.TES, TIIL BAS-E5 OF U(JD'5 ACT5 8tJ3
i&> His csseiicc i\nd Ilis scrlT-knowlcdgcrs arc basiccilly onc and theie
is. no diHcrcntialkm exttrpt as a matiner ol" Tcfercncc; Likcwisc, both
eflects, that is ? the First Emanation [i,e, a ihe pruduced Tntellect] md
the knowlcdge of |'God] Most High of it s constitute basically tme
cntityj, without any diHcrentiation that might require the fi^l of iV
two to bc diHcrcndatcd from thc First [Cautsc] thc Most High, while
thc sccond |of thc two| lw would bc fixed winhin it. For just. as thc
diticrentiacion* 99 in the two causes is a rnanncr of refercncc, it is
likewisc so in thc two crtlcts.
So thcn, thc cxistence of thc Hrst Emanatinn [lc, IntcllectJ is thc
sarrii as thc knawledge of il held by ihe Mosl High, without there
bcing any nccd* 00, for somc ncw form to mhcrc br :M thc csscncc of
thc First [Causc], niay Hc bc cxalted high ahovc that [nccd for siich
inhcrcncc]. Now :
a) whereas thi ^inteibctti&t suhslana.% 9 fa$ 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.
8frG 2, 5BCTION 2, CHAPTER I
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$tctttt' f however it may be in its etitirety
-
and detail,
]"; for the cKistcnrc of thc individua] cjuidditks of all f:xis-
tent Lbijigs is [GadY| fcnr.wlcdge,
2} likcwisc ihc cxistcncc of thc forms of thc indiridual
quiddirics which inhcrc within thc intcllcctual substanccs are Hia
knowlcdgc,
3; likewistr the ftnrms, of iSic^r individiial qutddities which
iTihcre whliin tlic- iTieorporesil cclcstisd souls,
4) likcwisc thc cxistencc of thc particular indkidual forrns
cngrav r ed upon thc imprintcd celcstial souls; rather^ all existence, che
extemal]y real 5 the mental,. coq)oreal and aJL else, constitute the
knowledgc of Him the Mosi High.
God Most High said,
Uf-i
God has liTOught eveiyihlng within His c»mpreh^ns]ve under-
staiiduisj." [Qyr J an 65:121 And God ha$ 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],
&5TABMSUED ATTRJBIITES, THE BA5IS OF GOD & ACT-S 867
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
2K
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.
"-
9»
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
870 2, SBGTION 2. CHAPTER I
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
conccrn'.
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].
ESTABLISHED ATlTUBUTES. THE BASIS OF CODS ACTS 871
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
zu
^C($
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
1A
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,
.LSTABLISHLD ATTRimTES. THK BASlS 0¥ GOD n S ACTS 8/3-
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."
^TAELISHKD ATTRIB ITJIUL TH£ BASI& OF GODS ACTS 875
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
impossibility.
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.
876 ii. SECTION 2, CHAPTER I
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
lsfah
ani
says:
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
ph
cnomcuoii.
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 nc.cd 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.
IvSTARI-T£HFT> ATTRIBITTES, THF. RARIS 0F GOD'S ACTS 8'//
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
that
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.
Liiil
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
says:
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 tht.ac 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 [premi.se 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|.
OTHT.R ATTRIT?! 7TTJ5L NOT THF. RASIS 0F GOD'5 ACTI3 H83
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$t ihereiore be
ackiiowiedgcd,
[God'sj spccch docs not consist of any consonanl or vowcl that
subsists in [Himseirj,— [thia poiiu beingj in coiiinidictiori to the
HaiLahihdi ajid ihe Katiaitliyahj — 0F lliat would sulwjst in auythmg
clsc,- — [this point being] in coiUradiction to thc Mu c ta^i!ah, Rathcr,
|God 3 s speech] is a scU-subsistcnt tausal Tactor 17 chat is rafirrrcd to
m various and changing terms, and it is distinguished from [Hisj
knowlcdgc aiid willing intcntion beeause [GodJ KIosi High may be
distinguishcd irom thcsc two [attributcs].
[God] Most High commanded Abu Lahab to helieue, in spite or
Hfe own dMnc knowlc-dgc ihai [Ahu Lahab] would noi hdkve 3 13
and [in spite of] the impossibility for [God's] willing intcntioii to
support what would viokitc His kriowlcdge. But too rnuch cmphasi&
on this [problrm] would hc of small hcncEit, becau&c thc ccntiid cone
of [God*s] essence and attributes h curtaincd ofT from the logical
rcasoniner of our intdlccts.
lsiahani says:
L 376, T 183, MS I93a
2. God*s spttrh
Thcrc is an unintcrrupted unaniiiiity among thc prophcts, praycrs
lo God for them, and tlieir agmeemenr is on the fact tbat [God]
12 [nna^riA'] The early gramjnarians, Ahu al-H«dhayi and Ibn Kullal^ establb.lied
three main rjucgorics nf signitir.ajicc m predkatcs ahoui. a. suhject, that is^, adjcr-
livrs or uMributtf5 «lEid lorfc.i^cr slatcniccils iibdu'<iU^; l) dwf sul:;jtct b nriil, 2) lIk b sul>
jniA k a ca.uBL' ot dictermiiiine ĔbCt-or, and 3} rhe subject i$ [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-' ,,
OTilKR ATrR[B'["TES, NOT THE RA5IS C>F GOD'S ACT5 fJB5
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
intciition.
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
Hiiiwbil-LLh,
'*■ 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
2-1
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 wh.it 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 .
niEULR ATLRIB17TE3, NGT THE. BA5IS OF GOD'S ACrrS 11(13
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
Islahc
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
High:
"'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.
OTHER ATJRIBtrrES. NOT THE BASIS OF CODlS ACTS- 89 I
"But indccd thc facc ol your Lord does comLnuc , - -,* [Q, 553:27]
and
"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
attributcs
Th« rehitaLion a\~ this argumcm is in the fact ihat we do not grant
m
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
attributcs.
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
V
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^
shipn.il [^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 hoi.li 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
al-qudrah].
*' 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).
OTHKft ATTRIBUTES. NOT THE BA3IS 0F CODS ACTS 893
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
M
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
High,
"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-
ii.il 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
h^piBs,
"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.
OTHER ATTRIBirTES, NOT THE BASIS OF GUD'S ACTS 893
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
OlllJLR A1TKIUU11£&, NO T HIE BASIS OF COT> ! S ACTS 897
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
898
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.
QTHF.R ATTRrBlTTPR, NO I TWK RASIK OF T.OD^ ACT& 899
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
lutilicy.
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!fturan.cc 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-
r
"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.
OTHF-R ATITUBHTES, NOT THE BASIS OF OOD5 ACTS 90 1
>*
w
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
intcprctation,
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
■■i-
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:
iiTL«
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.
1
X
L and T give only thc Tirsl half oFlhr stAKciiciiC H± 75:22 oiilyj; th« MS and
MS Gaim-11 9B!)Ha qurjte il enUc.ly.
OTIIER ATTRIBUTES. NOT THE BA3IS OF OODS ACTS 903
■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
impossible.
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.
OTHER ATTR1BUTE5, NOT Tllt BA^lS OF GOD^S- ACTS 903
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]
IV-
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] .
OTHFR ATrR]RUTF.S. NOT THF BASIS OF OOP '3- ACTS 907
Thc answcr is that this [dcmand to MoscsJ was considercd prc-
sumption becaust* thcy dcmandcri it out ol" obstinacy and wiliiul
opposition,
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 rcsu.lt 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
bccansc
1. thinking pcoplc disagTcc about this qucstiori, and
2- it roniiadicts t.he Fact ihat ii is God who holds u* in His
sight
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.
OTRF.R ATTRIBUTES, NOT THE BASIS OF GOD^ AC115 909
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 vis.ua;]
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
validity-
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,
OTHER ATTlUBtri-RS. NOT THK KA&lS Of COD'S ACTS 911
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.
c.-a
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
k
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
gCLl
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
IHI
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
GTHUtl ATTRlBtTES. NOT THE BASIS OF OODS ACTS 913
: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
object'-
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 vis.ua] imprinting.
Bayriawi said:
L 389, T 189
BEOTION $; THE ACTS OF GOD AND THE
ACTS OF MANKIND
To/nc 1: (h the acls o/mmktTtd 1
a. Varutm qf the majorily Mus&tn pasitim
1. Shaykh [Abu al-Hasaii aJ-Ash r ari] held ihat the acts of
mankind aU takc piacc undcr the powrr of God Must High and arc
creations oi" His.
2- Ojidi |Ahu Rakr «ii-Bac]illanii[ held thai whethcr they arc
acis of ohcdicnce or discjb^dieiicc is- under the power of man.
3- Imam al-IIaram.ayn [al-Juwayni]. and Abu al-Husayu [al-
Rasii] and rhe philosophers held that they rake placc iinder thc powct
of God Most High in man.
4, Ustadh [Abu Ishaq al-Isfarayini] hctd that thc cfTectivc cauae
in thc act is a combination of thc powcr of God Musl High and
thc powcr of man.
b, 7he Mu*iatilah fw$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,
lsiahani
L 390, T 19(X MS 200ab
5ECTION 3: THE ACTS OF GOD AND THE
ACTS OF MANKIND
]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
eyaluation.
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
ACTS OF COD AND ACTS OF MANKINP 917
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
c JlS 2, 5ECTION 3- TOPICS
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
r
[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 i.lu: 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 cau.se 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
[sukon].
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."
AtmS OF C.JOD AND AUT5 OJr MANK.1KU "921
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
922 2> SECTICJN ^, TOPICS
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
impo&sible.
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;
rM
■ 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.
AClTS OF GOD AND ACTS OF MA.NKIND 923
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
Mos
c&:
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
n
[ 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 cj.se. ThiiA, [tiod] Mosc HLgh mav not bc qucsdoncd abouc
what Hc doca» [From c Ibrbh 4 s Comjiiontary- on Caydawi ? s 7iiiaA Y .J
ACTS Oh OOD ANK ACTS OF MANKINI> 925
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
i\
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
points;
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
favor
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^;
:i
10, 5:30]
'* L and T nc.id 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."
[0.6:39]
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?"
[0,55:60]
"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"^
[Q.11:I08]
"Where are those who arc miserahlc? They arc in the Fine + H
[Q,ll:106]
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.
ACnH OF GOD AND ACrfiS OF MA.NK1.ND 927
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]
and
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 ai.cf 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^: l.tr, 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
intcrdiction.
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 f.ht 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-
AtTTS OF GOI> AlSTJ AOTS OF MANKTND 931
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 cau_.es 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 tli.is 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 <k.il with
rru.tikitwls iti-ij.srt^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,
anri
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].
ACTS OF COD AKD ACTS OF MANKL\I> 933
&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.
9M H r SECTIDN 3 ? TOPICS
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.
ALTTS OF GOD AND ACTS GF MANKINl) 935
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
objcctjve.
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 fmuBa.win 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
thcn
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
th.tr 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
ACTS 0F GOD AND ACTS OF UANKIND 937
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 th.cn 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
platc.
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 chos.cn 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
[awl.
* 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.
ACT5 OF G0I> AND ACT& 0F MAM&IND 939
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 $: [It.J, wiih ibe iiwAtiittg of oecmire
MS p: As ihv bteUecis.
M.S glr An ex-LrnpJc m-J" whicli is Jke,
94G 2, SECTION % TOPIGS
3. that which is evil absolutch^ and
4. that m which the evil prcdominates. 56 and
5. that io which good and evil are equal. H
NoWj, if" pim: <iivinc gcjodness is thc origin for thc oulj>oijring cjI"
an cxistcncc ihat is good and right^ thcn an outpouring into cxis-
tence of the iirst t-lass [of thtngsj beconies nw^ossaiy, sutrh as the
«dstence of the miellecTual siahstances. Sim.ilarly, an outpnurittg [iuto
r^isitocej of the srcond tlass beeoines riccessary, for
l to abandoji an abundant good^
in sclf*prorc(:tion Irom a sniail evil r
would be an abundant eyii 1 - 5 *
[Esamplcs of j chat would br such as firc and IJving bodics. MS 206a
li is impossible to convey [ftre p s] good feature unlt-s* it T s iiature Ls
such that jts varied slatcs ki their moikm-chaiigrs artd dieir quies-
ccnces cati lcad to contacts and collisions that arc harmful. Kurthcr-
murc, [it ia impossiblc [i.c^ for bccicSts to bc achicvcd without riskJJ
unlcss its statcs and thc siatcs of [alJ] othcr things in the world
develop ^teadUy up to the point where thc> become ftt risk le*t an
error should befail ihem, some deed haimful eithcr in [the homr-
coTning toj thc hcrcattcr to which nl) mankind rctums or hcrc within
the rcaJity of crration;' 9|M or sornc cxccsdve turmoil nther of pas-
sion or anger chat precipkatcly overcorne$ [a person], somethmg
estreniely harmllil in regard to the hcreafler for whkh the [humari j
nr
° 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.
ACTS OF CpCJD AND ACTS OF MANKtND 941
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],
ACTJ OF COD A\D ACTS OF MANKIND 943
thc hcirious is tu form and pronouncc a judgmmt as 10 [an act*s]
hcinousness,
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 jridgme.nl] 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
judgments.
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-
ACli OF GOD AM'J ACTS OF MA.NitlM> 945
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
ever.
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
rcpcTstancc;
4. to do vihatcvcr is most bcncficial to m^rtkind in this lifc;
and
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-
ACTS OF GOO ANI) ACTS Ql MASKIND 947
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
dccisic>n.J,
"' MS gl: I.c-, ptTs^asion of Ood io bc incljncd to grant a rcward fj.il. 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
->7G
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
,7?
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*] ."■
ACTS Of GOD AND ACTS OF MANKJND 949
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 seri.es, 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
rcasons.
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 [divT.nc 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
AtiTS Ol GOD AND AClS OP MANKTWD 951
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 .
w
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.
ACTS OF CJOD ANO ACTK 01' MANKIND 9jS
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.
n.
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.
AGT5 0F OOD AN» AOTS OF MANKIND 95 -5
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
judgmcnts.
d. In summary., thc imposition of obligations |upon nianktnd] is
thc ibrmal aunouncement from [God] the Truc One to all crcation
regarding
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 adi.se 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]
END OF BOOK 2
** 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.
BOOK THKEE
KEALITIE5 PROPHETIC
This page mrentionally hft blank
Baydkmi said:
L 407, T 198
BOOK 3: REALITIE5 PROPUETK:
SECTION 1: PROPIIETHOOD
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
mirades
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
REALl TIRS PROPHETIC
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.
SECTION 1: PROPHETHOOD
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 ■.
PROPHETIlOOn 9fi1
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.
"B-
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 diviiit.vn 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
10
■
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.
IV
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 Mo.sl 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 Li.om
thc Qur*"an.
10 Thc MS alonc pn-ints thc vcrh as l$( plural.
964 3« SECTION I r TOPICS
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
fiiriliia.tc 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.]
PRUHHlLTtlUtJD 965
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
undcfincd.
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
i
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 fa.it 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 . /'
l-KGPJU.rilOUD
067
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
things.
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
i
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-
m
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.
PROPtlETlLOOD %?)
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
Prophct:
"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
singularity,
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.
1'ROPI IETUOO.U 9 7 I
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 rari.gr 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-
972 % ^KCJTIt>N I. TOPICIH
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 ofthe.se [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 cla.ws 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.
52
■■:
* 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|.
974 3* SECTION 1, TOPICS
ITic obstacle to observin|5 the unseen when awake is an obsta.de
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.
PROPRhTHOOD 975
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
passibtGlies.
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-
dioation:
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
witnoiScd,
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
activity.
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]
rcadirigs.
* 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.
PRUPHETLH H>1> 979
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-
^i
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
intermediary.
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 um.il 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 jometim.es 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
PROPrrKTHOOn $R3
b, Aitoihcr exampte of che things that pc*uively excced the cu^-
lurnary ordcr is for a man who is a [challcnging] ckutcliUU lo prophclic
singularity to pcrform &omcthing; ihc likc of which. cannot bc ach]cvcd
by thc strcngth of pcoplc likc hirnscir, somcthirig ILkc thc prcventing
of wajLcr from its tlowing; or ihc causing oi" U to (low Proni the spaccs
bctwwn his fingcrs and his finger tips, And that wouid tre becaus.c
God gtwea him authority over thc 'matter of all bcing$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 a.id 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
A5
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]
)t
8*
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
mcncjc>ru^;t.
^" 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,
PROPEEETHOOD 985
"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
cornniein(aiv.
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>
17
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.
PROPHETHOOD 987
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.
Ll
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;
47&HL]
* 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.]
PROPHETHOOD 9U9
"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
i
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.]
990 J s SP-KTION Ip TOPICS
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 .
PROCTJfc.THCXJ0 991
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 ethir.al 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
IOb
[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 hi.ni, 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-
PROPtiETHOGD 993
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" Th.cn 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.
ii?
[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,
994 3» SECTION I, TOPICS
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,
ie
110 L oipiib "irom.
7?
IIH
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.
»J20
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
folloiAing.
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.
996 3 SECTJON I, TOPIGS
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 ?
1-21
L: [yushir]. T : MS Gamtl 969Hh and MS Garrcti 2R3B: [>nshaTci'].
PROPHRTHOOD 997
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 convinc.ing 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
PROPIIET3300D
999
or tht fe.cc 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.
12"
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 conii:.vi.
-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
liu
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$ton t
but 3f there sbould be anything that points to ihe con-
tinuariee of [thc Law], then its abrogaiion. woukl be prc-vented;
and if thcrc should not bc anything, [i.c. s that poinU to
[he continuance of thc I^aw| th.cn [Mnsea T j law would not bc rcval-
idared, and &o would not be in cflect except in the onc time cycle,
b. Wc [Baydawi] hold that
L there was in [ih?. Law of Mos^sj a provision s^ n 5 uoLicc
ol" its abrog<iUt»n, and
2, [the ]jaW\ was not continually re^alidated, eithrr hecause
th-e dcmand tbr thc transmission of its original wa>; not grcat, or
T^^^^^^T
m
h".l). Rma disnisscs Lhis paiTinalar dispisi^rion in hbi M^m^ t J P- 2IH-213
PROPHETHOOD I \ 1Q I
bccause thcrc was in k somcthing ihat pointcd to ils continuance
only in appcarancc hut not absolutcly, and thus its abrogation would
not hc prevented-
Isfahani says: L 427, T 20«, MS 220a:ll
Rsjutalion of ihe ~few*$ 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-
\TCT1
tcd.
b. [To this, Baydawi] our author replicd thai God Most High
cither
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
T
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-
belicf.
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 Im.th^ :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],
then
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 extre.me *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
sakL,
*"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.
PROPHETIIOOD 1 005
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 ca.ie 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
i
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-
bclief.
Thcrc wcrc somc pcoplc who did not grani thc possibiiity of unbe-
lief iii prophets, but they did grant that [prophcts] could givc thc
appearan.ee 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.
PR OPHRTHOOD 1 007
[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
scholars],
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
rKUraETJJtiOD
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.
i»
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.
1010 % SECTJON l, TOPICS
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 a.sk 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.
E^ROPHETHCJOn 101 1
UU
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 fku.lt 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.
wi4l
.w
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 '
PROPHETHOOT> 101 S
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
prophcthoodw
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&
prophct;?].
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.
^*r^^^
!*"■
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
hROPIIKTiiGOD 1015
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]
Istah
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
indiistinci.
|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 bcrcau.se 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
in
ipos_s]
iWe.
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
m
.152
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 Qi.ir'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(iiiclK.in 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
senL
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
lv,v
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
]44
[aJ-mala*Lkah al-'ulwiyah| contragtcd with [al-m.Eila^.ikah al-suA^ah]:
1020 % SECTION I, TOPIO
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
PROPHt/THOOD 1021
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 L.h.nr
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 ]
sii]>criority.
[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
prophethood].
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 al-na.br
aRJall-
'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].
HKOPHEJIIOOn 1023
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].
ls£ah
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
Ojir^an.
'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
(6:630).
,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
PROPHETHOOD 1025
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
prophct.
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
SECTION 2: THE RESURRECTION ASSKMDLY
AND THIi REGOMPENSE
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
i
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
SECTION 2: THE RESURRECTION ASSEMBIA
AXD THK RECOMPENSE
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 ai.id 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
l'HK RE&URRECTKJN ASSEMBLY AINP THE KKCOMPENSE 1029
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\.
IHK RE3U1UU4LTION ASSEMBLY AND THE KECOMP.EN&E 1031
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.
mp
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-
$ibility of a re&toration;, would be valid. And this is thc locjkal goaJ
we have sought. Howcver } this rcply has bccn rcfutcd bccausc this
particular judgtnent is valid r
[BaydawTsj statcmcnt is that if [this partkular judgment] ahould
be valid, then thc othcr judgmcnt^ that isj. thc judspncnt about thc
noiiexJstent^ would l>e valid,
Rut our [Isfkhani 5 s] position is that thc validity of tiiiii particular
judgment doe& not imply that thc othcr judgmcnt about thc non-
eadstent would bc valid, for this particalar judgmcnt is a judgmcnt
oti thc judgmcnt about thc validity of thc rcsioration to cxistcn«.%
not about the nonexistent.
TIJF RESUKREC I ION ASS*.MRI.V ANH THE RF.GOMPF.!N&E 1033
[Objcction]: An objcction has becn raiscd against this point, naniely,
che poini stating that since ihe nonexi$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
c
1034 % SEGTION 2, TOPICS
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$e1f| 7 logically doss not requiie that jaiiy one of thes* object^ of
judgiiicni:] should have an estsblislicd teilainty among ihc ii]divid-
ual quiddibes. Thm:forc, thc statcmcnc madc by you [disputants] is
fa.].sified wherein the object of a judgmcnt must have an established
certaint> p in cxttrn;i] reality.
* In thcsc two con&ccudvc placcs, L and T add a parcpi>sidonaJ phra&c: ^. . . thc
judgmcnt that thc rcHtoration to itojf [^alayhi] . . , ,%
THE KUSUKKECTION AKSIATRLY AND IIIE. EULCOMPKHEE 1035
lo take a closcr look at ihe answer in which it was. statcd that
ihe mciital refcrcncc of thc pcjssibiliiy of a re$(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
rcstoration.
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
whatcvcr.
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*
a
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.
THE RESURKECTTON ASSEMBLY AJflJ THE RECOMPEN5B 1037
(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
naughtr
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
Glorious:
"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.
THF. RK5URRECJTJOX A5SRMBLY AND TTIK RF.00MPE.N5E
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]
and,
"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
and,
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
56:49-50]
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
P
lalse,
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
THE REHJRkECrriON ASSKMBLY A\0 THE KEGOMPENSE 1041
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
pun
or
:■
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 ihe.se aiomir panicks thcn reslorc \Yie.tn. \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 noncxisten.ee* 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 RmiRRECTION ASSEMUHY AND THE RECOMPENSE 1043
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. becau.se 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 sen.it 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
Artdkr
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.
TIIE RF!?ILFRRFCTnON ASSP-MBLY ANn T1IF P ftF.COMFKN*F. 1045
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
c
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
Prophet.
"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.
iilli KESURAECriON ASSKJHUI.Y AND THh REOOMPENSE 1047
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
impossibler
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
Ji
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
ar
? ?
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-
77IF. RESCHRUC-nON \S*F.MIU.V AND TUF. KKGOMPKN&E 1051
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
HiRh,
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 nonexi.Nie.ru, 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
TE[E RESirRRECTTON AS5EMBLY AND TITE RECOMH3LNSE 1053
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
1054 ^ SECTION 2. TOPICS
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
lmj
hmssi
c.
ble.
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!"
[0,82:15]
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
JHL. KESrKREiJTI£>.\" A^JiMBI.Y AMU TKE RL( OMPENHE lU.JJ
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
doctrines,
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-
ID56 3. 5ECTION 2. TOPKIS
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, becau.sc 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 JLa.st 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 ha.vc thc- sarac rccords availahlc tn htm„ As a sidc spmJjitkm, howcier,.
5in.cc 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,
THE RtSLHRKailON ASSKMBLY AND TMK REOOMPEJMSE 1057
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
rcasons:
] . 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^
THF KE3i:KRHr:TION ASS&MIILY ANL) TIIE RECGMPENSE 1059
"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 drcadfi.il 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
cciriim.il: 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.
TilE ■RtSirRRP.CTION ASSOiM.Y AM> TITF. RF.COMPKNSF. 1001
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 punis.hm.ent 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
VHĔ RJLSUKRtCllON ASSEMBLY AND THE RECOMPEN5E 1063
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 ca.se 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 appcarar.ee 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
32-31
1066 3> SECTION 2, TOPICS
thc aspoct in which it was not limitcd, whkh would be impossiblc;
ar
■d
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.
and
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, hecau.sc
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.
Tilli KESI.RRRC;TI0X ASSEM13I.Y ANIJ THL Rj£tJOMPi£JM3iL 1067
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 lonn.cn 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
said,]
"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
position].
One nuut und<*rsLand rhat a pcrson who ^surcasahilly jttwes iti
[fvome] earnest endeavor 3 will eithcr procecd and arri\« [=vi his goal]
4E
Twd indcxcd Hadiths; scc Ba\diiwii tcxt fbr thr noccs on thKc.
r
* 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.
■["ICli RKSURRECTION ASSEMJJLY ANTJ tiie UU&COMPENSIl 10b9
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,
n
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, th.cn 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.
But
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
permancntly.
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
■JTHIL RĔSURRE/CTION ASStMBLY AND 1'Ht" KECOMrENSEL 1071
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 t.hr 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
1072 3> SEOTION Q t TOPICS
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 vid.ua] 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
LLEE RK£lJRKJiCTIO^ ASSEMHLY AND THE KJlCOMI^ENSIl 1073
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 |sanu.nd.ir|. 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,
saying:
"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
n
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.
TilE KEyUHRtCTlON A5SEMBLY AK1> "IHt KECOMPKlMSli 1075
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
worch
"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 Mo.st
High commandrd thr Prophct L 462 to ask forgivcne*s for the
sins of thcr I>chcvcrs. God said:
forgjv«ne.ss 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, ftli.tr 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
Till-: REKURRECTriDN ASSKMBLY ANU THE KJi-COMHiNSIi 1077
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,
THE KESrRRKCTlON ASSEMBLY AND THF RECOMPENSE 1079
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
Pharaoh;
"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
iu\y
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:
H
-Sec che Cn*airrirrll in i.hU pjt-sent wi>rk l>\- BayrUwi ajid lAfaha.ni, Bon-k 3, Scrii™
2 t Ti-'i>k 3 and tbllowng Sutwopic,
TTIE RESURRECTION ASSEMBLY AND THE RECOMPFN!>E 1061
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
cymimmicauoii.
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,ri:ii.il:iv, 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 ■ lli.il II-i i !>■ <nr"vi;r ; : .:ir" «.■...-.?%
and deeds;. acid i& subjca lo increa» and decrease; . . ^ (op. cii,, p. 53:, is bb
Tilt RE&URRECTION ASSPMBLY A.ND llit RtOOMPENSli 10fl3
IsLiliiini sa
ys:
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 n.ink 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 Shahraita.ru.. 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*:
u
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.
v.
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.
THE RBST3WECTION AS&EMBLY AND TIJl RECOUP.ENSE 1085
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.
THE RE5URRECTION ASSEMBI.Y ANTi THE KECOMPENSE 1087
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
cu
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
SECTION 3: THE SUPREME LEADKRSHIP OI
THE MUSLIM CGMMUNITY
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^^u.vn,
1090 3- SKCTION % TOPIGS
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,
2
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
SECTION 3: THE SUPREME LEADER5H1P OF
THR MIJSLTM (JOMMUNm'
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
THE SUPKbUĔ UrlADKRSILlP UF THE MEJSLIM COMMUWfrV 1091
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, hecau.sc 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
IIIE atUPREUt UlADEK5]3I]' OF THli, MUSLIM CUHMUNITY' E 01*3
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
up
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
obligatioti.
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
THF. SriPREMt l-EAOEREHTP QF THF. MIJSIJM COMMI 7MTW 1095
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."
IsEkh
aru
says
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]_
THE &UPKEB1E LEADERSHIP OF THE MUALIM COMMUNTTY 109?
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
dcstruciion.
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
conviction.
.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
1098 % SECTION 3, TPPICS
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 lh.it 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
Ilffi SUPREME UtADtikSHIP 0F THE MUSLEM COMMUKITY 1 U t>9
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
obligatory.
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
reasons:
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
tuldjn].
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 sirifulne.ss| 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-
THfc SUPKEH£ LEADEEWH3J- OF THE ML a SLIM COMMUNHY J E 01
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
prclcrtedi.
'* !.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.
j
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.
IUE StTRKME LEADKRSJUP OF THE HU&LEH OOMMUNITY I 103
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
jnjuries,
3) The position of govcrning jud^e does not come by thc
oath of alltgiancej &o all thc niore thc position of suprcmc lcader-
m
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
B
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 po.st] 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 qwMii.ni thcre ane r\vo
studies whkJi lhoroiJFgh.ly 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
THE SUPKEME LEADRRSHTP 0F THE MUSLIM COMMWITY 1105
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 ?
',li*- dwi r«i*t mtmooLj : .A"nhas siv octc <« u ihn^c U-ing consjdciTd i^"i thc upproa^J-i w
THE WJPKEME LUADERSHIP 0F HCE MUSUM CQMM17NJTY 1107
NoWj an objcction has bccn raiscd that thc right to th< u succes-
&ion belonged to 'Ali, bu* that he disdaimed it out of *godly fear*. w
Gur [Baydawi'*] position [in rcply 10 this objection] would be to
ask how chat could bc! [l"'or WliJ was a rnan of thc utmost bravery
and vigor, Fa.timah the Radiant with her high status was bis \vife,
and mo« nf ihe taadere L 475 of ihc QiJiaysh and their notablcs
were *rith hicii ? such as al-Hasan and al-Hiisayn. 33 And al-^Abbas,* 4
with his high rank. indccd said* "Strctch forth your liand Ibr nie to
swcar atlcgiancc to you, so that mcn may say^ ^Thc unclc of thc
Mrsssngnr of CSSod swore allcgiance to his nrphrw, anci then no two
peopLc wilJ ever havc a diRercnce over you." Al-Zubayr also, wirh
his outstandinjj bravcry, draw ibrth his. sword and said.. "I am riot
pk:.isf:d '.vhji ih*' si^-i"- vsii!ii vX Al>u Hitkr. 11 Abu Sutyiin also. ChLdot"
Makkah and Htad of the Banu Umayyahp said, **Are you, O Banu
c Abd Ma.naC, plcased that a itian oFTaym 2b will govern ov r er yon?"
But togethcr with the Madinan lollowcrs Abu Bakr
them 2 * and prevented thetn from having nhe sucnessioEi. And Abu
Bakr [thenj was old aud weak, huTisble bui htalthy, withoul much
wealth and having fcw suppoitcrs.
a ajnscnsua. Ijong aftcr thc 4cLual sucDtssLnn had bracn deaded, thti pcoplc stLO
werc arguLTiy thc rclalhrc 'ri^hdulness 1 of thac succession. The qua.lity m-asL highly
valu.ed amcmg ihti pcoplc as an indicator of trut IcacLcrship was "cnerit*. Afia.niddiii
points out thai Ibn Hanbal cjuile early had drawn attcntio-n to ihc importiLnc* of
'tntriit* In iTlis rc^-uni, -a.nd this quality finally was givp[i thc lop pbtce in tht Mu$lini
|.>i.i1>]k's csiijnatiun. Sh# ^vrilr& thyii hy iln- cariy ] Llh wnlury ihis vc7n$ciX3us *a*
Jbmiiiig, iinfl <|imn'S |hi* npinion 4>i" "ALrl iiKjUttir al-Hktgtbrladi. {d, 1(I!17J thai thc
Hrsi fbLir onhodox ralipha were m ibeir historical order bccausc of thcir l mcrit : , as
: "thc most cjcccUent of mcn afier the Me5scnsc^. , ' Baj;hdkL-di was sta.tirLn what he
b*lk"vcd was thc conscnSus of ^uund tlaiiikcrs- oii this topic\ the "[^ihl al-4xiTiTi^.I'i J B ™
w T ikHie adds. "of tliscord" thln^h] a
w Al-Hasj.ui and al-Husiiyn. iht iwo socu of *AJi ibti Abi TaJib by FatLHffcaJi a
daughicr of the Prophet. Both are ootiuden-d =ls rijjjhiPul clsiiniants io thr: caJiphatc
by thc Shi - ah.
14 Al- c Abbas fcbn ^*\bd al-MuLtalib ibn lla^hLm was an undc of thc Prophct.
ji Thai is, Abu Bakr. L has omilt^d *Tavrra^ T n-ads, "Tayni 11 , and -\1S Garrett
989Hb and Garrctt 28!l B read. "Taymi.
tt See thc explanatory giosacs in IsP^hani^ ComniciitaT>' on this p^i.ssage Tnjin
1108- 3, scction 3, TOI-lCS
Isfahani says
47.% T 23* MS 243b:3
/pj&ir ^rtrJ jf/a Mgfiffiit /ttfri/W fl/7<# Wi*' W";' J^phil: Ahu Bakr m
Suimi tow
a. Thc Shi'ah disagrccd with thc Muslim majority [ovcr whcthcr
Abu Btikr was thc rightful Ijnam aller the Messengcr of Ciod|. They
maintain that the righifi.iL Imiim after the Messengur of God should
be f Ali.
Otir Author has mcnrioncd fivc of thc rcasons which indicatc that
the righrlul Imarn aitcr the Me s.scnger of Godl should be Abu Bakr.
] . There is the staie.ment of the Most High:
"The proimsc of God is- to thuse among you faithful in bchcving
and long active in the prjdctice of good dccds;
Them He wiU makc JJis rcprescntatives in the land,
just as He had depuli&ed others before thtm
For them Hc wiH make a place for thcir religion
(hat He has approvcd for them:
In exchange for the fearfufriess in which they had IKed
Hc wiil givc thcm surc sccurity, [a^ Hc says],
"Thcy will bc giving tticir worship to Mc [alonc],
Nor \^tJJ thcv associatc anv othcr with Mc.
Those |still| disbclieving aftcr that,
WLII be [known as| insolent Kbertinea,"' [Q,24:55|
God whn is rno&t high and pr/siscworthy promiscd *to a group of
the Gompanions 1 that Hc certaiiily would makc them His rcprcsen-
tative$ in the )and and assujnedly He would make them strong, [The
proinise] is iridicalcd by HLs statetnerU *to those among you ! . So tlie
group of thc Companions who wcrc givcn thc promisc would have
bccn cithcr
aj *Ali and those who assumed the command a(ter him,
such aa Mu*awiyah, and Yazid and Marwan, or
b) Abu Bcikr and those who assumed ihe cowmarid after
him, who wcrc thc thrcc caliphs, 'Uniar, 'Uthman and *Ali, God s s
favor be with thcrn ali.
(a) The fortner of the two interpretations^ — namely, that
ihose who wcre promised the succcssion and powcr to rule were c AIi
and dio&e who govcnied aftcr him a — h invalid by the consensus [of
scholars]* Wc hold that it 15 inva(id bccaiL&c thc caliphatc of thc Ibur
THF. SUPRPyji LP.AntRSITIP OF THt': \fi:&IJM C£)MUt:NTTY 110'J
[who did scrvc] was raLid» but thc caliphatc of Mu'awiyah, Yazkl
atid Marwan was inva(id 3 for they were tyrant kings, not rightful
succcssors [oi the ProphclJ. But thc Shi c ah huld that [our irttcrpic-
tationj is invalid bccausc Mu*awiyah, Yassid and Marwan wcrc not
among iho.w *who bo]ieved and did whai is right 1 .
Therefore, thp secnnd |i-fi-, oi the two iiiterpretationsj is
dcarly shown as tJic riglil oth\ narncly, thal those who were promised
thc succcssion and powcr to rulc [as thc lcading mtii of thc Land]
wcrc Abu Bakr and thc threc caliphs who foUowcd him. So, it b a
certamiy thar ilu: righrhil Tmarn alter rhe Mesaenger of God was
Abu Bakr. T 233
2. [Agairi] there h the statemcnt of the Most Highi
" Tdl ihose who nn: Lcfr nf <hr Aruhs, l You wilL bi: callcd out
againsi a pcoplc of greal courage, [either] you vviH ktll them or takc
(heir surrcndtr. If you ohcy a thcn God will pay you a handsome
rcward, L 47 f> bui if you tum back^ as you turncd back bclbne,,
rhen Hc. will punish you »ieverely/" [Q p 4ft:l£V|
N(M, the Claimaut to whom disobcdience was Ibrbidden was not
Muhammad, bccausc of thc statcmcnt of thc Most High jusl prc-
ccding this vcrse^ ib TTumc left bchind whcn you go out 77 to win thc
spoils of war uill say, *Lei us follow you\ as they wanted to inakc
a suhsotution for ihc statcmem of GotL Tell them, TTou will nevcr
Ibllow aftcr us; God has said this to you prcviously/ w [Q 48:15]
Thus, [God*s] statcmcnt s 2H :c You wilt nevcr follow aftcr us", is an
indication that thc Messcnger of God prohibircd thcm from foilow-
ing him, so it would not be adrnisslble that he would call them out
^agaiitet a pcoplc of grcat cCftiragr" s olhcrwisCp thcre would be a
contradiction. MS 243a
*AJi was noi [thc Ciairnant to whotn disobcdienoe w^ IbrliLdclen},
bccausc God Most Iligh &aid in dcscribing those who wcre c
upK>n s "'You will kill thcm or takc rhcir surrcndcr* 1 , and ^Ali ccrtainJy
did nol figiit disbclicvcrs in thc dayi of liis caliphatc. Nor was thc
B? Hcrc and in ihs prc\'U>us Qui al a.ii qu»ocaLiorL t thc MS qiiotOi «nh r two or thrct
bcpnntnp iv^rds f iJicn inscru u, lIic vcr5c ,fc aud sldpa thc rc5t of thc vcra to thc- ncsl
31 L, fcJknvcd by T, adkls [r^sa-ya^uliinaj, mistEikenLy continuing v.vith tLw Qut j <ul
CHKrtarion. MS Garrett 909Ha ettdts purl of thc Oiir^an vrrsc [48: 1 5] ajid tmltijnlts,
[fa-qa*vluhu].
10 3* sfjction 3, topics
Claimant to whom disobedience was forbidden anyone who domi-
natcd as lcadcr aftcr 'Alij, by the consensus [of scholarsj und by M
reason of thc fac l therc was no call irom [tbcsc lcadcrsj to the dcscrt
Arabs, Thcrcrorc, it is clcarly shown that ihc Claimant to whom
di&obedictice was lorbidden was snmeone *vho was bclorc *Ali and
after thc Pi i Hphet-
Furt}icrmorCj, God had madc obcdicilcc to thc Claimant who gavc
thc call an obligarion bccausc o( His stalcrncnt; ll If you ol>cy, dicn
God will pay you a handsome rcward, but if you turn back ? as you
lumed back bcfore a thcn Hc will punish you severely." [Q, 48:16]
So, if obcdicncc to hirn waa a duty, thcn his caliphatc was rightfu]»
and thc implication troni this is that thc righttul Imam aftcr thc
Messcngcr of Clod was Abu Bakr.
3. The Prophet appotmed Abu Bakr to be his suecessor in
lcading thc prayer rite in thc days of hh illnt l^, and his appoint-
me.m a& sticcesRor in Jeading thc praycr ritc is confirnicd by valid
Lraditioii, Kunhermore, the Prophe r did not remove Abu Bakr from
bcing hEs succcssor in lcading ihe prayer rite, and so, Abu Bakr con-
tinued as successor lo thc Prophct in lcading thc praycr ritc aftcr
his death. Since die succession. of Abu Bakr in leading the prayer
rite aiter tii5i dcath had bcen coidirrried, his succcssion £ifter the
Frophct p s deaih was fnrther contmncd in matters oihcr ihan the
prayer rite, because no one raised an objection by saying a distinc-
tioti s.hould bc made,
4. There is thc staternenE of irhe Prophet ^The righthil sur-
cessdoH to £OvcrTi;u.!Cr illtcr mc wi.1 hisl ihirl.y Y^-ek; ;ille-r lha( h Wlll
hcrome a dominanc;ir by tyrant." This clcarly indicates that Lhc right-
ful suc:ression was. that of ihe Hrs-t four Tmaras, and that iliu.st- ;ifter
thcm wcre [rncrely] dr>rntiia(i;ig mcrt, not Crdiphs of the SuccrssioiJ.
5. Thc ]5cc>plc of tlic iiaiion had been iti agrcenicnt ujk>ii the
suprciiic lcadcr^hip of onc of threc persoriSn namcly» Abu Bakr, c Ali h
and ai-'Abbas. fc God be Dlca&cd wilh dicm all. Thc casc ibr thc
supremc teadership of 5 A!i and aJ- c Abbas was invalidatcd, so thc case
for ihe supreme lcadership of Ahu Baki 1 was c3early seen to prnvai1.
This fagrccmcnl byj crjiiscHSti 1 ! upori thc snpnTin.; Icntirrshiji brin^
one of thc three persons is famous and is mcntioncd in the hooks
M L aad T rc-ad. f\vifaqan wa-li^adiiml; MS Garrctl 9B9Ha rcads s fwifilqan li-
^dam],
THE SIJPRRMR I.F.AT>F.R&HXP OF THE MIJS] .IM lX}MhlIJNITY 111]
of biographics and historicrs. The casc for ilit suprciiie kadcrsliip of
*AJi and al- c Abhas \vas inyalidaied because, if the suprcrric leadcr-
ship shuuld hav€ bclongcd by right to ciihcr of ihcsc twu, ihen he
with thc right lo it would havc challcngcd Abu R**kr, and would
havc dkputcd wtth him in that mattcr. displaying 110 his argiiment
against Abu Bakr [and defeatirig him^ but hc would not havc takcn
my pleasune tn lus own supreme leadership. L 477 However, boch
c Ali and a3- c Abbas had bccn plcascd with the supreme leadership of
Abu Bakr 3 and tlicy tmth sworc allcgiancc to liim. Tf thc supreme
Leaderahtp of Abu Bakr luid noi he.en hy righl, thcn [their swcaring
allegiancc to him] would have been a dcod of wrongdoing,. and they
wotild not havc been ptcascd with it b for to takc plcasurc in wrong-
doing would he an act of wTongdoing. So, it is established that ihc
rightfiil supreme leadcr after the Messenger was Abu Batr r
An objectkm has bccn raiscd ihat ihc auprerne leadcrship bdongcd
right to B Ali, cxccpt that hc disdaimod his righi out of l ftodly
lcar 1 for his own wellare. MS 24 ;Jb Now s our (orthodox SunniJ
position thcn is 10 ask how can *godly Fear p be imagined to hear
upon thc right of *Ali, whcn hc himsclf had the immist courage and
vigor s whcn Katimah thc Radianr wrth her high rank, her grcat sta-
tus and gtnrious relationship [i.e., as daughtcr of Muhammad, the
Prophet] was thc wife of c Ali, and wheti mosl of rhe leaders of
Quraysh and ihcir notabks, auch m al-Hasan and at-Husayn and
al^Abbas s wcrc with ^Ali! Moremcr, aU^Abbas, with his high posi*
tion. said to *Ali. "Stretch forth vour hand fbr mc to swear allc-
giance to you, so thac tbe people may say. The Mcsscngei of Gori 1 *
uncle swore allegjancc to liis ncphw^ HT]d no tw<> peoplt ^il!, e^t:']'
disagrcc ovcr you." And al-Zubayr ibn al- f Amvam, with his out-
sianding courage, pulW out his sword and said» "I am nm
wiih ihe succe^sion of Abu Bukr." Aiid Abu Sufyan, Chicrof Makk^ih
and Head of tlic Baitu Umayyah said, "O Banu € Aljd ManaC are
yuu plcascd lliat [a man of J Taym will govcrd you? ! — nn:ani.ng Al>u
Bakr s for Abu Bakr was of thc tribc of Taym ibn Murrah. Then
Abu Sufy £ in said» tl By God» I will certainly fill ihc valley with [my
armies ofl horsrs and incji.*
* K.e»diti£ liutliaral,, us in the MS< MS Gameit 989H« atn.1 I.. lrt T Qw [**']
L;ac:ks \ti# cJhiiii^iiishirip; ^lot in the Xwo wtywis oo this liin:, [nixira.Ki.]] Anii [a^hara].
1112 g, sbction 3 ? i opica
But* togcthcT with thc Madinan followcrs s Abu Bakr chailcngcd
thcm alt and prcvcntcd thcm firotn obtainirLg the succes&ion to gov-
ernancc. For thcy were sceking ihe supreme leader&hip, and had
&aid 7 "Let there be a govemoi j from our parcy -mc.| a gweroor from
your party." Furthermore ? Abu Bakr was [then] old arid wcak, hum-
blc but hcalthy. without itiuch wralth and having icw supportcrs.
Th.crefbrc s it was kncwn that *AJi's oath of attegiance to Abu Bakr
was only an. act of approvmg con&ent, becati.se [ K Alij was the fore-
mo&t of thc Gompainons in lcaming arid csccllcnt qualitic5, and hc
was the rinscst male rdatwe ol" al] rhe people to ihe Messenger of
Bavdawi s-aid;
L477, T233
Topk 4b; The rightjid Imam qfter tht Pteptitt: *AB in Shi r ah dottnrtt
a. Thc Shi^ah havc prci^entcd thcir argumcnt for thc suprcmc
leadership of *Ali on tlie basis ofa numbcr of poinls. 31
11 Scc thr notc at thc closi 1 of BaydawTs prcscnlad™ of ihc ca&c for Abu Bakr.
Hcre Baydawi scts out to pirwrit objrathicly hia 5hi*ah oppDncncs" argumcnt rejjand-
ing thc iightEid suctcssor to tbt PraphcL As rrK-ntLoncd cariicr^ hc ia writing at
atwut the end of ih-c scvcnLli '[«lurnir ccntury/thrrtcrnth ccncury crf thc CommorL
Bra^ whercaB (hr sLCliial IrHuiwn; «ucccKnon was deridcd Itmg brfyrc, in iIlc firel
Islamic cewury/seuencli of tbe GtnttttKm Era. Thr hwiwy uT ihe ilv\x\apmetA uf
ihr- Succtssion is irtatcd iit thc En(yiitif}&di& &f htem under tw> anklcs, "Irtiam&h^
by WUfrrd Madjrlunig. cflvcring > th^ '(hcologkaJ and judici^l ihcoiy', and w Kha.lifah",
whLrh mwrsj: (-'HinLon 1 of th^ Irutitution of the Caliphaie' b\" "- Sonmdel, !■■!-' I tT
Politioal Thcory* by A.K.S. I^imbcon. S-*]n Islamic Mystidsm' by F. dr- Jong, and
4-Jn ihc Sudancsc Mahdiyya* by PJM. Ilolt.
In B^iydbLW]^ tc?rt dicic arc su^cinct ouOincs rf thc pcunts of thc Sunni and Shi^ah
tippuuug: atgiun^nt^i, c-rtch with ihcir ssupportinct rcasyns., iis thcac bud bccn FonTiu*
hiiiii ■■mc 1 1 1 1- n LLCur.is. Vm M! lln dL-j-!.l;i:il>* ll.il a .;!.i! l : 1 1 1 i-:! m.ti^ ul ^:i.. Ii i.Hllri
rcgarding hLslaricaJ cvcnLi and stauimcnts. Thus, any approach to uili fc rprclalion.
miglLt csclLc contnwcrsy, cv«i currcntly. Wc ohscn-c tJhat much cncrgy an<J man-
powcr havc bc-cn spcnt m worlding out scttlcmcncs by ncgoriati-Dn and by fbnc:c ? and
hislory cannot bc rrlivcd or rcwnttcn. Baydam atlcmpts t-o providc int-crprctivc
insi^ht for inass public J>j>iniun, kncn^ing: wcll that thc process must bc gcncrations
lcHig 1 . The tuEiliim^d pn)diicliuii uf rnodem sclwJarly wub on this Ntilrjcct dtmun-
stratcs the actri^ctK^ lcAmirt^ and tccichin^ powcr that is Lutcni in thcsc nLaccrials.
Study of rhc ^jnamate' rclace* dircctly to tlieori/.ing ori ih* best forms of Jslamic
govern4Tnent T , Wilityd Ma<lrlLuig spoki ofthift ir* ihr En«l-2 ArricLe mendoned abo^e
'""Basic in modcrriL^l thinking «n thc imamatc and tstamir Dficjvrrnmrnt is thc
en^phasb on gownimwii by conaialiMiion [diurAj and c>n eltcuori sls tht s<ik way
ot" «tabl]flhing thp imam. Theac prinnipta ai^ - vii?w-w1 ;is [he traits which discin-
TKE &ITREME LEADER3HIP OF THE MUSLIM COMMUNSTY 1113
I. There is ihe si^meni nf ihe Most High-
"Ncwrthclcss, ycur sourtc oi ndghboriy protrutiu-rL"" is Uod. um.l
Ilis Messenger,. and those who having confessed thrir bclic^ main-
tain nhe prayri" ntt *inj stmiribuie u> charity; ihey arc tbc oncs who
kncel aiitl how down." |~Q^ 5:551
Thus, whal is meatu by Bl source of neighborly proteciion 1 ' h eithcr
une*a ally> or
b) onc'5 cxccud% p c trustcc, and no othcr^ in ordcr to narrow
the scope [of the term], T 234
Tlie firsi aUcrnative rneaniiig is icivalid, because there is nothing
to spccily what thc alliancc is for the pcrson mcnrioncd; so, it must
be the second ahernative r
Thcrcftwe s ii \s established ihnt the believittg person who is so
dcscribed [in tbc Qur*anJ is worthy to havc cxecutive conlrol in ib+ i
atiTairs of thc Muslinis. MorcoYcr, thc comnicntators havc statcrd thal
the pcrson meant by it h *AJi ibn Abi Talib- This was becausc whilc
he was pertbrming the prayer rjJe a nian came 10 him with a proh-
leirij whercupon [ e Ali] gavc hiin his scal ring while hc was in thc
act of kuccling and. bnwing down, and thc otily onc having thc ri^ht
to take such exe:cii1Jvc a<;ti<jti wc_ujIc.I be the iiiianij, so^ it is esLab-
hshed lliat he is the iniahn.
Also dJoscly related to [this cvidcncc] is thc Praphct*» saying;
"He fbr whom I havc bccn cxccutivc trustce* now shall havc c Ali
as his exccurivc trus.tcc!." 33
j?utshed ihe rishceous cdlLjduue of ilie R&Ehklwi Irorii the sJespodsiH of 11]* larar
calipliAier""
w Qiuonii|| fnom tlit anicle, u Mawbi n , iu Emi-1-2, v. 6:S74 fF M by AJ. Wcruttick
and Patrich Cron^T ^iii* irK^iiLnt "f jm^wU*], (hj w ]>ersoii linkcd by [wali*]
("prasdmity*) lc* anottu-L - pr:rsrin ? jdiiiiJarJy knowr as [mawla J ]. t| Thc rclationship
may be onc of equaJity or of inequaJity, Tht root Tiwanin^ of fwdi] thus uictudc&
pri.*xircLiLv, siid tn" d^riy-atkm, [>uwt?f wid [Prr>ti. B <-iioal. IrL ihc tl«r 3 yn ynd TrmliliOii,
rhrit! arr: rwo «rwes o< ihe terni |nifi^^ H = walr|, T^tier-ring 10 the si]perir>r of Iwo
pmnics in ;i rcbicioiiihip; as luioc^trn^tec-liclpcr, and w l^ni. We may ^upply syn-
ooynu ft>r "[niRirc'' tLiai wuuld inciudc wardcn, c«ccutor 3 guardian, ctc. and ibr
^hcLpcr 8 ' thaL wnuLd incLudc: kitLsn ian, J'rimcl, jJly , ctc. Iji dic rclalionship of incqtial-
Lty, ihe l«i5CT party wr>uld bc a dirat of somc sort to thc supericsr party. Ouoting
the Srtrtie artick- fufftltcr s "Sinrt ^0^--^^^ cuuld only crtter this y.n:ieLy ai «li^nti.,
fmuiw]a" camc to ht syDonymoLU wiih Jion-Arab MusLijn. 1 "
13 Hadilh* iiidexc:d by AJ. Wrnsirirk in .4 H&7ufhvuk qf Earfy Atukammxkrn
« -M Ali : '] -ind in ri-Mdtcm d-Atu/ktim i?-AI$£ a/-//flrfiVA «V j\JdA««t Lunder m*wh'|.
fj>car^H iti ^jsriyi /Awi Aitijnh^ Mn^AddiiTiaJi, U;l2l. L 477:22 JMan binru mawl3hu
{a-^Ali" iriawlahu].
1114 % stcriON % topics
2. Thcrc is llic statranciu of the Prophet:
"Yqu will havn thc samc rolc iii rckuion lo mc as riiri Aaron in
relatioii to Moses-" 54 Aaran was. [Moses'J deputy, according to th-e
GotTs word:
"Moses said L 478 lo hia brocher Aaran, Re deputy Ibr me
with my people,*" [Q 7:142] [and Aaron did soj hut he diert bclbre
Muses] .
3. Therc is thc statcmcnt of thc 1'rophct, rcfcrring to *AlT,
"Greet thc Cbciimaiider of the FaitMul 3 " and lic took pAIi] by
thc hand, saying, • L This man shall bc my succcssor among you altcr
my death, so listen lo hirri and give obedicnce." 35
4. Ilie pcopie of che nation were in consen.sus upon the faci
that ihe suprame leaderihip should be held by oue of three leading
individuah, [namely» al- £ Abbas t Abu Bakr and ^AliJ- Thc casc for
the imaniate olbtsth Abu Bakr and al-'Abba& was invalidated because
i[ has been esiabHshed Lhai the imam
musi be hlamrlc&i, and
b; must he specificd by an authoritalive text
as
and neither of these two men had the ncccssary blameleswiess or
Ok wHcLcas of an authrmtatwe texi, by the conseusus [of schoUrs] .
Thus the case for the mpreme leadership of c Ali bccame clear. 1?
5, It must be asaurned that the Menenger of God would have
madc an atithoritatiw statcrncnt mdicating a particular suprcmc
leader a) in order co complete thc mattcr of hrmly cstahlishing the
and b) out of coiicern for the people of the nation. Rut
[Ajila niinni bMn.bnriku HiUTjn rnin Muaa 1 ]. Locatcd bi Swtan It?i MapA. Mtiqaddimah ?
1I:U5, [n a slisrhtly varicd form [A-La tarda* :m takima minni bi-nu.ii/.ilat HarCin
min MOsa J ?].
33 HaditlL not (uund irnJnwcl eitber ln Wensinck r 9 Hmlhwk m iu ol-Mitpm w-
.\1nfMtfU, iJuu Ilst ihe major c&llectirni3 of" rh^ sonnd^sc Lraiiiiions- t^ssibly ir may
bc gmupcd wiipi iiiaiiy ojhers undrr a ca.cejor) 1 , c.g. frcmi chc Ha^dAotJc ""Imaiius
must Ytc ohiry^dT and, ""Whq obcrys thc ItKiam ol;.vs Muhammad.^ tlr, irt may br
ILitcd in coljAcrinns ttf sp«LfitaHy Shi^ah hadidi. L 47G:2 !i [SiaiLimO ^aJa^ AmJr
aJ-mu^minTn . . . hadha khaHTari ITkum ba'da ma\vti ^L-a^niaM wa-a.tr il l;ihu].
v ' T: fan aUimani wajib al- - ismah wa-mansusan *alayh]; L is thc samc cxccpt
wilh an crroikcciiusly icucrted nc^aEJw [3a] in tbe sedOnd phrasc; MS Garrcll 989H.b
cind MS Garrett 283B are lii-e siunr m-iih utLly a $lighl vfi3ia.tiui]: | id-kiLi"trn yajib <ul
jnkDn wisjib al-'ifmAh wa-an y.iknn man^nsan ';il;iyh].
,? This Sht^ah LritrrpirEtatinn ot thc fam<]us c™5Hftksua s conlradkts ihai oif thc
Sunni |jarly t Sec dic riotc Ln pninl 15 d Ea.ycliwi 1 s fiU"Jicr prrsrntation «f thit SuntLi
etT^umrril on thc ri^htrtil imam Sy^Ct^ssioiij.
THli SVPR£ME L&ADER5H1P OF TIIE WU&UM COMMUNITY \l\5
[thc Prophet] made no pronouncement for anyone besides Abu Rakr 58
and 'AIi ? hy the consensus [of 'scholars|. [The Pmphefs| relcrcnte
could n ol proprrJy have bren lo Abu Bakr: ittberwise, fbr [the
Pruphet] 10 placc ihe leader^s auihoiily slriclly on the basis of an
oath of allcghmcc would have bcen an acl of disobedicnce, so it
bcciime clcar that thc pronouiLccmcMit wast ior c Ali.
fi. *Ali w« tbe most favored person after thc M-essengcr of
OodL
a) This is truc bccause it is m cstahlishud lact based on
soynd tradiiions thai thc staiemcnt of the Most High in a narraiwc
passage, '[Comc, lct us call logctJicr . , .] our people and your peo-
plc' a t [O^Bl]- — is intendcd as a relcrcncc lo ^Ali. Tiiere is no doubt
that iic wouid not be idcnlically the sarac as Muhamniad, but what
was mcrant is either that |Vlli] was hinclioning in [Muhamniad^s]
rotej or that he was ihe nearest of all the people to hini; and who-
evcr was such a person would bc the mosi favored of tnankiiid after
[MuhanunadJ.
['I*hat *Ali was <he most favorcd p<*rsonj is true, moro
ovcr s becau&e ['Alij was the most lcarned of ihc Conipanion^ since
hc was tlic niost widely rcputed or ihcm in iiuegrity and a&tutcncss
hc wa& more artjve iti planning an-d deiiberation than they, and his
m&iuence upon leaming wa$ greater, Fimhermore, the Me$*enger\
atteiuioi) 10 counseling and iraining him was more comprehensive
and iutcnsiYc. and hc was ibrcmost hci ihc skills of tiic divine sci-
cnccs^ both ui thc fundamcntal principlcs and In thcir corollaty
branchcs. So most branchcs oi the Mutakallimun rcfcr to him, and
their fundatnental priaiciptes are ascribed to his doctrine, Philosophcrs
inagnily liim to thc hi^hrat cstncmc, aud thc Islainii: lawycrs ac:cept
his opinion.
The Propln h i said: "Your bcst lcgal mind is ( Ali.' ,4tt
1.-)
L:? wwc-llcd as [UbayYi]! '" T a "^ i° iKpahajirs imi in L: Abu Bukr.
w R^LidLrig [ashlujLrdhucct ^uk^Ati]. Tlw s<3urL-<!5 used vary. In ihe Baydawt tc*i:
U T and MS GarrL-K-Yahuda 30451 read, [ashkldahumt; whLle MS Garre» 98HHb
and MS C^rrelt 283B rtad, [ashltarahunij. ln (he IsCnhii.ni teKH,. quoimg Ha^^rLiwi:
U T, thc MS H MS GaiTcit ^^yHa, and MS GarrcliAAhuda 44*6 rea4 [ash-
halahljillj.
4,1 riadich, indcxrd Ltrk &l-MiA c J4Un dt-MufiAms aa a g-c-ticrsc saying with vmyLiig
pronominal s.nffixca: [aqdatium|, facjdan:i], locatcd in Suum Ihn .Majok. Muqaddarpiah
II; &fkfft ai-Buttiari, Tuter Sunu 2:7; and Mumad lim Hmbat* 5;U3. L 47P:17
{A^d^um : AliJ,
1116 3^ SECTION 3, TOPICS
[And] there are slso matiy 1 raditiotis, such as fhc Tradidoti
of Ihe Bird 11 aiid thc Tradilion of [thc Battlr of| KJiaybar^ that
have beeii passcd along as testimony to [*Ali] as "most £avoncd pci-
son," and thc most lavored should be the suprcme leadcr.
[Baydaud concinuesj:
L 478, T 234
b. Responses by tht Sitnnii. — regarding tfic ShPah argument
1,-a. The amwer to their nr&t point is that a general inclu-
siveness of the divine support is not to bc grantcd; and that thc usc
of a plural prcdicatc with thc singular subjcct is unfeasiblc; but rather^
nhc mcaning is "those appropnatdy inamed with Him/*
2-2l. The amwer eo thcir sccond point is that its whole rnean-
ing is ihe relatitmship und idn$hip bttween ihc bmthers [Moscs and
Aanoti] .
!l-a. The answer to thcir third point is that these
dciaih are neilher cunlimiuiisly tian^cinttctL, i]or arc they acccrptablc
to us as being sound, so thcy may ncit be raised aJS an argument
against us.
4,-a. To thcir fourth pcrint the answcr is that wc grunt neithcr
the nccessity for blamde^ncss [in an SrnamJ, iiot thc necrssiiy fbr
an auihorttative pronounccnicni, nor thc lack of such a pronouncc-
mcnt in thc ca&c of Abu Bakr.
5.-^a. To their htth point thc answcr is that it would have bcen
more suitab3e to assigai the wholc matter to those who had been
dKineLy authorizcd to dccide.
fi.-a. To their sixch poim th^ answer is that it may be coun-
tered by one like it.
11 Mi«:!Uh n prMrty Ltiiti^r-rl, Ihund wa ihtt iculrx tti Jhrahitn Muna jU/.;injrini\
f Aqs*id &! Imamtytih,. whcn: il k ciicd jle tttiitg in chc coUectiojiis nf Anz& ihn M-ilik
and al-TurmLHJii. Thc sayiiig wsls, locatcd in Sshth at-TimidhL Man-a^p-b, #1^0.1, and
k tcibs how thc Prophct. prcpariug fo cat a coolu:d fowl ? praycd God to bring God^
bcsL Iwcd pciuori to -rat it with him ? whcrru^Hin *Ali canw hy ;*n.d acc wiih tuni.
L 470:17 [hadch al-tayrj.
rt HAdithj. indcxtd, and locntcd in Sahik Musim, Jihstd, #132; rcloSd in L Yecciii
Vy.gLteri's «tidc, "Khrtyb^r", lci En-I*2- At tlic &anlr uf Ktiiiyhar afier |jrevioa5
iiicacks had failed, Muliammadi entnist^d thc srancUrd co l Ali F L: a man. w]io lr>v«
Ccxi and His Prophcl^ and whnm Gud asid His Prophet hwc^ victory was fkciaUy
gaiiifd 4 partly thruugh 4\n cXriLtnple of ^Ali'5 gtcat physLcttL stn:ngih. L 478:17
|Hitl]Lh Kliayliar].
THE SLTRLHE LLADJiKSlil? UF TIIE MU&LlM COMMUNlTY I ! !?
c. R&pwists Ttgmdkg tiw Sunni urgument
1, Thc tyidciicc tbr thc superiority uf L 479 Abu Rakr is
[God 7 s] word:
" r ITie Gi>rl-Fearing pcrson av©kls jihe Fiire]; he is one who brings
Ibrth his matiey and i* puriRcd in almsgiving, . r M [Q 92:1 7—18]
2. Now, iIlc jwrsun mcant by [thii stalcmentj would 1« either
Abu Bakr or *Ali, by thc conscnsus [of schoUni] , but ilrc latier is
kcrpt back brcausc of [God'&] contmuing statcmenti
"But not to anyone woukl he give 'a favor to bc rcpaicT, except
out of worshipful desire." [Q, 92:19 20] [This is] bccause *Ali grew
np in thc ProphctV 3 rcligious traming and with his hnancial aid^
and that is "a iavor to be repakl. 11 * 1
"1 [Furthcr cvidcnc:c is timtj whocvcr is truJy dcvout i& tnon
honorablc with God and most lkvored> accordin^ to thc word ol"
\ God j :
"Indeed, the orte most honorahk among you with {Jod js thc onc
who is iriost God-Fearing among you", [Q 49: 1 3] when caken together
with the Prophct^s siatemrnt:
"The sun has neithcr riscn nor has it set on anyoncr.— h^sicks thc
praphccs and ihe mc&scHgers; — who h morc lavorcd than Abu Bakr. ll4i
4. And again there is the Frophei's word reierriag to Abu Hakr
and £ Umar:
""Thosc two are rhkttains of ihc |wholc] adulr populaa: of thc
Gardcn, ex.cept for the prophets and me£seiiger&-" ,e
T&fahani says:
L 479 s T 231 M5 21 3t>
Tofric 4b: 7/w rigktfitl Itmm qfitr t/ie Prophet: Ati in Shfah dMtrine
a. The Slii c ah havc prcscntcd tlicir argumcnt (hr thc mpreme
lcaderehip of ^AIi on thc haais of a numbf:r of points. of which
[BjydawiJ our anthor has- sct Forth six.
** MS GAm'tt 9S9Hb alonc of sduiccs i±34!d oamrs ihc anteccdcnt^ H thc Prophei V,
[tarbiyal ul rb^bij^ instcad of using nierdy ihc rclnlivc pronoun "his."
* L oihiitocl cIk- fottgpiti£ wnicjjcc bei3]ifliMft wLLh % '[This i»l betiiusc 'AJi . . *
A> Hadi^h ? ind.cxed. aiid l-ncalerl in .Shis-an /frfl \fapsh, Muqatklimal\ ll:S5 T ]U0
and in Sakik al TtTmirihi, Manarjib, W37+5- L 479:4 fml 5a]a - at al-shams wa-LR
^harubat f ala b ahad ba c da ali-nabiyn wa-il-mur^alin afdal m.Ln AbL Bakr].
46 Hadjih, inKhrsrd, and l<H:atcd m Sumn Ibn Majaii. Miwjaddimah. 11: 95, LCW;
;ind in SaAih al '[hmu&i, Manarph, #3745 along with thc fnrcjs;oing hadith. 1. 479:5
[huma sayyida uhul ahi aL-|annah ma khala al-nabL^.Ti ■wa-ai-mursalin].
18 3» SKtrnoN 3 topics
l . Thcrc is thc statcmcnt of God \iost High:
"Newnhdess! yonr sourrs of nrighborly pro-tection w\\\ he God,
and His Mcsscnger, and those who s having confcsscd thcir bdief,
maintain thc praycr ritc and concributc to chariiy; thcy arc thc oncs
who knccl and bow down." [0, 5:55]
Thc poiiLt of thc ar£unicnl bascdi on [this vcrsc| is that thc tcrm.,
"sourcc iil nelghborly proiection",
a) may sometimes inean the person most appropriate acid
most lighttul to havc exccutivc CGntroL That mcaning is dcmon-
stratcd 1) by thc lcxicaJ tradLtipn, 2} by an authoritativc tcxt, and
3) by tusloim-try usage.
In thc lcxical tradition, thcrc is> thc statcmcnt of al-
Mubarradj* 7 IB Thc sourcc of ndghborly prolcction is thc onc most
apptopriatje to have executh r e control."
(2) In the matter of an authoriiative text., ihere h the
staicmcrit of thc Prophct; **A woinan who giws hcrsclf in marriagc
withmit thc pcrmission of hcr cxecutivc trustcc has an invalid mar-
rtage;" 48 and. by this he mcant the one most appmpriate co have
cx.ecutive control.
(3} In customary usagc s it is said with rclcrcncc to thc
f"arhcr ot' a woman, or to hcr brother^ that he is hcr executive truatce,
ihat is, the onr mo*t appmpriatc to have cxccutiw control 111 lier
artaii*-
And sometiines [tlie tenn, "source of neighborly protec-
tion ij J may mcan onc who has aHcction» that is^ Ibr othcrs and is
rheir helping ally. An cxample of ihis nieanincj is^ the staicmcnr ol
the Most High:
,4 Mcn and worncn bcliewrs shall bc ncighborly prolcclurs of cach
othcr." [0^9:71] That is, thcy wt.I1 havc aficction cach for thc othcr
and will bc [for each othcr] chpir helping ally, The term, "source
of neighlxirly protection*^ has not bcen known iti our language to
have a third meaning- Therefoi r " ? to sumrnariie, it is established that
thc "sourcc of nt%hlx>rly protcctiun" incans cilhcr a) [= b. abovc]
onc's hclping ally f or b) [= a. abovc| thc onc rnost appropriatc to
47 Ahn al^Ahhas Muhammart ihn Yarid a]-Muharrad : 2 10/826? -28B/M0? ILc
was a cfld>rat<-cl philulogi&t Ln all aspecls of" languacrc and Lhcramrc.
41 Hadithj mdrsutd in WtTisicick 1 * Han-dbwk as beLrkg rccordcd lei Smtm AAu Daud^
Nikah, m& \hnml et-DaTim* Nibah, #13; SaktA ^Twmdki, Nikah, #15. L 479; 10
[A>7umi Lmra 3 Ah niit;sh^i n ii-.iNn hi ^ha^r idhn w-^liha Ewiik&l^iihii l^til].
THE 8UPREME LEADERSHIP <*F THE MUSLIM COMmWlY 1119
havc cxccurivc contrah and nothmg clsc, in nrdcr to rcriucc thc
exient of the terrr^s commonality,
« li": Now s thc firbt alteniativc mcaning [a) hcrc] is invalid
T 235 hccausc of tbc lack of anyihmg thai specJlics thc naturc of
itae 'alJiance' mentiontd in the versc, because 'iiejghhcrly protec-
don 5 m ihe sriisc of a hclping alliancc is a cuinirLnnality among al]
MS 244a bclicycrSj aocording to what is indicalcd in thc stalcmcm
of the Most High:
"Men and women beliewers shall be neighborly protectors of «u:h
olhcr." [Q9:7I]
Hcwtmj thc 'ncighborly protccbon* intcndcd m thc [othcr] vcnic
earlier, Le-, Q. 5:55] is not univcrsal among all bdievcrs
-
because the terni. ^neyertiieless", in thc verse connotes a limitarion
to thosc belinners dcscribcd by thc qtialities mentioncd. So f thc *neigh-
borly protcction 1 mcnlinncri in thai ver*e as a spccial charactcr trait
[l.e;, a 'property 7 ] of [onLyj some believers,
(b) ThcrerorCj, the sccond altcrnatwc \b) LicreJ i& clearly indi-
catcd* namcly, that what is mcant by "thc somrcc of ncighborly pro-
tection** is the per$on most appropriate to have executive control.
So T it n cstablished that the bclicvcr who h dcscribed in the vcrsc
15 woithy to havc cxcculivc control in thc aHairs of thc MuslimSr
Now„ he who h thc most appropriate of all the peoplc to have exec-
utivc control iii the affairs of the Muslims would be the Irtiam, So,
then, the uerse is an authoritative piudamaiion abom <he supremc
leadership of the believer* being dcscribcd.
Furthcr a thc commciitators havc stated that thc onc who is mcant
by [this vcrsc| is C A1E ibn Abi Talib, may God ennoble his visagc,
L 460 ITiis was bccause while hc was peribniiLiig the prayer rite
h inan ceutic lo hiin with a problcm, whcrcupon [\\li] gavc [ihc
man] his scal ring while hc was in [he act of knetcling and bowing
down. So ti ls established ihat C A1J is the Imam worihy to haw e>ccc-
utive oonirol. Also f close to the intcnt of thk verse is the saying 4if
thc Pruphcl: u Hc for whom I have bccn cxccutivc trustcc t now sH;l1I
have *x\li as liis trufitcc. :5S4 * M
49 Al ihiN puirit bliituini shiJls }m usngc of thc wMjrd to th*- fomi [iiwwla*], niLhL"C
rEnui | wii I c J fc excepc in ^uouiljnrts. CJur Eri^lisl] LraiishLtiwi vuii^ accortliiu to cfie
role being discuwtd: ^sccutirc Lrustee^ nn-d ""suurcc of ntishlborty prottctioii' (ttt
the roles of Lhn j surp-ciiur paily io tliĕ rtlHlioruliip; and aa- hcnt fur tlit inJtrir.br pmity
in a*tow]y dewlupiiig histurital urw^e» a txm-Anib Mnalmi 1 - S« fthe atiicle» ^Mntiwla.",
1 1 20 j f sejCtion ;■$> tomcs
Ilcre [thcn] is a summary rcvkw of llic mcanings of the tcrrn^
"source of ndghboily protection." Sometimes ic may mean 1) "the
rnusl cippropriatc pcrson [i.c, io havc executive coiitrol];" and some-
tirncs it may mcaji 2) "aJJy" and "helpcr"; arid somcliirics it may
rncan 3) "cmanripator^ and "emancipRtcd", and 4) ^ncighbor^ and
5} "ldnsman a [i.C-., raimn]."
(I) Thc meaning, 4< the most appinopriate person", is demon-
sinilcd in thc [Noblc] Rook aiul iri ihe Prophei'3 Cmtom. In (hc
Book thcrc is whnt thc Most High has said;
<= rbr rveryone Wc havc prpvidcd inhcritors of what hc has. lcft/ >
[0,4:33] The cummentatorsi hold that [Godj meant by [this versc]
thosc who were the most appropriatc and thc most worthy [to rcccivc]
the inhcritanre. And thcrc is [God*s] word:
"Your pcrsonal abodc is the F]re, it h yomr own Uusteeship. 1 *
[0^57:15] Thal is, 'the niosi appropriate place for you h the Fire",
according 1 to what thc Lommcntators havc said. A& for thc Prophct a s
Custom, there is his Etatemrat in somc of the |hadithj nollectiom:
' "A woman who gives her*elf in marriage widiout the permi&sion
of hcr cxecutive trustcc has an invalid marriagc."* 1 What is meant
by tiustee h *the one who hulds rcsponsibility for hcr weLTare*, and
"the rnost appropiiate person to have exccutivc control in regard to
her aJlairs,"
! The iritended meaning of 'ally' and 'heiper 3 is demon-
stratcd in the Book and in poctiy. In the Book thcrc is thc Most
Higlrs staternent:
^lTiat rncaiis God is the 'hdping ally 1 of believers* and il mcans
disbclicver& havc no hclping ally" a [0,47:11]. liĕrc [God] mcant "a
protcctor."
As fi>r poetry, there is the saying of al-Akhtal:^
So he bccame hcr ^protector' frorn the whole crowd 1 *, meaning
■LC
tbat hc bctamc hcr ally arid dcRjndiTr
(3) Thc m-c^aning of "cmancipator" and LL cmanc."ipatcd" JI
h plain and thc u5t L by lai^ycrs dcmonstratcs it,
hy PitriciiL Cnme m Kji-I-2, v, 6:874 ff., whtrt il is t^plairitd how the tcnll cArtic
to be syjnui}'iin>L!i wiih "iHja-Ar.il> Mualim.^ Mahpni s ODEUtnew^ry bciiig wriitcn
Jbr al-MftUk al-Ndair Muhammad, ihe MAiuluk non*Arab Mu^lini leader and hh
cuhure, rhc ^4uicbnl usi^e wouLd hc ehc [m.iwJa 1 -- foi™.
M Hacbth, [ayyi]m& imra^ih nakahat naisaha . - J,
" Ghiyath ibr{ Ghawth, (rallcd] aJ-AUiLal, died bdbrc 92/710.
II Lt SJJPKEME: LKADKR5HIP D¥ IHJi MU3L1M CGMMLLMTY 1121
(4) The tneaning of 'neighbor' is shown in the pwni hy
a vcncrable poct of Kilab™ whcn [chc tiibe] wns dwtlling as neigh-
bor to thc {tribc of [ ECulayh ibn Yarbu\ H Hcre is how he praiscd
[ K. ulayh '&] neLghboiii ness:
"From (he tjmsure in Hb bosnm, niay God wcli reward
[the men of] Kulayb ibn Yarbi/, and lct tlicir praisc increase,
Blcnding thcir soul& and ours, MS 244b thcy bridlcd
tlirir niouncs^
For help to their ally, and they bound [us] into one band
[all] thc horscmcn facing dangtr."
Ry thk [usc of "[mawla*]" thc poct] mcant his ncighboring tribc-
(5) The meaning of "kinsrnan" is shown by thc statement
of thc Most High, quoting Zakariyii,
"lndccd* I hav r c been learliil lcst onlv kinsmen would Inllow mc."
[i.e.^ in (iincral proeession] [Q IJjh5|
Another examplr of this sense is the saying of Ibn 'Abbas ibn
Kudayl ibn 'Albah abuut thc Bani Umayyah;
"Slowly^ slowlyj cousin& 5 go slowly now, kinsmcn;
Do not uriearrh bcrween us somc a thing rhat [long] has t>een
buiied." By hk expn!*d.on> i kinsmcn , ; he raicant our patrilineal cousins.
So, nowj if you have understood this [diacussion] , then we
shall procccd to say that die tcrm, "source of neighborly pmte-ction 11 »
citiier 1) obviously mdicaies the 'person who is the most appropri-
ate*, or 2) « does nul. If it should be the liral alleniativc (1), then
it is neeessary to lay tht prcdicaic upon it and nothing rlsc, acting
on what is obvious: but if it Ls thc sccond ahcrnaiivr (2;, rhen it is
neces&aiY lo lay the predicate upon it For |l.he ft>lloMng i ] rwo rsasons.
Readmi; ""^Tu^amniair aL-KiLibi^ ai two gc-rwrit" t^rnn n ^Mu^armtiat^ having
the srnsc of "an ancknt oiie"- and thc KiLab betng a tribe p Ldcntiiied morc luELy
a$ "KiJab (b. R*W'a b. 'AmirJ [b, Sa*Ba c aL Scc thc snrtidc^ "M^amma^ by C.H.A
JyynhciJl ? Kn-I-2, v. 7; £f>B 3 and ws Ami,r b. Sa.Wa ! \ by W. Owkirll, Eii-1-2, v. 1:441.
Caskdt mrntion^ variom migiaiifNi.s and ^ttlcd lesidrnccs nf ili^ KiLib.
^ 1 By thc contcnt of thc jn>cin KtLUyb c^idcrtit^' relhrc to a tribc. Ci. [jC!^t ddJa
Vada airnnictits in tbc articlt n "Kulayb b. Rabi*-"i'\ that it k a co-miTLon enou^h
Ar;ibic nyni?, u aiid dots tiot lijok likc a auniiiiiic/ 3 Yarbu' was a tribc in thr 1 "artiim
eioup, ;ind COtild l>e eJtliL~r a pcnsonitl ri-uni^ dx a gtnt^rk"» tribal oue. Tlie Iribrs ol'
Kilab aftd Yarbii* thus may liaw ltv^ed ft?r a linie itt rici^iUmriK ttrrilwics of Ar^tbiy
and been rwnembci^d in i>urtTy as Trmtnally "bowI iiciphbdinE." Ort Kiliib see ihe
prccccUng rtn*c; for Varl>u. f s »c ihu: urtid*:, "Malik b. NuwAyiii 1 ' [. . .b, Yarbu*], by
Ella I^iuIau-Tswciw iti liri-1-2, v. 6:2Fi7-26B,
1122 3- SEcnoH 3, topics
]f the uniRcd Lcrm 55 h used [i.e,> withuut inodilication]
and if it has a contcxt that susrgests thc prcdicatioii, and somcthing
c!osely united to it that spedlies an individiial of the typej then the
predicate should be laid upon it out of rcgard for the prderence
that results bccause of tli-e close union with what speciHes it. Ont
oi" chc rnost important traditioiis is Jspoken] sas a contcxt suitablc for
inlerpreting the tenn. "source of ncighhorly protection 1 ' as "the most
appropriata person", this bcing the Prophet^ saying:
"Am I not thc mosrt appmpriate prrson among" you . . .? wi *
;"2) L 48 1 II is diHkiih to makc the lern^ "source of
ncighborly protection" jn the traditiomil wiyings [of Miihrimmad]
mean nnything othcr than thc "most appropriate pcreon", so it is
clcarly indicated that this mcaning should bc prrdkatcd of itj. hccausc
the principle in language ia [to usc| somcthing that is actually prac-
liced, not something that is negkTted, The ditticulty of predicating
it of any thing clse is shown by thc diflk ulty of prcdicatirtg it of "the
ally*\ bccause thc scnsc jof "the most appropriatc pcrson^] is wcU
known from the word of thc Most High:
"Men and women believers sba.11 be protectors of one another/ 1
[Q,9:7l] Morcavcr„ it would be inipossiblc 10 prcdicatc il of "cinan-
cipator" and "cmancipatcd" } or "ncighhor" or "kinsman" bccausc
that would be a. falschood.
So ihcn it is established (hat the tenn., "souree of ncighhoHy pro-
tcction", has thc Tneaiimg of "tht mo&t appropriatc pcrson", for thc
commcntators havc agrccd on thc mcaninj; of thc Prophcrs saying:
"Am I not (he most appropiiaie penson among you rather than
yourse3ves?" as being» "Am I tiot the most appropnate person to
govcrn you and have exccudve control of your afiaire? M
Jnriccd, ihc miplemcntation of [thc Prophct^sj govcrnmcnt ovcr
would have been [tiore appropriate than thc impleinejitaiion
of iheir own government ovcr themselves. ITiat meaning h obvioij^
in the usage of ihe term 3 ls ihe most appropriate person w 3 m
[SM^di] doctrinc, fas cxamples]:
M The MS rtadb, [aJJaTj al-niuhtAinaf]; while I^ T, MS Garrect 9ft9Ha and MS
GArfcct->VahuHJb 44ftfi incad, [;il-!afe al-mui|ahad].
5,1 Hadith. im€ locatcd in thc indc^w of hadith in this or thc rclatcd lorms as
SUPREME LliADKR&mr OF Tllli MUSI.IM COMMUNITY 1123
aa) 'The rhild oF ihe deeeased is ihc must apprupri
atc pcniOTi for thc iiihcrilantc cwcr any other; and
bbj "The sultan is thc most appropriate person of aU
the dtL/^ens lu carry out legttl punishTncnts;" and
tx) 'Thc hushand is thr most appropriatc pcrsoi: [i.c,
to be trii&Lcc ibrj his wilc;" and
dd) "The master is the rnost appropriate pe^son j_Le. 3
to tlirect] hiis slave-*
Sinte il is cstablishcd that thc mcaning of "thc sourcc of ncigh-
borly protcction** is "thc rnost appropriatc pcrcon to havc cxccutive
Li.iLirn>l". thcn a snmmatSoii oF this imdLiinn will go bark to rhr iktl
that the Prophet's saying:
1 " ± ± i " for whom I havc bccn cxecutivc trustce now shall havc 'Ali
as his executive tntstee", Jmay also have th*r rneamng] "He for whom
I was the most appropriate person to havc executive coritrol uow
shiill have E Ali as thc most appropriatc pcrson to havc cxrculivc con-
Lrol ovcr him." And thinr (act indkates |*A1l's righthil| snpreme lead-
ership, ior ind^d, supreni^ leadership has tio other meaning thau
that
2. The* .Hccond [point m thc Shi.^ah argurncnt] i.5 that thc say-
ing of thc Prophct — ^You will havc thc samc rolc in rclation to nic
as 1" 236 did Aaron in relation to Muse*, 58 except *hat ihere v%
be no pmphet after me," — announced thc fact that the rolc of c Ali
m relalion tu the Prophci would bc thc samc as thc rolc of Aarun
in rclation lo Mosca. And that indicatcs thc fact that all of ihc rolcs
cstablishcd MS 24f)A as belonging to Aaron in relaiion to Moses
are [hu* esiablished as beloinging to c Ali iri relation to thc PropheL
Moreovcr, althougli Lhc icnn, lL role" + is not in thc form of a gcn-
crai rcfcrcncc. cscept that whaL k intendcd by it is a ^encra]ization,
its dear meaning heing ihat his espnessionj "role", is a gencric tioun^
valid Ibr each uf thc spccitlcd individtial csamplcs of rolcs and v<slid
for all of thcrii.
Fof this rcason it is propcr to say that 'A 1 has a rolc in rclation
to "B", and tiic rolc oi' L A ? is Lhat he ha.s- a iainily relation^hip to
['B 3 ];, that he has aifcction Ibr him and rhat he is his rcpresentative
H Tlics* sliLtcrncnta may havc Iicct takcn from Shi 4 ah ]cgal pmctkc or finom a
cullKtion of Shi^ah hadith.
M Hadich, [Anta mLruii hi-aianaJat Harun min Mlkl], IblUmTd by an ""raccpt
ihai" clauK.
1124 3* sbction 3. TOPICS
in all his atTairs. So on that acraumt, if we shnuEd predir ate [*A'J of
some rolcs and not of somi' others 9 thcn eithcr Qiis rok] would bc
ciearly indicated or it would be madc obscurc, The first akernaiwe
tiecessarily would be impo&sihle fbr the lack of any elear Hgiiihcadnri.
being give« by the term, and the sccond alternative also would be
impossiblc becausc of its inclusiyeness and lack of useful precision.
So nothing would remain cxecpt to prcdicatc thc word of cvcry rolc.
This is dcnionstrated by the sayiiig of" the Prophet: "Exc.ept that
ihere will be no prophet after me™ He exduded this role from the
rcst of thc mle&g, and ]l thc tcriti [ 'role'] had not reJciTcd 10 all of
thc rolej, then tlie esclusiou of [thc prophetic rolcj would not bc
successfuL Tf the inclusivencss of the term is ccrtificd and
correct, it would dcmojistratc with certainty the correct assigtiment
of thc suprcmc lcadcrship to *Ali, because a sumniary of thc rolcs
of Aaron relative to Mose.i is that he was his. deputy L 482 over
his people during his liletime, in aecordance with the statement of
Lhc Most High, tclling abuut Aaroo: "Bc my dcputy with tny peo-
ple. w LO. 7:142]
The depulythip has no meaning oihcr than underiaking the respon-
sibility of appoiutcd dcpuiy in \vhalcver rajiects of /idminislration
pcrtamed to him. Thercforc, if hc wcrc dcpuiry to him dnring his
JMoscs 1 ] litc, thcn hc ought to bc his dcputy aftcr his dcath. ass.um-
ing that he s.n rvi vcd. Otherwisc, it would have hccn ncccssaiy to
ousl [Aarori] duc to his amipathy for him, but this would not bc
admissiblc for prophets. Now> since that is a certainty abuut Aaron»
a similar case ought to niakc it a certainty for 'AIL
3. Fojr the thind [poiiii in the Shi c ah arpjument] thcre i$ the
saying of the Prophei, referring to f c AJi]:
ui
Grcet thc Commandcr of thc FaithfuP w and hc took [ ( Mj
thc hand sa^ying;, "This man shatl bc niy Succcssor among you aftcr
my dcath^ so listcn to him and give obcdiencc* This. is a clcar statc-
mcnt, inilicating that che guccession attcr |thc Prophet] wouid bclong
to € A3i.
4 a Thc fourth [point oC the Shi c tih argutnent] is that the peo-
plc of ihe ]iatio]i wcrc [conscnsuaUy] agrccd upon thc suprcnic lcad-
ership of one of tlie ihree leadlng peraons, Abu l)akr, c Ali and c Ahbas.
The case for the supi^me leadcr-iliip ofbodi Ahn R^ikr and *Abbas
w Hridirh, [SaLlimb 'ida? AniEr al-Mu^minm . . .} ? iwt found mdcxcd.,
THE SLTKEMJ:. LtADUUHTP OF TliP MUSLIM Ct>V!MirV|TY I 12-S
was hn/alidalcd aftcr it was cstablishcd that thc suprcmc lcader ncc-
cssarily shrmld he ^blameless' and Khoulri be menrioned in an author-
itative pronouncment. Now, Abu Bakr atid *Abbas did not haue the
li-ecessary blanrLcIcssncss, nor wcrc thcy mcntioncd in an authorita-
tivc pronnuncemcnt, by thc consensus [of schobm], Thereforc thc
case for the suprenie leadership of c AIi was clcarly indicated.
5, The fifth [puint in the SliTah argument] is that the Mes-
sengcr had thc obligation to make an authoritative pronouncmeni
MS 245b of thc supieme leadership of a dehnitc per.son a) in order
to complete the rnatter of hniily establi^hing rhe rehgion and b) out
of conccm for thc pcopJc.
Ic is gcncrally known Ironi thc biography of thc Prophcc that hc
had a kind comideratioci for the peopie like that of a tathcr in rela-
tion to Iiis children — for Hc bad said: "I will bc to you only as a
fa[her is to his child" s w — and diat hc carefully guidcd them i m par-
tTcular dctails likc thc thinp invo!vcd in &uppi>ing thcir daily wants,
and that whcn he would go on a trip out of Madinah £qy a short
time he would appoint a deputy who woukl take responsibility for
the wtlfare of thc Mtwlirm. With this as his practict. how thcn would
hc ncglect his people by nol guiding thcm to otic who would nndcr-
take the restpon&ibility for their wclfarc, this bcing thc grandcst of
endeavors 5 and the most uscful and most widcly beneficial? So there
was no altcniativc to his procccding to niakc a Ibnnal announcc-
rncnt as to thc pcrson who would undcrtakc thc rcsponsibility for
their wclfarc aftcr him*
However ? by the conseti^us [of scholsrs] no announccment of his
mcntioncd anyone except Abu Bakr and 'Ali. But his [final] announce-
mciit would not havc bccri for Abu BeiIth bccausc if hc had rnadc
it for Abii Bakr, tlicn Ibr him to base such an important mattcr
merely uii an oath or allegiancc would have becn an act of disobe-
dieiicc, So it Jjccamc clcar that his [iinalj announccment was for *Ali,
6. Thc sixth [point in thc Shi*ah argumcnt] is that £ Ali waa
thc most fiivorcd of mankind aiter thc Mcsscngcr of God.
[This is truc, bccausc] it has bccn cstablishcd on thc
basis of sound tnadjtioids ihat the statement of the Most High in a
narraiive passage,- —
^ 1 Hadith;, rcrt ]ocaccd ln Wcnsinck 1 ^ IhmdbMt. L 482:13 — [Innania ana lakum
iriiijih* ;il-\vi\liri li-vr7ibdihi| IsEiUiani hor sajs thii com« fpom die Pk^ophti 1 ? bic^ni^by.
1126 3, 5J£GTI0N g^ TOPICS
L Tcll thcm, L Come a lct us call togcthcr our sons and your snns,
our wom«n and your wonien along with oursehes and yourselws*" 1
[Q\3:61] — is intendcd as a rcfercncc (<> 'AIL Now, ihcrc is no doubt
that *Ali is iiol idcritical with Muhammad hiinsclf, hut what is meant
[thc vcrsc] is that *Ali was talring ovcr thc lcading mlc of the
Prophet, and that ^AIi was the nearest ol" all the pcople to ihc
Mrssenger of 'God in exoeDence. That being so, [*Alij was the most
favurcd uf all creation aftcr [Muhannnad],
['ITiis point is truc also hccamc] *AIi was thc most icarncd
uf the Comparoons, since he was the most widely rcputed of them
in irttcgrity and astutencss, hc was morc activc than thcy in plan-
ning and dclibcration. and his insistcncc upon lcarnang was gicater.
Kurthcrmorc, thc Messenger^s attention to ooun&eling and training
f Alf] was very comprehensive and intensive, And [VUil wa* fore-
ruost in the skilK of ibc divirte sdences. hoth ihcir toiiidamriitai pnn-
cs and thcir corollary branchcs, so that Lndccd. mosl branchcs
of thc Mulakallimun rcicr to him, and thcir iundamental principleg
are aurihul.ed to him. Phtlosnphera estcem liliii most highly, ;uif1 rhc
lawycrs of Islam accept his optnion.
The Prophet had said: "Your bcs-t legal mind is ^Ali^" 51 and [of
course] thc s bcst legal mind* would be thc most learncd in all ihe
needed kinds of knowledge.
[This pohu is tme because] in addition, many iraditions
havc appearcd witnessing to thc fact that *Ali i& thc most favorcd
pcr
son.
JJ Thc Tradition of thc Bird is one of them. In this nar-
raiioti, a cooked fowl had been presented ro [Muhamtttad] *md then
hc saidj, "O God, bring mc whoc% r cr of all crcation is your mosl
belcwed person so that he may eat with mc", whennj jn>n *A]i cam( h
and ale with hitn. 62 T 2^7 Now, the one most beloved by God
woold be lie for whom God desired an increased reward, and there
k notliing iu that fact to indicate that [^AIi] was more favored ihan
the Prophet and thc angds, merely because [Aluhammad] had said.
"Brins to me MS 245a whocvcr of all crcation is vour moat
r?
y
be!oved person," Orcourse, thc one who was brougist to the Prophet
[\w] to bi; sniTiiM iric othrr lluiii l\n: ^rophrA, Su, ii is a-i \i hv h:u\
said. '". . . whocvcr of all trcadon is your moiit bc(ovcd pcrson — ^othcr
H n^dich si|-Tayr. Sre n^tc in Dayisi^rh ^orr^spn-nding lesti
TH±: SUTREME LEAOKKSHir OF TEIli MLHUM Cf»MML'NnY 1127
ihan mysdl"." And his &ayiiig p "so that he may eat with me," rmiy
be assuined lo bc 3 LL bring me whoevcr of »11 crcadon k your mosL
bclovcd pcrson- of those who crat — so that he may eat with mc."
And of coursc, angels do not eat. Byt if we should assume that thc
[prayer fbi a diniicr gucst] had a univcrsal applkation» thc facL dial
il was rnadc spcdJic in rclation to thc Praphct and thc angcls docs
not imply that it should he inade specihc in relation to any oLhers
than they.
2) TTre I radition of [the Battle of J Khaybar is aiiother
[story]. ln it lhc Pruphct had scnt Abu Bakr to attack Kliaybar and
hc had rclurncd ddcatcd. iTicn hr hiid scnt ^Umar in his placc,
and he had returnrd defoated, so the Mesgengcr ol" CJod hccame
angry on that account. Whcn it became morning he wenr out to
addrcss all the pcoplc, and he had a banncr with him. Ile said^
"Today for sure I will give the banner to a man who loves God
and His Messenger, and whotn God and His Me&sengcr lovcs, one
who wili pcrsistciitly bc on th.c attack, not rctrcatiiigt MBa So thc men
of the carly Emigranls camc bcforc him [Lc rs . to vohintccr|. Thcn
ihc Prophet asked, "Where is 'Ali?" Ji was reported that he had a
discrcsafal inAammarion in both eyes. [So M uhanunad hmnght him
out| and hc put spittte in his eyes, Then he handed ihe banner to
hiin. That [story] dcmonstratcs that thc charactcristics by which ['AliJ
had bccn dcscribcd were missing in wlioewr had prsceded, and so
hc waa morr exccllent than the two of i.hem- Therefbre, ihe impli-
cation is that he wa$ mote e^cclleni than all the Cornpanions, ^nd
so the inost e^ccllrnt onc ought to bc die ^nprcnn 1 lcadcr.
[Mahani cnntinpesj: L 4B3:21 3 T 237: 10 f MS 246a:9
b. R&spmses by the Sunnis — regardmg the SkFah argnmmt
J.-a. The ans-wer lo ihe fir.sj poinJ is that we |i.e., Sumii.s and
AshaSrah] do not grant that thc intended mcaning ol "the source
of neighiborly protoction" is "thc rnost appropriate pcrson to have
excciitivc controi." Why would it not bc admbsiblc that what ia
nicant by it would be thc "hclping ally?" The [Shi'ah] doctrinc ia
that "protcction 1 has the meaning of a 'helping alliance 1 in gencral t
whilc thtr proceruon in the verse IC^) 5:55 1 is somcthing pardcular.
^ lladlilh Khayl>;it. Scc now iti thc CCirrcspondUig" &aydawi rcxt.
1128 3- SBCTIOH 3 : lOPICS
Our [Sujmi] pr^ition is that we do not grant that 'proioction' with
the mc-inirig of 'hclping alliancc' is sorncthing gcncraL L 484 Ic
is gcncral only when it is annexed to a plural that i§ not made pa»-
ticular hy specifying adjectives, as in the stalement c>l" ihc Most High:
"Men and women. belLevers are prolectois of cach olhcr." [0,9:71]
But if it h annexcd to a pluraL ihal is madc partkular by speciiy-
irig adjcc:tives, as in thc vcrsc upon which thc argurnent is based,
thcn it is not {jcncral. On this b&sis, thcrc is no prohibition against
pmtecaon — that h limited to God and His Messenger and to the
believers who are specilied by Ihe adjcctk-es menlioricd in the versc
a& bcing protcction in ihc scmc of a hclping alliancc, which would
be specific protectinn, not general protection, without there being
any incoriipatibility betwccn thc iwo vcrscs rncntioncd.
rtLrthcnnorc^ if it should bc granted that "protection 1 in the versc
would havc the sense of L cxccutive controj\ thcn to predtcatc a piural
of an individual snbjcct would be unfeasible* but raiher what would
be meant by "those who confessed thcir belieP* would bc *Ali and
those appmpriatcly nained with hini,
As fbr the saying of the Prophet, (B Hc for whom I havc becn
trustcc,. now shall havc 'Ali as. his trustcc^ [this hadhh] bdongs to
ihc categoiy of [tradilions] wilh singlc authorities. Ibn Abi Daud
and Abu Hatim al'Razi H and othcrs of thc traditionbts havc dis*
crcditcd it. MS 246b And cvcn if dic sonndncss of this tradition
should be granted, we alill do not s*rant the soundncss ol" arguing
by il for the supreme lead-ership ol" *Ali.
Tlie [S}ii c ah] doctrint* h that thc tcrnri, "souricc of ncighborly pro-
tcction"j bcars thc mcaning 3 "the most appropriatc pcrson," [But]
our position is tliat w do not grant that "thc most appropriate per-
son" has the meaniing 'mosT favored" f or that "source of neighborly
protcction" means "most cxccllenl w ; neither of thcni wiJl occur wilh
thc mcaning of the other, sincc if one of thc two should occnr with
tlie meaning of Ihe other, tlien it would be valid for each onc of
theni 10 hc. contbitied with ivhatcver rhe other wa& combined with,
but that is not the caae.
Indccd^ it is valid to say T "Tcrson A is morc favorcd than person
B" 3 but it is not valid to say, "Pcrson A is a sourcc of nci^hborJy
M Abu lUtim ^.l-Kaai, Ahrn-id iT"ni H^intui, d- ca, 933-4* earty bjna^ili Tbeolo
giaji. Scc S-M. Stt:nf$ iLniclc on hun m En-I-2j v. 1:125.
THE SUPREME LEADERSHIP Ol THK tiUSLIM COMMUNITY 1 129
proimioi] mon- ihitu is pt-json B." 1 Ajk] iwil il" iliori: should bc
granterl the possihJLity of givmg tn ihc *source of neighhorly protec-
tion* thc rncaning of thc ^moijt appropriatc^ ncverthclesa we stiJI
would not grant thc ncccssity for predicating Jthc rolc of 'protcc-
tion 1 ] upori [the role oC 1 most appropristt: 5 ]'. And even if ihere should
bc grantcd thc ncccsHity to picdicatc thc tcrm "sourcc of neighborly
protcction" in thc tradidon upon kl the most lavorcd" t ncvcrthcks&
we still would not grant that thc meaning of "thc most appropriatc
K I B
pcrson" would he "the most appnopriair person to have execntive
over them. Rather, it is possible thal wliat i& meani by it
is "rnurc appropriatc fur thcni in thcir afFoction for him and their
exalialion of him." But ncithcr of thc two mcanings is pn:(crablc to
the other r
2,-a. Thc answcr to the sccond point is that it would not bc
valid to draw an inlcrcncc by it from thc gtandpoint of its docu-
nicntary support. And cvcn if thc validity of the docunientary sup-
port should be gramed absolutely, nevertheJess^ we still would not
granc ihat [Muhacnmad^s] saying: "You will havc thc samc rulc in
rcladon to mc a& did Aaron with Moses T1 7 would mcludc cvciy rolc
that Aaron had in relation to Moses. Ibr among the totality of roles
ihat Aamn liad in relacion lo Mo&us h ihc fi*ct that he was a brothsr
to Moscs. in tamily kinship and a parincr with him in prophcthood s
but that has not bcen cstablishcd iar *A1L
a) Rcgarding the [Shi*ah] position that the role is thc namc
of a gc»mi.s suitahlc for aJl rolcs and for each cine taken by i(sclf, our
position is, that we do not grant that thc namc of ihr gcnu», when
stripjx'd of dcfining" factors s slich a5 th<" inscrtion of thc dcfinitc arti-
clc or a ncgalivc particlc, would ha\r: gcneral reference- Rathcr- it
is of the kind of unrestricted nouns that may be properly used for
each indjviduaL of thc gcnus by way of substitution, not ihat it would
appl/ : ' to cach onc by itsclf. as wdth the plural lbrm ? othcrw^sc thcrc
would remain no dKTercnce L 485 bHween tiie unrestricted and
the general It is obvious that the irteaning of [iht hadilhj is a com-
parisoti of € Alt to Aaron m brothcrhood and kinship. And cven 5f a
gcnerali/aiion of ilie roles should be grantcd, wc sdll would not grani
w Thc scribc of L, [a| L 4^4:2^] m$md of wriung [mtilan.awilHii}, inadv^r-
tently wpote [miabayyinanj then atEeiinpccd 1 1 > ^we.ci Lt by mrrcly aiJLliriJj [wilan].
bul ^Le poiiil^ bdow lhf *T:u. pH and ihe *y& m wrrr ncit rh;ingcrl m br abcn-H- :Iic:iki-
lctt-c-rs.
11 30 3* se^tion g § topics
that one of thc rolcs of Aaron in rclation to Moscs was his right lo
be his auccessor after him, in order to make the implic&tion that the
samc thing was within thc right of *Ali.
Rcgarding thc [Shi c ahJ doctrine that [Aaronj was thc
dcputy for [Moscs] ovcr thc peopie whilie [Moses] was alive 7 our
[Sunni| posmon is that wc do not grant that; bnt rathcr, [Aaron
was- partncr to [Moscs] in thc prophrthood P and the pnrtner is
dilTcrciit frorn thc dcpuiy. To makc unc of thc two partners dcputy
to the othcr would not bc bcttcr than thc rcvcrsc. Thc statcmcnt of
the Most Hi^h, quoting [Mose^: "Be depuiy for me with niy pco-
ple", fQ 7:142] means for Aaron to do his ulrnost and gjrve his great-
est carc in undcrtakiiig thc weliare of his pcoplc> as it was in thc
perfnrmance of Moscs. Bnt as to wh<*ther [Aaronj was T 238 [lor-
mallyj appointed a* deputy to [Mosea] merely hy his staiement, no,
[Aaronj was not, For^ rl ihe one appomied as deputy lo a person
by [ihat pcrson^s] own stabemcnt, should not s in his turn, bc ablc
to appoint a dcputy |lbr himsdf |. MK 247a thcn hc would not
have the right to occnpy his plaoe in administration,
cj Moreovcr, sincc Aaron was a partncr of [Muses] in thc
prophethood hc had that [right to L occupy [his own deputized| place
in administration*], even ihough Moses did not [fonxiaUy] appoint
JiiriL as his deputy, And even if it sJiould be granted ihai [Moses]
had [formally] appointed [Aaruti] as deputy in his lifetime, never-
thctcbs we stilJ wOukt tjol gtant thc rtcccssrty of [Aaron 3 s] appoint-
mcnt as succcssor to [Moacs| aftcr his dcath, for indccd. [Mo&cs']
statement, "Be dcputy for me", doe* not have i]i it a Ibrmula of
inclusiveness whereby it would nequire [Aaron's] being a deputy in
cvcry pcriod oi" time. And for this rcason, cvcn if [Moscs] had [for-
mallyj appointed him to he dcputy agent in his Iif^time nver his.
aHairSj that still does not amply any continuance of [Aaron's] appoinl-
iricnt as dcpiiiy and sucocssor for him aftcr [Moscs*] dcath.
MorcovcT. if [Aamn] was not rcqu.ircd to bc a dcputy in cvcry
pcriod of tiniCj thcn his not bcing dcptLtj" during sonic of thc timc —
and that being due to the scarcity of «vidence iia the temiinology r
[of the tradition} li^r his appotntment as depuiy during [the time
pcrioc! iii qucsliun] — wuuld Tir.it bc a fi>rfciture [uf his casc]. Tt would
bc as if he should lx: ĕaplicidy appointcd as dcputy in some admin-
LstratLvc actj aiid not in othcrg^ and indecd, that would bc no ior-
(eiture, not Ijeing his by depuiizaiioii. If there should lx- no forfeiture ?
thcn there would l>c nn alienation p.c^ of his cstsc]. But, cvcn if it
THE SUHKti-ME LtiADliKSHli* OV THt: MUSLIM COMMUNJTY 1131
i
shoukl be granied thal thal wuuld bc a forfciturc fbr him, ncvcT-
thelcss ii would bc a sliortcoming for him only if hc did not alrcady
hold a more excellent rank,, higher than the apprrinijnenl ^s suo
ressor, this being his partnorship iii the prophethood.
3,-a. The answer to the third poinc [in thc SM € ah argument]
is (tint thtsc hislorical notkcs have not tn.cn repcatcd continijously
[duwn through history] and thcy arc not vaHd in our judgmcnt* so
thcy may not -&tajid as argumcnts against us.
4.-a, The ui&wer ro thc founh point [m the Shi c ah argument]
is that we ccrtainly do not grant thc ncceasity of blamelessncss [for
thc supreme kader|, nor do we grant the necessity of |his| being
announced in an aulhoiitative text, nor do we granl ihat an announce-
mciit in an authoritarivc tcxt is lacking in thc casc of Abu Bakr.
5.-a. Thc answer to thc fifth point [iti the $hi'ah argument]
i$ that entmsling the [wholej maiter lo pcrsons [who would be nai-
nraJly] msponsihle ibr it pmhably wouhl have been mort reliabk
with thosc pc.TiH.ins than it woukl bc [to rcly on] an aniiaunccmenl
by an authoricativc tcxt on thc suprrme kadcrship of somc prrson
prcciscly Ldencirtcd
6. a, Thc answer \o the sixih point pn thc Shi c ah argymenL]
is thai the proofs. you [disputants for thc Shi*ah] have presented to
provc thal *Ali was more favored arc c:ountered by evidence demon-
sirating iliat it waa Abu Rakr whu was minr favoretl.
Cr Rtsptmm — tegardmg the Stitttti arg&mtnt
1. Thr proof of thc supcriorily of Abu Bakr is ihc word of
LGod]:
w l'he i xr;d-fearing pcrson avoids [the Fire]; he is one who hrings
ibrth his money and ii purihed in almsgiving," [d 92: 17-18] The
pcrson mcant by this vcrsc would bc ciihcr Abu Bakr or "^Ali;, by
thc con&rnms [of scholars].
. The second alternati^e, natnely, ihat the person meant L 1-86
by ii h *AJi, h rejcctcd bccausc God Most Hi^h, in describing thf:
God-fearing, declarcd in His [estendcd] statcment, *. , . He is onc-
wlio bring^ forth his moncy and is purihcd in almsgi^ing^ and there
is no onc to whom he owes thc repaynient of a favor * ., .", fC) 92:18-
19 1 ] "Ali is not desciibed by the [laiter] two verses ?
a} because iheie is no agr&ement about *Ali Lhat he brought
his money and was purilicd in uJmsgiving» and
bj Iwcause *Ali grcw up in the Pmphet^s religiou^ i.raining
and \vith hss tinanclal aad, and that woukl bc a *favor ta be rcpaid'.
] ] 32 3« 5EGTION j h TOPTCS
Nuw, if thc "most Gud-fearijig" shoukl not mcan e AH, ihcn it dc.irly
mcans Abu Baks\ and so Abu Bakr MS 24 7 b would be the "mosi
GocMearing penon." And whoever was the most fi God-fcaring ? wauld
be the *most «oble*, hecaus« of the statemem of ihe Mosi High:
"Indeed, thc one s most nobJe amung you" with God is che onc b mosr
Gwl-fcariTig amoTig yuu," 1 [Q49:13] And whoevcr is Snost nohle*
would bc thc l most favorccT with God; thcreforc 3 Abu Bakr is the
'most favored\
3. Mornwer, there h what thc Prophct has. said: *Thc sun has
not rispn nor has it sct on anyonc, asid^ from ihe prophet!; jnid th^
messengersj who is more favored tlian Abu Bakr."** This indeed
dcmonstratcs thai ihcrc is no onc morc £iivored than Abu Bakr, so
*AJi would not bc more favorcd than Abu JJakr. And if *AYi is not
'more favorccT than Abu Bakr, thcn cithcr
a) he would be c equal in favor* to Abw Bakr, or
b) Abu Rakr would be 'more favored* than 'Ali, may God
bc plcased with thcm both, Thc firt>t altcrnativc is rcjccted by the
conscns-us [of scholars], so thc sceoiid alLcrnative h clearly indicaled
[as true],
4. Furiher, thcrc is [ihc Fi ophet 3 s] statecnciit reicniiig to Abu
Bakr and *Umar> " Those two are chicftains of the [wholej adtilt
popuJaee of ihe Garden s except ibr the pmphets and the messengers.,"* 7
5 r And [iherc are Eiirlher Kayings of the Prophet]:
"Let Abu Bakr lead the prayer rite for the people,"** Having [Abu
Bakr] go Ibrward lo preside in the praycr riitr, which is thc must
favorcd o.f ihc worship ritca, dcmonstratcs that hc was thc onc most
lavored.
And when Abu Rakr was rnentio^ed in his presence [the ProphctJ
said:
"Whcre is thcrc anvonc likc Abu Bakr?
Vhe people treatcd mc as a liar;
w Iladijh, [nmi ida^i al^haim wa-La ^harubAi). $cr. ihe luli i\ou: in (]ie Kaj-rlywi
tcxt porcson.
tJ HiidiiJi, L 4K6:10 pLLnna sa\yidi kutiul ah3 iUjannah]- .Scc ihc- fiill rwrtt in
thc BaydaM ttxc partiun.
** Hadith, L 486: 1 1 pi-ya^umni al-nas ,'Uiu Bakr}. WensLnck^ Haudbttok Iikls
nnJljpk- hadiths authoriziii^ Abu Bcikr lo Lrad t}ic prayers both in Muhammad'5
^t^MKe and a( his lasi. lllrw^a. Istaliaiji dws rior ^]i^rLF> - wtiich CHlrjjury this qm>
ladoti i:s ErttHL.
THE. 5UPREME LEAPERSHIP QF THE Ml SE.IM GOMUT~NlTY 1 3 53
bul he t>cliev-pci rnc and put his iaith in mc;
he marrierl me to his daiighier, atid cquipped mc by his wcaldi;
he was a coniiort to rnc in himscin and
hc ibiight hard bcsidc mc in thc fcarful hour. lsfiq
fi. [rirally], there i? what c Ali &aid:
**The hest o( me.n after tlie pmphets is Abu Baki, then TJmar," 70
Baydawi said;
L486, T238
Tvpu 5; 77w mallntte vf Jfi* Cta/utrnOTts
a. Wc should piaisc [th* n Companions.] and turn away Ironi abusc
nt them.
God Mosi High spokc highly of thetn in many places, iricluding
tl
il^c;
L "Thosc who stcppcd out in advancc, thcy arc first" s [Q^
9:100] and
2. "God will tiot biing ihame on tlic Prophet,
noi on thos^ who bclicved with him" 3 [O^ 66:8] and
3. Those who arc with him are severe witlt disbclievers 9
but merciful with onc another." [Q 4S:29]
b. Thc Piophct said: "[Do not ahust my Conipanionsl]
1 . If any of you could fill tlic world with gold
Still ii would not rcach the valuc of onc of [my Gompaiiiona],
tior cvrn half [the valiie]-" 71 And
2. "My Companiotus arc likc thc stars;
by whichcver onc you scck guidancc,
you will bc gulded ri^hdy"/ 2 and MS 248a
lA lladith, L 4ft6:13 [Wa-syna niithli Abi BaJtr? KadhdhabaELi al-naa, wa-
^ddac]ani wa-amaria bJ]_ Nol locatcd in Wtrnsinr.k s s Hsndhoo.k.
™ Thr MS itdds, "[Jieii \m to who is aJlcr chren^ God ia most uiiderMsuKling."
71 lladitli» L 486; iS [lr* t&suh-bu ashabr] — [law autog* yliadukum m»ta*a al-
ajxl dhahjLl>-iii Jarn yabkigh muddari ahaduihutri ^a-li Jii^huJ. Noic chai Raydawi~s
quaCaticui omiLs Lhr fir*t llircr wards, thai idrticily itw hadrth. It may hr- ^oLiped
Ln. V\ r ™5inck^s HoMihook with **Jt is prohibitittl to sli^hl — 1+ + wiih cit:Ltijona to: 5aArA
fl/-J3ufc&i7i7 1 62— Fada v il Ashab al-NaJDi ? 5; and Sahih AJmlim, 44-F;-ida'U al-^ahabaJi,
221-222.
72 Hadith, L WS6:L9 JAshabi ka-al-nujum bL-ayyihim iqtadayaim ihtada\tLimJ.
Kot Locatccl in VVcminck % £ ILmdbooL
1 1 34 3, section 3, TOPica
J- il O God, O Godj for my Compiuriona* sake aftcr me^,
l>o not singlc thcm oui for anyone^s harmlul purpose.
Whocwr Iuycs them 5 atid ihen lows inc s I will lovr;
Whocvcr hatcs ihcm, and thcn hatcs nic, I will hatc; J *
Whocvcr wrongs thcm has alrcady wrongcd mc t and
so has wronged God„ and
Whoev«r wrongs God ? * is near to his own Jdeath] seiziire."" ,,fi
c Thc wrbal attacks |Lc-> against thc C"ompaiiioni>] that havc
bccn transmitted
are subjcct to diJTercrn oonniructions and inlerpretatioiis,
and in addition [thesc attacksj do not cqual what has brai reccwcd
praising thcir virtucs and tclling of thcir dccds,
d. [BaydaiAT^ Prayer|
May God enrich us by the. frtendly ;ifiecfion of theni a])
?7
and 10 their way of Iifc inay Hc lct us tomply.
May Hc prcvcnt us (Vom iollowing those who stray; and
[May Hej raise us on the Day of JudgnieiU
among the numbcrs of L 487 thoy: bcing Icd
tay His inclu&we and kindly favor
and by His wonderhi] gcnerftsiry.
[GckI] fs indeed One who is listening,
tjnc; who will anawcr!
.-
[1£NI> OF BOOK 3 [N BAYllAWIS TEXT.]
73 L akm<: nf Miurtcs usrrl ollilLs * l a[Ld [ [in rc-inmj will hate thrrn' % [uhghidnhiLin].
N L alonc adds^ K and His Mcs&engeT. 11
75 T^ars vary: T.: [yGglrik ;jh alditLliiiliJ: T: [vii*hik an yiil^iAdh]: MS Gatrett
saOHb: [ynshik ^in ytrtharihhu f?j; the MS: yOshilc ;in yaTchiKth [?|.
™ Hadiih, I. 4ft6rl9-2! [Altoh Allkh fr askabi Ja taukhldtthum IWdi ghara^aji
maii ahabh-ihum ra-^ihilihiini uhlbhijhijm ]. Nm ]orair:r1 fcr r^nain m W^-nwm k^s
Handbool' May be cbfLwd, an: "''"Muhai^madi Jmv of thr - M ? <:ic^d hr bdng [ti St&ih
T? L"h itxl ia tDrrupLed: fja*ularLa ADiilk biham wa-muttab^ml; T: [ja^aJariO. Allah
ii-ili^d^ihicn [[iuttabd*IcL]; MS Ganrtt 589Hb and AIS GarrcH 2W3B do ncn rrpc-at
"jiMlah" in ihis staiement.
1-9 T and MS Garreu 283B: [bL-fti<J]ila al- c azim wa-EuydLKi al- £ amlm.] "whilc L
rewrsc» fhc AdjKtivc»i M* Garreli 969HI>: [bJ-CUd-lihi Al-^ajnlin ^ai-ntiisaiht 4tl-
haaJml-
" T adds, irf Who w; ncar" [qar[bl,
niK SLTKKMIl JLEAUERSIIIP Ot 11 IE MUSLIM COMMLNITY 1135
Isfaham says:
L 487, T 238/9, MS 247b
Tofrie 5: Tke £X€£llmce qf tht Compamons
a, We shuuld prai&e all the Compamons oPihe Messenger of God
and tum away from abusc of thcm.
We musr ihink well nf them aJl b
anri forsake bigoiry and hatred for sonu» of ihem
as bcing dintrciiL (hjiri othcrs;
Wc must givc up c^ccssjyc tovc for somc of thcm
as a way leading: to defamation of ochers
ani.l detracting from such; because
God has apoken with conimendatioii of them [all] in many ptaces
includiiig thesc:
1 . "Those who sicpped out in advance 3 tliey are first
thc MeccuTi t-iTiigranla wid the Madmaii allies",, [Q9:I00] and
2. ^On thc grcnt day God wiU not shamc thc Prophctj.
noa thosc who bdievcd with him s \ lQ,fiti:W]
3- "'Phose with [ihe Pmphet] are severe with disbeliever^
biU mcix"iful wUh onc riTiodu;r;
you will sce thcm ku ecling and bowing duwn,
seclring £a.vor and acccptancc with God" t [Q, 48:29] and
4, "God was- very p!ea*ed with the [carly] believers
as they wcrc swcaring allcgiancc to you [thc Prophctj
undcr the tree." LO. 4S:1HJ
b. Morecwer, die Messenger of God praised thcm fbr strh/ing hard
in their alljaoce wkh [himj, tbe Messenger of God, [someuine*| hy
iheir ligliiing arid [socn-ctimes] by Bpcndmg ihcir riMJiR-y. He used 10
say:
L "Do noi ahuse my Companion&i
If any of yon could fill the world with gold,
still it would not rcach thc value uf onc oF thcni 1 *,* 0, aftd
2. CK My Companions arc likc thc stars;
whichcver one yon seek guidancc.,
yim v-.il I :ji nndi-d li^hrly' : : " >n:d
w Hiidilh, L 487:10 Pa uuuUhj Hf^ribf law Aut'aqa 3hAdu^ufla jnab* 4*fli<J
dhahriban— ] hlUhiini quom ihe- first ihtee wi^ds rtiac idencily ihr hailiih, ik* noie
Ibr tbe Baydawi correspoiiditig icxt
" H*dkJVp L +87: 1 1 [A^aJbi ka-al-uuj&m.]. Srt noie Tor B*dawi*s oorreipoiid-
ttig iesn.
1 136 % skction 3> TOPICS
82
3. u O God O God, fbi my Companions 5 &ake altcr me>
Do not single thcni out for anyonc"* harmiul purpose-
\Vhoever lnves them, anri then loves me, \ will Uwe;
Whocvcr haies thcni, and thcn hates n»c„ I will hatc;
Whocvcr wrongs thcm has alrcady wrungcd mc 5 anri
Whocver wrongs nic has alrcady wrangcri Ciod, and
Whoever wrongs God, as near to his own [death] seuurc."
c. Thertfore, how CGuld it be right
for anyone bclicYiiig in God and ihc Mcsscnger of God
lo hate sotneone descrihed hy thesc attribute?,?
"1 /he verbal aitacks on die Comparions that ha%« bern iranstrLittcd,
— assuming thcy arc hisLorically \alid t —
are subjcct to ditlcrcnt constnictions and tntcrprctations:
and in adrlition, thcy are not equal with what has bcen. reoeived
cxtoJling thcir Yirhics, recountiiig iheir gnnd deeds
arid thcir pntis*:wc>rihy lives.
d. [Baydawis Praycr with Scripturc
May God enrich us by the fricndly -aflection of them. all.
And to tlicir way of lifc^ may Hc let ua compiy.
May Hc prc% r cnt us from foJlowiiig thosc who stray, and
[May Hc] raisc tis up on Judgment Day
*\ . . Among diose favwed ol God,
Thc pruphets, and peoplc of tnilh,
Thc rnartyrii, and proplr of virtue; —
Oh, thcy will bc cxccllcnt compan.ions!T ? [Qur J an 4:69]
|K\n OV KCJOK 3 IN IHKAHANTS COMMKWIAKY, AND KNI) Q¥ IllR
if)]\L WC)RK.|
Hadtith. L 487;] I 14 [AMi Allah J? ,T$habJ li\ taiirdJtidhubum t*a c dJ ghanidaji],
3« nott lor RadavLi's toTTTsjjondiriK tcxl.
M The scribc- of L, ptThaps iuiaurc of ihc urthurgraphy, ltft u bLank spacc for ihe
wurd iicid inacK^criendY orrdtird tc fill il in: u tc^ dieir rriHiinrr o{ Jife^ MS Garrrti
■
!>69J]a irads. pi-hudSiinml and T mids, [li"-hudayhimj.
TABLE OF ROMANKATION
OjnstmaKij
=■*
Hamzali/ Alif/ Gloiml Stop
jim
Idia
dal
dlial
iJ
shtn
sad
dad
*ayn
ghayn
kaf
lara
nim
ha'
waw
Symhdt
h
t
J
kh
a
dh
r
z
or
f
]
m
ii
h
V
;i 1 U
S/tcrt Van.tth\
Ltmg Yowtls: 1 I
Alif nruu^ura 1 ; a*
fl
This page mtentionally Ieft blank
GLOKSARY OF TERMS
Auiho"iiies emsuUed:
BaydawL *Abd Allah. TasmET al-Ammr
Dhanami, Alncror. Pkysieal Thwrp of tf\e katam
Prank, Ric:hanl. Unngs &nd jTSht Attributcs
Goichoii, A.-M» LeKupt* de ia Langue Pkiks$phique d*Ibn Sim
IIjlto, J-G. Fara*id al-Dwriiah
Heer, Nichalas. /VmW /tourf
hiahanL Mahitiiid- Matuli* al-Amar Simrk 7'aamlt* al-Anauar
Jurjani, c Ali ibn Muhammad al-5harif. Alk& ai-Ta c qfoi
Saccd Shcifchi 3 M. Dkiionary ofAf*tilm Phiiawphy
Wahha, Murad. al-Mu r j*im al^hLa/i/ ¥a£abulnin fs t Wafvphupi£
Wchr a Hans. Dirtitmary of Modem Writitn Arabic
Wuellner, Bernard. /JtrtK>fltir|F of Srhoiastit Ptrikupky
AIJF
mu^Jhi-r
mu^kthimak
ahad
&u
TA*
THA
:■
tnlluent-e. Lausal eticcLiyeness; Heer. efficaev:, Fraiik;
elTecl
I, 150: II TJcrr: cR"mivc; causr^ Wuellncr, ciEriciil
caus^ JP efliecLiv£ cause,
L I50:G cfFcctivcne,s&- Sec aLso m fifihy&k used wi[h *jffflaA
q. lururc ttcmity; iM adj. withouc criHing
n, past ctcmity; ff£S# adj. withnut beginning
atoni nf tirnc, a w nyw'\ mymcui, imtant
.simpJr, jiot Cttmprtuiid., UttCOnipLicajtcd; a twu-ditrieii-
aanaJ torni T 75:22 [& MS Garrert 989Ha; f 71b; I ;
;"L 165:23 onriits)]^ "if dividcd by two darncnsinns., [it
is] a planc surTacCj or a twy-ditiLtiTtHiynaJ fonn al-tttk
m m-at-lkmf K 1 ih\i\ sematitically rdated to a niat, floor t
or any fiat pla.ce;
L 106:19 the farther contiguity; See also al-aqrak
L 177:22 subsequcncc
thr c:onarf]uc:nt [rtf a prtfmisr] Wahha, Sarrd Sheikh!
L Fl7 H^er; establkhed; r.rrtain, a. certaul&ri Frciiik:
ruaJ. exJstc:tit: cs[ablis!u:d ideal rcalhy
1140
ttLLHSAllY Ol- TliKMS
thubiit thubiti
L334 jj/GjA thuhjdiyah an attrihiitr which attums cxis{-
cnice; Hccr! subal^tenjcc; Fnuik: rcaJity.; Welin ccrtaintY
jidah
tajaddud
jism mu{laq
■ i
jism ta*timi
jism ffft^t
JiiTTl 07? tNtptt
S&ced Shdkh: catcgory of statc or possession; ct
|milk|. Sr.c b]*q: Wudlnrr (nrtricr eatrgttry}: habrtias
nr iLituniJ adjunLLs.
L 1 78 renewal; with te^^t/m: expiraticni aiid rcncwal
MS 20a gh body as aboohite [Ltj bs an ahstracrion]
MS 2()a gh body as sotnechiiig growing [Le. f a$
cbjecrive]y rea]]
L 141 j, Wahba. from Jurjjani;
inalhrnijitica] hody, trat"hinff inodel, L 238:11-1 3,
L 233:4 a geomrtrkal teaching hocly
miganasah
jaittSMr c a$lfyah
L 4G2:2l Wehr: a conibmation oT dwergent» sep-
arate thkn^s;
a joiiibg together} L 1411; rf. Goachon #7G2: a^gre-
gation
L HO; Goidmn II?: huniogeneity
L 368 intclUgible jsubstanccs; Hccr: intcUcctual sub-
stances; subscanrial inrrllrrrual bcisiEjs; rf, Wudlnen
separated subsiancc (undcr substsiiicc), "a created
intcllcctual stibsistcnt being» Scc spirk"-
ja&jahir al-gha'ibah L 285:16 {undcr incorporcal cntitics (ii+mtfaiiqat:
subpt^nlial b^ings- not ob?j:rvable by huitian scnse
pcrccpticm; cf Juijwu {under ja^Aar): . . . ail abstnujted
^ubstanre . . . UK the iiriteltece and the soui; d! WuelJjiber:
jawhar muJSri^
at-ju^ at-wwari
ju^ lajataja&p*
separaied sub&lajice, loc oL above.
L 67 ;5; 286 scparatr Hibsttmcc:; tr^nscendcnr
the frtnrnaii^T! part; Le., the deliiiing Eacior
nidn/isjbk aiom
takdid
muhaddad
fw?®fi4?h
tiapata
happala
mukalidloh
muhaqqtqun
djellanatation. delimiiing deGiiirion» analytical defiiiidoti
L 322 analytical dcfinitioii (a qabil &l-i&h<fid &-iniifa*
at-tarfclb jihi t dcliniiting dcfinirion. Scc abo rasm
L 275 ai-jiim at-muh&ddad lit-jihat 9 L 372 al iwdtad'
dad—\thr. hrvC,n lirnittid sphen:s.j; a ddRiird liyStdrn
fof the sc\eiTi orbitij
mntinn., mm™fiitj mntion-chAngc!; gradnal chingr
{a prtigressiv« activiiy) Wucllner: changc
Otcur, aUail! to, obtain
L 234:12 Wehn infer:, d-educv a suiuniari^c; tu pysit
hypothedcally (used to contrast winh nmtlaq}[
L 67:6 orthodos Muslim investigntivc scholars
G1.0SSAR.Y OF TKHMS
I I I I
hukm ahkAm
Milhdtt
haythiyah
hajyit hap
rnutati
la
W 1 *
hiss al-mtiihtuiik
L 209: 13„ L 6I:2>7 prap^rry, as ihe prerogatLve s
or propcr role; ALnoot Dharacii, 35 3 n, 6] , 37, n. 68 —
propcrty; Kraiik: 83, n, 18— charactcristic
gubstrate, or locus-substrat^ {ihr distinttion trom:}
mawd&* ^ubject-iubsirctte; Frank & Hcer: substtcilc
L 146:23 Wchr; aspcct t considcrarionj rclational (or
othcr) aspcct;
locauoru spaccj placc. spariaL domain, occupicd sp&cc;
Weht: scopc, donuui; Jtiijani: "With the MuLakalli-
niim it is an emptiness estimated [lo ©cisij tJhat woutd
bc "snd by *H rntity haviil£ r>rtcrsiori as a hody, or
not having exLensioik a.s au atom, Wilh thc phil
phcrs it is thc inner surface of a conlainer,, that [in
turn] contacb thc ouccr &urfacr of what is oontaincd.
occupying spacc, having spatiaL dornain
L 7H uctupyittg spacc. th* occupation of spncC,
hating spatiai domaln; Dhanani: octupyiri^ spac:t;
si-nse of ciiJurdiiicHLujii Isn 1 Raydawrs d.tsrripti3CKi];
usnaLLv tran^kiled 'conunon seme\ as the sensus com-
rnnnisi Saccd Sbcikh; corninon sensc — ^it combines
B.IL tht &jrrri5 of thc RcnsitjLc dbjctts npccived thirnjgh
the five eniernal senses*; Wahbah omits the phrase,
Scc alsor al-tf&wah al-miishtaribah
ii
K1I.V
mahktut
ikhtili/
khdlkhata
&Mfi$ khtiWAM
mukhaffif
mutJitHr
Wchr: rnixtuif, blcnd; an amalg&m
L 3^3-5 cliATtTcnc:?; vari#tmn (cf- l&f&wu£)
L Uittll5 muitiichnlkhil rxp9ndi[i^ cxpandrd
mwMrtJiaiaA propfcrly 3 distingui&liirig pmjjtrty
agcni of spcciilcarion
chown h irccly choscn, fixcdom of choicc; Scc also
imagmation; construetive iinaginatioji
DAL
rfaff/
musttttiimh
inferential proof demonstration, proof dcmonstration b
infcrcntial proo£ proof
argiimcnt in a cirdc, circular argumcnt h |= thc
"vicious cirdc* 1 )
L 177 circular m naturt-
DHAL
dhal
^viih personat prcinoun it i.s l *itself h c.sr "hir
[as with God).
| f „
1142
(SLOSEAKY OV TKKMS
rffilfffyfl (
r&jik
niurajjih
tarjkh
twrju/i
magUhiyah
ra.mt
tt&d&h
mtirad fal-l
ffltfi7«:i'
7A
r.nman
SllS
taiahaiti
muaawa
A
To bc disdnguishcd from rtw/Mw^ the c quiddity^
which also mcans c csscncc\ JP sugge&ts ^ri^ s
^il
csscncc ,
Set: also Hee:r , s gtow&ry.
L 39.22 esscntial qualirics.
L 205 r 23 prelcrabk [as- bciug judged incire ptrob-
ahk]; Hava: prcfcrablc; Wahbah; probablc; Wehr:
pr^pnndcTHrtt;
agent of prefertnce
tdro&ttk hi-iA mttrajjih detcnnliiarion wkhouc a determin-
ing agcnt; prclercnce withoul an agcnt of prcfcrencc
lcss pirlcrablc [as bciiig judgcd lcw probabLe] L 205:
23-206:1- ~ai-rajih £ft*n im-ai-marjiih wahm
ambtvalcnce
cfcscriptLv« dtf Lriitkm, deaciipeioii Sce also A<utrf
will; tlie willing inleution
L .1fJG somclhing wiTFrd!j ihc willod inf^rition ? willcd
objeciivr;
L 396 one who wills; vokuiiary caiue., willing cause;
Hccn willinE
L I65 3 172 limc dwation, tiincspan
tasahut L 80: 13 inlinUc series argumerU; silsilak
'infinilc seric5 r ar^nmcnt, [= (hc *'cndlcs-* chain"]
L 177 et|ualiLv musawdh wa-mitJauM-ah ccjualiiy and
difter
SHlN
miuiuihtihak
.ihaklik/ma
m
ttntuikhkhui
uukktk (te-ri-)
m
uikiiktittih
j/mAA/
jadir at tniwal
mait/arijwk
L 1+0; {joichon 303: similnude, similarity
L 109:4 iiidividualize: indhiduan:
indtLviduation
Hccr; analcigom [prodicariori],. [pirdkai™] by analogy
L 140; Goichun: curiYomiity;. Wclir: resccTiblaiicc
L 402 H«r: thc ^isiblc *vortd = jhahadafr t and *Shm
af -jltnhadak tlic nbscrvt:r, srt:iUS ol obseryatimi
L 290' Fifst Kmanatidn
L J5l:J5.J7 origlnaEJng : cause; L 153.7 sotirct-;
C3LOH5AR.Y OF TT.RMS
1143
lastimt/
tafdiq
salah jalut
tasamvut
jurah n&wUyah
L 153:12,15 f|iiality of bdn^ a snutce;
L 154:34 ij.12 1 «nartadon; source of emaiiaLiou.
Not in; Wchr> Hava> Wahba 3 S. Shcikh, ITccr, Frank
cx£tutivc plannir.sr and artion
L 328:23 judgmeiital a&sent, as&ertioti of commit-
mcnt; assent
L41 1:4 thc prayrr ritr
inieUectuaJ conccprion
spec[ftc fonti; WaJibaJi: SLibbikuitial (brm.
])A1)
?tfdfah
muda/
mnifqf itayhi
mulahaijak
L 23 : 1 5, 1 6 J B annroM irm , conncction, rcUtinnship,
asasoLJatRUii^ L 1233, 3J>B: 1 G adjunction ? adjuiiLLii^,
adjunctiw rcJationship; Wchr: subjunction;
L 133;2 rclatcd ^ntitics
L 146 adjnincd, relalcd; L 227;2I thc gnvcm-
iiLg iitjJLiiLii;
L 146 that to wJiic h another is adjomcd; ihc delim-
itinjj ndjunct, L 227:21-23 [hcrc callcd nwW and
L 140; Wchn congmity [geomctiy], corrcspnndcncr
zA>
&mn
L 205:23 surmisc; ILiva: opiiuon, conjccturc; Wah-
hih: tipmicm;
'AYN
ttibar
\idnm
: &dami
c arada
c urHti
ma'rarf
*tfii nl-muilawa*
^atu al-natpd
r aki n&qi4 ai-tham
*aia* at-te r yin
logical considemrion. Jogical formuLation, samcthiLig
thcnrrtiral,. a w.ay of saying h fc \i tcnm fi)r", an rxprrs-
sioii forJ Hccr: a. itlctlisiI cntity;
nrmraislenoc
Tiancxisbcnt, nonc^JbL^ntiai
Heer; iiihcre
L 340:13 acctdental in Jiaiure,, Inhercnce, accidence
L 175:8 Hccn substratc
L 42:S f. equivalcnt concraiy
L 42-9 i: rmitradktory uonirary MS 204b:IA glms
Wahbah, Saecd Shdkh (frgiTi Jurjaiii)! COulrapusiLiOtl
contradktory concraiy of die second prcmisc
Set: &z r yFn:
Scc artidra *ilkh and jhU in En-I-2. With^M
— cHrr:livr cai*3C,
1144 CLOSSARY QF TEEUIS
*i7m al kal-am I- 009:7 (thc sririLre uf a/ kalam) =
"the scienoe of [cheological] scatemtnt 3 \
(oftcn tianslalcd thcology, dialectical thcology,,
syHl-rmatic ihcolngy-)
'^AmiydA L 206*10:: "namely t a state Ihiked to [what is]
an intcUigible," scholarshipj, erudition
maW JHdMjsi L 358; 16 mcaning; l""rank 77; dctcnninanl causc;
eausal cntity or factu"% a quiddity
YwjwA I- 370:4, L 371:2 proper tonccrti (an W|Wi;T
€)fGud^ kjumOcdge^ provid!cnt concerti, pmdeni
concern
*fljw ay$n L 6:16, 1 75;7 P 330;5, 3+0:fi m&tcria] esscnccs;
Heer: jndivirlLial essence. thr concrete; a rauid-
dily
til^ayn at-thabitah Jurjani: "a rcal cruth haqfqah in thc prcacncc of
thc AU-knowing: ic is nni netcrnally cristcnt» hnr
raihcr it is a nunrsbiicnL csiabli&hcd ccrtaimy in
ihe Irajwkdpp of God Most High * Saeed Shcikk
"eternal essetices . . . [in| iht world of Ideas . . .
heiwecn Cod and thc materkl world . - -"; the
fixcd idca*.
*afyana L l()B lfi%in al~maklyah = individuatiHHri of thr
qulddity;
toVfl = Wb 3 #Hafyi?t I- 154:22, 65:1 acconling to ihc
hypothesis
FA>
aljarugh nt nuttaivahhnm L 79:7 what b cstimared to hc the void
muf$TVf miffariqat L 104 Lniiisceudciit eriiiiy. L 104:15/105:7
trdJiKcendctit cntkies; Wahba, 417: Irom Jurjaiii,
^jaatihir mupmmhih c an al-mtu&itdt'' incorporeal sub-
swntial bcings
munjasii L 138:5 separabte (as accidentj
J&Ht mitkht&r or, mukhiar L 1 29 ff. VoIuntary agcnt, agcnt ivho has thc
choicr, agpnt of r.hciice.; Hnrn Fmc a#cnt. Jurjam:
LL Ocie fix>rn whuin it is atmrurrsnalr thai an acliuii
should issue.'
■1
JPiByah L lfl(h23, 151:9 uscd wiih S&aft = l cffcctivc
causc 1 . Scc also mu 3 aihihir
ufF*m L 188:2 Baydawj [Ek 1, Scct. 3, Ck 3, T. I];
not tieep rrxitrd seiisate quEilitit:s (as a bJush) ?
called ^Kisai^c rrf\r.x nMccions 1 ; .Sanrd Shcikh:
"scrijsible qualiLi4.-s of thinjp t>r i^reons s-uL-h aa
arc of transLioty naturc/*
it^SUjyat L 180:2 Bayda.m: dcL:p rootrd scmta.tc quali-
tirs, called "a^Tecdye [reaction producing] qual-
C.LOS3AKY 0F TERMH
1145
tqfawut
ltlcs- ? Sarrri Slicikh: "acn.siblr quiditic9 -pf thidgs
sudi as Arc linnly rgoted iit lliem," as sweetness
LrL honcv.
L 393;5 (Qnrau 67:3) variancc; Arbcrry ti\; imp^r-
fection; Ahmted Ali ir.: diiproportion; Pickthall tr.:
fault; Cragg tr-: dtacrepancy
qahiiydt
m ■
^odara, qadum *okf
g&tar (al)
maqdur 'atayhi
maqdur
godm
qidam
mitqoddam
muqaddima&
L \ 74 antccedences itw-bddtit&t and subscqucnccs
has powcr over; exteuds [ilcLd of] powcr ovct
chc Onc powcrtli]; thc AU-powcrfuLj 1'Yank: having
thr powcr of autonoiTioiig arrtion; Dhanani lollows
Fraiik
the partkularmng decree [of Cod]; L 405:23
Aomcthing dccrccd;
Hcf.rwd; aji pbjccl of pnwcn Hccr: object of pnwer;
Welir: pulential; lucus [or, fiH'LLN$ed ubjeCt) df pQwef~
powcr objcct
cccrnal, withom. beginnmg
past ctcrnity
HavH & Sarrd Shrikh: anrcrrdrnt
Hava: premisL 1 -, intnjductian
twj&ld&rt ;rv f^' fdMh?iX lun-i/r.! ;YfcK.j hJUt Uld of tf tUl"U? iJi.i-iUun
td/jaddin. wa-tajaddud
i\tiqra*
d$rab (al-)
q^a' fat~)
inqilah
taqhd
al-qautt al-shtirih
gawa^aJThi
muqawtvtrntU
musiammak
? u
wait
L MQ cxpiration and rencwal
induction
L 11)4:20, LOli:! 1 ..' \.hv ik^lcl-i- ni.iU.it; uity; Six alsu
&l-ab/ r &d
thc prirnc:vHl dccision |of CJod]
IrArlSrtluLatiOTi, trarL^iuniatiuri
L 205 aut]u)ritative tradition, aynouymous with
naqt
CKplansiory sCatenien.1. S, Inati: cxpJanatory phrasc
jpvrt subsistrncc to; constitulc
L 107 conariiueiu lactors; Goichon: S!Z8
U 177 slraight
L 20&9 a powcr (inrl indiv. Ikcuhy); potentiaLity
L 234:4j6 a poLtiitki tbice (of some Idnd); L 2 14:7
"pot.cn tial force is the source of an action in an
#.bsoLuDc scrtgc". ;\lso uscd with imsht&ribaA l thc
pOwer of c^ri>lrdinatiexL ?
KAF
kstib
MS 2U0b gl: iardbi ti-katibihi (translatwi as:) 'ceeles
to ihc Wri<cr of his dcsdny'. (cf. Wclir, hatabĕ forC'
ordain, deHtinrj
I 146 GLOSSARY OF TERMS
tethi/ L 168:15 mirJoAwiJ^iyconrrActing^ contractcd; com-
pa*:tcd
mukdska/at arha& ai-mukashapU L 67:7 mastcr myirica; mastcrs
of mystical rcveLauons
kntnm as thtN»Lagy f il is ccjmnionly tnjjuilaled ""diaiecticaL
theology*;, See preJerably, *ibu al-katam = 'scienee of
thcological statcincnt\
.komm al-muttasil Saccd Shcildh; continuous qwantity
(cmw bcing, 'tbc &ct tb« - , . T L 224: ] 2 K L 227:2 mrtant
gCnnratiim, LrtstaUt bring
AuW (ibT-Jt L 3d9:I 1 the entiret^ the whole; Jurjani: "'the iianie
of a totality compounded of limj.ted parts."
kumun L 272 al-kumm wa-Gl-burtii iatcncy and appramijCG;
Sit ;'Kn-[-2] aclicJrs by J. v*ir_ Kss: "kuciiLYir ;-ind
l Xazzaut"il*
LAM
iJ/iiy iait-\ikiq pnjprrty- scparah.c quaLity; Hccr. mnsc-rjuro^
tawQ$tiq dt-uwjiut Wahbaii: propertLc_s of being;
/J^am f£w&zim Goichon: 1. coiiclusioD L 40+ (MS L78a:3- r )
ih
codedl; 2. concomitant, mi-eparab.c accidcnt (cf.
L 330:10.
mak&m L 404 MS l3Bb :"& MS 178a as coded) :>remise,
hypolhesis; And I lccr; substrate of thc concomitant.
mula^amah ncocswiy rcl&tion-ship^ logiral prpcrs^ inhrtrnt "wcs-
sity, Ui^itLii Eiecessity; LuiiCLurjilarii-t: (lr. Luum); Waiiba.
42!?: inheicnce, ncccs&arv' conjunctiou [i.e^ of con-
comiiant and substratej
/d ihi awwal lahd L 27 L iwt canicd to thc [its]; l^gLnning, MS 139a =
H ite* awiml
l& awml kM havinj; no begiiiiiirLg. itu anteriDr/antecederit,
ti-mtnytik Goidion: the *Vhy" of somclliing
MIM
mtfiy&h accompanirncnt
mahTjfah K quiddity T ; [also means csscticcJ- But rnust bc: disiin-
guishcd fmm dhat 'essence". (also rneami self). For
i:LLiilu:atiom we mggf.£t mShiyah = s qukl-esseiice"; and
dhdt = *rcal-csscncc\
mqyl L 232 Goichoiij, Hccr pnrlimtiori; teudcncy
al-mayt *l-mmmffil dircctiona] fcnxe
imtU&j L 68:1 coniplcx orpjiiuisTu ? 4-omposiiinn;
LilrEid, LempeniEntfnL
?mtirtd* L !J7 ctc. inipossibilitys, prohibidon;, pm : cn.tion
GLOSSARY OF T£RJUS
1J47
NCN
mmtiiah
w$
nn
EE
L 478: L 1 ; L 48 1 : 1 2, 1 5 ; iuk; Wehr: posi<ion ? sta-
tus. 5cc ;ibo Ainmm Webster Odkgiatt Dictmmy: ^rok' 1
an cxpci:trd brhavior pattrim dctcrminrd hy £in
mdividuaTs stalus."
L 97 deniaL rejecdon. exclu&iorj
L 59 authoritariw tradition, craditional authority;
Hynonynioiis with 4&jp£rf; cotnmonly pairrd with c ra^£
'rstionaiity'.
HA>
h&pula*
I- 220 appcarance in exremal existcncr
L 253:4
P
nm
al
nm
nmc niatter
wAw
tuEjib
tmjib &l-wtijtid
mu
ijih
m$fid
wuj&d
u.igudi
al-wujftd
al-khtLss
a]-wujiLid al-inu
ittihdd
mmvrid
muttosit
mnwdii*
tmhw
L 316:9 nccrraary., nrcrs.muy rcality; Hcrr: au:ees-
sary exi£tent JP belieyes it mcludts die se nse of ^npces-
=sicating% or 'obligating*,, (Le.j, necessary and niaking
neccssary)
L 3 16:7 Heer: ncccssary existeni, ticcessArily exbtent;
L 002 (ancl imjih d-iwjudhJP Neccssary and Oblijjac-
ing Esistent
Hccn ncccssary cause» ncccsaary agcjit; ncccssitaling
agrnt.
emicmial causc; pntthirtT; Hr:rr: c:reator; Frzmck:
(under ^=jtfrffi): [He who] cau&es. to exist;
exisicTLti.ai
s}jecific exLstenrr; Hncn l pr-op^r ™stencf^
absuluL^ tsislcncc, .^cncral csdstcnt-t
union, unity; ujiLtbrmUy; L 1 39 a of cotton & &now
in whitcncssj Goichon; Edcntity
L 78:16 source, rcsnurce-pDaJ
L 140; Wchr: patalldhtru equivalencc
L 15B:5 inscparablt (a& accidcntj, coTscoTnitani, con-
liil.L3uufi- Sce": also iti^im^ nl-ktimm fli r multw.iL
L 191:15 iubjecc, mhjeLt-suLslrate;
esdmation d signiiiciLtice-estimation; Wchr: guess., sur-
mise, deJusive iniagmatkm., suspicion
YA
This page immnanalty hfi biank
lU.USTRATIONS TO BOOK L SECTION 3
L opit:
Delmiiiun of a body
v\X
// ■ -J#fjff^
J
-4 W^^/^^ **
a*
v>-
tydPJ&iH
' ^^^J^B^t^^
J:
ILI. I. Right angta
111. 2. Acuju: & Obcu*
ILl. 3. lutersection uf
many angles ar a sur-
late, ncrt rigliL angles
ILI. 4. Iriiet-sectiinL of
right anglrs al a sur-
facr
The MS f L L7h: Trar«larifln: I. 236:6-7
1150
1LLUSTRATIONS TO BOOK I, SECTIUN 3
1 r ■
1
111
Philosophej** 1 argument againsi rhn atom tbwry
i/M^
fe"k. v V^
► $
^5
I "
1
*-
■
. ■
!
puiuts 2-3
[II. r 3. ArRUEncnt:
poi.m 4-.
Itl. 7. ArguRLcrtL:
puint 5.
Thc MS f ]22b: Tr.n.Jadon: L 246:4 iKrtes l S 2, I. 24fi:5 nof* 2
lUAJSTOATTONS TO ROOK J, SROTrON 3
115]
' Topic
A simple l>oclie<I cele*(ial spherc
^g^M^m^MA
.VI
1 1
J &f,
' /
t
%
/■
■■i
t n
w?
-j . /
'J^
_/ 1 _d^" ■ ■■ _ -_u ■_/__ ' _ f ■ i 1 !
(G#/^^>M%
r ' Wf " - -^Vt>¥J0C
'-" M
_■ H ^H| _ ^^ fc ■■■■ ^a__P
ll
■ ■ ■
■o0u^.t^c^liWPM :■
1LJ. 8. A sbigk nphcre with rl_e center poini buHcii«d a__d ilie potn(_ trtmi which
radii. would go _ir_>m itu* centet to che 5ph<re's Lruupr surlace.
The MS f UBa: Trcuislauan: L 257:3 nule I (_le_crip_i_fl of ill_j>
1152
ILLUSTRAIIO.NS TO BOUK I. SECTION $
F
I
»jM^&fam0>&?»
'Yff*
]l]. 9. Two conccntric spherc*; thc ccntcr point h shown as thc lotoesc" pojiic, iht:
inncr c-ncirdi^d pphcic is tht onc L bdow > 1 and thc cnctrdinjj sphcrc is L ahovc\ This
illus-traces ih* 'direnion of Yiew 3 : i.e a> Erom the lowen 3 puim to the uppcr part oL
tht uincr surEacr of the uppcr' sphere., thc r.f lesciaJ $phi?r$$ bemg irampurenii
Thc MS f I29b: Translatiun: I- 257:9-10 (tcxt only)
IULUSTRATIONS TO BOOK 1, S-ECTION 3
1153
•V
■
■
!
i
I.
LG*Z.
_V _ !_/. _ ________ _ . _ _ Mf/l
i ■ ■ « * j
_.p ■_ *\ ■
*'_*-__-
■■
i -
bM^&M .
, ■ ■ > iw%tmw, * "'
I
i.
II-. 10. Twio parAllcl lines an: showiij the iinst one a_ thc- 3efc le desL^nabcd ^iinJiin-
ired* and Thc ttcorid ojw itl .ln: rijj;ht ts m-nrkccl Uimi.ed 1 . The sctond oaue _l. ihtr
jii-lii UiitLS ■>__ di, .i.iijl.- r, (V ,,nii r..r firfl ;.:_i-,, anii ._.■■ _i r i ; ■= 1 1 r . ' .' .r.u T ;i . I.:. , viMi llir
JiisL tme _iL Llie Irit.
JTie MS f [«w TramUuwi; L 270:43-44
1 J 51
TB.I.IJPTTHLATIONS Tt> BOOK 1. SEUTIUN f l
T
Sig*
onc of ihc powers of cxtcrnal perce
■
}
j
■
t¥^0^mmm^A
X
'(gWP-
ML II. A CGne with
ils poaiii imad b*sr
inriicaicd. Tlw [mwi-ii.
is Thc pctint whcre
vis3on takcs place s
and thc basc ia thc
pJanc of the objcct
1U. 12. A fivt*Md*d
Hgure is abowrij, wiih
a [riangle at ilk- wp
and a qLLa4rtbt«ral
tigure is jadncd wj it
ki ih*: burKoni. I iit
cone shnws ihe rela-
tiy-c sizr of "au oftjecc
secn; thtn, by ck-
ri:ndiLLg dic 4'nnr in
m-dudc the bociom
tlgurc, thc objccc
srcn is farthci away,
and smalLcr lli rcla-
y tion to thc original
objeci oF \-i-sion,
The MS f ]!35a: TrandatiiHi: L 303:4 (*c*< wdy)
ILLtJCTRATlCNS TO HOGK 1, SECTION 3
1155
Top
EC
Thc powtrs of intcrnal perccption
■
■■ ■ -m^ -
1& 3G>
-— -b; -
^&iHti#fi$
rti:
mentittmiA
&4L
'*.
m c A^M0,&j}^
*§?&&*
%''^%**i?
**M
■
I
I
■
■
; -
_ I
(1.
tfrti$.
I"
.*
■■
'
.. I
__■ ^T___r^
HL 13. In thc fig-
urc tlircr djarnoiid
shciprs art juiued
togechcr ac ihe enris
ruuning 6om iop lo
Iwuorrt, r«pj*tfj.r-
illg tlw ihrM lohttii
flf thc hrahl, thc All-
Trrioi _>r ftont lohc.,
with its bark part
joincd to _hc Irrmt
pari of thr middle
lobci and thc back
p.m i.f [ht. rriiddle
liahe is jc.i_.ircl m tth.
_Vont part af the
P-H-tc-rioi Lobc. This
diagram is an aid
to undcr&Uimiiiig
.hc Jocations cf thc
intcriiH] powcrs ol"
perccption.
The MS f LWa: Trfln*ls_ioiK L 3C_6 n\ (tejrt 01%)
1 1 :*6
]L,I.USTRATlOVS TO BOOK 1, SECTION 3
Topk
The soul'i toward p^rceplkm oi reality by its i nstmnienl*
- V-
1*
n
■
u
■'•
W\V ' r .
<sv
*J
1. »,
i*moim
^
mjte®
^^^%^pi^ '
% $&wU$
t&fi
5
11] . H. Tlie ttgure
sm;*]licr rectangk:*
pLar^ ■nne at rtie
cmtcr of cacK cnd
of thc targcr rcc-
tangtc. This illus-
traies [Kc siisiple
shape and «s po*i-
non. In 'L* twn of
cKc« tigurca are
aKcrwii, alilcr esoi^it
for a dLlTrrc ekdc in
podrion.
Thc MS f I57a: Tram*la|xm: 1. 303:15 (tect only)
KlBLlOGRArilY
Aristollc. AmMi/\ (jsitgatK nnd hcposil^ms (De InterprttatuMw}. Tratidaicd wiih com-
iii-LiUrics and gkissary hv Hippocraies C ApcMtle. Grinnell. Iowa: PeripiHctic
Ft*ss, [c. L9S0].
. 'Ihe iJwAr afAmlQlJt [TriiniJatcd into EngtLsh undrr the cditurship n-J W.D,
Rou]. Gn iAf &tf/ 1:631-668. (Great Boob of die We&tem WoHd, Itotttrt
Mayiujd Hiicrhicii, Ed.; v. 8- Chicago: Williani Benton, Enjtydupaudia Brituliika^
[19W|.
Baydawip *Abd AJJah ibct Tmar {ad-}. ''CorttlJyrics 10 the c*L%i«nce of rhe sphera,
their «therial ftature : \ fthe swwment of B&ydawi a( L 262] , (raittlawd by
Carto AHuhm Nalliim Iri E^&jjSdSr^ t/KtJigitm a^iEtHm^J^ma Ha^ing^ cd.
Ncw York: C. SETibnrr, J97(J. s.v,: ^Sun, ^loon a:nd Stars (Muharnmadan},
&'tiioi: 7: Cdreiial F J hvMcs.""
al-Gtmak al-Qim}iiJi Dimptt* -tJ Fafas. I)ira.sah Wa-Tahqiq lVa-Ta c Iiq; c Ala
Muhyi a]-Uin *Ali aI-Qarah Dagha. Dammam, Saudi Arabia; Dar al-IsLah,
1982.
— — • 7flWffA T al-AnuMT m?i? Ata&r/r «Mhj^, MaiiuKTLpi, Princemn Uniwrsity
Ubraiy* Gainetc 283 B , Daied 7 7»/ l 3 1 8-] 9.
. 'inuwi? nl-Anuw mm Altiiati* ^t-Arr-^r, ManuKiipt, Princeton Univer.^iTv
libray, GiMrrrtt-Yidiuda 3081: 9?S r fl; 93 166 of #3081), C^ytm Muh^mad
iil-Bade;aiii|?) ? ])kLf#d 10 [Wlh t:+mtury, hi:fiiri' W5TI 1 A.H./L4"Mi A.n.].
— . Tawah f at Anwar mm AJjtah* al-Anz£r. ManuscrLpt, Princcton Uniwnity
Library, Ganrett 9891 Ib. Copyist: Muhammad ibn Tta ibn c Ali, 674/1470.
Hmmd AUah Mu^ii^A QazvinL Tarikh-i &tzi&tk. Chup-i 2. Tihran: Mu^assy-s^ih. 1 ;
Jjnirfiar«t-i Amir Kabir, 136? [1983 or I984|.
Ibn H+tjdT ^'A^cjabuLU Ahmyd ibn c Ali, rt/-/J^r^r ^-jSi^njrtA _/i ^]?ast ai-M^ah td*
TkmiirtA^ p£nd ed.^ Er|. Iw] Mnhamnijrfl Snyyid JJLil Jil-HiMjq- [Ciairni: I96fi.]
Jbn Siiii, Alm d v\Ji a]-IIuflayn f knn-wn a* A\TOMina. yiur^Kiwii '^ki^^ an linKhsh
Translaricwi of "Kicab al-NaJEii 1 , Book 2, Chapier S 7 with HLslDriccHPhilcHophic.al
Notea and Tcxtuid Improvpmcnts on thc Cajn:> ]Lclilicjn./F. Rahrnan, trtnsJa-
tor. [Hypcrion Rcprinl Ed.1 Wcstport^ Conn.: H^pcrion r*lress. [1981]
al-Iinarai mi^al-Tmbihat^ ma c a aJ-SKiirh li-NiisTr aJ-Dica MuJiiurLrrLucl . . . sil-
Tiisi, v.a-Sl^rh al-Sharh Li-Qiub al-Diit Muhamitiiid . . . al-RazL Tab* 2,
[Tchcran]-. Hidbr-L N^shr iit-Kiwb, I9B2.
. Lwt r^j ll$nihutt& /= Kttab al^Hudtid/. cdire n traduLt ct aiuioK! par A.-M.
Goithon. ■;Mcmoriai Aviccnnc; 6; [Cairo]: Publicadons dc Llnstimt Francais
d ^ Arthec>loB]lL , Oricnt^Jc du Cuirc. 1963-.
. 7Sr MtJuphyriea of Aeiccnm |/An Sma/\ a Critiriil Traiisliiiioii^Coiiiiiicnc^ry
md Aria]yai.s ol' the Kumiupn^EicaJ An^imi-n» ici Airicenn»^ Meiaphysi^ ln the
[)mt\\ Nujna-i c Al5i J i (Thc Uook of SdentiJic Knowkdge.s/Haiw Mo^w^rlij^.
iPcrsiart Hcriiage Scrk»; no. 13,} Lofldot>: Routk^lgc ^. Kcgan Paul, [!^7^.
. Atoarta aW ^dtfii«(fjiiw.r i W. /: /jg^ r TYwislatecl r , - wiih an Indx?dii-Ction and
NolrK by Sharns Con&caniiii** InaiJ. (Mediae^al *oum!S in TrajisJacion; 2S)
[TrjTonto]: PontiJica] Insiitmc of Merjiacval Studies. [19841-
Iji, r Adud al-Din *Abd al-Rahmaj] ihn Ahrnad. ai-Mai*-®qif fi *i[m a!-kaiam. ilSilsiJnt
malbu*al fi 'ilrn al-kcTlam} aJ-Qiihirah: Maktabat d-MutanAbbi, [1983J.
1 ] 58 BJELIWtiRAPHY
Istahani. Mahmud ibn 'Abd al-Raliman {al-). MaialP al-Astyir /f Shttrk 7ixwaIF at-Anwar
incEuding TniuatT ai-Armsar mm Ma£ah x al-Amw/by *Abd AJJah ihn ^l.hnar al-
Raydtewi. Istajibul: ShirlaL-i Htnyah, L305 [LSS7].
Mntul? ai-Ansar Ji Sliarh Tatmli* al-Ammr^ icnLudJnK TazealF aiAmear mm
Aial&tP at An%&/by c ALh1 AILjlK Lbn E Umaf ;d-Bsvdawi. [Cairo]: iiUM*tba'ah al-
Khayriyah, 1323 [1902].
Matali* ai-An&rrJi Sherk Tausat? at-Atiwar. Manusmpt, Pyjpcecori Uniwrejry
Libraiy, Garrctt-Yahuda 4 IKti. CupyisLL Musa ibn Tarmashi;?), 864/1*59-1461).
— . Aia(aff al An^arS Sharh Tawai? at-Anwar. ITie CaLvericy MamiRcript pTbr
MSH^ Copyist: € Ali ibr. 'Abdi, 875/1470.
M&tali* al-Arr&rJi $kxrk T&tal? oi-Anmar. Murmscript^ PrincrLoii Univcntty
Library-, Gamrti A89H, Cupyist: Muhamrjiad ihn e Ifhc ibn *Ali, 075/ M 70.
Jami, c Abd al-RahinLm ibn AhttULd (al-). 7far PrmDus ppark al^Jami 7 * al-Dkrrah ai*
Ftikhi?ak Togcttter wiih His Glcra&rs, <uid ihc Commentary of c Abd al-Ghi*fc;r
al-Lari. TrAtidat-ed wilh au uitroduclioii. rHjt-re, arid glcEsary by Nic:LiulcLS Hccr.
(Siudies m IsLamte philosuphy and tttence.) Albnny, N.Y.: Scate (JnhrtTsiiy of
New York Prra, 1979.
Korau. 7fa Airait, crandalcd from thc .Yrabic by J.M. Rndwdl. Lnndkm: J.M. Dc-tit;
Nrw Yurk: E.P. Dulton, LM9.
, 71* A/mw^ qf ifif Gtcrious Abran, aw Expiaaatarjr TTansiatim, by Mohammrd
Mannadukr rkklhall. [New Yorit: Mcntor Rooks, 1960.1
gt-Qvr J w nl Ximm* [Bar^ki>k]: Makiahstl wa-Malbd^iE Muh-anirnad al-NahdL
1990,
— . «/-tii^rPTj, a Gmtmptjmrj T7milat\m t by AhmttL AJi, PriiKdon: PrinccLou
Uhiveraty Hncss, 198».
Keatii^h in tht- Oj^m, sckctcd &nd imi&hccd wuh hii introducLory c-^say by
K.ciltlr:l]i Cragg. Ij.KirJiHj: CrJliris, I WJS.
Razi ? Abu Bakr Muhammad ihit /akariya^ (al-). 'J?« Spirilmt Pkpsitk nf/tfiti&.\ r UauA-
laied by AJ. j\rbcrry. L»ndk>n: J. Munray, ]^50-
Rucd, Kaklu" aL-Din MulisunniiiKl (4*1-)- A/nr&cunr ^jlSbir fl/-^f iuAa^odli/^in mrtti-Mnta^ak/ikbiriri
min ^-'t.7a77H2 ? n« d-IIukm\a 7 iM^-MiOaka^inri^ wA-bi-dhnylihi 7iLttA«r a^WHAatw/:,
li-NAisfr cd-Din aUTusL ^Ed, by| T-iha B Abd a3-Rm a uf Sai"d. |Repri«» f- Gairo
1323 td. Cairo:? MaklabAt al-KuHiyal jl-AAiriy^hp [197-?J,
, -4 jlbu^ «jf jRaAftf aJf-i>iB tit-R&& wd His "Omsm^im ua Transvxmia*/ fy PatAalta
Mkna&KE! Fakhr at-Dm at-Ao& fi Stiad Ma Wora* */vVflftr/Fach Atlah
Khula>f.] 2c. cd. (Rccherchcs; t. %]) Bcyruulh: Dar tL-Machrcq p IM4.
Shahraatarii, Muhamniad ibn c j\hd a]-Karijii (a]-). Altab al-Milal u^i-al^yml^ lahrir
*Abd al-^t-c MuLiainnuid aJ-WkkiL [Cairo: 3%8j.
A?i^ Jtihapnt aiAt/dmtJi *ttm xt-Kntfim [- Tkt &mma Ptiitesoptuae $' al-Shahrastaoii
HiJiied wiili a translacion . . «J by AJĔcd CiuilLaunK. LorKton; Osdoicl Uniw.tt.iiy
Press, Miiniphray MLl/ord, L 934.]
— . Muslim .S*yf.f flflif Dkumim: £A^ Strtitiu tm Murim Strii i& Kiiab at AfHal wa-al-
J&haij cranslatcd hy A.K. Kazi and J..G. Hynn. Ixindfcni; Boslun: Keijan PauL
InunuLtiona], I98+.
Subki, Taj al-Din r Ai>c3 sd-Wahhab^ Talwqiti aI-ShafFiyt& ai-Ku&ra. \Cmro:] L323 4/
1905-6.
Tartuaniji Ssi^d al-Uin Mas l ud ilni 'Cmar (ali-), SflV d-l^ ni-Tqfkzar?i m Hk Crmi
bf JShjm at-Din al-Mma/i, TnicuJiiLcd with iitlraducUun uiid nul^M by liad Edg^ir
Kl^hir, |lt<?(ijrds i id iLrmEL^ritiicm: Aciin»^ -itkI -Ji.idii*v; thi. 4H.J N"mv Y*irk: CJciliimbi^L
UniwttJKy Prcw, 19-W-
Tusi, Naar al-Din Abu c Abd ALLah Muhammad i'a>«. Itiikhis ai-AIikhass&i r Stc uudc-r
Ran. F.D.
BIBLlOCRAPHV 1159
Stttmlary literaiurt
*Abd al-Rahman. Jalal ai-Diti, &f-Q0di Misir at-Dm atrlitndam tca-A&awhuJi Utttl at-
Fiqlt. ^-OahLrah; Dat al-Kiiab aL-Jamri, 198L _
Alsaniddin. Asma. "'[m Pniisr of th* Ci.i]jhsL RiHTChriiLg Hisrory tmm lIj* Mittiaqtb
litCTHtTjjT-. 11 ln /ntmateiml Joumai ojMiddie Easi Studks, v. 31 JlJMAj, pp. 329-550.
ArnisLniug; A H. An Introduction te Jbcjw/ Pkihsopkp. |A Hdix bookj Totowa, N J :
Rouniwn & Allanhdd, L9B3.
fitrhe>% JonadttrL. TTr* Tranimismn Qf Knowlrjgc In Mediaul Ccdro, a Soriat Histog 0/
Mtoa A^BPMiKw. PricrceLWi: PriiitcCoiL Uiiikrrsity Prtss, L992.
BjWk, Drhorah L. /%»jV and Awtotk*s 'RAtlmt 7 and ^Pntlks* iti Mti&wt Arahk Pkiteuipkp.
(IsLhiliU' PhUo&Eiphy and ThwjUigy^ Tekis and Snidii 1 *; v. 7.1 IjHdcn; Sc-w Yurk:
EJ. BrilL 1990.
. Estomaiiott fWakm) m AnktnntL tin Jjigkal mti Psytkologkal Ditnenskns^ jPaper
prrsmted in ihi- sr-rrion oil "^Thc rjrv<;lt>pmrnt n/ Tslairiit: Phikwophy", \JiddLt
Kast Srudi.es AssocLatinn Annual Ylertirij, San Antonio. TcKas. 1WS0.)
Burtoh, Jahrt. Quf*ank Ext!gtm, In Rtligian r Ltmmng and Sciertet wi fA* *Abbasid /VnW,
ert, MJ L. Younpj, J.D. [^uhain tuad R 8 B. Scrjcant. pp. 40-55. (Thc Camhridgt:
HLsnii\ of Arabic Littrai \m; [v, 3]). Cambridge: CJambridlge UniwersLLy Prcw,
J990.
Calvpricv a Kdwsn EDioti. "AMSaidawi^ 'MautH' 1 al-Anstar', a ^Sptemacie Thc&lngy
of Jsbm fc \ Mustm Jf W 53 (L963)c [2931--2S7.
. '■Sirniaiiiyyatr, ^m HwW 54 (1964): 200-202.
GeylaTi,. Yasirt. 7&ffifogv and Tqfsir m ike Mgjot Works of Fa.kkr al^Din &&zi. (Diss.j
UnmrsLty uf Edinbur^h, 11MJ0.J Boston Spa : Wctherby, West Yorkshirc, U.K.:
Thc British Library borumcnt Supply Ccntr* f [J960].
Craig^ Wlllinni Lanc. 7^ KaJam C&smohgkni A): : iamL Library of phAosophy and rclL-
Jikm/i K'rw Ynrk- ?• irnp- ■ & Ncil-ilr, | ^ '"4"? "i|
DhjtnanL, Alncnir. Tht Phjpiml 7hMTf *j 'Kaitmr Atwih Sfm^ md V*id irt Basrim M^ta&E
Gm™*%v. (bhmic philciM^phy, theology amd scietw^:, tcxcs and itiKliesj v. 14}
Lridcn: £J. Brill, lfl»4.
I>cVaLvp^ R-obcrt Hrnry. 7m Ap&iogclk Writutgs of }'khya B. r Adi: Thiir Signijkmcc m-
the Histor? &fMuslm Ckmtitm Encjsuailer and Th*tr faifxKt m ike Histmcal Deudopment
qf Muttim and CkrisliiV\ Uwokgy, (l)iss. ? Haitford Scminaiy, 1:973."; Ann Arbor,
Midh,: Uni^rsity MicrotUm^ 197-1.
DoRjiraaijji, P«er ButruH. Ckrwthn E&kj m ike Mushm Context a Study oflhs Theu&jgit.ri
PremppoMMns md Ihe Ethk&t tniplustimi vf tke 7fetf%^fl/ &tfiim vf Ahu M^ /fca
oJMsmL {Dm,j Princewn The&togical Semi«ary, [970-) Ann Arbor, Mich.:
UnK^rsity MiirrrjliJrns, 1971.
Duptara, Nic^lc. "Hcas: iKc t^chal [iii!apci^/\^ifiwf C^gn^K AlttgtL:^ JMay, I98B,
pp. 675-694.
Ess, Jo«f van. "Dni Todcsdalum dw. Baidawi' 1 . liW rfir OioTii 9 (197B}: 261-270.
£r^i>J ifl /j:iM#ttf Ptiihsopky timi ScimUn ed. Ly Georgc F. HwiurMtL (S-iudieas iu Idauric
ph[loRophv and sdence.1 AJbany, N-V.: Swure Uniwi^ty of New York Prcsa.
1975.
Kathry + M.ijid. A His&Hy af hlamic rtiiksopky^ ind oci [Studics in Oricncal Culturc;
No. &.) Ncw York: Columbia Urawraity Ptoa, [1970].
. Isl&mk Ocettmnaiim and Its Criii^e hj Aiyttoe ond Atjuinas. M\cn & Unwan,
[1958].
Krani, Richard M Brings and Thri? Attri&uttt! tks T&tihmg qf tAe Basnm Srkoo! of ft&
Mu*tfc%ikt m tke Ckmicai Ptmd, "iScudies ici IhLullk: phiiusuphy acLii sdrcLoe.j Albaily,
N.Y.: Suu- Utriwraly «I" Nw York Pn-ss, 197B.
— . ^&ridics atwi arnms: f hc Asih^ariK analysis.' ,: \n tsiamk Ihrtiugy and Phitoj&piiy:
Siudits m i Unw cf Gearge F. II>urmi t cd. by Michat 1 ! E. Marmura. Alhany, N.Y.:
Smicr Uni^Tsity of Ncw Yurk Pn-as., fl98+|.
IH10 TUBLIOGRAPllY
"aJ-Ma^dum wa-al-mawj^d 1 *, Meknjges de rhstiiai Lkmmicoin des Etudes Ori^ta^s,
14 {19S01, L«f> 210.
, "gd-Ma c na; Sorrie licttetiiocis im il-- j Technka] Meaningi of Uic Tcrni in
Omntat Sotiĕty H7 (1567): 24H-2M.
FurlEy, Dii\*id. "ISummajy of Phi]oponus' mmllajies ocl place and yoid*'., Iti iiilwp&WLt
and ihe /^^JShot nf Arist&tetum Srima. Kd. hy Rkhard Sorabja, pp. LJD-I3SL Ithara,
[ST.Y.: ComeU Univ«&ity Prtte, 19fl7.
hlmk Phiimt&irtyt Tttr&togyt td, by P&ime Mortivedg?. iStudies 5n Isiamic: philuso-
phy mt\ Sdcnce-ji Altany p N-Y.: Scaic Univer?ity ol" Nrw York Prea, ]379.
Lajw, Ed.\vard WiUjajn. Mimwrr tuid Gtttms qf thr Mtubm Egypttim, (KweiymAn^
Lihrary; 315) London: J.M. Dsnrt; New York: F„P. Duttori, [KcprinL 1964].
l-ei-annni, Amalia, A hmmg pmt iw Mmkk hktary: Sk thiid r&gi vf aliNmu Muhmmtui
ibn tktamM f!3ffl-13fl). (Islamic hiiioi^ a*id cMliKiuJon,. sludta* and iexc*L
v. 10.) Lrickn: Xew Yorlc EJ. Brill, 19<tt.
MatlrLungh Wilkrrl. 77i/ Sutcesii&t io Muhamm&L a Stitdy qf th/ Earty CaHpka£e. Nc%v
Yorkl Cambridg* UTuwnaCy Prcss, fc. 1997].
Manmura, MichMl E. "Ariccnna on prtmary ccintfpi£ iiz ihe MetaphyatE of tti&
At-^hi/it 1 S* iti Lcjpcpi hhmibar Studia hkmwu in AbnNJnnn Gtorgii Michtx& WicAensJcd.
\yy Ri^t M- Savur>' anri DicjnysjiiK A. Ajriu*i pp. 219-239, Torontc: jPoruilical
lcuriruce o1" Mc<fia*vH.L Suwiies a I9H4.
MilLcr, Lany Bcnjamin. hlantit Dupmatim TJwrp, 1 a iAijfr af thĔ .DrrtltipntĔ/U ^IH&iedk
m hhm fram tke Ttnik to tAt F<fbrte<mtk Ctnuws. (Diss,, PirinccjoP Universiiy, IW54.I'
Ann Arbnr, Mich.: Univfrsity Mic!rofiims. IntrrruirirsiTLalT lySS.
Nasr, Seyycd Hosscin. ^Ejdgrtnc^ {iwjudj and quidd«y (mahLyyshl m Idajnic ptu--
loBophy", Intm&tomai Fhib&*flhital Oparttrtt 29:4 (D«., 19691: 409-4^8,
. An /nfewftfctofl t# hlamu: Ccimu^ittil Docirines. Rcv. cd. Boulck-r 7 CoU>.: Sham-
l>LiAhv 1978.
, hldTttk /-5|fi ^Arf 'Ihusghi. AJhany: Siate UnK^r^iiy d"Mew Ywk Prt-ss^ 1S50
NorriHj H.T. ^Shn^ikbiyya iti Arabic Iiic:f a-tnrc-^ In 'AAAntiid IkJIti-Ijtlb&j cd. Julia
Ashciany"! T.M. Johnaton^, ].D. l.adham, R.B. .S^n-j^anl and G- Rc^ Smith, [>p,
31—47. (Thc Cambridgp Hi.slory of ArabLc LiL^raiurc; [v. 2]; Csinihrirlge:
Cambrid^c- Uniwcnily PntMS;, L £W0.
Pctm, J.R.T.M. God*s Cwutttl Sf?mh. I^idjcn; EJ. Brill, 1976.
Pctry* 0*rl F. Tftr CinJ5MZff ii/rlip e/ Camr rfl rtf Zflftr Middie Agti. Princcton: Printcton
Unh-cnity Phrss, 1961.
O^rah DTLghi, c Ali Miiliyi d-Diit "AJi (iii-Jj Srr ucidcr Eaydawi, al-Ghtrjnh . . .
R-iliniiaiu ^riur. l^pfifiy w /rAaw, /Min^ W tWtafe«y. (Midteiiy Hq>rint) Chicago:
[jlnK^rAity o-f ChJcagn Pt^i3R ? L!J70.
RoscnlhaL, Franz. /SjKKiite^ Triumhhdrit. Lddcn: EJ. BriLI, lOTll.
Scalc^ Murris 5. Muiiim TJmtogy; a «Srt^j.' ofOrigms usth Refenmce to lh* C&urch Fat&trs-
2nd cd. Londonr Lu^^c» I9W>-
S[;-ji;hi-..Ji t K^ijli -u. .1 1>}i;f?'i\ '■■■ ■ r,- i r . :,v r,v ? ■ ^h^ph. lS|- ji:Js/-. in hihi.riiii ph i |.- 1-.: i-j ; iv ncid
science,) Lktnuii, N.Y.: Cy.tavai& Books^ L9B2.
^iiikh, WiU'r#d Ganrwnlt'. "'Kaith as Tasrfiq h a iri hbonit i*hito\fipfiit&t Th^J-^J^}. hv
Par\nz Morcwcdtg-c. {Studu^ in IsJamic Hiili>3ophv and Sriencc,} Albauy, N"Y«
Ktate Uriiwisity of Nciv York Pitm, [1979]
SpnliT, Bnrchirild- 'Jke Mi&lim liWW, ,4 Huiorkal Sunup^ cran3Jis<**d fimm rhe CJ^mTLan
by F.RC. Baglcy. Lcidcn: EJ. Brill, 1960-1981
SwKtcnsm, J. Windrov.. hlam and Christian Tlmiogyr a Stotdy of the Interpretatiott of
Jlisnttijprpt /rfnw w ih* Tm Rtiigims H JMAcrwowth Libnuyi v. 19 -etcj, ^lissii0^^l^> ,
Itescapch SrrieSn iio. 6, ccc) J-ondon: iMitcrwonlii Pncss, 1945-1967.
WaJbridgC;, Jahn. 7A^ £&ect o/"^ --ira^Eic.: AiAkiee^h/j and ihe Hmiage tif&£ Gt&ks. (SUKY
scrirs in IsLicil, Albany. N.Y.: Slat-c Undwrsity ol" Kcw Yurk Prcsa ? c 2000.
E1BLH3G RAPE IY 1161
Watt, WiLHam M&Titgomay. Free Wii! and Pntkstinaiion in Earh- istam, I^widorl! l>i?.;H.
. htamic phihs-ophy and tkeck^ gr ettended sumey. Hdinburgh; tydinbur^h Univenflly
Prt-ss. 1985.
■
Wul£»n a H;sny Ausdyci. 7kr Fhibwph gf rtr Ao&m. (Strudiwc and growih of philo-
sgphic syswina trojii PSalc? to Spino/.a;. 4.1 Cambridge, jYla&s.: ITajYard Unh.TTsiev
Ptcss, 1976.
/uhayli, Muhamnuid Mustatk (al-). al-Q^di ai-Ra/dam: tst- Mttfazsir at-Us\diy ai~Alutahi{fin\ .
Dmiashg: Dat al-Qalara* 1968.
*A(«I iil-Baqi, Muliamirmd Fti J ad. nt-AMjwu ni-Afufc&rvs ti-Atfuz nt-Op^&n ai-Karim,
{Kirab al-Sh^b.j [Cairo]: Matebi' al-3ha 4 b, 1378/1959.
OthmbuL liKiytleptdia, 2cid td New York: CulumbM Un,ivcrsicy Prcsa, IWjO.
Fj\£}th$aedia &f hiam t New editLoj]. Jjcidjen: £J. BnLL, 1960-.
£}\Oi'-*4>i?iiiia uf Iilat!L Sfu>ftet. [ariicles nelaccd m leLinicui Jtocj En-I- I |/ed- by H A„R
Gibb and J.H. ' Kramtra. Ilhiica, N.Y.; Corndl Uiiiwraily F*ra, [c. 1953].
i^rk^w/iir qf F%iktfophy t Paul Erhrarihj. ed. Nfw Yurk; MmjiiiillHn., fl972|
WK)dfejto^ yf Retigi'Mt M. Kllade,. ed- New Yurk: MatnriillaJi, 1987.
/«iw^^ &fRjrHg^H md Ethus h Jaincs Ha3.tmgs, od. Kew Vwk: C. ^rihncr, ID70.
Goi<Tion : A.-M, //xtfur rff fc Ijmgr&r Pkii&wp&u/u* d*fbft 63uw (At-.-tt&tm*). Parig: DrarLcc
dp Rmiiwpr^ IH38.
— . IWatii/aijEj tltarap&res d'Amtal£ d t£7ta Jwa; Siippi/meut aa fj?xique de la LangMt
Pkit&wphigue d } Ibn $mft (AiritMw). Pari$: D^Rclee dc Rrouwrr. 1939.
littdith CblttLlitm (Thr N, -Six BwJm."") Standiircl cdiuons as Itsindi in Eii-I-2. Edinons
ritcd in che notes will vary m publicacion dates and pa^ngs.
Abu Da*ud. Swmn. 2 pts, in I v. Cairo: t:J4B/]930.
Bukh^ri. Stliiht td. KitM and JuynboL 4 v. Leiden: 1862^1908.
[for. MajA, J&is^. 2 v. CaJw 131 3/ L 890.
Muslini. &AeA. 9 v. tn 18 pt*. Cairo: 1)49/ 1930.
Nasa*L dbnuyr, 8 v. Cairo: 13*fl/1930.
Tirrnidhi. Jnnon. 7 v, in L3 pte. Cairo; 1330 2/L931 34.
HaV&»J.G. al-Pma^id nl-Durrijaf\ — AnsHc-/ 7 !^^ DictiouirTy jh* thr Use #fStadtn& B*iiiJl;
GathoEc Prcis, [19151.
Hugl^s, rhoin^ Piilriik. A Diciimar? q/ hkmf l^mg « gtkpaediti vf /& dwtrmSi fflfe*,
rtwir^ «nrf r j^totti . . , London: W.H AlJen, [Keprinc, 1935].
JusjaiiJ, '/\]i ibn Muhyrrimad al-Sa>yid al-Skuirif (aJ-J- iKtefr al-TJnpii, G. Plw^el ed.
l_A'ip£igr 1845. IKĕpricuJ Biiyrui: M^Lab^l tjubnau, 19 78,
NationaL Gco.g»ra]jhir S$o<.ieiy. .ft&ti\pwl (rttgrtiphw -4riy &f she W&rid. RrviAcd 6di cd.
Washinj^ton, D.C.: LSationaJ GcogTaphH: Socicty, 1992.
Pctcrs, F.E. Grak Phiiosapkkai Ttnm t s i/ajte™?/ Ij?xk.'m. Ncw Yitrk: K"ew Ynrl
Uuivei>;icy Pitosl Lc»Hioii: Utiive-rsicy of l^ondori Prc^, [c. H
Ijdtidon: IjMigiTians,, lft34.
&iiDfH l DagoLwrc D., cd» Diitwnary of Philasophy. ,A IIclix book.) Tonjwi, K.J.:
Rowman &: AUanhcki, [\9M]\
Shf:ikh 7 M. Sascd. DictiMary of Aiushm l*hilo.fGpky . [S<:c:(md cd.J IjJiotc: Jnsdculc of
blamic CuJture r [1931].
Tahaiiawi, Muhainmad *Ali (al-). £ksfishaf Isiitahal &i F\tnun \— Dictwmry &fTerhnicttI
Ttims in the Sciemes of the Musulmms]^ cd. by A- Sprt^i^er and W. Nassui Lcw.
Wahhah, Muarad. at-Alto f jar7i al-Fal$qfi [= Kui^ii^aJH Phiiui£ipAiquf f araU). [!ltrd c^d. al-
Qahirah: Dar al-Thaqafah al-Jadidah, I979J.
1 162 Kmt.lOGRAPHY
WV-.hr, Hans. A Dktinrubp uf Attoten Writtm 4ra*tf, cd. byj. Mihoti Cuwam Iihaen,
Wcnsinclc, Arent Jan. al-MtiJam al - \fufkhrm h .4if&z al-HadttA al*Jlhbdwi [— GyRMrdaitit
rt Indias de k Traditiim Aiiuutmmeh P* 11 " -\T Wcnsinck, J-P. Mcnsing, [ct ^l-J
l^idrik: KJ Rrill, 398R.
, I fetidfwk tif tu&jy Mu/tnTmndm Ttaditian, Reprint. Lektcn: EJ. BriiL 1976.
Wudlner, Bcrrtard- Bktmmy of &hdasttt Pitit&iuph, M ilwuukee; Biuoe PublishHii?
IND EX
AbbrtiiHtions (bc de&cribincj syLLuppsitte, Acti^ity^
lOlnM
'Alid al Riilniiaij, Jalat aUDin, xxviu
Ahhocrenc^
Rclalcd to harm, 463
Abrahani ?
Acts nnr intcrprcccd as wrancrdoing
100.% L012
Com.rnissicmed su prophet not
pdiiical lcadcr. 1009
Abu a['Layth ftL*SamarniuwJi K
Objects io cmweption as ]>ai \ of
Ahti Llakr,
*AFb slaccment on, L ] 33
Acr.ktental ^ualiĔy, Sec Accidents
Acrideno.,
And pcrmancnt continuance. 351
Cannot transit her^c-en substiatcA,
ndinrd, 342
Ddincd l>y MiiraJiallimun^ L76
Dchncd by phstosophcr^ ] 76
In two substratcs.
Impoeribk lo subsisL 355
Twti nrteaiiicigTs uf, 35!}
1mUviduation oT,. 3*6
Nine caccgpri» of ddWd. :l41 f 344
Of cjuAliiy {Acddent$)„
Cta*$se& o^ 405
Of arctario-n (Aocide nli),
WbctLLCT cxtcmalK' cuslent^ 4-7fl
SubsisLeiicr in d.uodier a<:cidcnL r !J4G-
Artiun (G-encrul},
fiftmi oti Po^er of autojiomcrai
;acU0rl K 463
Rascd on WuLLinKncas or Ahhcirrcncjc,
464
Oood and. c \i I acta disunguisbed and
dtaiussicd, 94
Hcinoua action drhned, IM2
Potencial forcc is ahsohite: source of
sclitJTij. 466
Action (HaiucuLar),
Cmuicpt o tV 46+
Desirc for t 4€4
DeRned, 345
Accs of Go4
MuWitah Lk 5 ohhgiidons upon
God to aet, 945
Not bascd on hidden purpDses., 94^
Not undcr ohliganon, 945
Sco" also K PaniciiUriz.ing amirciand
(Cod^), Primcwal dcciskm (Godyi-
Acts of imnkind.
Asha^rah
929
'«nnpulsury*
1 I
iu<:
917,
Muuwibh Tree chok* 1 docicinc,
ba$ed on peasrm, 92 1
ba*ed on tradiiion, 923
rtftf(cd p 5^6
Vicwh of a]-Ash'ari, 9I6 P 929
Virws of al-fiaqillaiii ? "917
Vkwh of aJ-Bam, 917
Vicws of al-Tsfarayini ? 917
Views of aljuwayni, 9L7
Vicwa of thc phiLnsttphrrs., 917
Ariam,
Paidonod for his sin hribre
ccmmi&iioning- 1005^. 1010
Adjunclion,
Dchncd. 34-1
Hriraily m t 518
Propcrlitt oF, 512, 515
Adjinjccioci 4\5 auddencal,
KsampLes or, 517
Afceriifc h*s bliss op mis«ry,
Aucunling co phiJoKiphtFS H 71-0, 731
. Vl^!-L _l iilld CP-l.l-U-lT i: Lk ' HjLL >:S ■i]|i'
in lcM^iti and thcory, 336
A^enc of frct chokc, Scc Gwl us Frrr
sigeni
Akhtii], Ghiv.atti ibn Gha^h, wRc.d
al^ 1120
fc All she piim'p
A pLuoLity of separaica or a uruty 1
of toiilicy, 68, 74
[An yaf ( al] ;
activity
fAn yan^a^il],
S*e |jassiT.ii.y
K Anl>ari s A*thi Bakr Muhammad Ihn aJ- ?
Sec Ihn al-^Anbari
1164
enj)i:x
Of odcatia] rank, S44
Of thc Divinc PrracDce. 645
Of the Eanh. 6+4
Qf che Hcavitns f 64+
Arimiajp being (or nstupe):,
Uving LcricLg |or nature;
Aijanim,
See Hypottases (Doccrine of ITirte)
Aigum£M,
GcHrtYinricL^ 27
Kinds d", 32
Kinds arc not rmjuia!lv reslrirtive ?
124
!£ec aUo ArgiJincJUKPon
ArenJincniatkm.,
Oci ba&is of ratirmality.. 125
On basis uf traditicm» 1123
Aristrjtlc, 584
DucLricu? uf cusmogonyj 603
On straikillt-liTie inutiun chsujgĕ, 510
ITwory t'-A' the soiil, HH4-
Scory u£ 1024
rJ.-Ni$ahuri c&llcd ;4 ? 10111
Ajha*i.rah (Majcrity of j,
Accept Signs of diyirt-c favyr, 1023
Rdicvi* propliera sujwior *e angeU*
1017
GocTs- KntvwLftri.gr: jind jjowt
mtdligibta, 333
Grant prapheta* nunor ^ins, 1007
Asti l: ari Abu al-Hasdn ak 191, 196,
1083
Names Dtber atirihuccs, 890
'Analani, Ibn Hajar ak
A$*cnt K Sce jLHJgmcnia] assr ut
Atom theory.
Kcjecled bjr philosophera in ihc
romposiliori i>f boJies, 546
AEtribuie-sruite iheotyg,
Arguments prts acid con p 221
Delimd hy Asha l ir»h mlnoriiy, 171
DLtit^l hy MuVA7.ilalt nimority, 172
Acmbuics barie <o God\ acts K B03
IJvfrig nature, S57
OmnLKiciiDC, 829
WiPJ, 86«
Atirihwi^A nnr bask: 10 Ciod's ar,fi,
Beattlie riaibility ra bHicveni in thr
hcreaflfr 3 89 6
Hearing anj sigln, S7S
ImmnTtaUty, fi&7
ProducUon. of hcLng» fl!(2
Speeth, «84
S*e also C3wl (iknw orjii-iribuwj
[Ayn (al-.J,
GaLariiity uC Ebreiold by the
Ptciphtt^ 985, 9fl9
Balkhi, Abu aM^Lsni al-Ka r bi ak
Si-c Ka'bi al-BadUii, Abu
*d-Qwini aJ*
Buiia Urrwyjah cauiijuiitxl W p«t.
i ] 2 1
Bac^ilkni, Abu Bakr (al-), 221, IQfl3
Basri, Abn ol-Husayn al-, CS0
Baydai.vi,
jlmt^ar ol-Tmgili. x;t.\iii
Bilth, KJCiT
Br.nk^ amhoreri, »:KJtiii
Deaih, xxxvfi
Ihbrtre it deacli dai^ xjtts
Uucarinri,, wxviii
P^nnily Ibrchcars. Tm.iii
ilonDrtd bv thc IUdiKn, xxxlv
Isfahaiii ! s eulo,R>" c#f f 7
lir^^iyk, xxxvii
Mow lo Tahrii K xsxii
Rrlntinns wiih th*: Shi* ic«
gwernjii-rnr, xxxv- xx?nii
Rcmo^ from Shiraa judpcship^
iirsl. sxx
Rcm4JvaJ from Shir;LZ judgpshipt
second, kxxii
Re-Hjorcd Lo Shirait judgcship,
xxxi
Stiidjems, xxxiv
ThenT) 1 r>t" pen:ftprir>n and
knuwkd^, 3I-3S, 4^9, 44A-453
Bii.ydawi^ TacuriT >fff-/lni»Y4^
fttr-ipir h 9
l&taha.ni*8 r-nromium of, "7
1
M^nuLRcrip^ u£cd, xix-xx
x.vii
SiAtuK in Mmlim estcem. xJv
Is guidc iu a man's caaiurc in
AitLH c irdih view, IOG4. 1067
BeliH;
Krlarion co knoi^li^d^c, 441, 4!i2
Brlicvrrs who fi^ht ra<:h othr-r
rcquii-r pi-iii* judj^rnrnt, 1062
LND£X
1165
Black/whitc r DntrasL and i\s probltnu, Bndy (ylpws of the philrw<>phw&5>
3I9
BUm-tclesmcss !pf ihc prophct^ 1003
A psychk hnbjtiud passcssion,. 1014
Sec: uba Pmphei^;. CharacLrr of
Blcnd,
Analysis of interaciion in ihe. 602
Defin«l ancl dcscribcd : 599-602
Hody,
625 G2C
Ai^nm^riTA; jLgsiinst Scs L^miin.it[iisi\
6M, 631
As a u-mpural phcnoiiienoa, GD3 f,
A* a ihrp^dim/tttwnnal swbsrance,
As havmsi limLtE, 6313
Can iran*k heiwcen spsices,
CLaswd as simple w comtposrte,
571
Drinnttinn acr.(ipted generalky and
by Mu^ladlah, 523 f.
Pnctors in thc diYision o£, 553 fl
Inscparablc fram tcmppral
pbcnotnr-na, 624
Is a possibLc rcality and is causc-d.
&2Q
Its rcal naiurc h o1>vUjus> 533
Kjiowd by ils ^iiaUlir^ 51M
NoL scparablc- into niacter and
Iuttti. 55fi
tjuicscoiit if in cWrnity, 611
Speciltc propcrcy of a„ 526
SubstiuiiiaL Jbnn also rctjuired Ibr
*nflfclency o{, 559, 5&5
Rody (Olcscial),
Bascd on obse^alidcl acid lojjie,.
571 F 575 _
tiody 'Composicc).,
A biend ttf dctncnt^ 599
Kind? «r % 600
Boriy (Maierlat),
Cannoc pa«ivc nniwr&b, 673
Body (SiimplcJ^
As cdcslial spherc., 571
Classcd as cctcstlal bodies gtr
tenrstrial clcuLcnls^ 37 L 57 [i
Is sphcrica]., 571. 574
Budy (Viewi of thc Mu.takdliTnuit),
A budy is divisiblc, 534» 556
Pjutis af a body arc iicrt djyitibk,
53*, 540
Thcory of the body, 533 f.
A body i$ -co-ncmuous an itfidf a 534,
537, 553-554
A body ia divuiblc wichout liinit,
537 p 553
Thmny of the body, 5*3, 553
SJrahmans' dot.trinc- on che inteUeciL
refiited ? 9!)5
Bnddhists,
,\]id kncrwlicdgc lopcally ac^uirccl,
139
Aigumenit of ■igftij j k£i loRitAl
rcasonin^, 139
Rtlaliims wilh llkh&ns., xK\ii
CaJ^crlcy. Kiiiwin EHion, xvii
Causaiion,
Sourjc Df, 332
Cauiaiion [Eircciivie) ?
UnioEL of powcr and frcc choicc i]i
cwaiicni^ 805
Causauon (Nwcssary) a
Suppon$ -esbtcriw» 81^
Cauie,
DeRrred, 326 £
Efl£cdve pan of ihe, 336
Four cLaswiB oJ^ +6, 126 f.
Limiuci^ condiiiorL of tliCj, 336
PhiTCitiiY of canntH pnK)iK:e siude
err*N".f H 3^?)-330
PrcwLitLiig faccor5 of n 327
Cause (Complrte), 327
EsJsts within the intclkct, 327
e |Efl"ectivc) r 326 , 328
C
Cause (Pinal), 326
Canse [Incompletc^j 328
Cavc (Companioni of lh-:.
Slory of, 1024
Certainty p
a$ a r^lscioruliip, .12
Dffijvcd by Mu^ia^ilah majcirity, 172
Not addiiional to ncccHJty^s- natuic,
262, 265
PriiinpLes uf r 12*
Cliatn Clhe),
:See Inftnue S«ic5 argumeni
Ch^racicr
As ivlaied io ihc powci ftf
aialonomous acciorij 46;i r 467
Dc&icd, 4b3n2l(l
ChrkL.
See Mcsdah
ChrULuul Tririily,.
See H)^>ririEascs {Doccrine of Thrcc)
1166
TM>F.X
Christians,
Rekikms **itli TLkham, xxvn
Cfix:Lc (The),
■Sra Circ:ular arginncnL
Circular ajgumenij 72?
Lwalidity of. 727
Cot[i[iir>n Sense (Thc),
See Coordiiiauon (Powcr/Sctue of)
Compktp rduse, $pi: Cauw (Oi:mplccc)
Compktion,
Primary,
Sccondriry, 60]
ositc cnripcs,
dclLmiting ddinitionsj. 79 1
Acccpt
Acccpt cEeseriptiyc ddinicion:, 80
Cumpuskc ciuity ps cau&c, 33-^
( ;.:ir-iT|M I a 1 1 1 1 im I i : i i i „ !il"!
IMin^i, 44(1
Of eKic* na] objccts cicfnv..-d a 442
Of psychac aidibutcs dchiird, 442,
449
Ctonocption,
As a rational acguisition, 34
A$ inluiiror, 34
Of a thititf is an addirion to il s 193
CoijcLlislotIj
Comprisw subj«JT-prcdU"Aie
rclatio™hip> 84
II as «tistencc in thr mind, 84
IJnkcd lo cvuicncc of the proof. 84
Ccmclusbn [al-LiiimJ, M-IOO
Contcntrncnt.
Dc&ntd, -tH, '169
Ctonlinuity,
Dc&ttcd» 360
Conlrary,
Contradtt-lury, 93
GoniicEioii, 44 L, 432
Rclatkm tn contradklioi], 44 L I&2
CoordLnatiort ijPowci/Sense of ) 5
Described, 699- 700
PnjuJ' uf Us JuikUGIi., 701
Corporealiistt,
Aj^umcitt irom raaaon anrl
tradiiion» 75B
Oosmogony, Do<:irine of P
B AIlaf, Abu al-HudhayJ a]-, 636
Anajtagoras. KMl
AnajcimctKS, 607
Asha c irah, 536
ani, Abu Bakr M. ak 636
Bardaysanitc$ 3 606
Diirittcri.tiK, 6HJJ5
Diialisto, 606, &>B
F*r*bL f 503
Galen, GU4, £U
(jrctk philoniplicrs (cariyj, 601-607
Grrek philowpbers (lawr), 605
Harran Sftbcatis K 609
HeradiLus, GD8n279
Jew*, Ma^ians, Chrisparu., Mi^slinis.
605
Jubba^ Abu C AK d- p G3t>
Jubbn'i» Ahti H&>hjin 'Abd ai-Sahm
Juwaynt, Imam al-Haramayn al-j
636
Ka c bi nl BmUJu, Abu al-Qnsiis] aK
KarmiTiiyah. 625, 631 f
Mahdyana MuddhUu, W*Ki
Mahrnud aUKJiayyajc, 6!"JI>
.Manichacans. 606
Marrionitcs, 606
School of Pythagoras, 610
Thalcs K ti(KHH7
Cra
Kcnncth. xvii[
Crcator^s wisdom,
S*e OkI if)mni4bcieiiM of)
David.
Rctnrd of wrong inlcrpid-cd
odicrwigt. 1006, 1013
Day tiTJusticc an-d Dctision,, 17
Scc abo Day i>l Showitig md
Reccinpense
Day oJ' Rcsumcuoii,
Scc Rcsurfccti«i Day
Day d" Showtng md Recompet&c, 5
BMLniCitSg of«Ftlrd WOOMtlHj
Scc iJso Dav t>f Justkje and
Ui ■ ■ m ■ ■ I ■ I ■ ■ ■ ■ t ^B I ■ J 1
ra&iucij Reiurrwiiuci IJ".iy
Dcathy
ls ncrt j singte e^cm, 1079
Theoriej ofl 435, 439
Dechicrion,
IIliiAlraii^c analo.gk-Al,. 82
iwr T
Kiicwlcd^c <jf prcccdci i;novv|cdpc of
tkfincd> 51
Rcteti-unshtp ot 3st anrf ilnd d^Sn^rs,
S« alsg Dchning a^cncy; DcEinitLcn
';ExplanaHjrj'")
INj:'EX
M67
Deiining agency, 50 f.
Sce also Dcliner; DcGnLtton
lEsplanatory)
Dehriing fiuli>r, 50 J".
DefiniLkin. 4fl f_
Boubt, +41, 45?
Dougks, Elmer H«, xviii
£fli:cLivc cau5e 8 See Cansr (EHecthr)
L-.ITic-teciE l:;li :,<«.,
Jwc Gausc (Effccrivel
And rxperiecitiat knrjivLetlfte of Gud, ElL fc cnent5„
744 F.
Hy a siiagte facwr, 49 f.
Clariry amd obactirity tif, 4S f.
CJasscs of, 60' f
CorntYitinality rjf mttLLiLrig pmitti**
thcior o1" distirtrrknSj 54-55
GomptKtiic of i-riiirlc jtnd oyiairlr r^f
object deRned., 70
Cunditiojris gpvcn]ing deEiiitions..
4« E
General tearm i&k« precedem-r in,
49
lnvalid if by a hwk' ohKure fo«cir. Esstnce, 20, 230 f.
Undcnjo nalunJ changc, 594, 597
ELecnents jSirnpLe bodKtl':
Desmbcd, 593-596
EjnanAtkra. (Fi"rttk
As cauic «f cverythiqg oth-er thai^
itedf, 649n 1 1
IdcnlilBcd wicb SeC&nd Incdk-ct. 049
Endless chain
See EiitiriiiP aeries prgumeru
Eiiu-lcchy {priniaiy/accondsuy},
Surc CompJetion
Es^ )o&ef varLj
ifc Das Todesd^icum des Bĕiidawi^
XX l.\
46
Ncit possihle via thing irselT, 4H
Pamcular tcrrai pwkka -dtoiinction
in, m
Repctiritttis in, ii-SH— 60
Uuusual esprewiuns awrided in ? !>7
Ddiiiiiian. {DdunitLri^L
(ocmiplcEc), 35. 0!t
Inoompkte)* ti!5
(witti composiics} ti9„ 7K
(with simpic cnrities) 78
Detinirion (ttescriptiye),
(cttmpleteh 80
(intomplete^ 80
!>tfin]lion <!Explanatury} ? 415
Dcpth,
DehTicd, 360 K 363
DciermLriACKMi,.
I>eftncd n 445+
Devils,, 645, 647
Sct alw Iblb
Dasoondnuity,
Defincd, 360
Uissimul*lion (Rffw), 1003, 1006
PraLrtirje prnkihited, 1004, 10C17
Practioe sJkywed in $hi'*h doctrine,
L003ni32
Diirine reatkLes,
Rce ReaHlirs dnriiar
Uiriiie Singularily, ItactrilK cf,
Srce^ SLngularicy 'iHwLe), Doctrinc of
See E85ence
Estimauon (Power of|k 441, 452
Dettrihod, SO, 71T2
Etcma^
Dchned. by MutakulliiTiun^ 3 76 r \7R
Eteniity,
As vi.il ]iu«UcciuiJLL cmiiy. ^55^256
Kieniiry pasi, UH7-aftft
Vicw nn whaT wnuld havc cxisccd
in a 2fl7 p 239
Enrjjd,
Defines •shapc 1 , 550nlG!^ ?>60n] J 28
Hvidenrc^ contradictorjp 1 ,
Rr:Koludon of a KJI2
ExecLilive ac.tion iPower of J,
I^escribcd, 704
EKiscetn":i* (Abcwilut*, or gieneraJ),,
A coninwmaJily amang ckjsc^]]^, 187
A cornmoniLlity arnon^ quidditi« of
thc poaHLblcS;, 191
An addilion lo thc quiddidcs of tbe
pjssiljleS;, 192
An intuicive conccption, 182
Icnpo^siWe 10 definc «>r dcscribt, ISI
h amdental lo sp^t;ifw e^iseente»
Noc a pan of quiddicie$ of th^
possiblcs, I91 f 104
Xot i<fc ntic^l to cjuiddities uf thc
ibles, 191 r 134
1168
!NDKX
Not klemita] ro specUic «i&uencd
Uncerlainty whcther concrttc or
mrnlaJ, 191-1 9S
Ex;i*rem>
DtAncd by AshaHrah Hiajnrity,
171, 173
'D(-finnd by AshaHrah cniciarilv,.
DcHnod by Mii*tazLlah majnriry,
172, 174
Dctinrd by philo&ophcra, 3 76-177
Existcnt wiibin a subiect-subsCrate.,
JT5efincd as nn accidtnt., 342
Krittnu One (Thck 302-303
Experi<-n«, I2&> L29
EHpJanatory definiiion. F
S^ DcfmJtinn l^icpianatory;
Explan;uory Btatcmcm-, Vfl f.
[la € Ll mukhlar], Scc God as Frcc
cho
Faith.
ajjciit
According to the KarrajTuydti- I06L
Acciording to ihc Mu'ta(zihih| 1061
C mHn-i,r.1 l:-y jjniilLw, UhRl.. I r j« "*
Dctincd in ordinary Jaiuru&gc, ] <.H5I
Dchncd in thc rcligious radc;, I0BI
Dehncd in tmidic {brmula, 1064
FaU of Ad<im,
fl*fwt: ctminiissLiiiiimg as pruphcl»
1005, 1010
KaUarious &rgumem fc
PYemisra imitatjtig thc gctuiiDc a 123
m
FaLlacy a
Scc PallacioLis arjgunuMit
Figurc (5n syUDgism},
DcAned *u<L dcscribcd, 100
Figure ll (of syllogSsm),
Andynis and sEimmary, 101 f.
Rgurc 2 a
Analysis and summHiy. LD6 f.
Figuro 3 ?
Ana]yxis and summciTy. 110 f
Figure 4j,
Analv5i5 and summarY. L j 5 f
Kirw.l cauw\ Sre Causc (Pbisl)
Kirc arod Garden,
See Gardcn and firc
Fire in HcjaE.
Ko-rMoiel co b*' seerL in
Hn^yr^ 9«5> 9 r HlnltK4
Flu\, Dwtriue uf,
Nazzam ? aU a EiOJl
i ona s
As -i. coiasricuctic bcior un a bodv,
530-53*
Furm iStib^cariual}, 600 f.
Drprhdml upori itw:
Incorporral Agcnr, 371
Forma| catjse, 32fi, 32»
E-ormaiiye pwti 55
And ptwcdcnoc of chc gcmtt, 54
Scc also Drkning lactor
Fr« choice agcnt,
Sce God cls fr?e choice agent
CLtiLien and Kir .
Ar* crraicd, 104*3 10*9
Lornucm of diicusscdj 104S
Gto-mctrical tcaching bi«iv.
DeFincd, 360
Gcomclriciang,
And kmrwL-cdgc logicaLK" a-cqutred,
147
ObjectiotLs c)f, 147
Gba^.idii,, ALju Hurrtid al-,, 666
Ghazz.aU, Scc Ghazali
Goal conccpt diHcrcndatcd, 5\
Goal (LogicaJ):,
God
As Fr« choioc agenc, 18, I53n38»
55» 559, 567, 658, B€5 K 829, 831
CrClrpc>l J eMliT> , exrJuded as acrritwi^,
755 f,
DLAcr^m fn>m. oihc:aHi in ciccc$Mcy o,l"
cxklf noc, 749 750
DiLTcrerit from othcrs in
03»»ipnt«Ei« and ocnnuKierioe»
74 » 750
Nm^isary erasc^ncs uf. 7ft4
OUigation of llis prc&c-ncc, Sn.5
Prcrhided from non-c3dstcncc, 9
Rclatcd to all piiRsibLca on an oqu.al
baiis, R21. «23
■ W
R^gionalicy and Lncalicy cxd(.idcd as-
atiributcs, fi97
«Klud^d as attrihuie, 749 f„
Scnsatc quaJ]Ucs -r^cludcd is
4k[tTibu««, 778 779
GckI i^Beaiiht ^sibility c^ lx > lieH.'er$
Sn Hertaiier), 896
[NDfcX
1169
Vicv*a nf ihc artrhmjHimttrphiAl^
God {Esscncc),
Admjstiblc tu bc Btudicd. 20, 753
H;,-. ,..i: i- i !ii3iMi. .iisaily wi-li Qiher
hcing? K 74y f.., 753-754
IrtcnLiii^d with His .srlf-fcnciwlcdgE ?
[dcntificd with IIjj £pcciftc cxiiten.cc,
744, 749
lcLcuipucral as a bdncj, 829, B32
Mart^s cspcrirntia) krm\iccij{t of ?
744, 747-748
So-iircc and cause cf all «dstents,
VLrw oK ihi- MiicaJcaiJimun, 747 1".,
754
View af thc phi!osaphcr=k s 750 f.,
754-755
God (Exi5irEicc. Absolule),
A anTLTTLoniilitY with atbcr ubsoLulr
esistcnce*, 7+9
Comprcheiadiblc atild rcportablc as
an LntcUigible mlity^ 7+4 a
747-7*6
God EjiistcciCc, Spcciik or Pnjper).,
Idcntijii-Ll widi His rssrnce, 7+B
Is ncccKsaLy, 784
GtxL rIrnmnrtaLly) K
Virw of al-Ash'^ 887
Vicw of AhBaqilluiJi m
Vicw of al-Juwayni, s&7
View of F t D. Ra*L : $»7
Gorl (Lhrang naLurc),
DcRncd, 867
Providcg va]id basis frw LtowLcdgc
and pmvrr, flfi?
Rcq-Lurcs valLd basas (br knowlrdge
and powen 867
God (OmnigrtHeitt^i
Can procccd or noc pKt&ccd ua act ?
aos-soe
Cboicc of act is by tbc dGvinc will,
aoe
Edrist& tbr-miph His power of
iiunonomouj: actioil, I2> 803 f.,
Neocssaiy, cotuLciiJous -acid linkcd co
jnjRuhle rcalitLc^ 32
Neccssaiy causc r>f it is HU
ciscncc/HimscLl"; fl2"5i
Phi]o5optn.T-" vic\v of its funcii-om,
803
Wjch His divinc *iU> 1M
GihI (OlTlJliw i<-Jl^f!J,
An anrihnh* liasir. \o God } a acriun.,
AiEiijncni in npposilLcHJ, 839 f.
GuHiprelittLib all inielligSblrt, 843
bu*Lv through. Tlis knowkt^c, V2
Iiv."3lii1^ knowkdge of His tsrcnce,
+33, 329
IrLtludra knov.k'dgc of particular
detaib, B42
Known by majj^s mcditation on
naturc, B29
linkcd Lo aJJ uiuYcrsak- and
parricuJars, 12
Gwl (OiiijiisciCTicc and OcniupLrt^ncc)»
Iki^b are necewry» 8^1-, Kf>2
Tkich drstinct froni Ilis csscttir.c. S19,
B52
How diatinguL^hcd from c-Eicncc^ 852
Thi:ury uf Abu "Ali alJubba^L acid
Abu Hasbim al-JubbaH p 052
"ITicory of phikwophcii;, 854 f.
Thcory of thc Asha E Lrah n 852 f.
.'\ctivatcd by His csscncCj 870
Actributc is thc prc.fer.ral a^ccit tot
His power 3 8^9
Chnice of cjhiecdves- HWJ
DcKncd, 06« f.
Knowlcd^ of tti-cjsC t>c n^licial
L-MBieiwei 809. fl72
Not a tempord phcni>nicnon p 6"?0.
671
Vi<»w of a]-ftasri p Abu al^Husayn,
View of aJ-Ka l W a]*Badklii, Aba
^K^m, 86ft
Vicw oJ" al-NajjaTj al-Tlusayn ihn
MuhaEnrnad 7 fl68
Vicwb of AshartTAh aci-d Mu^ta^iLah,
Goichon, A.M., H0n7l, f*Ĕn43
Hadilh,
Am I nol thc most appropriatc
pcrson amcmg you . . .? 1 122
Aiigcl of thc RiWn leLc/u 644, GW
Br; gvc4ed by ihost two who comc
dfter tne, 934, E»88n
Di> not ahusac my Caijipaninra!
1133, 1135
F5uth hfts 5tbowc scvcntv bi^iK-lies^
1082, I0K7
1170
[NDF.X
Fincs[ scrYtots of d*vctfion, 10!K ?
Firet iliinR crcatcd— thc intdJcct,
6414, 651
Firsl thmg tntal-tHJi"- l My LighL'»
G3lrtlS
First thing crtai-ed.- ihe pcn^ 650,
Fo™w of all creations kcpt unripr
tbe Throne, 651, 659
Garden^ roof js <he MmiAil Qne'»
Thmne, 1044
CrowrnjOTS diould bc from thc
Opraysh. [096, 109G
Greet ihc < ^omrrt atider of ehc
hy.ii kilul , , . ciiy Succcaor, 1 1 I4 P
I ] 24
Hadith al-Tayr/Tradirkiin of rhe
GwJccdPowL, 1116, L126
Hadith Kh^ybar/Tradi&jnri of th*
Hariilh of SiJlb spotcn t» ^Ammar
ibn Yasir, 9B4> *m
Hadich spDkpn to 'Alihas ibu *Abd
al-Muttalib, L Wherc is thc mtmcy 1 ?
9B4, <JC8 -339
Hc fivr wh£Rm I havc hcra cxccutiw
tniitce, 1113, 1 1 1% L 123, U28
I am not likc any or you, 969 ? 973
1 cunnot mcasure praiM\ I5n35
If any of yuu cuuld lill llic wurid
with «old, 1L33M7I
The righirul succcwLon tu
gpwniancjc: nAcr irnr, 1 106,
1 1 LO
Thc sun has root riscn ncrr ha* ic
sct on im.yom.% ] L 17. 1132
Thit ablutLoil b the kind without
wtddi, LDll
This man ghaLL be iny suoc^bsot
arnong you> 1114
Those Lwo aw tliiefttins of ihe
ad«lc populace of ihe Ga*iden>
1117,1132
Wherc ir therr: anyotie Jikc A,bu
Bakr? ? 1132
!Vhucver OtknJIesses 'Thcrc is no
othcr pjj : , 1063, 1068
Thtr Ytaman RTvm£ henwJt iit
roatri&ge without peraiiwiwi,
HIS, 1150
You ^ill Jsave che same J"ote iu
relnuon to me, 1 1 14, 1 (29
Yuu will haw ihe same
[i>l< . „„ aicept thai! J 1 2-3
Yutir bpst k:gal mind is 'Ali,
II 15, 1126
[Hal (U-)],
Hatitid AlLah MiiRtaufL Oai^itii,
On. Ba.vda.uT. 1 ! dcath, datc, 3tsLx n
XXXVII
Spuler^s judirment on hls Ta^niU-i
Gudda*. xxx\i5n2B
Iniams iliould be trom che Ounysh, f HaqIqaJi]
1096, 1097
Leadcrshijj after mt^ 9S4, 98S
Sce rcal niLLurc
Hashwivzih. 162n55
H
b:L Ab« Bakr lead ihe projjle in tli-e Hcalih and jILach, 474-471
praytr-riie, 1 132 3
\Iaa of happiLi«5 is hr, 9^27
Maci's spLrii i'soiJ'1 -dudnct from hts-
bod>% 681
Mv GompynirMii brr. like ihe stars,
"1133, 1135
1074, L077
Nn prophct has cvrr hccn wrongcd
Non-hdLrvcr sirrivmg in carnicat
cndcavor a 1065, ]06fl
O God, O Gcd. fcir niv
1. 1 jm.pa.uUjns : salw* afrir:r n-u\
1)34, L136
Rathcr. I will br Lo ™u iis a fii(her
lO his thild, 1123
ftricily descnbed, 6 c:, 7
Of sounds anird kcters, 42" 'llSl
Tnstniment of Linkagc orinidy
wiih soul, 691 „ 694
iJL-t also Sl>uI power
l)fifined, 3SI-36!?
See Mahani, A/afciJP «y^*
Hilli, ( Allamjih al-,
S« Ihn al-Mut^hhar al-HEUt
Homeconiirtgi.
Rciurrcrtion ttiay bc: like a, 1044
Scc aiso RreLaratkm
Hudayhiyah, Day of. 99-2
EN1>£X
1 171
Hukymi, Abu 'Abti Muh al-, 1017,
1019
Hypus(iis*s fDuciri.Tic ttf '1'hn-el,
7G5n47
Attribults or csscnc:cF-!\ H.51, J56I
[*I1eh u&ul al-dinj., Scc Scienct: of
fun.dammtal prinaples ~>f [uur]
religjon
ImagiciaEkHi, Power of,
As the Lntcllcct nwvj]jg amo-ng ttu:
scnsations^ 44
DeKncd, 30*
Describcd* 701.
Fruor uf it* fuiiLUOiL, 701-702
Ibn il-A^raM, Muhammad ihn £iyad, ImagiciaiiorL (UorBintctK-eJ, &92n|L7
Iblis* 647
Ibil a]- c Ajlbaji, Abu Biikr Muhiunnisd,
961
Ihn aW-hn^wi, 756
llm al-\-lurahhar aL-HtEli, jqxxv- -Jntt
Ibn aJ-RawandL K 632, fiS3
Ibn Kairam. 755 f.
Ibn Sina,
A point is an sbccLdcnlaL qusdilv,
A poim is aii ewsrent eniity» 5412
GmTs i:^n« is His specilie
cttsuciiGCt 837
Hts. objections to "ihe cldLiiiikin of
the body, 523 f.
On casmog-cHiY, 605
Oli pcrccplion and kiiowL^Jg-r, 4+5
On plrasuret and pain, 47 1
On strnighl-Lin* m^iimi changt\
511
On thr Ditinc sin^ularity, 7ft3
On the lhing nacurc, +36 t.
Rcply tu hh objcctions to tbc
ikJJniticHL of dic bwly. 53 L f,
Vi**ws im (juiTs kwiwledgnt iunl
power, 855
Vicws on GocTs knowtalge and
pow*r ciilk" izral Arld siniplilaed.
H5(>
Vkws nn rcligioii oooipa.rvd to thc
tciencc of th^^logicat siaicmenl,
21-32
Ibrt TiiyntLy;jli spcaks uf I&Tahani., xli
LJ4afah {aJ-)],
Sce suJjunclLnn
Ijt» 'Adud al-Din,
khaSa
Reladort tr> Baydawi, xJn"32
ILkluniK*
■
Kjctalicri* with Shi c i*h and Sunnb,
ReLLgw^js pnltry of 3 xxvi
|*Hm al-kalam], Sbc &ricnc:E of
thtoLutpcHl sLatemcnl
Drtuuri, 3G
Imarn (ApiJCHtttiiirnc crUeriu),
AitribuTes ofi 100.1
Imarniyah vLew, 1 10] f.
Mu L (a^itati vLtw, IIGl
Sujuii vicw. 1 101
Wcwchml not quaUFwrd to bc, 1095- f.
ZaydLyali ^itWj ] S01
r^Tism iBls-m^le^
ani
=
l"nnec^i$aiy in Sunni vicw, ]0!iR f.
Iinamn (OhLi^aunn to app^iiu),
VieiMi of Ialamic sccts, 1 1>H9, 1091:
^hairah^ Imamiyah, Isma £ :liyah,
KJiawajij ? KCm^lajJah, Zaydiyah
iLrjamatr,
Is sutte^siopi tci umhiirity afler
Muharinniaji, ]0^0
Imajn^r {Rcasons for)
Divuut bcncvolf:ncc Ln Imamiyah
(Shi £ ah) -^icw, 1093
Prcrt«:ri<:in in Sunjii \icw, 109]
Trnamate (Hii^Ltiijl),
Abu Bakr w Sunni vkw, ] I (H-,
1 ioe r.
*Ali in Shi^ih \-Ufw, 1 L 1 2 C
Imainiyah, {TweLwi^ 1 ) spcaking as
rnajrjsriL)' branth of SIm'»!^ 3093
lthna- L ^hanya]^ Scc Imamry:in
Incarnatc indwcllLiicr.
Scc Union and mcsirriate mdwrDing
ur God in Jesus 1 nocLrirke o()
IiK.ompLetc tau«, Scc Canse
(Incninplrie}
IncorporcaL suhstaniia] hcings,
'Bnditt 1 qf f 647
GUsscn iri; 6+4, 646
Individuarion, 2*3-254
Ai cxi^cntial, 247-250
A» ncrt ndsttrrtial^ 217
Part of an «tmer-t jmlit-iduaJ, 244
Inducrion
■=
(^knnp^tc {iTivcsti^adw], fl2 s fl
1172
1NDF-X
Jn-complrle [invc3isigati:V£] , R2 t 86
Inwstijfativc 3 B2, 83
InJirtHe seties arjjumentj 727, 732 £
Ltwalidity of ? 727, 732 f.
iTLir-IJ^cr (Pnur i.Urw-loprig jaag*:s i »f iln-
ratiotial sttkil's)t 460- ++i I
-; Lst) Pmuordjal, 460„ 462
(2nd) Cbnstituuw, 461-4G2
(3rd) Activc ? 461-462
Mth) EqLiippcd, 161-462
Docs noB govrni ihr body, 52 k— 522"
Inlcllccl {SecotLii Cdestial), 619, &55
AlsO talled Ticst pruductd «lesliaJ
rjdprtiils on thf FLrst Prinriple
{God^ 650, 655
IntcMccta (Of thc ccLc^tial sphercs),
Arc Lcidlr«:t causc;> of sphcres 1
tiirnkin, 661, 663 6&5
l)ti nul pprcci^e piLn.jcukirk, 6&D f
Eflcctive cauies wich boriies, 644 I".
fi« of inaterial liirutatitirts,
659- 6G0
PhLWiphrrs docdiric o*; 651 t
Thnd co Tenih, 654), (>59
IntclUgiUc (An) f
Dcfiiied bv Asba^irah mujoritv,.
171 £
171 f.
InLcrccwdon, D*vinc
Gixl grants Prophct^s rcquE£t for.,
1074, 1077
Ncrt availablc in Mu'tazi]ah vicw
1073, 1075
Prophet comrcLanded to aak for,
1074, ]076
Inc\iiuon K
DLstinguishcs bctwccn a subjccL
and a subjcct with prcdiratc,
619, 3j8
Intuiciyc rcHson,
■•
A judge uf readiLy, 222
Iradah, al-]. See&od (Will)
E3isi]i, juucviii
Books ayiliored„ xliv
Comn^enpry on (taydawi
cominLssiotictLi xMl, 7
DtAth from biilioriic plague, xlv
EdncaEioii, xxxviii f_
Iifc-3cvlc- xliv f.
\fovc to Cairo. xli C
■
Movr ta EteurLaseus, -\li
Ol^ervaiion by Ibn Tuyniiyali, xli
Ob&a^atio-ns by hbs.toriarw, ?div
On. knjDwkd^!, 36
PiJ^rima^c to Makka and Jcrusalcm,
*i r.
R-clations vflih che Shi'itc
gouemroent* jdi
IsEihrJiiJ, A/aUA' d/-.4ngp,
(JahCTlcy^ nmuk&mpr, xvi5
.3
r ■
Mannsrnpls mbinI, kJk f.
Printcrt cdiuons, kvu
Statua in Muslim cstec-m. xlv
P
lsfaniyini, Abu Ishaq al-,, 1083
I?rt^ c tliyah h
And Lhe j^-is-sibliiiTy of kn^wledg^ ot
Jahiz, Abkt r Uthnu.n ',\mr ibn Bahr
aJ-i L06S
[jahl] 716nl64, 722
Jahir ibn /ayd» 991
Jkus, 765-766
Scc alsoi Mo5siah
Jrws* dtKJtrijit »n tlu? Mositit Law
reAiied, 1000 £
Jinn* 6-t4, &17
TJi&m !a c LiinT|i
Ste fjvumecticid teachin^ body
Jcweph {A* propheOi
Acts mi imcrpiticd a$ wi-oiigdoiris,
Jaar ph H s broth^rs
Wrcmg Licit doti-C" if and wheci a$
propkeLs, I UU3. L0E3
Joy and ochcr ^motLDn^ 474
JubbaH, Abu 4 Ali Muhammad ak,
636. 1055
Jijhha^ Abu Hauhim al-, S2L 635,
Judgmcntal asscnt, 28- 2% 34
j\nd auihoriiaiivc tradiuon. 41 L
And nctTsrity. 139 f.
Aj a ratiunai a£quttitiocK 3-1
M iriEuitiuCg 33., 36
Juwa,yru + Imanl al-Hiiramsiyn -al-, 221 f.
KaTsi aL-Bakklii, Abu al-^sim, 636,
KaJam (ThHjlogy)., Scc Scicntc of
tbe;-i>l<igic^3 AUCcmtnt
[K^mm (aI-]] ? ikt quaaility
[K.aramiL]
Sps Signs «f dmnc Jayor
INDEX
1173
K;irrnini>^]i, 755 £
And sulwistenc*: vf («mporal!
phennmena aln C!od a 7tiH
Thrir arijumcnt reEuted» 760
Sec Qualaiy
K]ikli.t[a"] a Shaykh Muhaiumad al-,
xxxiin)6
Knowing (BaydawTs thcmy), 439 140,
4+8
An aJlcmatLai; biphascd ptrccpticn
jTspcitse: tooctp€i<in/judi3TLcnt.
Each phasc by tnttiLtLon or
aaiiHsiciaa, 33
Kntwing (Ibn Sina 1 * rtieoryk 31
canctptLon only/or, widi judgmcnt;
31
Razi iknd othcrs vary slightty
Kuuwiug (hrateini'5 theciry}, 36-42
lntiiiLiun ur iH-LjLiJsiticHt - *-inih. is wily
panial by rtecttttiLy,, 3G
Knewledtee^
Aiid lopt-al ^scntiiijj, 137 r
As ocmdusioiu 83
As praruse, J33
By iniuiucm, 28 i\ 33
By rttimnal a^nintion., 2E f. 33
DeKnH, 4S9-+57
DUtinct modc*» 2EK»
Punctional aspccts, 28 i-
GcncraJ thcury of t 31 (.
h tx>ih gcncrai and pariiiular in
«J+Tcncc. 4!i7 f.
Rcal (actors in ? 453 f.
Knawhrtjge- abnul Gwi.
And loipcal reaL&oning., 138 f.
Not a dSvisibl£ substanod. 667 f.
Knowlrdjgc (EspericntLal) atwu* God,
And nuiiJIJon, 744-74H
And thc MutakaUiniun, 744-748
And thr Philowphen, 744-748
Kauwtedge «f self,
GodX 453
KuJayh, Ndghbortiti«s of, 1121
Iiiency and appe-arance, 49'J. 6AH
Dc&icd, 4^2
Dcnied, 492
[Lazim (ul-)],
See Oorurlusion
Lcngth.,
Ddincd. 361-M2
Lifr N See Li\inj5 riaturc E.igr:i.
JTieorka of, 422 f-
IJmiTLiig [erms (of s,yll« iNgisni], 99
liiuc,,
Driincd, K0 t 362
Lhinjj; rtiHur£ N
Kry to ip^cies normality, 434, 43G
iHoumttt of orhtr psychic powcrs.
43+ £
Thcorics ot 434-435
Vicw of MLitaL-JlimLLn, 135, 433
Vicw cf MuHarilah. 435, 4-3B
View of chc phtlosophen, 435, 438
LiviLig naturc of Cod h
See God [Livifi# naiurc)
Liyinjj rtaturc of iman,
Aocords with chc Dwinc will, 695
SignihcK the Dninc- auliiorizatioii,
692
Locus <or s Locus-nilMtrate), 342-343ri4
354)
lxigi4:a] ireasorLin^^
And ii«CL-ssaiy knowlc^ge^ 14fl s
1« t, 15)
As aiL ohligatiun. 161
l>tfijied, 27 E, 42 f
lis pracrital r«j|jlrs ? IJ7-]!?C
Iis suffi.cicncy ? 158 f.
Syuonymous with Lhinkirig,, 43 I".
Luius bouiidajy tree,.
Ii] die St?vernh Hea^ji, 31144
iiOW,
Miwl, 464, 4€43
Rclaccd to wll. 464. 46B
■
[Ma r ad i^L-:], Sc^: Rcstoradon;
Stc ak^ Hftmcconiiug
[Mahiyah],
Scc Quiddity
Major id"m ;"m sylkigism)^
FuiLi::u.inn aud kication, 82, H7
Scon" of t 1023-1024
[Mata* (al-)],
Sw Timt whf n
Matcrial Cciusc^ 326 ;1 328
MeitlOTy' :Pr>vtfr of) ?
D^c-ribirtl, 703
Mb^nra) (hrm,
]^isrinct from cxtcrnal (brm, 157
Univx j rsaJ in reSrrmce^ 457 £
MpiHrJ prr>cc$se} atuJ e^ti^rnal mabry"
453 £
1174
[NDEK
Mcssiah,
Lnioci ol na.tum in. 765
Mctcrop&ycho^ E>85 : G8B
CrmTrasud wich RtsLirrcir.Lww^
1045 t
Rcsurrcction is morc than mcrcly a,, (Nabaj (pruphn
■■Frf!c chojce 1 djnctrint:, Stc AcLr of
mankincL Mu^iaaLlah Tree choice*
dnutriite
See sdso under oilrcr doctrirtes
M
MidkDe tmii :in sylLugjuHii),.
Kiinaki" :J=id 1- -i :;ati. .r^. B2 P 87
Fur*ctLOfl varies widl figurt\ 96, 100
Sk*« Poss&ps^i.on ris hahir
MiTior crmn (lii ayJtogi^m),
Function and location, fl2. ft?
Miradc,
Detincd. 968, 970
Mitaele brought by thc Pln&phrtj
Came wich the Q.or J yn, 984. 986
CompiAiiit of the She*cameL, 99H
Grcciwp of thc Sionc» $9L
Kccnirj« of Ihe Palm Ug, 992
Kuwring ih* ttoiwimd Murtrai., 903
S^i]LMajfig o£ thc Mor>n, 991
Wawr apringjing out bctwecn hk
fing«s> 992
Muori (in 5V'lhjRiHT]),
[>riiii«cl i '3Uh«
VarictLca poKSLblr, 10 1 ? lOliuil
Moonligjht.
RcAectcd From thc sun, 592
MosC apprupnatc personj.
h\ i-acidirU: \*t Varirties uf.
1122-1123 '
Moikm-changc,
Cyribul or rutary* 4S8
Dettned by MmakaHimnn, +B?
ni>fiiiftd hy phrilosnphcrs, 482-483
Factors. invoJvcd in ? 498 f.
IridwiduAtirHi uf, 499
Siratg.hi-line^ 510 f.
+83, m
Typcs of force nwessiTiiiang it, 506 f.
Mocion-change and complcrion,. 4S3
Motian-changr uf body,
Pnwm rausing, 4fiS
DivUion oi, m t 49fl
Nabjrally aucoiiDrnJc, 709 £
Yolimiarily cIccUtc, 707
Mubamrtl» Mu}iftmniad ibn VazLd.
1118
Muhammad. 3ce Pruphct Muharrutiad
Mu^lah. M7. 798 i\ 917 f„
952 f,l052 f
Sumitmry of eariy phLLo$ophen; on, Necrasicy,
L!tynu.i]»gy of lenm, %U
Najas-hi, al- r
Dcuth forctold by thc Piupbet, 985,
989
Nanralors of iraditLtm,
Thcii* faultle*5 ^ibic;, 133 f.
N?sif MuhAmrrtad ib*i Q?1awtuinj
aJ Ma]iL al-,
Commisaion un Mahaiu^ x1lu
IsEahani^s tntoLriLLun «f, 7 f
Nasiriya.h Khanqah at Siryacjus
S*e Ij.igital nrasoiiiiijj
Naraaiu, AUu hhaq Ibtahim al-, 355 h
S40. G82 f., fl22 f 1011
Necemry
[>dined b>' pliilosophen, 176 f
Nemssary Existftnt ? 19B f.
His qiiiddity, 193 f.
AbaoluTc exmcm't ls cUATcrrnc fsrom
llia cmrnce, 199
HLs ahsoLute T!xis*cn<?: ts caim:d ? 212
Hls ahsoLuic f!xktcncc is a.n
intcUigibte, (99, 20B
His spcciJic: Kcistenct b ncrt
additional. 2W
I
His apccific ndstcnoc is idtntica.1
mih His CEst-ncc!:, 209
His esawricc is nm "an irtttlLigib3?\
Ncccsaary implicatkm,
Scc Ncccaaty (syllogistic;
A requisit-e of ejdscence;. 1255, 260
An iindlecTUAl enriTy onJy, 255
AntectdenT, 283
C&mat tactor of, 258
Con^quem 3 28*
Exclu<ks cornpo-.iTion, 261
EikcIlkW iLself from i:i>jnpositkin,
261
Icl losir/al reaftHii»g, 139
JnhcrpitiC;, H!i t".
Neccssary in its tywn esscn^c,
261-262
Not a comrnonalLtY, 262
INDfcX
1175
.VCorc spmcraL in naiurc, tW f.
No intcrrnediary.,
hVlwt:f?n rsistcriirc arid nnn-rTcisJlrTKCj
Nonrxisicn|,
f)cfinrd hy As.ha'imh iiiaJHirky,. 171
Detimcd hy Mii*laj-iJah maj(iritv., 172,
[75
Detined hy philosopherH, [7 6 f.
\;il a omaintY FXft fcr nalJv- 2(3 f-
Not a cQiiciTte cucitv, 214
Vicw af Mii*taalah, 217 £
Nuinber,
Udmed* 350, 3&2
Oblisracion of Cod*s pirscnw. Sw
Cod a Ohligadon qf His, pncscncc
Obligationa iniposcd on man.,
Man's chancc to carrt a rcward or
[jrciitEty, 953.
Mu c tiL?ilah vicw of thcir purposc is
rcward aftcr Kc-iiiTTcction. 953,
10f?2
SuciPii iitw of Mu*i.azihth doctrinc.
95 3
Oninipoljcnce, Sec God (Gmnipotence)
OmriLsciccKTC,
Kjiowlcdgp itself or its rffrrt:\ »52
5w alsu God iOrnciiwlencit)
( >j >]Xisi rioii .
A cUas or vaiiety of piur&liiy, 310
Of Bffirmati<iij/Eicgajtion, 312, 315
Of toniradi* lion, 31 &
Of mutiial adjuncuoti, 31fj
Of pri^atitm/posscsKion., 315
The foux rcrognizcd Itmds of, 315
Varictks of 7 310 f.
Wsiys wf idcnlilying dussra oE 313
Pa
I I
-—»---
Divinc
BcJbrc repr-ncanec by Cod K s frcc
choirc. L07£ 1074
I
For tin&i 1073. 1075
Mu*iaziLih virw, 1073 1077
P-i r I ii 1 1 l.i rmri|* cv I n i ru rr ij - "< Jud "s f
4, 10, 13
Pa.TBiviCy 1
Ddincd, 343
Pcn rihc) p Scc lladiih, Firat thing
crealed . . . thc prn
Pnrreprirtn,
And comprriti navc rt.-cognition., 909
And knowJcdgp, TtKrories of, 439 F
As psyrhk imuitir.ru 442 f,
I-web &f pemctpoon, tja 1".
Of pattitnlars is hy rhc soulTs
inscrumcnta] powens,, 70i>
Of unive n^ak is dirccc]v by ihe souL
705
Poweis oF cxtcm<d, 695 r,
Powtre ■■.>f inkrcLid, fiJW f,
Periecciom (priiiiaryYroondary),
5S*e Complecion
Peripu(e<]cs r
St^ Sc}uhi1 «F Arissiotle
Permanence ol" reward • tc,
D^hatc on it& < , jonm"', , abilicv 1 l^?^
069-1073
Phanioh and Moscs-, 744 f,
PhK.T,
As dic rnn^r surf<tcc of j. coiHiiin^r,
DeSned, SR7
Rca^ons i.t woukl- ^ot bc- a yoid., 3fi6
Thcoric^ of, 3S7
PUc^where!
An instanily g^ncr&tcd placc of
Lng, 4ft2 f.
DcficLed 8 34- L^ 344
Phintr snrfytT 4
Plancts,
Cclescial orbs fixed in aomc major
sphcrcR moving as thcy movc,
58-t. 592
Plato, 229, 233, 686
liiwlligibJe ronns 5ir-e ^ir-sub-siscenr,
. 510
S50
Oji smiighl-lĔcLr rruKioP
Pleaswre and rtsHty distingMishwl,
469 l
Ruralit) r ,
.Aqjccls of ils dcfinitioil F 300 f,
Cla&K* or vArieiies ol* 310 f 8
h cwLcmint» 300, 30:*
\lmr |irooi^4y ti aii inicllivliial
entiiy only> 304
The oppoAilc of sJngularily,. 30O 3 301
Point (tbc)[ 345
l>fincd 3 360 a 3*2
Scc aho Ibn Sina on chis
Pc^Urjck. Jajncs W., xviii
Pudiiocu
Dvfincd P ^+1,344
Possession as habii,
Dcfincd. 341, 34-5
1176
]NUEX
Pi^sKLbility.,
A nnn-rctjuirtte of eKisCcEii:<* K 255
An arijiinr.tifvp enriry, 2^5
An inrclL«tu:tl entiiy onl> r j 255 f.
h an intelligiblc in comparison to
another thing, 295
ls rtcpn-*fxis?efi'ial, 29-5
h priur to a ihing^ cjdswnce, 295
Needs u rause to be cxisient h 2&6 H
Bv nutritive and RTinyth puwcrsi
703-710
t i rCTervacK>ii ot itvc species,
By gavcrative [srRl formativc]
powt-rs, 70!) 71 1
Prcsen^ticHi, Porwera auKJJiary lo,
Dcscribed, 709
Primal mattcr, 371, 522, 532, 553,
55B ? 560 571« 599, 649. 635
N"ot a pu-wcr hdd Ijy an aKeril. 294 Primcval decision (GwTsjl 4.. I0 ? 13
Not aii mtcUigiblc in iiselF f 295
YalkUtes Gocta powtr^ 823
PosgLblt,
Dciintd by phiUisophcrs, 176 f.
PossLblc reaJiLy,
Acccpts both cxistcnce and
non-exHtcnGt| 176 f-
Aa an existeni it ts a temporal
pherioaitenotw 176
Krtectrw csmse nw^^l while csu.su-nt,
2fl3
Rsustenr** dependk <?n an rffcrtivr
gh« t 283
F-xkir:n.t naiurcs of, 191
Ncichcr of irs statcs haa pnority ?
281 f.
PwturC;,
S&e Ĕosipion
Pnu»ntLai Jiucc,
DeRncd, 463 f.
Potentiality into actualicy.|
Imtantly or Bradually, 4S7
Pcwer,
As relattd to wiH, +63
Slc also Power of auLonomou»
actiuiii
Puwer (nncion of J.
And vanous aaiions, 463
Power of autcmomous action^ 463,
709 £, &05 T.
Fo«wr* o' Hifrtiv&tirig an<t $* Tiw.ting,
707
Frai$e as Thanlugiving, IEK, 15— 16n$f>
Pravcr riic lannp lcrusaLr.mL Lftfl6
PrHercnjr^ Agcnt of as a cauac,
m-m
CondilicmaL conjuncdw, 95 9b
CcmdilioimL disjunrti^ 1 , 95, S7
Omdirional. racepriw, Bfi, FJH
Major, 99-10«
Minor. 99-100
PrcscnaticreL of chc itidividual v
Priic of thc upLiited arrow, &nl0
Praof dtnionstration, 28, S2
Premisca of, 126
Pn-mLscd prieudw, L2.>
i'rc3pLT 4.'»nccn[L f ibr t)cncfu,
Ncrt a n«icssar\' obli^atiiHi upon
God. 889 T
Piophet MubiimmĕLd,
Ejus de(initio« of the Propl^l,,
His prophtihood demonyraced, 984
P^rtkhnod for aU sicis, 1005» I0O9
Ptopher (The'i H
CharAcrcr of, f»84 f., -991
Enswcnce and PunccioLi of. 962 f.
Mankind \ necd of ? 959, 962-967
Why needcd by mankind! 959
Pniphels. CtiarKttr of p ICU^ l(K>6
Kudayldyah Khtawarij doctrine» LtMtt
Ilash^iyah dnclrinc on
blamclejancss, 1004, 1007
Rawaiid doctrinc rcquircs
UsunclessDins, 1006, 1014
Sunni riK.triuc on cttots Hiir]
pujiishmerLl, 1004 f.
Pruphets Cumniissjoniiii; of h
<:oLiLmiMioidng, HH&, L0I4
BlamcLess aftcr commlsMoning^ \W)i b
looe
GLven after ps>chic prep^raTion,
1014 f.
Wrongdw.i^ Ficver conimissioned »s»
10114, 1008 f-
Pirophrrs, RanlcLng of,
Inllrriot to archangrb in yic-ws i>f
\(u £ ta/ibh iiEid philo^ophcrs,
1017, 1019
Superiw to angrls in ^ieww of Sh] e ah
^.nd Sunni majoritimi, 10 17, 10L9
Proposidon,
Mcrital (includttt theoretirat and
ratioTiAl], +80-482
INDEX
1177
PopuOarly acccpicd, 123, 125,
130 £1
Pmumptiue, I3W
Proycrb,
Evcnronc i* easity amtnablcj
444nl26. L0Mn36, 1067
Tr> 4\biLn.clo-n a grc-iJLt i^ood, 933.,
940. 1090, 1092
Scc Ciod (Will), and CJnd
(Omntsdenc^)
Prming particuLar,
By pamcuLir, fi2, fi6
By uniwmal, B2, B5
ftdvi"njDT uniYcrsal,
By purticulart 82, 85
By uniwml, S2.S5
P*yr h<r,
Sw -Snui (rational)
Psychic accivity aiid limitarioLis, upoit
it, 435-444
Psychic qu.alilics as human powcrs,
434-439
^uriishmcni of mankind. by God,
Oods ru^tkc in Su.Li.ni v.k , vv, KjuI,
1067
Ow4*d hy (rfid in Mn c caj-jE;iEi and
Khawarij wcw, 1052, IO.-jA
5iet idso Itcward to man , . .
HiiTtishmecit (Spccicd seycrc;,
Fr>r thc dasbelie^ing, 11053,
I0GIM0G1, 3 0ti7
For ibo&e inwlriiig ihe Ptnpiiei,
1004, 1000
Punishmcnt shrcat s
Whelhrr and wheii ^*ss|wn<ted ?
105+, I059 3 1065 K irifi7 f.
Ehjrposc of a man 4 H cwadoii,
Cluc accn cn his bchavior in
A&halraJt vitw, 1064 L 106?
[Qadl> (aJ-)J,
Scc Primcval dcc:isioii
Sec ParticuJarmng; command
Q*rah Daghi, *Ali Muhyi al-Din al-.
KXViii
Oa/rtrii, HimiHl Allah MustawA»
K*c Hamd AlUih Mi.istii.wfi Qazvini
QiiaJidfs iiot propcrly atcribMtalilr to
God, 749-750
Oualitics of predisposddon^ 477 f.
Ouality,
Changc in, 438, 491
DefiEicd f 341, M4
Qu#n(i(auve mcaAu^
And a body, 364
DcAncd, 360-36 L
Oaantily,
As aJddcnt, 363-364
As ess^nce, 363-364
L Ijitrigc iti, 4frR f-
DeAnctt, 3*1, 344
lQLidrah> sl-]>
&pe Power of aiitnnQmou4 acdon
Quiddity 3
Applic* Lo hel inteJligiblt, 230
As iibsdutc, 229
As absLracuuri,. 221?
As compauu: cxTemaDf 9 234-335
As coniputice inccllmually, 234-235
As concrete blend, 229
Ah arimpL* e iiTitj,*, 22'J 1
C^ndicioncd by nnthiiig^ 229
Condictoned by srimahjng, 229
h ^iich Ehmugh tts csscncc^ 229
Prcscnti a ihuig^s- iral najture^ 229
UncDndiiicmcd by ^nythin^ 2'?9
Qiiiesr^iifi\
Brlwccn chan.^es in Htraight-liLie
mouoLi, 310-512
Of b^HHi^ in ctcmity, 61 l h 613
Q-jotalio3is frairi thc PropbeL,
Sct- Hadith
Qur 3 an (Yerscs i-iied}:
001 Hi-FuLiti»h, v6-7 % lOB0n5C
002 al-£aqHrah, v23, 987
n0>: : '■R,iq.:im"". '."It. ji-lM. 1050
(«12 al-Biup.i-ah, v3L-:^ LU20
00fi al-Baqarah ? v34, 30)9
002 cdBn^LraJi, v35, 1011
002 al-Baqamh. v37 s 101 1
00^ M-Vaqarah, v38. 723
002 M-Baqanh, v4$ ? 1074, 1077
002 al-Baqarah v v55, «99, 912
0112 aL-Batiarah, v79a, 922, 92^
002 al-Baqarah, vfll, 1054, 1060
002 al-Baqarah, vfl2, I0H2, 1084
002 al-Baqarah, v8G r 926
002 aL-Baqamh b vl L7„ 636
002 aUB^arah, v|l9, WJnli
002 aL-Baq.3iah. vl24, 1004, LOOa^
1099(2)
H7«
]NDLX
OlVi aJ-Baqarab, v]42 : clt, lOSOrijO
002 al-Baqarah, vH3. tUS2, 108«,^-,
1100
002 al-BaqHrab, v]95 t 1003, 1007
002 al-Bw^rnh, v254 : 1074, 1076
01 E : 4 { B,iqan«k v255, {V2$4, ctc.';
22, «66
002 al-Haqarah, v259 : t039
002 al-Baqarah, v27Q, L074, 1076
003 Al Umian, v5. 12
003 Al «Imran, v7. 760, 761
003 Al 'lmran, vlB, 5
003 Al c lmran, v33, 1018, 1020
003 Al 'lmran, v37, 1024
003 AJ ^lmryji, .61, 11 15, \
01 W Al 'Imran, v90, 92fi
003 Al ^lmra.i, vl25, 23
136
003 Al 'Imran, vt33, 1048-1050
003 Al Imran, v!68, 6fll
003 Al 'Imran, v!9l, 1013
003 Al 'Imran. vL92, 1061
004 al-Nisa». vl4, 1054, 3060
004 al-NLsa 1 . v33, I J 20
004 aJ-NLsu". v4Q. 923. 928
004 al-Nba 1 , v48, 1068, 1074, 1075
004 al-N'i&a\ v56, 1039
004 al-Ntsa\ v59> 1092
004 al-Nisa*. v69, 22 v 723, 1136
004 al-NL»', v79 80, 903» 1 4
004 al-Nisa\ vS2, 92+, 928
004 aNNisa', v93, 1054, I06O
004 al-NLsa\ vliri, 1063, 1074 : L075
004 aJ-NUa\ vl23, 922, 925
004 al«Ni»\ vl 53, H99, 906, 91 t
004 al-Nisa\ v 1 65 , 997
004 aKNLsa\ vl7^ 10L7nl5l, 10 LB,
L021
005 al-Ma 3 idah, v4, lOSloSl
005 al-Maldau, v30, 922, 925
005 aJ-Mriidah, v55, J I J 3, II 18,
1119, H27
005 al-Ma^idah, v73, 860
006 al-Ariam, v27, 722
OOb aJ-Ariam. vS9, 923, 926 92 7
006 al-Ariam, v50, 1019, 1022(2)
al-Ariam, v59, 12, 866
006 al-Ariam, v73, 19
006 al-Ariam, v76, 1005
«06 a]-An'am, v7fi 77, 10 L 2
006 al-Ariam, v82, 1 082, 1 085(2)
006 al-Ariiim, vl0l, ew.„ 12
006 al- ArTam, v L 02, 908
006 ^Ariarn, vl03a, 90«, !J0S
U06 al-Ariam, vL03b, 908
006 al-Ariam, v| L&\ 922
006 al-Ariam, vI4«, 922n2E
006 al-Ariam, vl48 Sec also
006 al- Ariam, v 1 L 6
006 al-Ariam, v|53, L004, L007
006 al-Ariaiu, v!55, .007
LK16 al-Ariam, vlfi0, 926
007 al-A<raf, v20, 1011, 10 19, 1022
007 al-A c raf, v22, ]0L1,
0H7 aUAW, v23, 923. 927, 1011
al-A r raf, v54, 19
007 al-A r raf, vl31, t080n50
007 al-A c raf, v!42, 1114, 1124, 1130
007 al-AW, vl43. 910
1107 al-AW, v-143a, A%n39, 899,
906
OnJ al-A c raf, v!43k 896n4l>,
899^900,
007 al-AW, v!45, 651nl6
007 al-AW^ vl55, 899, 923, 927
007 al-A c rsf, v!85, 163
007 aL-A c raf, vl90, L0J0
007 aI-A c raf, v206, tOJ8, I02E
008 al-AnTiiK v53 h 925
008 at-Anfal s v 53b, 922
009 at-Tawhah, v25, 994til]fl
0D9 aJ-Tawbah, v*3, 1005, 1009
009 al-Tawbah, v71, 1118-11 19,
l 122-1 1 28
009 aL-Tawhah, v72, J039
009 aL-Tawtj;,h, vlW, 1133, 1135
010 VvnuRs v26, L039
010 Yuiius, vfiti, 922
S<« Our^an, 00fi al-An'am, vl 16
010 Yunus, v|0l, 161, 163
011 Hod, v37, 999
011 Hud, vL0L, 923. 928
011 Hud, vl05, 7l6nl63
011 Hpd, vl0fi, 926
011 Hud, ^UWJ.^e
012 Yusuf, v!8, 922. 92 r>
012 Yusuf, v24, 1003, 1013
012 Yusot vB2, 1010
012 Yusurl v83, 925
013 al- Ra'± v6, 1071, 10 76
013 al-Ra c d, ^16, 923 s 925
013 al-Ra c d, v35, 1048-1049,
1051 1052
014 Lbrahim, v!0, II
014 [brahirn, v31, 13
015 al-Hiji, v2l, 13
01$ aJ-Nah3, v!8, 13,
016 al-Naht, v^7, 1055. 1061
0]fi al-Nahl v40 s 894
INDIi X
1179
(3 1 6 aLNahl, vfi«, 8 :«f
0J6 aJ-Nahl, v7fl, 694
016 aJ-Nahl, vl 13, 023
017 "Bwni Isra'!",
See aUIsra'
017 sd-fera', vl5> 165
] 7 aJ-Ssra*. v29, 094
1 7 al-lara'. v43, 264, 7 78rf93
0J7 aJ-lsra\ v51, 1039
017 aJ-lsra 1 . v74, 1015 1016
OJBaJ-Kaht; vl6-lt, 1025
018 aJ-KahT, v25. L025
01S a]-Kahf, v29. 922, 925
OJB aJ-Kahr, vL 07-108. L067
0]« al-KaM v|]0, 1013-1016
01* Maryam, v5, 1121
1 9 Maryam, v36, 1 059
020 Ta Ha, v5, 760, 390
020 Ta Ha, v7, 12, H«6
020 Ta Ila, vl5, 926
020 Ta Ha, v39, 091
020 Ta Ha, v47, 7 1 7
020 Ta Ha, v4B, 1055, 106]
020 Ta Ha, v93, ] 23
020 Ta Ha, vJI5, 1011(2)
020 Ta Ha, v ] 20, 1 1 1
020 Ta Ha, v!2l, 1010,21
020 Ta Ha, v3 22, 1005." 1030
020 Ta H a, v ] 24, 926
020 Ta Ha, v!34, 997
021 itS.Anbiya', v20, 1019, 1023
02 1 al-Anbiya". v22, 1 1
021 al-Asibiya\ v23, 922, 952, 954,
056, 1041
02 1 al-Anbiva\ v47, I030n50
02 t al-Anbiya», v63, 1 i 2
02 1 al-An.biva\ v30, 999
021 al-Anbiya\ vfl7, 923, 927
02
al-Anbiya\ v!04, 12
021 al.AribivA\ vl07, 16
022 ai-IIajj, v7fl, I 068-1 06M
02 3 at-Mu*mijiun, v J 2- 1 4, 6fl6
023 al-Mu*minun, vl4, 681, 684.
636
023 al-Mu^minun, vl 15, 950
024 al-Nur. v55 f 984, ] 105,
lior;
i '24 al-Nur f v55a, 98B
024 al-Nur, v55b. 9R8
025 iu-Iuirian, v2l, 906, 91 1-932
026 al-ShuW\ ¥33-28; 745-746
026 al-Shu<ara\ v28, 744
027 al-Naml, v 15-45, I024nl58
027 al-Naml, v40, 1024
027 al-Naml, v44, 023, »27
027 al.Nwil, vOO> 026
02« aU^isas,. v85, 034, 987
02« aL-Qua&> vfl8, 1042(2;. 1043
1048. 1 050-105]
029 al-*Ankabut, v61, II
030 al-Kinn, vl> 037
030 sil-Ruro , v3, 034
030 nl-Ruin, v27 T 1030
03 L Luqman, v20, 13, 163
03 > al-Sajdah. vL7 T 1033. 1053
033 at-Ahzab> v30, 1004, L00fl
033 al-AtBab : v56, 16
033 al-AhKib. v57, t004, L008
035 at-latLr, v22, 1078, 1030
036 Ya Sin, vl B, I nsOnSO
036 Ya Sin, v5J,
036 Ya Sin, v73 70, 1039
036 Ya Sin, v79 T 1037, 1(140
036 Ya Sin, v82, 802, «04
036 Ya Sin, v82,
See also Our^an, 16 aJ-NahJ, v40
036 Ya Sin, v83, i 9
037 al-SalTat, v89, J005, 1012
037 al-Saftat, v96, 923. 926
038 Sad, v2i 24. 1006
038 Sad. v23. 1014
038 S;id, v75, 759
039 al-/umar, v7, 032, 936
039 al-Zumar, v9, 5, I0]fl, 1020
03U al-Zumar, v53, 1065, 1068.
MJ?6
039 aI-Zumar, v67, 759
039 at-Zumar, w 1 , 1 059
040 at-Mumin, vll, 1078-1079
040 Al-M^min, vJ7, 926
040 ^Mu^miii vl« n 1074, 1076
1140 at-M^min, vl0, 36(i
040 al-Mumin, v46, 681. 1073- 1079
041 Pusailat, v2l, 1039
04 J Fussflat, v40, 922, 925
041 l"us*U»U v46, 023, 928
041 Fussilat, v53, 1 3
i 142 al-Shura, v 1 7, 1 OttUnSO
042 al-Shura, v25, 1073, 1075
042 al-Shura, v34, 1073, 1075
042 al-Shura, v5l, 906. 910
043 al-Zukhruf; v76, 923
044 al-Dukhan, v56 h 1078 1079
045 al-Jariiiyah, v28, 926
047 MutiarariiNd, vll, 1120
047 Muhatiuiiad, v!0, 1074, 1076
048 al-Fadi, v2, 1005, 1009
04B d-Padi, vl0, 760, 890
048 aM-aih, vl5, 010, 1105. H09
1180
INi3]:x
H4H al-Kaih, vlfi, 9H4, 987 T IHJS,
110911 10
048 aJ-Fath, vl8, J ] 35
048 aJ-Riih, v29, 1096, 1133, 1185
049 d-Hujurai. v6, I008
049 aJ-Hujurar, v9, 1055,.
049 al-Hujurat, vl% 1U7, 1132
OW Oat; v44, L 039
ft.il aJ-Dhariyar, v33, 23
052 a]-'l"ur, v2l, 922, 925
053 al-Najm, v3, 29
053 al-Najra, vi4-l5, 1044, J046
053 al-Najm, v23 & 28, 922
See abo Qur'ai], 000 uL-Ai> L rtm,
viie
054 aJ-Oiimar, v1, 991nlQl>
ft.5+ al-Qamar ; v49, 13
ft5S aJ-Rahmau, v27, 391
U55 al-Rahmau, vG0, 920
055 al-Rahman, v7fl, 1 3
(156 a]-Waqi<ah, v22, 1058
056 al-Wa^ah, v22-24. 1057
056 a]-Waqi*ah, v2l, 947n74
056 aJ-Wa^ah, v49 50, 1039
057 al-Hadkl h vl5> ll 20
057 a>Hadkl h v2l> l(H8> L050
056 aJ-Mujadalah, vll, 5
056 al-\fujadaJah, vl9, J00S
062 a]-Jurriu*Hru v". 910
065 *]-TaLaq> vl2, im
066
v6, 10.19, 1G23
al-Tahnm, v6, 1055, 1062
II 33, ll 35
067 al-Mulk, vl, 19
067 al-Mulk, v2, 435, 439
067 al-Mulk, v3, 924, 926
0r7 al-MuIk, v6-9 r L055, LOtiL
071 Nuh, vl0, 1076
(171 Nuh> 1&S.. I07fi 1079
072 al-Jinn, v2\ 124
1174 al-Muddarhthir. v3J. 644, 648
074 aJ-Muddachthir. v37. 922, 925
074
075 al-Oiyamah
075 ai-Q]yamah
075 al-Qiyamah
075 al-Qiyamah
v3
1039
al-Muddaththir r v55 v 922,
v22> 902
v22-23, 897,
v2t 25, 902
925
901
078
07 C J
al-N*ba\ v38. 650, 659
al-Mas^ai, vll, 1039
000 'Abasa, v42, 105-0 , lflfi|
082 al-Inniar, vl+, 1061
082 at-Intw, vl4-36, I06O
082 *I.-Infimr, vlu, 1054
(Htt al-Mutatliun, vl5, 897, 903
0B9 al-Kajr, v22, 757
0B9 al-Fajr, v27-28, 68]
069 al-Pajr, v28, 722
092 a]-Lavt vl-2, 9
092 ad-Layl, vl5-16, 1055, 1002
0fH2 al-ljiyl, vl7-18, 1117, 1131
m aJ-I -ayL, v1 ft-l % 1131
092 aM*yl, vl9~20, 1117
093 al-Duha, v5 : 1074, 1076
098 al-Bayvinah, vfi, 1067
099 al-Zuzal, v7, 1056. 1064-1065,
1067
100 a]-'Adiyai, v9 10> 1039
Ka.ihtd al-Diu Tabib, xxxvii
Rariooa) (The),
To l>f disrinpiL<hcd firom rhe
thcopctkal, 482
Rjitiiiialiiy, Argucnrttratkm on
prcmises of, 123, 125
Rays of Bawnligftl OulAtnaming,
Sn: Baydawi, Tawal? ai Anuur
Rsri. Fakhr al-Diu,
Crintizcs attribuLe stat*, 853
MubassoL, 27nl *tc.
Oii ddiiiicions, 64-66
Ou Ojir^an 7:U3b, 900
Ou scnsate qualilk-j ;i£ aUrthule-s
■
779-7*0
Ou ihc Diviu<? Siiigulariiy
786 f,
doctrinc, 632 f,
RijiJins iii thr Iluddhisti, 111.
143-1+3
Rau^ \1uha.mniud. ibn 7.ak*itLya s
On pl^ELiurc and paLn, 36fi-367
Kcal-csacncc, Sk Edstnte
Kcal uauiw.' 230-231
Cinsnnji^ i thing, WQ 231
Rpaiiiie!R riivnne a 727-72«
'R.iral.[ a t:F, pwubtc 1, (samc as PoiSjbLe
Ewlit]ni:: : 171 f-
Rdiipuiijs duucs.
tS« Ob].RZLtLoiis iniposcd im
mankind
R^atonilion (or, Hacnccomiii^)
faJ-ma e adJ ^ 10, 9M H 9«
Arguiti^m *&Ami tlie, 1027, 1030
Ai>fnnicnt for chc, 1027^
1029-1030
L>r ihe vm
|*OS
sian-eKisient H
1027-102«
Vicw of al-Basri,. Abu aL-Husayn.
I«30 f-
l\DliX
1181
Vu!w of tlir Karramiyah, 1030 £
Vkw of tbc pbilusophcT^ 1030 E
Rcsuirctricui AsBcmbly,
Possiblc inlcD.cctiLaDv 3 )036 3 J03S
Kwl Ghtl irdiditionaily, 1036 1037,
I04O f
RcHurrecrinn Uay, 6
Rcward co mankmri for obrdicncc io
God,
A fkvnr uf God in AihaHrnh view,
I0ft4, 1067 t
Normal with Gnd lii vicw of
Raydauri and Sunnis, L0Sft
Gwcd by God in Mu*taziLih vicw>
1052 1053, 1056 10SB
Sw also Punishroeiu of maAkind . . .
Khcrnriral Argiimcm,
PmnisM tf> 123, 125
Prtmi&ra prrenrrapcnt! m popular,
1 jk>- L :i ]
Simple ermrics.,
Acccpt only iocoHiplctc dcscriptive
dcfinition& 3 30
Bo iwi atJtcpt delimiting- dt-RniliatUp
73 79
Sin {DrcadlHjJ girati,
Idoktry only 35 unfoj^ivablc, 1068,
1073, 1075
Whclhcr dE\"inc punhhjncnt is Aii
iibLigaiiun, L 058 L 059
Sin [DmjMHul rtklL) iri x brlw!\Ti\
Is rnrt £qual ta dJsbulicJ", 1062
Siii^utiuity,
Ait eriablrclied «naitity ejtterruilly,
S0U, 3HU
Aspeccs ol" its detinitLon, 300
Classcs or varicCaes of, 307-300
Is «cistcntiaL. 303
Morc preciscly it le an intcUcctuaL
enlity unty» 304
Smsularicy (Diymeii, I\varii*e of
7B4, 749
Rotaticm, JCoardbiAced; <jf middJe tcmi Stngul.ari.cy \\Jmt of } 3 34"?,. 345
of syllagism, «2 f. a H7
Salamajider, 1066, 1073
Si-^mmorLy, 126, 129
Sr.hooL o( Aristnil
".■
Knowcr unitcs witb LnteLlagiihLc,. fiM
Sricnce of fundamcntal principlcs of
[uur] rclij^nj 6
Skicnce of 1 hwri i '.ogiral Htuterneiu, 6,
] 7n40 f.
Baydawi^ piaisi- uf, 6;, 17 f.
SeriMte i[!mliiicB,
Aakdy aiRicljw, 405, 407
Classc* of> 405, 407
PaMively rdk* rcaeiiurts, 405, 407
SematLon (Pbysical),
Deiincd, 30
Shi*ah iri Pensia, mxvi f.
SJriraai, Fakhr nH)m lsm;**il ;tl-.
-*"■■- ■■ "■ i
Kxxii
Sibawayh, "Amr Lbu ^Uthman,. 9(>L
Si^ht perccplion,
Dc^critmJ, 69!i ti95
Signs of divinc la\™ a
;Vcccptcd by al-Basri 7 Ahu
ad-Husciyn sd-, 1023
Itaried l>v J^ar^yiciL» Abu Jshaq
al- f 1023,
Dcoied by Mu r tazilah, 1021
Siuijjk enLiiy as chlim^ 329, 332
Simple enticy [the ■di\i«e) as must, 332
SLnltssn^SS, Sec HlairM*lt»nc«
Smrll pcrcrpcion,
BricAy dcHcriliccL, 6fl7
Th*orics of, 433-434
Soul {EinciiuTjA], or iuiimatcd)^
Sfflil {Hunuin),. Se* SonL (rairional;
A™l (RaiLonaJ),, ti44 f. a 666 f.
Aftcrlifc sur\ival Ln philoEophcrs 1
vicw K 716-717 f.
Can comprehcnd intclliijihLcs williout
Rmit, 677 T
Can pcrrciYT contrarics
simu]ranc«ufil.y P 672
OuTKch r cd i*E ji rriatcrial Lwidy il
Four stagd of Lt* intc-llcbr.tuat
dc^^lopmcnt;, 460*461 f,
Govcrns tht bcdy. 521 522
[nojrpurcality uf, &*57 568
ItLOjrpurtrstlily uf Supp-Oried by
reason, 667-668 f-
liKorporrolity of sLipponcd by
[iwUiion, 681-682 f
Mauincr i>f linbigc tn- th^ body,
fiSD f :, 694 r.
OritginaUy dcwid of knowlcdRC;, 694
Timprtral originatkin of F 654-6S-5
Soul pov^"cr and hcart"s apLrii
(mingting of },
Camcs body powcrs., 69 J f ? 694
1132
1KU1lX
Soul JVegctBUiwc or., appctitiye),
682 683
Souls (Ol" thr Crl-siLiil Hplienw/,
Argumcnc fi>t\ 661, Hi3
IligJicr govcrnor£ of bodies. 644.
646
Scruls JPartiodar}, &62
Impjrinted -un ccksuai spbcrc», £643
Indircrt -ciiuscs oi" celemal spheres"
motion. 652, &65
Souls iTcrratrial), 644, 646
Smjnd,
Theorirs rrf; 427-42A f_
Sphcrc nf thc Yixcd Scars, 434
Sph-crcs [CeLesd
Causcd by Sraond TntcllccL 6-19,
653
\Joving: in drculsu* ratation, 589,
591
Nuturc aTihe, 555-589
Noi cjneawd. direaly fry Deicy, 6*B,
652
Sphtres (Celesiialj,
Imellectt aud Souls i>l
Subatanccs (The fivt\
Of rhc- philosnphcrs* S22
Suhrawardi, Yahya ibn Habash,
956nS9
Sulaymi., *Abha& ibti Mirda$ al-,
Poclry qifCHtcd, 961
Suin;L[Liyah, Scc Buddhisu
Surlace,
Defined. 360, 362
Sunnise, 441, 452
intuitiw, 129 I3fs
SyUoRism H
dl c.onnr.r.iw^ %$ B% 9B
HypathctkaL c^cptiw, BK-H9, Wi
Uscs iif (thc hypcrthctLcaL «'su^pliw),
!>4-flfi
TablcL,
Secorid ching
659
, 650 »63 L
Metaphor for Thronei 651ni6
[Wlimiyah}, 159
[Tartdhat» al-] P Se* Oiialities ntA
properiy aiiriliijiablc Uj God
Sce ututer Intrllcc.rR and undcr Souls [Ta^iyah, al-J. 9k& Dbsimiilarirwj
Sphcrts (Major, UnK r cn;aj^
Ddintd and dratribed, 582
SpliCrts (MiciorU
r>^1im-d ind ttocribcd, 5&H
Spirit (Thi^ 501, 5BH
Starc.
Locatcd in thc iTiehth; Sphcrc of
rhe I ixiy1 Siars {= Spherc of thc
Zodiai';, 584
Thc fr»ed celcitiaL orbs ? 534
Siibi«t-iubscratc ?
Mncd, 342 "
DcJmed hy p]jjlns«jpher3 s 176;, I7B
Subki^ Taj al-Dlti. ckca Baydawi. s^Jti, TcmporalLly,
iKolis)
[Tafawwur fr «tl-J, Sec Concept
Rwinalion
[T^dRj., al-J, See jwigmertial a*ifcii1
TaHlr- pcrecpLum,
liricfly dcKf rihcd 3 690
Thcorks of ? 431-432
[Tawhid., al-J, Scc SiciguUriiy ;THvirn:) ?
Doctrinc <A'
TVj-jiporal originatLon 7 Scc ako
Tcmpnjralit\ p
Tcmporal phtnomcirrta cxdud.cd fram
Sulwisung m Ciod, 7fi7 f
xlv
SubstaLice,
llciijjcd by thc MmaJcAlliihurt. 178.
521
Drlincd b> f tLir phiiosophe», 1 76.
178, 521-522
Substance and body» 522
Siih:-;ariiT ucid irAmal ni;iiirr B 5'^l fi^". : '
Sulwi^noe » a space^ocupying Atoc:t
«r bod>- ? 521 522
Sijljsiji.cioe a* stti iiiwipui^al e«tLiy a
521-322
Substatisc in itg djjncnsionS;, 522
SubaiaLKt octuiTcricC;,
By jjL^tanL gcncration, 488, 495
An LntcUetluaJ cntity ± 255-256
DeiWd ; 290, 292
Scc Alsci TeillpOral ori^uiatLcm
lTjajikEjL"iviiigH Praise as, 10, 15n36 f
^92n I 1 I
Thinking, 129
Concepuon of dac^ p«n:eived.
2U-3
ln ^rTanpng a syltogism^ M
IriLcLlecl ■«yvirLg jiiHOiig LriluJ]igibU»i
lntclJcci mo\irLi7 within a s\Lloaism,
45
Location m thc bniijn- 44
EOLUi-t
1183
SYncniymnns u-irh logiiraJ ic-ascming,
"44
Variou5 usapcs of, 4-4 -45
Thinkjr^ -\* LninEjirjalion. Ser
Irtb^gHLiilittn
"IhoLighr, Sw 'Ili3c~ilc3ng
Timc duratkm,
Argumcnis ovcr Lts cxtr-rnai
raistence, 372-38]
Aristodts docmnc, 3£2, 384
Dc&ncd, J60-J6 i
Thcorka on ics najrure,. 3ftl, 3K.1
TLrk whcn ?
DcAncd, 3+1, 344
Torrncnt in thc gravc camcd,
Family ijf PhiiniLuli, 1073-1079
Peoplc of Noairt % P 1076-1079
Touch pi^nejrtkn,
Bri(!«v dcscribed, fr>&-6M
Cold ? 411
Hcat, 40B
HumiditY, 412
Tcsnurc, 416
Wcight, 413-1:16 a
Tradiuon fAuthorit»rivc, Oral'1,
133 13+
Atwucc of inldlcctiuil inconiistency
in, 133, L35
AdmLisLL>ility of itt eridence» 7H4,
802
Ar^umcntalion on prcmisrE. of,
133-134
CciTAirUy abwuL wlitrt iiitcLkciual
iJlCOrtsisLeiiLy cxisLy K 133
I>eriv«.l Jroirt iruHlccl, 133
1'aultt Li*ckin£ Ln it s 133
Ktiuwtcdjn-" ul" ita trutliTulcL^Ki
depetidt un irueJleti, 133
TraditianiiKts,
Abu Hatim a]-Razi- I12fl
Abu Huravra.li, 9B9
Ibn Abi Daud, 1I2A
Jahir it>n /ayd, 991
Scc abo /Mtt Cvti&1imy in die
Bibliography
TranatLan, 4^/4114-495
Triadic jtaijcmcnt fofm.,
On faidi, 10*4
Orj prabe as draukigwing, 10,
15n36 I
Trinky (Peranns r>f ihe) 3
Scr Hyposlascs |"Docmnc of
Thire)
Tlisi;, Nasir uL-DLn..
Modifu*£ EtaiTs critkism of
O11 RjizTs iiaicmcnta cwi ih:-
Divinc Sinpjlarily, 78R 791
Uhud and IlLmayn,
Batde Daim of 994
Union [Doctrine cmTJi,
Sce Union and Incamate Lndwellins(
of God in Jcsus (Doctriiir of)
Unicm and inr.amatc iiKLwelling nf Gud,
As Suft doccnnes., 76 a 2 a 766
Union aud incamatc indwcIEng of Gcid.,
In Jcsua ; Doctrinc of),,
Judcd frwii auributcs H 76 L 766
Uiuiy {L>iviiie)> Doctriiie oH S-oe
Sin^uLsiriry (DnritiB^ ll<ii:rrinc: of
Yirious circle, Scc Circular aro[umcnl
VLdon 7
Colnr, +21 +22
Naturc of light, +22-426
VLiual objccl slzc s
CorrrLatcd wilh distancc, 693-696,
1154
Vi>i.:l (Mlie),
AnpjRicnts against tts «dutcncc,
3B8-39I, 39^2-396
^^i^ucLicLiLs for iEe tJtistcncc-, 390,
402 f.
Kiiciur iti iLieocy of wlrsual
Volan(ary -ii^ecii fDivLn.e},
S« God as free choke ^g^jii
VoHituai7 Mtio^s.
1'Vhii" soiniics t>f. 4f>4 4Ii.i
LW;l.1\ al J, S« PosULoji
Width,
Ddmed, 56 1 362 £
WDl,
Cod fwin>
WLLlingncss,
Rcktcd to bcncRt, 463
Witncsscs to traditiun,
TnnUiilncBs of, 133 136
[W r ujyb *d-wTijSd]^
S^ Ohlijalipn of Hia prcscncc
Zodiac E&plicrt of thc),,
S« Sphcrc «>f iliiC FL.\cd Starg
ZnhavLi. MuhammatL al-.
XK1 ^u\ii
This page immnanalty hfi biank
ISLAMIC PHILOSOPHY, THEOLOGY AND SCIENCE
TEXTS AND STUDIES
ISSN i M-8729
K. r akhry , M. Eihicai Theoriet in tst&m. Sccond expandcd ttLil iim L 994.
ISBN «1 04 093*10 I
9- KcmaJ, S- "flw Po^ric j ofAlfarahi andAvicenna. 1991 . ISBN 90 04 0937 1
10. Alan. \. Sacrates w tfedieval Arahic LiWratyre. J99I . ISRN 90 04 09349 4
11, Bos„ G, Qusfa r ( vi LuqA's Atedicat Regimefor the Pilgrims to Mecca. The Risala
fi ladbLr safar al-hajh. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09541 1
1 2, KohLbei g„ E. A Medieval Mustim Scholar at W&rk . Jbn Taw us aiid his Library ,
1992. ISBN 90 04 09549 7
1 3, Dalber. H, Naturv,>iysenschafi bei den Aratern im 10. Jakrhundcrt n- Chr, BricTe
dcs AbQ 1-Fadl Ibn al>'Amid (gest. 360/970) an L AdudaddauLa. Hcrausgcgcbcn
mit Pinkitung^ kommentierter fjberseizung und Mlossar. 1993-
ISBN 90 04 09755 4
14, Dhanani, A. The Physical Theory ofKatdm- Aioms, Space, and Void Ln Basrian
Mtrtazlli Cosmology. 1994. ISBN 90 04 0983 1 3
1 5, Aba Ma e sar. Thc Abbwiation ufrhe itritoduaiati io Astrotogy. Together w lfh the
Medieval Laiin Tramlation of Addincl af Biiih. Ediied and TrAnsJaied by Ch.
Burtuat* K. Yawamoto and M, Yaoo, 1994, 1SBN 90 04 09997 2
L6. Sabtir Ibn Sahl. DiypensatonHtn Par^um {al-AqrdbddhIn al-sughlrh AnaJysed.
Bdltcd and Annotated by O, Kahi. 1994. JSBN 90 m 10004
17. Marotii, M. Die Arabet und die antike Wissenschafts(heorie, CbcrsctzuTig aus
dem UngaTischen von Johanna TJll undOabor Kerekes, 1994.
ISBN90W 10008 3
18. Ibn Abi a|-Dtmy a. MoraHiy in ihe Ouise ofDreams- ACritical Edition otKitdbai-
Mandm, wiih IniiodtictLoTj, by Leah Klnberg, L994. ISBN yo 04 09818 6
19. Kligelgen, A. von. Awrmcs utrd die arabischc Moderne. Ansaire wi elrer Neu-
iKgrunduiigdesRatioiialLNmii&imlNlarn. 1994. ISBN 9004 09955 7
20. Lamecr, J. At-Fdrdbf ttnd Aristotelian Syliogistics. Gtcek Thcory and IsJ^mic
Practice. 1994. ISBN 90 04 09884 4
22. Adang, C Muslim Wnien on Judai$m ^nd ttu; Hebrew Ribu*. i^ty
TSBN 90 04 10034 2
23. Uallal. A.S. An Isiamic Response to Oreek Asironomy, Kitab Ta*dit Hay f ai at-
Afldk of $adr a]-Shari E a Editcd wiih Translatlon and Commcntary, 1995.
1S BN W 04 09968 9
24.Coiuad. L.L (cd.). The World of Ibn Tufayl. IntenJiscipiitwry Perspectivet oti
Hayy ibn Yao^irn. 1995. ISBN 9004 101 35 7
25. Hcrman-wn, M.K r (tt,}„ The Conclusive Ar gume nt Jront Ood, Shah Wj*li Allah r>f
Uclhrs HujjatAilahoi-Balisha. I99ft LSJlN 9004 10298 l
26, AbraihainoY, B. Anthroponwrphism and Interpretation ofthe Qur*dn in the Theo-
logy <ifaf-Qa.*im ibn Ibrahim. Kiiab ai-Mustarshid 1996. 1SBN 90 04 10408 9
27. WiJd, S. (edj. ritc Qnr>an as Text. 1996. tSBN 90 04 10344 9
28. RlddciL P«G. sna T, Stroct <eds.>. Istam: Ess&ys onScripture, Tkought andSocie*
ty. A hestschnrt in Hcmnur nf Anthnny H. Jnhm. 13*J7. ISBN 90 (W 1(P2 X
29. JoIivrt, J. and R. Kttshcd tcdi.J- "CEijitej phihsophiquen et scientifiqws d ¥ at-
Kindi. Vc*lumc I. L'Optique et ia Cutoptritjue. Edited by R. RiLKtoed. 19*)7.
1SBN9004 09781 3
30. Kudolph, LL Ai-Maturidi und dit sunmtische Theologie in Samarkand. 1997.
JSBN9OO4 10O23 7
31. Rncircss, G. and J. A. Aftrtbcn (cdsj. dwjncMT aju/ the Artstitieiian Tradition.
Scwrocs. Consdludon snd. Rttaejnion of thc Philosophy nt" Ihn Kushd (1 126-1 198).
Ptocecdings of the Fourt!h Syrnposium Avcrroicu,m (CoJogne, 1996).
ISBN 90 04 1 1 308 8
32. Elmote. C-T, telatnic S&inihood (** ih# FulSness $f Tirw, thn ai- 4 Arahf s Ronk af
the Fahuhus (Jryphon. 199*. ISBN 90 04 10991 9
33. Atw M» c £ar, Knabal-wtGl wa-d-duwol- Arabic tcxt«dltecL by K r Yamamotowiih
an Engli-sh transJatiGn by K. Yamamoto and Ch. BurnelL l<W-
ISBN £0 04 10725 8
34. Albuiiasar, tfe Mdgnis Coniwcthnihus (On ihc Grcal Coniunciions), Latip Bc?tt
ediled by Ch. Bumert ajud Ansblc-L^tln., Latln Arabic Gkrasarws by K. Yamarooio
iicid Ch. BurnelL 1999. ISBN W 04 1 1074 7
35. Strrjjiim, S. Pmihinktrs ofMtrdicvat Istam. Ibn al-RawaML Abd Bakr aL-R&zl,
and Ttacir Impact on l&lamte Thought. 1999, 1SBN 90 04 1 1374 6
36. KSng, D.A, World-Maps fo r Pmding ihe Dirwtim and Distmce to Mecca, limo-
vatlcm imd Traditlcm in IslamiLc Sctcncc. 1949. 1SBN 90 04 1 1367 3
37. Bar-Ashcr. M.M- Scripture aitd Exegesis in Eariy Imdmi Sliiism. 1999,
C5BNW04 1I495 5
3S, Sayyld JaI&I al-Din Ashtiy&ni cf al. Cowciousness and Reality,- Smrtics in
Mcmoiy of Toshrhlko Izi3l.su. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11 586 2
39- Schmidtke. S. Theetogie, Phii&sophie mdMysrik im zw&ifershiitischen hkm des
9.: 15. Jahrhimderts. Die G^il\w\cii^.'^U.m ^les Ihn Alr GumJiuj aLAhsu"'[ [um
B38/1 434-35 — nach 906/1501 ), 2?0OO. ISBN 90 04 1 1531 5
40. Griffd, F. Aposmtic nnd Tolenm im teiam, DJe EnlwlckJuing zu a^Gazahs
Urtell gegcn die Pliilosophie und dic Rcakiionen dcc Philosophcn. 2000.
ISBN ^0 04 11566 8
41. Hcemskeili. M.T. Suffering in the Mu 4 iazitite Theatogy. H Ahd al-JaWsair^
Taching wi Pam and Divinc Justlcc. 2000. ISBN 90 04 1 1726 1
42- Rashed, R. and H, Bcllosta. Ibrahtm Ibn Sman. Logtque et Ghm/trii mi X*
Smk. 2000. ISBN 90 04 ] 1804 7
43. Tamer 4 G. tslamist ke Phihiaaphie umtjJie /Crijte der Mtidtrmr, Das V r eFhalCciLs
von Leo Scrauss m Alfai^bi, Avloemia und Aver™es. 200] , TSBN 90 04 12029 7
44- Genc^uand. C. Akxander &f Aphrwtisias on the Cosmos. 2001.
3SBNW04 11963 9
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11