Shaykh Abdul-Baari Al-Ansaari in his explanation of his father's book Yaani' al-thamar mentions. "Some of the foundations of this science are found in the book of Allaah, and the sunnah of His messenger sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, of them are the statement of Allaah :O you who believe! If a rebellious evil person comes to you with a news, verify it, lest you harm people in ignorance, and afterwards you become regretful to what you have done. (Al-Hujurat 49:6) and in his statement :And take for witness two just persons from among you (Muslims). And establish the witness for Allâh. (At-Talaq 65:2), we derive from these two verses tremendous principle of the principles of the people of hadeeth which is knowing the 'adaalah (trustworthiness) of the narrator, and that if a narrator's 'adaalah is not known his narrations are not to be accepted nor used as evidence. It is necessary in this case to find if a corroborating narrator has narrated this same narration or not, or to find if this narrator is the sole narrator of this khabar (narration) or not.
Also in the prophetic sunnah are some of the principles of this science, of those are his - sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam - statement in the hadeeth of Zayd ibn Thaabit - radiyallaahu 'anhu - "I heard the Messenger of Allaah - sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam - ((May Allah brighten the face of His servants who hears my words, remembers [or preserves] them, guards them, until he hands them on. Many a transmitter of knowledge does not himself understand it, and many may transmit knowledge to others who are more versed in it than they.))the point taken from the hadeeth being his statement)) ((who hears my words, and remembers [or preserves] them)), the scholars have derived from this statment that it is a prerequisite for the narrator to be precise, and that he must maintain his memorization of his narration until the point of conveying it to others and it being taken from him.
http://ar.miraath.net/sites/default/files/%20الثمر%20-%201.pdf
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Monday, October 22, 2012
Perspective on the Prophet's Marriage to A'ishah
The following was taken from a wiki-article on age of consent
Traditionally, across the globe, the age of consent for a sexual union was a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom. In most cases, this coincided with signs of puberty, menstruation for a woman and pubic hair for a man.[2]
Hesiod in "Works and Days" (circa 700BC) suggests that a man should marry around the age of thirty, and that he should take a wife who is five years past puberty. In Ancient Rome, it was very common for girls to marry and have children shortly after the onset of puberty.[citation needed]
The first recorded age-of-consent law dates back 800 years: In 1275, in England, as part of the rape law, a statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age.[3]
In the 12th century Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in medieval Europe, accepted age of puberty for marriage to be between 12 and 14 but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if the children were older than 7. There were authorities that said that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement before reaching puberty, or if they had already consummated the marriage. It should be noted that Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at ages younger than 7, in spite of what Gratian had said; there are recorded marriages of 2 and 3 year olds.[2]
The American colonies followed the English tradition, and the law was more of a guide. For example, Mary Hathaway (Virginia, 1689) was only 9 when she was married to William Williams. Sir Edward Coke (England, 17th century) "made it clear that the marriage of girls under 12 was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband's estate was 9 even though her husband be only four years old."[2]
Reliable data for when people would actually marry is very difficult to find. In England for example, the only reliable data on age at marriage in the early modern period comes from records involving only those who left property after their death. Not only were the records relatively rare, but not all bothered to record the participants' ages, and it seemed that the more complete the records are, the more likely they are to reveal young marriages. Additionally, 20th and 21st centuries' historians have sometimes shown reluctance to accept data regarding young ages of marriage, and would instead explain the data away as a misreading by a later copier of the records.[2]
A small number of Italian and German states introduced an age of consent in the 16th century, setting it at 12 years. Towards the end of the 18th century, other European countries also began to enact age of consent laws. The first French Constitution established an age of consent of 11 years in 1791, which was raised to 13 in 1863. Portugal, Spain, Denmark and the Swiss cantons, initially set the age of consent at 10–12 years and then raised it to between 13 and 16 years in the second half of the 19th century.[3] Historically, the English common law set the age of consent to range from 10 to 12.[4]
In the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at 10–12, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only 7. A New York Times article states that it was still aged 7 in Delaware in 1895.[5] Female reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the age of consent to 16–18 by 1920.[6][7]
Social (and the resulting legal) attitudes toward the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times. For example, while ages from 10 to 13 were typically acceptable in Western countries during the mid-19th century,[1] the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century were marked by changing attitudes towards sexuality and childhood resulting in raising the ages of consent to ages generally ranging from 16 to 18.[3]
Traditionally, across the globe, the age of consent for a sexual union was a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom. In most cases, this coincided with signs of puberty, menstruation for a woman and pubic hair for a man.[2]
Hesiod in "Works and Days" (circa 700BC) suggests that a man should marry around the age of thirty, and that he should take a wife who is five years past puberty. In Ancient Rome, it was very common for girls to marry and have children shortly after the onset of puberty.[citation needed]
The first recorded age-of-consent law dates back 800 years: In 1275, in England, as part of the rape law, a statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age.[3]
In the 12th century Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in medieval Europe, accepted age of puberty for marriage to be between 12 and 14 but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if the children were older than 7. There were authorities that said that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement before reaching puberty, or if they had already consummated the marriage. It should be noted that Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at ages younger than 7, in spite of what Gratian had said; there are recorded marriages of 2 and 3 year olds.[2]
The American colonies followed the English tradition, and the law was more of a guide. For example, Mary Hathaway (Virginia, 1689) was only 9 when she was married to William Williams. Sir Edward Coke (England, 17th century) "made it clear that the marriage of girls under 12 was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband's estate was 9 even though her husband be only four years old."[2]
Reliable data for when people would actually marry is very difficult to find. In England for example, the only reliable data on age at marriage in the early modern period comes from records involving only those who left property after their death. Not only were the records relatively rare, but not all bothered to record the participants' ages, and it seemed that the more complete the records are, the more likely they are to reveal young marriages. Additionally, 20th and 21st centuries' historians have sometimes shown reluctance to accept data regarding young ages of marriage, and would instead explain the data away as a misreading by a later copier of the records.[2]
A small number of Italian and German states introduced an age of consent in the 16th century, setting it at 12 years. Towards the end of the 18th century, other European countries also began to enact age of consent laws. The first French Constitution established an age of consent of 11 years in 1791, which was raised to 13 in 1863. Portugal, Spain, Denmark and the Swiss cantons, initially set the age of consent at 10–12 years and then raised it to between 13 and 16 years in the second half of the 19th century.[3] Historically, the English common law set the age of consent to range from 10 to 12.[4]
In the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at 10–12, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only 7. A New York Times article states that it was still aged 7 in Delaware in 1895.[5] Female reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the age of consent to 16–18 by 1920.[6][7]
Social (and the resulting legal) attitudes toward the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times. For example, while ages from 10 to 13 were typically acceptable in Western countries during the mid-19th century,[1] the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century were marked by changing attitudes towards sexuality and childhood resulting in raising the ages of consent to ages generally ranging from 16 to 18.[3]
Friday, October 19, 2012
The Disappearance of Knowledge written by Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah Al-Imam
Salaamun Alaikum,
We, here, at Riwayah Publications are happy to inform you about the long awaited printing of the book “The Disappearance of Knowledge” written by Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah Al-Imam. Alhamdulilah, it has been sent to print today! This book chronicles the virtues of knowledge and those who diligently convey it to others. The Sheikh mentions many factors that have led to this disappearance over the centuries. It is a 368 page book filled with verses from the Qur’an, statements from the Prophetic Tradition, and reports from the scholars of the early generations. This is a must have book for any library, especially during these difficult times, where evil has become widespread.
Retail Price: $29.95
Wholesale discount: 50% when a case of books is purchased (50 books per case).
Specs: 368 pages, 6x9, printed on beautiful ivory paper.
Available November 1st, 2012
Contact us: E. admin@rimarket.Net Text. 973.332.3345
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Monday, October 15, 2012
Ibn Taymiyyah on the 12 Imams of the Twelver Shi'ah
Ibn Taymiyyah divides the 12 Imams of the twelver shi'ah into four groups.
The first: Those who were noble companions of the Messenger sallallaahu alaihi wa 'ala aalih. These are 'Ali ibn Abee Taalib and his two sons Al-Hasan and Al-husain radiyallaahu 'anhumaa
The second group: which consists of noble scholars these are Ali ibn Al-Husain, Muhammad ibn Ali Al-Baaqir, Ja'far Al-Saadiq and Musa ibn Ja'far radiyallaahu 'anhum who are all trustworthy scholars. (Al-'ulamaa al-thiqaat)
The third Group: this group includes Ali ibn Musa, Muhammad ibn 'Ali al-jawwaad, 'Ali ibn Muhammad Al-'Askari and Al-hasan ibn 'ali al-'askar. iIbn Taymiyyah states about them: " There was not known among them those who were known for knowledge that would benefit the ummah, nor for having a hand by way of which to benefit the ummah, rather they were like their peers from the hashimites, having respect and nobility, and knowledge by which they could fulfill what they were in need of which is what many of the common muslims have but as for the level of knowledge on a scholarly level then this was not known of them and due to this the scholars did no take from them as they took from the previous three.
As for the fourth group: this includes the hidden Imam Muhammad ibn Al-hasan Al-'Askari then that which is most correct is that he never existed and Allah knows best
ويُقّسِّم ابن تيمية رحمه الله الأئمة الاثنى عشر إلى أربعة أقسام:
القسم الأول: علي بن أبي طالب ، والحسن ، والحسين رضي الله عنهم وهم صحابة أجلاء، لا يُشَكّ في فضلهم وإمامتهم، ولكن شَاركَهُم في فضل الصحبة خلق كثير، وفي الصحابة من هو أفضل منهم بأدلة صحيحة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم .
القسم الثاني: علي بن الحسين ، ومحمد بن علي الباقر ، وجعفر بن محمد الصادق ، وموسى بن جعفر، وهؤلاء من العلماء الثقات المعتد بهم . منهاج السنة : (2/243،244).
القسم الثالث: علي بن موسى الرضا، ومحمد بن علي بن موسى الجواد، وعلي بن محمد بن علي العسكري، والحسن بن علي بن محمد العسكري ، وهؤلاء يقول عنهم شيخ الإسلام : " فهؤلاء لم يظهر عليهم علمٌ تستفيده الأمة، ولا كان لهم يدٌ تستعين بها الأمة، بل كانوا كأمثالهم من الهاشميين، لهم حرمة ومكانة، وفيهم من معرفة ما يحتاجون إليه في الإسلام والدين ما في أمثالهم، وهو ما يعرفه كثير من عوام المسلمين، وأما ما يختص به أهل العلم، فهذا لم يُعرف عنهم، ولهذا: لم يأخذ عنهم أهل العلم كما أخذوا عن أولئك الثلاثة، ولو وجدوا ما يُستفاد لأخذوا، ولكن طالب العلم يعرف مقصوده " منهاج السنة (6/387).
القسم الرابع: محمد بن الحسن العسكري المنتظر ، وهذا لا وجود له .
والله أعلم .
The first: Those who were noble companions of the Messenger sallallaahu alaihi wa 'ala aalih. These are 'Ali ibn Abee Taalib and his two sons Al-Hasan and Al-husain radiyallaahu 'anhumaa
The second group: which consists of noble scholars these are Ali ibn Al-Husain, Muhammad ibn Ali Al-Baaqir, Ja'far Al-Saadiq and Musa ibn Ja'far radiyallaahu 'anhum who are all trustworthy scholars. (Al-'ulamaa al-thiqaat)
The third Group: this group includes Ali ibn Musa, Muhammad ibn 'Ali al-jawwaad, 'Ali ibn Muhammad Al-'Askari and Al-hasan ibn 'ali al-'askar. iIbn Taymiyyah states about them: " There was not known among them those who were known for knowledge that would benefit the ummah, nor for having a hand by way of which to benefit the ummah, rather they were like their peers from the hashimites, having respect and nobility, and knowledge by which they could fulfill what they were in need of which is what many of the common muslims have but as for the level of knowledge on a scholarly level then this was not known of them and due to this the scholars did no take from them as they took from the previous three.
As for the fourth group: this includes the hidden Imam Muhammad ibn Al-hasan Al-'Askari then that which is most correct is that he never existed and Allah knows best
ويُقّسِّم ابن تيمية رحمه الله الأئمة الاثنى عشر إلى أربعة أقسام:
القسم الأول: علي بن أبي طالب ، والحسن ، والحسين رضي الله عنهم وهم صحابة أجلاء، لا يُشَكّ في فضلهم وإمامتهم، ولكن شَاركَهُم في فضل الصحبة خلق كثير، وفي الصحابة من هو أفضل منهم بأدلة صحيحة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم .
القسم الثاني: علي بن الحسين ، ومحمد بن علي الباقر ، وجعفر بن محمد الصادق ، وموسى بن جعفر، وهؤلاء من العلماء الثقات المعتد بهم . منهاج السنة : (2/243،244).
القسم الثالث: علي بن موسى الرضا، ومحمد بن علي بن موسى الجواد، وعلي بن محمد بن علي العسكري، والحسن بن علي بن محمد العسكري ، وهؤلاء يقول عنهم شيخ الإسلام : " فهؤلاء لم يظهر عليهم علمٌ تستفيده الأمة، ولا كان لهم يدٌ تستعين بها الأمة، بل كانوا كأمثالهم من الهاشميين، لهم حرمة ومكانة، وفيهم من معرفة ما يحتاجون إليه في الإسلام والدين ما في أمثالهم، وهو ما يعرفه كثير من عوام المسلمين، وأما ما يختص به أهل العلم، فهذا لم يُعرف عنهم، ولهذا: لم يأخذ عنهم أهل العلم كما أخذوا عن أولئك الثلاثة، ولو وجدوا ما يُستفاد لأخذوا، ولكن طالب العلم يعرف مقصوده " منهاج السنة (6/387).
القسم الرابع: محمد بن الحسن العسكري المنتظر ، وهذا لا وجود له .
والله أعلم .
تخريج قول نسب للإمام علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه كان الله ولا مكان وهو الآن كما كان
قال مصباح التوحيد ومصباح التفريد سيدنا علي ـ رضي الله عنه ـ في 40 هـ: كان الله ولا مكان، وهو الآن
على ما عليه كان. اهـ.
أي بلا مكان. رواه أبو منصورٍ البغداديُّ.
وعنه ـ كرّم الله وجهه ـ أنه سُئل أين كان ربنا قبل أن يخلق العرش؟ فقال ـ رضي الله عنه: أين سؤال عن المكان؟ وكان الله تعالى ولا مكان ولا زمان، وهو الآن كما كان.
وقال أيضا: إن الله تعالى خلق العرش إظهارًا لقدرته لا مكانا لذاته. اهـ.
الفرق بين الفرق لأبي منصور البغدادي ـ ص ـ333ـ هل هذا الحديث صحيح؟ وما قولكم فيه؟.
الإجابــة
الحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله وعلى آله وصحبه، أما بعـد:
فأما ما روي عن الإمام علي ـ رضي الله عنه ـ مما ذكر، فلم نعثر على أي سند له ـ صحيحا كان السند أو ضعيفا ـ ولكن ثبت عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه قال: كان الله ولم يكن شيء قبله، وكان عرشه على الماء، ثم خلق السموات والأرض وكتب في الذكر كل شيء.
وأما جملة: وهو الآن على ما عليه كان.
فهي زيادة موضوعة من بعض أهل البدع، ولم تثبت في شيء من كتب الحديث، وهذا باتفاق المحدثين.
قال الحافظ ابن حجر: وهي زيادة ليست في شيء من كتب الحديث. فتح الباري.
وقال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية: وَهَذِهِ الزِّيَادَةُ وَهُوَ قَوْلُهُ: وَهُوَ الْآنَ عَلَى مَا عَلَيْهِ كَانَ.
كَذِبٌ مُفْتَرًى عَلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ اتَّفَقَ أَهْلُ الْعِلْمِ بِالْحَدِيثِ عَلَى أَنَّهُ مَوْضُوعٌ مُخْتَلَقٌ وَلَيْسَ هُوَ فِي شَيْءٍ مِنْ دَوَاوِينِ الْحَدِيثِ ـ لَا كِبَارِهَا وَلَا صِغَارِهَا ـ وَلَا رَوَاهُ أَحَدٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ بِإِسْنَادِ ـ لَا صَحِيحٍ وَلَا ضَعِيفٍ ـ وَلَا بِإِسْنَادِ مَجْهُولٍ، وَإِنَّمَا تَكَلَّمَ بِهَذِهِ الْكَلِمَةِ بَعْضُ مُتَأَخِّرِي مُتَكَلِّمَةِ الْجَهْمِيَّة فَتَلَقَّاهَا مِنْهُمْ هَؤُلَاءِ الَّذِينَ وَصَلُوا إلَى آخِرِ التَّجَهُّمِ - وَهُوَ التَّعْطِيلُ وَالْإِلْحَادُ. مجموع الفتاوى.
وبذلك يتضح أن هذه الزيادة إنما تكلم بها بعض أهل البدع القائلين بنفي صفات الله ونفي استوائه سبحانه على عرشه، بحجة أنه سبحانه قد كان ولا عرش موجود، فاستواؤه على عرشه بعد ذلك يقتضي التغير والتحول، وقد أجاد شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية في الرد على أولئك، فقال ـ رحمه الله: وَهَذِهِ الزِّيَادَةُ الْإِلْحَادِيَّةُ وَهُوَ قَوْلُهُمْ: وَهُوَ الْآنَ عَلَى مَا عَلَيْهِ كَانَ.
قَصَدَ بِهَا الْمُتَكَلِّمَةُ الْمُتَجَهِّمَةُ نَفْيَ الصِّفَاتِ الَّتِي وَصَفَ بِهَا نَفْسَهُ مِنْ اسْتِوَائِهِ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ وَنُزُولِهِ إلَى السَّمَاءِ الدُّنْيَا وَغَيْرِ ذَلِكَ فَقَالُوا: كَانَ فِي الْأَزَلِ لَيْسَ مُسْتَوِيًا عَلَى الْعَرْشِ وَهُوَ الْآنَ عَلَى مَا عَلَيْهِ كَانَ فَلَا يَكُونُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ لِمَا يَقْتَضِي ذَلِكَ مِنْ التَّحَوُّلِ وَالتَّغَيُّرِ.
وَيُجِيبُهُمْ أَهْلُ السُّنَّةِ وَالْإِثْبَاتِ بِجَوَابَيْنِ مَعْرُوفَيْنِ:
أَحَدُهُمَا: أَنَّ الْمُتَجَدِّدَ نِسْبَةٌ وَإِضَافَةٌ بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ الْعَرْشِ: بِمَنْزِلَةِ الْمَعِيَّةِ وَيُسَمِّيهَا ابْنُ عَقِيلٍ الْأَحْوَالَ، وَتَجَدُّدُ النِّسَبِ وَالْإِضَافَاتِ مُتَّفَقٌ عَلَيْهِ بَيْنَ جَمِيعِ أَهْلِ الْأَرْضِ مِنْ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَغَيْرِهِمْ، إذْ لَا يَقْتَضِي ذَلِكَ تَغَيُّرًا وَلَا اسْتِحَالَةً.
وَالثَّانِي: أَنَّ ذَلِكَ وَإِنْ اقْتَضَى تَحَوُّلًا مِنْ حَالٍ إلَى حَالٍ وَمِنْ شَأْنٍ إلَى شَأْنٍ فَهُوَ مِثْلُ مَجِيئِهِ وَإِتْيَانِهِ وَنُزُولِهِ وَتَكْلِيمِهِ لِمُوسَى وَإِتْيَانِهِ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ فِي صُورَةٍ وَنَحْوِ ذَلِكَ مِمَّا دَلَّتْ عَلَيْهِ النُّصُوصُ وَقَالَ بِهِ أَكْثَرُ أَهْلِ السُّنَّةِ وَالْحَدِيثِ وَكَثِيرٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكَلَامِ وَهُوَ لَازِمٌ لِسَائِرِ الْفِرَقِ.
وقال أيضا: وَإِذَا قَالُوا: كَانَ اللَّهُ قَبْلَ خَلْقِ الْأَمْكِنَةِ وَالْمَخْلُوقَاتِ مَوْجُودًا وَهُوَ الْآنَ عَلَى مَا عَلَيْهِ كَانَ لَمْ يَتَغَيَّرْ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ هُنَاكَ فَوْقَ شَيْءٍ وَلَا عَالِيًا عَلَى شَيْءٍ فَكَذَلِكَ هُوَ الْآنَ.
قِيلَ: هَذَا غَلَطٌ وَيَظْهَرُ فَسَادُهُ بِالْمُعَارَضَةِ ثُمَّ بِالْحَلِّ وَبَيَان فَسَادِهِ.
أَمَّا الْأَوَّلُ: فَيَلْزَمُهُمْ أَنْ لَا يَكُونَ الْآنَ عَالِيًا بِالْقُدْرَةِ وَلَا بِالْقَدْرِ كَمَا كَانَ فِي الْأَزَلِ، فَإِنَّهُ إذَا قُدِّرَ وُجُودُهُ وَحْدَهُ فَلَيْسَ هُنَاكَ مَوْجُودٌ يَكُونُ قَادِرًا عَلَيْهِ وَلَا قَاهِرًا لَهُ وَلَا مُسْتَوْلِيًا عَلَيْهِ وَلَا مَوْجُودًا يَكُونُ هُوَ أَعْظَمَ قَدْرًا مِنْهُ، فَإِنْ كَانَ مَعَ وُجُودِ الْمَخْلُوقَاتِ لَمْ يَتَجَدَّدْ لَهُ عُلُوٌّ عَلَيْهَا ـ كَمَا زَعَمُوا ـ فَيَجِبُ أَنْ يَكُونَ بَعْدَهَا لَيْسَ قَادِرًا لِشَيْءِ وَلَا مُسْتَوْلِيًا عَلَيْهِ وَلَا قَاهِرًا لِعِبَادِهِ وَلَا قَدْرُهُ أَعْظَمُ مِنْ قَدْرِهَا، وَإِذَا كَانُوا يَقُولُونَ هُمْ ـ وَجَمِيعُ الْعُقَلَاءِ ـ إنَّهُ مَعَ وُجُودِ الْمَخْلُوقِ يُوصَفُ بِأُمُورِ إضَافِيَّةٍ لَا يُوصَفُ بِهَا إذَا قَدَّرَ مَوْجُودًا وَحْدَهُ عَلِمَ أَنَّ التَّسْوِيَةَ بَيْنَ الْحَالَيْنِ خَطَأٌ مِنْهُمْ، وقد اتَّفَقَ الْعُقَلَاءُ عَلَى جَوَازِ تُجَدِّدُ النِّسَبِ وَالْإِضَافَاتِ مِثْلِ الْمَعِيَّةِ، وإنما النِّزَاعُ فِي تَجَدُّدِ مَا يَقُومُ بِذَاتِهِ مِنْ الْأُمُورِ الِاخْتِيَارِيَّةِ، وَقَدْ بُيِّنَ فِي غَيْرِ هَذَا الْمَوْضِعِ أَنَّ النِّسَبَ وَالْإِضَافَاتِ مُسْتَلْزِمَةٌ لِأُمُورِ ثُبُوتِيَّةٍ وَأَنَّ وُجُودَهَا بِدُونِ الْأُمُورِ الثُّبُوتِيَّةِ مُمْتَنِعٌ، وَالْإِنْسَانُ إذَا كَانَ جَالِسًا فَتَحَوَّلَ الْمُتَحَوِّلُ عَنْ يَمِينِهِ بَعْدَ أَنْ كَانَ عَنْ شِمَالِهِ قِيلَ إنَّهُ عَنْ شِمَالِهِ، فَقَدْ تَجَدَّدَ مِنْ هَذَا فِعْلٌ بِهِ تَغَيَّرَتْ النِّسْبَةُ وَالْإِضَافَةُ، وَكَذَلِكَ مَنْ كَانَ تَحْتَ السَّطْحِ فَصَارَ فَوْقَهُ فَإِنَّ النِّسْبَةَ بِالتَّحْتِيَّةِ وَالْفَوْقِيَّةِ تَجَدَّدَ لَمَّا تَجَدَّدَ فِعْلُ هَذَا.
وَإِذَا قِيلَ نَفْسُ السَّقْفِ لَمْ يَتَغَيَّرْ قِيلَ قَدْ يُمْنَعُ هَذَا وَيُقَالُ: لَيْسَ حُكْمُهُ إذَا لَمْ يَكُنْ فَوْقَهُ شَيْءٌ كَحُكْمِهِ إذَا كَانَ فَوْقَهُ شَيْءٌ.
وَإِذَا قِيلَ عَنْ الْجَالِسِ إنَّهُ لَمْ يَتَغَيَّرْ قِيلَ: قَدْ يُمْنَعُ هَذَا وَيُقَالُ: لَيْسَ حُكْمُهُ إذَا كَانَ الشَّخْصُ عَنْ يَسَارِهِ كَحُكْمِهِ إذَا كَانَ عَنْ يَمِينِهِ، فَإِنَّهُ يَحْجُبُ هَذَا الْجَانِبَ وَيُوجِبُ مِنْ الْتِفَاتِ الشَّخْصِ وَغَيْرِ ذَلِكَ مَا لَمْ يَكُنْ قَبْلَ ذَلِكَ.
وَكَذَلِكَ مَنْ تَجَدَّدَ لَهُ أَخٌ أَوْ ابْنُ أَخ بِإِيلَادِ أَبِيهِ أَوْ أَخِيهِ قَدْ وُجِدَ هُنَا أُمُورٌ ثُبُوتِيَّةٌ، وَهَذَا الشَّخْصُ يَصِيرُ فِيهِ مِنْ الْعَطْفِ وَالْحُنُوِّ عَلَى هَذَا الْوَلَدِ الْمُتَجَدِّدِ مَا لَمْ يَكُنْ قَبْلَ ذَلِكَ وَهِيَ الرَّحِمُ وَالْقَرَابَةُ.
وَبِهَذَا يَظْهَرُ الْجَوَابُ الثَّانِي وَهُوَ أَنْ يُقَالَ: الْعُلُوُّ وَالسُّفُولُ وَنَحْوُ ذَلِكَ مِنْ الصِّفَاتِ الْمُسْتَلْزِمَةِ لِلْإِضَافَةِ وَكَذَلِكَ الِاسْتِوَاءُ وَالرُّبُوبِيَّةُ والخالقية وَنَحْوُ ذَلِكَ، فَإِذَا كَانَ غَيْرُهُ مَوْجُودًا فَإِمَّا أَنْ يَكُونَ عَالِيًا عَلَيْهِ وَإِمَّا أَنْ لَا يَكُونَ كَمَا يَقُولُونَ هُمْ: إمَّا أَنْ يَكُونَ عَالِيًا عَلَيْهِ بِالْقَهْرِ أَوْ بِالْقَدْرِ أَوْ لَا يَكُونَ خِلَافُ مَا إذَا قَدَّرَ وَحْدَهُ فَإِنَّهُمْ لَا يَقُولُونَ إنَّهُ حِينَئِذٍ قَاهِرٌ أَوْ قَادِرٌ أَوْ مُسْتَوْلٍ عَلَيْهِ فَلَا يُقَالُ إنَّهُ عَالٍ عَلَيْهِ، وَإِنْ قَالُوا: إنَّهُ قَادِرٌ وَقَاهِرٌ كَانَ ذَلِكَ مَشْرُوطًا بِالْغَيْرِ وَكَذَلِكَ عُلُوُّ الْقَدْرِ قِيلَ: وَكَذَلِكَ عُلُوُّ ذَاتِهِ مَا زَالَ عَالِيًا بِذَاتِهِ، لَكِنَّ ظُهُورَ ذَلِكَ مَشْرُوطٌ بِوُجُودِ الْغَيْرِ، وَالْإِلْزَامَاتُ مُفْحِمَةٌ لَهُمْ، وَحَقِيقَةُ قَوْلِهِمْ إنَّهُ لَمْ يَكُنْ قَادِرًا فِي الْأَزَلِ ثُمَّ صَارَ قَادِرًا، يَقُولُونَ لَمْ يَزَلْ قَادِرًا مَعَ امْتِنَاعِ الْمَقْدُورِ وَإِنَّهُ لَمْ يَكُنْ الْفِعْلُ مُمْكِنًا فَصَارَ مُمْكِنًا، فَيَجْمَعُونَ بَيْنَ النَّقِيضَيْنِ. مجموع الفتاوى.
ولا تعارض بين كون العرش إظهارا لعظمة الله، وبين ثبوت استوائه سبحانه على عرشه، وإنما المنفي في حقه سبحانه أن يكون محتاجا إلى المكان أو أن يكون المكان محيطا به ومحتويا له، فإن الله جل وعلا مستغن عن خلقه، وكل خلقه فقير إليه، كما أنه سبحانه أعظم من أن يحيط به شيء من خلقه، ولا يلزم من استوائه على العرش أي محذور من ذلك.
قال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية: لفظ المكان قد يراد به ما يكون الشيء فوقه محتاجا إليه، كما يكون الإنسان فوق السطح، ويراد به ما يكون الشيء فوقه من غير احتياج إليه، مثل كون السماء فوق الجو، وكون الملائكة فوق الأرض والهواء، وكون الطير فوق الأرض، ومن هذا قول حسان بن ثابت ـ رضي الله عنه: تعالى علوا فوق عرش إلهنا وكان مكان الله أعلى وأعظما.
مع علم حسان وغيره من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أن الله غنى عن كل ما سواه وما سواه من عرش وغيره محتاج إليه وهو لا يحتاج إلى شيء، وقد أثبت له مكانا، والسلف والصحابة، بل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يسمع مثل هذا ويقر عليه، كما أنشده عبدالله بن رواحة ـ رضي الله عنه ـ شهدت بأن وعد الله حق وأن النار مثوى الكافرينا، وأن العرش فوق الماء طاف وفوق العرش رب العالمينا، وتحمله ملائكة شداد ملائكة الإله مسومينا، في قصته المشهورة التي ذكرها غير واحد من العلماء لما وطئ سريته ورأته امرأته فقامت إليه لتؤذيه، فلم يقر بما فعل، فقالت: ألم يقل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: لا يقرأ الجنب القرآن؟ فأنشد هذه الأبيات، فظنت أنه قرآن، فسكتت، وأخبر صلى الله عليه وسلم فاستحسنه.
والله أعلم.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
