The Qur’aan and Aļļaah’s attribute of Speech

[By: Shaykh Abu Adam]

Aļļaah’s attribute of Speech

Aļļaah’s Speech is a necessary and eternal attribute of perfection, which pertains to what He knows, by which He tells, orders, promises and threatens. It would be imperfection for the Creator not to have an attribute by which He tells, orders, promises and threatens. That is why we do not believe it has a beginning, or that it is an action, such as our speech, because that would mean that Aļļaah needed to create for Himself a Speech to achieve perfection.

Moreover, it is imperfection to be attributed with the attribute of expressing what one knows serially (i.e. consecutively, one piece of information after another, or by letters or words). This is because speech that consists of serial expressions must have a beginning and because there will be a delay in informing all that one knows.

Words and letters are created speech

Speech consisting of words and letters is the speech of creation. For this reason one cannot say that Aļļaah’s eternal attribute of Speech is letters and sounds, because Aļļaah said:

“ ﻟَﻴْﺲَ ﻛَﻤِﺜْﻠِﻪِ ﺷَﻲْﺀٌ ”

Meaning: “Absolutely nothing resembles Him.” (Al-Sħuuraa, 11)

Accordingly, when Ahlu-s-Sunnah, the Asħˆariyys and the Ĥanafiyys, say that the “Qur’aan is not created” they are referring to Aļļaah’s eternal attribute of speech that is not sound or letters. In other words, the Speech that the book of the Qur’aan refers to.

This is the correct belief, because the Arabic language, just like all languages, was created by Aļļaah. Accordingly, if Arabic is a creation, how can Arabic speech be anything but a creation? After all, what is composed of created things, in this case the sounds of Arabic and their representing letters, is clearly created.

Moreover, speech that is letters and sounds must have a beginning and therefore be a creation. Why?? Because words and letters have a beginning. So in “bismillaah”, for example “i” comes after “b”, so when you say bismillaah, the sound “i” only becomes existent after “b” ’s non-existence. This means “i” has become existent after non existence, which means that it needs a creator to exist. Nothing can come into existence without a creator, all Muslims must believe that.

The two meanings of the word “Qur’aan”

The saying of Ahlu-s-Sunnah is that the words and letters in the printed copies of the Qur’aan refer to Aļļaah’s eternal Kalaam, and tell us in Arabic what He said eternally without letters, sounds or words. It is therefore correct to say that “ the Qur’aan is not created ,” because the word “Qur’aan” actually refers to what Aļļaah tells us, and His speech is not created. It is not correct, however, to say that the words, letters, and sounds associated with the book are not created, because words and letters need a creator, and because the Arabic language, the language of the book, is a creation.

An example to clarify is that the word “Aļļaah” refers to Aļļaah. We do not worship these letters, or the sounds of uttering this word.

Rather, we worship the one they refer to. In the same sense, the words, letters and Arabic in the book are not themselves Aļļaah’s attribute of Speech, but refer to that attribute; they tell us what Aļļaah said with His eternal Speech.

The two aspects of speech: meanings and expression

This can be clarified more with another example as follows: Let us say that Obama made a speech today at a White House press conference. Then the reporters wrote down what was said and published it in the Washington Post under the title “Obama’s Speech.”

Now, if someone came and said, “This is not Obama’s Speech! This is just paper and ink!” Would you consider this person sensible? Of course you would not. Why? Let us first look at the concept of speech and the meanings of the word “speech” in this example.

If we were to imagine the events surrounding the press conference, we can imagine that before even saying anything, Obama had something in his heart that he wanted to say. These unexpressed meanings that he wanted to say is the speech inside that he wants to make. This is called a speech, as we just did when we said, “the speech that he wants to make,” but it is not letters or sounds. Rather it is a collection of meanings that words can be used to express. Words, after all, are just collections of sounds that refer to meanings that we want to express. Yet, we refer to collections of words put together in sentences by someone as “his speech,” even if it translated to another language that this someone does not even know.

The word “speech” then, has at least two meanings. The first is the meanings that we want to express. The second is the expression of these meanings in words and letters, body language, or some other mode of expression. The reason why the expression is simply called “his speech” or “her speech” is because the expressed form of it is an expression of what the person wanted to say.

From this it is easy to understand that the word “Qur’aan” has two meanings. The first is the eternal Speech of Aļļaah that the words and letters of the book of the Qur’aan refer to, and that is not itself words, letters, language or sequence. Note that we do not call this “inner speech”, because Aļļaah’s speech is not like our inner speech, and because Aļļaah is not said to have an inside, as He is not a body.

The second meaning of the “Qur’aan” is the book, the organized and sequential Arabic words and letters that express in Arabic what Aļļaah said eternally, without letters or sounds. This book is called Aļļaah’s Speech, because it refers to what Aļļaah said eternally, and one cannot say that it is not Aļļaah’s speech, because that entails denying Aļļaah’s eternal speech.

To clarify further using the example of Obama’s speech: if it was translated to Arabic we would still call it “Obama’s Speech.” This is because they refer to the meanings he originally expressed in English based on the meanings he wanted to convey, which is his inner speech. Accordingly, if someone said about the Arabic translation, “This is not Obama’s speech!” people would understand from this that he did not express those meanings, not that he did not say it in Arabic. In fact, if the one that claimed it is not Obama’s speech clarified what he meant and said, “He spoke English, not Arabic!” people would consider him a fool. The reason is that they understand Obama’s speech to be the meanings that he expressed, irrespective of how it is expressed.

Likewise, when Muslims hold the muşĥaf up and say, “this is Aļļaah’s Speech,” they mean the meanings that Aļļaah said eternally, not the paper or ink, or the letters and their sounds. That is why if someone translated an aayah of the Qur’aan to English and stated before it “Aļļaah said….” people will not object and say, “Aļļaah did not say that,” unless he disagreed with the translation. Alternatively, they mean the Arabic expression of Aļļaah’s eternal speech in particular, which can be considered the second meaning of the word “Qur’aan,” which the scholars refer to as an-naţħm, or “the structure.”

Deviant sayings regarding Aļļaah’s speech

Since speech that consists of words and letters is created, there is no difference between saying “Aļļaah’s eternal attribute of Speech is words and letters,” and saying “Aļļaah’s Speech is created.”

The first is the saying of the Ĥuruufiyyah [1] , and the second is that of the Muˆtazilah. It does not help the Ĥuruufiyyah try to escape by saying that it is “uncreated.”

The Muˆtazilah said it is created because it is letters and sounds, and letters and sounds have a beginning, so they must be created. The Ĥuruufiyyah take this one step further in deviation by denying the obvious, which is that anything with a beginning, such as letters, is a creation.

The only difference between the Muˆtazilah and the Ĥuruufiyyah is that the latter called this “emergent speech brought into existence by Aļļaah according to His specification” an “uncreated attribute,” whereas the Muˆtazilah called this very same “emergent speech brought into existence by Aļļaah according to His specification” a “created non-attribute.” They only differ about what to call it, and that is not a real difference, and thus not what the Salaf were concerned about when they refuted the Muˆtazilah.

What the Salaf understood from “create”

The Salaf spoke Arabic. In other words, by looking up the definition of create, we can tell what the Salaf meant when they said, “the Qur’aan is not created.” Did they mean that it is an event and was brought into existence, but not created, as the Ĥuruufiyyah claim? Or did they mean that the Qur’aan is not brought into existence, because it is not an event, thus has no need for a creator?

The authoritative imam of Arabic linguistics Ibn Faaris [2] said in Maqaayiisu-l-Lugħah: “(The root) kħ-l-q has two basic meanings (that all its derived words, such as kħalaqa – to create – come from) one of them is to specify , the other is
smoothness[3] .” [4]

The linguists Ibn Manţħuur [5] in Lisaanu-l-ˆArab [6] , and Az-Zabiidiyy [7] in Taaju-l-ˆAruus [8] narrate from the imaam of Arabic, Al-‘Azhariyy: “Among the attributes of Aļļaah is “the Creator” (Al-Kħaaliq and Al-Kħallaaq), and He is the one that brought everything into existence after it being non-existent, and the root meaning of the word kħalq is specifying, so He is in the sense of what gets existence from Him the one that specified it , and in the sense of
bringing into existence according to the specification, the one that created it[9] .”

In the Arabic language then, to create is to bring into existence according to specification. Clearly then, there is no difference between saying “created” or “event,” because whatever did not exist must be brought into existence to become and event. Otherwise it would remain non-existent. The Ĥuruufiyyah want to convince us that Aļļaah brings sounds into existence in Himself and then lets them out. They want to convince us that bringing something into existence with the specification of “in the world” is called “created”, while specifying in “the the Creator for this,” is called “event.” But there is no difference here except the specification, and creating is to bring into existence according to specification in Arabic, so this is a baseless claim.

Being an event and being created is the same

The Ĥuruufiyyah insist that Aļļaah’s attribute of Kalaam/Speech is sounds and letters, and has a beginning, but is not created. They have the curious idea that not all events are created. This has no basis in the Arabic language or the terminology of the Salaf; they saw no difference between saying “event” and “created.” In this regard, Al-Bayhaqiyy [rahimahullah] narrated in Al-Asmaa’ Wa-ş-Şifaat that Wakiiˆ said: “The Qur’aan (i.e. what the Arabic words and letters refer to) is the Speech/ Kalaam of Aļļaah (i.e. His eternal attribute), and it is not created. So the one that says it is created has disbelieved in Aļļaah.” In another narration he said, “The one that says the Qur’aan is created has said it has a beginning, and the one that says it has a beginning has blasphemed
[10] .” The same was narrated by Adħ-Dħahabiyy [rahimahullah] [11][12] .

For those who do not know who Wakiiˆ is, it was stated by Adħ-Dħahabiyy [rahimahullah] in Siyar ‘Aˆlaam An-Nubalaa’: “The Imaam, the Ĥaafiţħ, the Muĥadditħ of ˆIraaq, …. He was born in 129 after the Hijrah (9/140-141).” He said that Aĥmad ibn Ĥanbal [rahimahullah] used to glorify Wakiiˆ and say about him, “I have never met anyone more aware in his knowledge than Wakiiˆ, or anyone that has memorized more [13] (9/144).” In short, Wakiiˆ is one of the greatest ĥadiitħ masters in history and here we find him making takfiir for those who say that the the Qur’aan (i.e. the eternal attribute of Aļļaah that the book refers to) is an event, but not created.

The same statement was also made by Aĥmad ibn Ĥanbal. Adħ-Dħahabiyy and others [rahimahumullah] narrated that he said: “The one who says that the Qur’aan is something with a beginning is a kaafir [14] . [15] ”

Another famous scholar of the Salaf generation, Abuu Jaˆfar Aţ-Ţabariyy said: “The one that objects to what we have stated, it is said to him: Tell us about the speech that you described as created, and that the Beginninglessly Eternal speaks with, did He create it, as it is created according to you, in Himself, or in something else, or is it something existing in itself? If he says, ”in Himself” then this necessitates that He would be something that created things exist in and this is blasphemy according to everybody[16] .[17] ”

Asħ-Sħawkaaniyy affirms that the Salaf made takfiir for the one who says “the Qur’aan is an event.” He says in his book Fatĥu-l-Qadiir, under the explanation for Al-‘Anbiyaa’, 2: “The imaams of the Sunnis were right in their forbiddance in answering the call to the saying ‘the Qur’aan is created’ or ‘emergent’.” Notice how he does not see a difference between created and emergent, then he said, “Aļļaah protected the nation of His prophet’s followers from a bad innovation through them. They went beyond that, however, and said that the Qur’aan is eternal and did not stop at that, but said that the one who says it is emergent is a kaafir [18] …. [19] ” This means that the Ĥuruufiyyah are kuffaar in the eyes of the Salaf.

There is no difference then, between saying “event” and “created.” Both words mean “brought into existence,” and the Salaf were against saying “the Qur’aan is an event” just as much as they were against saying that it is created. Accordingly, any Arabic speech is created, because it did not exist and then existed, which makes it an event and in need of a creator to bring it into existence.

As for the claim that Al-Bukħaariyy [rahimahullah] called the Qur’aan an event, this is not the case. Al-Bukħaariyy [rahimahullah] was speaking of the revelation of the Qur’aan when he commented on the saying of Aļļaah:

ﻣَﺎ ﻳَﺄْﺗِﻴﻬِﻢْ ﻣِﻦْ ﺫِﻛْﺮٍ ﻣِﻦْ ﺭَﺑِّﻬِﻢْ ﻣُﺤْﺪَﺙٍ ﺇِﻻَّ ﺍﺳْﺘَﻤَﻌُﻮﻩُ ﻭَﻫُﻢْ ﻳَﻠْﻌَﺒُﻮﻥَ ‏[ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﻴﺎﺀ : 2 ]

Meaning: “Whenever new remembrance from their Lord comes to them, they listen to it mockingly.”

Isĥaaq ibn Raawayh was asked about this Aayah, he said: “Eternally of Aļļaah, new to Earth.” Al-ˆAsqalaaniyy commented: “this is the precedent of what Al-Bukħaariyy said [20] .” This must clearly be the case, lest Al-Bukħaariyy [rahimahullah] be a non-Muslim deviant in the view of the likes of Wakiiˆ and Aĥmad, as discussed above.

Abuu Ĥaniifah [rahimahullah] on the meaning of “the Qur’aan is not created.”

Abuu Ĥaniifah [rahmatullah alayh], who is definitely among the Salaf, explains that the meaning of “the Qur’aan is not created” is that Aļļaah’s eternal attribute of speech is not created.

In his book Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar, he said:

“The Qur’aan is the Speech of Aļļaah (Taˆaalaa), written on pages (muşĥafs), preserved in hearts, recited on tongues, and revealed to the Prophet r. Our utterance of the Qur’aan is created, and our recitation of the Qur’aan is created, but the Qur’aan is not created [21] .” [22] .

He means by “the Qur’aan is the Speech of Aļļaah” that the word “Qur’aan” refers to Aļļaah’s eternal speech that is not letters (thus not language or sounds – as letters are symbols that represent sounds.) I.e. there is no difference between saying “Aļļaah’s attribute of Speech” and “the Qur’aan;” they are synonyms. He makes this clear when he says a few paragraphs later:

“Aļļaah speaks, but not like our speech; we speak by means of instruments (vocal cords, limbs, etc.) and letters, but Aļļaah speaks without instruments or letters. Letters are a creation, and Aļļaah’s Speech is not created[23] .” [24] .

In conclusion, Abuu Ĥaniifah [rahimahullah] says, “the Qur’aan is the Speech of Aļļaah,” and “Aļļaah speaks without instruments or letters,” then he emphasizes this further by saying, “Letters are a creation, and Aļļaah’s Speech is not created.”

The judgment on saying that the Qur’aan is created.

The word Qur’aan is a name for Aļļaah’s eternal attribute of Speech, as has been clarified earlier. It can also, however, refer to the Arabic book of the Qur’aan – the revealed letters – like when someone says, “please give me that Qur’aan on the shelf”. When the Salaf said, “the Qur’aan is not created,” they obviously meant the first meaning, not the second.

But what about if someone said, “the Qur’aan is created,” intending the book? The Salaf said that saying that the Qur’aan is created with this sense (i.e intending yhe book) in mind – the revealed letters of the book – is bidˆah, an ugly innovation. They considered it ugly because it may mislead someone to think that Aļļaah’s attribute of Speech is created. Ibn ˆAabidiin in his Ĥaasħiyah says, “The bottom line is that what is not created is the Qur’aan in the sense of Aļļaah’s Speech, that is, the (eternal) attribute that is affirmed to His Self, not the sense of revealed letters. It is not said that the Qur’aan is created, however, so that no one will think that the first meaning is meant [25] . [26] ”

Note however, that some later scholars allowed this expression for teaching purposes, because they found it necessary to use this expression to explain that Aļļaah’s eternal speech is not language or letters. In fact, today it is probably the case that most people understand from the word Qur’aan the revealed letters only, and not the attribute of Aļļaah. For this they allowed the expression “the Qur’aan is created” for teaching purposes, so that no one would think that the letters in the book are uncreated.

The late Asħˆariyys’ permission of saying “the Qur’aan is created”

As for when some of the later Asħˆariyys spoke of the permissibility of saying “the Qur’aan is created,” they were referring to the Arabic expression, not Aļļaah’s Speech. They said that this statement may be used in a classroom setting. The reason is because over time the word Qur’aan is mainly understood as referring to the expression of Aļļaah’s eternal Speech in Arabic words and letters.

They were afraid that some people would understand from the expression, “the Qur’aan is not created,” that the Arabic expression is not created, which is far more dangerous than saying “the Qur’aan is created,” if one means the Arabic expression (not Aļļaah’s eternal attribute of Speech). After all, the latter meaning is sound, because Arabic expressions have a beginning and cannot be eternal, and if they are not eternal, then they must have been specified and brought into existence by Aļļaah. In other words, they must have been created. The only bad side of this would be that this expression is a bidˆah in religion, so they restricted it to a classroom purposes, because this is where the setting of religious necessity applies. That is, the necessity of preventing the kufr belief that Aļļaah speaks in letters and sounds, which is far more important than avoiding a dubious innovation.

The principle of those who claim that letters may not be created, and their status in FakħrudDiin Ar-Raaziyy’s [rahimahullah] view

An Arabic utterance is a creation exactly because it is an event. It has to be, since Arabic itself is created, so one can only wonder why some would want to say that, “not every event is created.” The answer is that they believe that Aļļaah is a physical entity located above the ˆArsħ. According to this philosophy, when something is created outside of that body, it is called creation, and when it is created inside that body, it is not a creation. That is why they consider the saying “the Qur’aan is created,” as a deviant statement, because to them this means that the Arabic letters and sounds written in the muşĥaf were not first created inside the physical entity, or idol, that they worship, and invalidly call “Aļļaah.” In other words, “He does not resemble anything,” means to them, in the context of the attribute of Speech, “His speech has a different location.” Based on this concept of physical location, you can understand a lot about what they mean when they are talking about Aļļaah’s attributes.

FakħrudDiin Ar-Raaziyy said, “Proofs tell us that the who says that God is a body is a disbeliever in God (who is greatly above and clear of flaws). The reason is that the God of the World exists, and He is not a body, or stationed in a body. So if the one who believes that God is a body denies this non-bodily existence, then he has disbelieved in God Himself. This means that the disagreement between the one that believes that God is a body, and the monotheist (i.e. in the Islamic sense, namely that God does not have a partner, part or a like in His self of attributes), is not based on a disagreement regarding attributes, but regarding the self (i.e. the identity of the one attributed with godhood.) It is sound to say then, that the one who believes that God is a body does not believe in Allah….
….As for the Ĥuluuliyyah (those who believe that Allah settles in created things, such as the sky or a human body) and Ĥuruufiyyah (those who believe that Allah’s attribute of Kalaam/Speech consists of letters and sounds) sects, we say that they are unequivocally disbelievers. This is because Allah declared the Christians blasphemers for believing that Allah’s speech entered into Jesus, whereas the Ĥuruufiyyah believe that it settles in the tongue of all those who recite Qur’aan, and in all physical things that the Qur’aan was written on. Accordingly, if the belief in its settlement in one single body (Jesus) is blasphemy, then it is even more blasphemous to believe that it settles in all shapes and bodies
[27] .” [28] .

What is the response if someone asked, “who said alif laam miim?”?
The answer is therefore that Aļļaah said alif-laam-miim, without His speech being words, letters or language. The letters in the muşĥaf tell us what He said eternally. The expression “alif-laam-miim” is not different than other words or letters in the muşĥaf in this regard. They are letters that refer to the meaning of what Aļļaah said eternally without letters of sounds.

Abuu Faraj Ibn Al-Jawziyy[29] said in his commentary on the Qur’aan Zaadu-l-Masiir:

“The commentators on the Qur’aan have specified 5 different sayings regarding alif-laam-miim: One of them is that it is one of the aayahs that are ambiguous in meaning, and only Aļļaah knows its meaning, as has been explained earlier. The second is that it means, “I, Aļļaah, know”. This was narrated by Abuu Ađ-Đuĥaa from Ibn ˆAbbaas, and this is also the saying of Ibn Masˆuud and Saˆiid ibn Jubayr. The third is that it is an oath, this was narrated by Abuu Şaaliĥ from Ibn ˆAbbaas and Kħaalid Al-Ĥadħdħaa’ from ˆIkrimah. The fourth is that they are letters of names, and there are two sayings about that, the first is that Alif refers to Aļļaah, the laam to Jibriil and miim refers to Muĥammad. This was stated by Ibn ˆAbbaas…. The second (saying regarding names) is that the Alif refers to Aļļaah, the laam to Laţiif and miim refers to “Majiid” (these are all names of Aļļaah,) and this was stated by Abuu ˆaaliyah. The fifth is that it is a name of the Qur’aan, as stated by Mujaahid, Asħ-Sħaˆbiyy, Qataadah and Ibn Jurayj [32] . ” [31] ”

Some will insist further, and say, “who’s utterance is alif laam miim?” The answer is that the one that utter an utterance is its utterer, because it is a matter of sound. People differ in their utterance of the Qur’aan, so one person’s utterance is different from another’s, for example. The best is the utterance of Jibriil. As for the words, the words are Aļļaah’s. Not in the sense that He uttered them, but in the sense that no one authored them, and that it is an expression of His eternal Speech, which is not letters, sounds or sequence.

It is obvious that the letter Alif is created, because it is an alphabetic symbol referring to the sound “LLL…” All alphabetic letters are written symbols that refer to sounds that we make with our voices.

It is impossible that the eternal speech of Aļļaah should be letters, because His speech is not sound. His speech is not sound because it is eternal, and therefore does not have a beginning. Wakiiˆ said : “The one that says the Qur’aan is created has said it is and event, and the one that says it is an event has blasphemed.”

What is the difference between the Qur’aan and Ĥadiitħ Qudsiyy, Prophetic Ĥadiitħ?

The ĥadiitħ qudsiyy is the Prophet’s [sallallaahu alaihi wasallam] words, but he says “Aļļaah says…” Moreover, the ĥadiitħ qudsiyy has no challenge of inimitable eloquence. The prophet [sallallaahu alaihi wasallam] spoke in his own words in ĥadiitħs. All of these texts are holy, because they are all revealed from Aļļaah. All of them are rewardable in reciting and studying with the correct intention. This is because Aļļaah has willed it to be so. We get credit and blessings for what Aļļaah has willed for us to get it for. No act or thing causes one to gain credit, except by the will of Aļļaah.

Since the Qur’aan consists of revealed words, they cannot be changed, or altered. This is to preserve the revelation, and the inimitability of the book, which is a miracle and a lasting proof of the prophethood of Aļļaah’s messenger.

The eloquence of the Qur’aan is inimitable because Aļļaah has willed it. No one can do against His will, not in this, and not in anything else.

It is impossible that Aļļaah should lie
Al-Aamidiyy [33] states in ‘Abkaar Al-‘Afkaar: “I do not know of any disagreement among those who say that Aļļaah is attributed with Kalaam/ Speech, that lies are impossible in His Speech, whether it be the eternal attribute of His Self (as the Sunnis say), or the one (as the Muˆtazilah and Anthropomorphists believe) that is sounds and letters SayfudDiin Al-Aamidiy, Abkaar Al-Afkaar , 2nd ed. (Kairo, Egypt: Maţbaˆah Daar Al-Kutub Wa-l-Watħaa’iq Al-Qawmiyyah, 1423), 2/83..

As-Sanuusiyy in his book ˆUmdatu ‘Ahli-t-Tawfiiq says, “Are miracles as proof of the truthfulness of the Messengers of Aļļaah proofs in the mind’s eye, or by convention, or by normal necessity according to the relevant indications ? There are different sayings. According to the first two (the mind’s eye and convention), it is impossible for a liar to have a miracle, because for the first it would lead to contradicting the sound mind, and for the second it would lead to saying that there is a flaw in what Aļļaah has informed, jalla wa ˆalaa, because to affirm the truthfulness of a lie is to lie, and it is impossible that Aļļaah should lie, since His Speech agrees with His Knowledge….” “Moreover, if He was attributed with lying, and His attributes are all eternal, then it would be impossible for Him to be attributed with being truthful (in His Speech,) while it is correct that He is attributed with it, since He must be attributed with Knowledge.
This would mean that what is correct would become impossible. [34] ” Then he points out that the first two sayings are about the same[35] . In explaining the details of all this he mentions the proofs for why it is impossible that Aļļaah could lie he says, “Third, it has been established that Aļļaah is attributed with complete perfection, and truthfulness is an attribute of complete perfection which’s opposite is a flaw, and it is impossible that Aļļaah should be attributed with a flaw, so He must be truthful. [36] ”

The third perspective mentioned by As-Sanuusiyy states that miracles are proof of truthfulness according to what is normally necessarily true, i.e. that it would be normally impossible for someone with a miracle to tell a lie. This is because the rule throughout history is that someone with a miracle, with all of its requisite conditions intact, never happened to a liar. Regarding this As-Sanuusiyy states, “and our saying that lying is possible in the mind’s eye alone, for someone telling the truth, does not put a doubt in his truthfulness once we are sure he is telling the truth. This is because the possibility in the mind’s eye only means that if it happened instead of being truthful, then that would not lead to an impossibility in the mind’s eye. It does not mean that it is possible that Aļļaah could lie. [37] ” In other words, it is not impossible in the mind’s eye, because it does not lead to saying that Aļļaah could lie, as As-Sanuusiyy showed with proofs and refuted any objections prior.

Then he goes on to explain the third perspective on the proof of truthfulness in miracles, “It happens a lot that we know something to be absolutely and necessarily true, even though we say that its opposite is possible in the mind’s eye, such as our knowledge of our own existence. No sound minded person doubts it, even though we say that if we had continued to not exist at all, then this would not have been impossible in the mind’s eye. It (the possibility of our non-existence in the mind’s eye) does not mean that we could be non-existent while being existent.
[38] ” More specifically, “The sign of the truthfulness of the Prophet (şalla-ļļaahu ˆalayhi wa sallam) is the occurrence of certain knowledge in us due to miracles, so once this certitude occurs, there is no possibility of lying any longer.
[39] ”

What all this means is that Aļļaah could have created a world full of miracles happening to liars and truthful people alike, so the proof of truthfulness in a miracle is in the fact that they occur only in the case of truthfulness, not that miracles could not have been for anybody else in the mind’s eye. It may be said that all these three perspectives on miracles are really complementary, because the reason why a miracle is a sign of truthfulness by convention or by reason is that it only occurs to those truthful in the claim of prophethood, and this way we know that this is the convention for knowing that someone is a prophet, and that if a miracle happens to someone claiming prophethood, then Aļļaah’s creating this miracle is a reference to Aļļaah’s eternal Speech by which we know that He is telling us that his slave is truthful in his claim of prophethood. That is, the miracle, which is an extraordinary event coupled with the claim of prophethood, and not possible for opponents to imitate, is a conventional sign from Aļļaah which tells us that He affirms that claim, just as that Arabic letters and words of the book of the Qur’aan tell us what Aļļaah says.

Asħ-Sħahrastaaniyy says, “So the preponderator for truthfulness (in the claim of prophethood) is the group of circumstances which occurs by the gathering of many elements, such as the extraordinary event coupled with the claim of prophethood, and the non-existence of any effective challenge to it from an opponent. All these factors as a group tell us that the claimer is truthful, and take the place of a saying as an affirmation of his truthfulness . [40] ”

So As-Sanuusiyy says that lying is impossible for Aļļaah in the mind’s eye, unlike some people claim. In fact, he considers it a premise of all the three perspective on miracles as a proof of truthfulness. For the record, it is the second perspective that As-Sanuusiyy mentions in his book “Aş-Sugħraa,” and “Al-Wusţaa.” In the explanation of Aş-Şugħraa, he says, “It is impossible that Aļļaah could lie, because His Speech/Kalaam must agree with His Knowledge, and speech in agreement with knowledge cannot by but truthful. [41] ”



[1] Ĥuruufiyyah, or “those pertaining to letters” is a name for any person that believes Aļļaah’s eternal Speech is letters and sounds.

[2] Ibn Faaris (329-395 AH/ 941-1004 AD) Aĥmad ibn Faaris ibn Zakariyyaa, Al-Qazwiiniyy, Ar-Raaziyy, Abu-l-Ĥusayn is among the imams of language and literature. Several authors of great eloquence studied from him. He is originally from Qazwiin, but moved to Ar-Rayy and died there. Among his works are the dictionaries Maqaayiisu-l-Lugħah and Al-Mujmal. (Al-‘Aˆlaam, 1/193).

[3] ﻣﻌﺠﻢ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻻﺑﻦ ﻓﺎﺭﺱ – ‏( 2 / 213 ‏) : ‏( ﺧﻠﻖ ‏) ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﻑ ﺃﺻﻼﻥ : ﺃﺣﺪﻫﻤﺎ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ، ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻣَﻼﺳَﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ .

[4] Ibn Zakariyyaa ibn Faaris and ˆAbdusSalaam Haaruun,
Maqaayiisu-l-Lugħah (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Al-Fikr), 2/213.

[5] Ibn Manţħuur (630-711 AH/ 1232-1311 AD) Muĥammad ibn Makram ibn ˆaliyy, Abu-l-Fađl, JamaaludDiin, Al-Anşaariyy, Ar-Ruwayfiˆiyy, Al-‘Ifriiqiyy, the author of the famous, encyclopedic dictionary Lisaanu-l-ˆArab, was an imam of linguistics. He was born in Tripoli in today’s Libya, and was appointed judge there for some time. He authored around 500 books, many of them summaries of books in literature. (Al-‘Aˆlaam, 7/108).

[6] Ibn Maţħuur Al-‘Ifriiqiyy, Lisaanu-l-ˆArab (Beirut, Lebanon: Daar Şaadir), 10/85.

[7] Murtađaa Az-Zabiidiyy (1145-1205 AH/ 1732-1790 AD) Muĥammad ibn Muĥammad ibn Muĥammad ibn ˆAbdirRazzaaq, Al-Ĥusayniyy, Az-Zabiidiyy, Abu-l-Fayđ, known as Murtađaa, was a great scholar of language, ĥadiitħ, narrator biography, and genealogy. He was also a great author. His family origin is from Iraq, but he was born in India, grew up in Yemen, and settled and died in Egypt. He became very famous during his lifetime, to the extent that kings wrote him and sent him gifts. Among his most famous works are Taaju-l-ˆAruus, his commentary on the renowned dictionary Al-Qaamuus, and Itĥaafu-s-Saadati-l-Muttaqiin, his commentary in Al-Għazaaliyy’s ‘Iĥyaa’ ˆuluumi-d-Diin. (Al-‘Aˆlaam, 7/70).

[8] Murtađaa Az-Zabiidiyy, Taaju-l-ˆAruus min Jawaahiri-l-Qaamuus (Daar Al-Hidaayah), 25/251.

[9] ﻟﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺏ – ‏( 10 / 85 ‏) : ﻭﻋﻦ ﺍﻷَﺯﻫﺮﻱ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻟﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﻼَّﻕ ﻭﻻ ﺗﺠﻮﺯ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺔ ﺑﺎﻷَﻟﻒ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻡ ﻟﻐﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﺰ ﻭﺟﻞ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃَﻭﺟﺪ ﺍﻷَﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺟﻤﻴﻌﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃَﻥ ﻟﻢ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﻭﺃَﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺮ ﻓﻬﻮ ﺑﺎﻋْﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻭﺟُﻮﺩُﻫﺎ ﻭﺑﺎﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻟﻺِﻳﺠﺎﺩِ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭَﻓْﻖِ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺮ . ﺗﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﻭﺱ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻣﻮﺱ – ‏( 25 / 251 ‏) : ﻭﻗﺎﻝَ ﺍﻷﺯْﻫَﺮِﻱ : ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟّﺬِﻱ ﺃﻭْﺟَﺪَ ﺍﻷﺷْﻴﺎﺀَ ﺟَﻤِﻴﻌَﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﺪَ ﺃَﻥْ ﻟَﻢْ ﺗَﻜُﻦْ ﻣَﻮْﺟُﻮﺩَﺓً ، ﻭﺃﺻْﻞُ ﺍﻟﺨَﻠْﻖِ : ﺍﻟﺘَّﻘْﺪِﻳﺮ ، ﻓﻬُﻮَ ﺑﺎﻋْﺘِﺒﺎﺭ ﻣﺎ ﻣِﻨْﻪُ ﻭﺟﻮﺩُﻫﺎ ﻣُﻘَﺪِّﺭٌ ، ﻭﺑﺎﻻﻋْﺘِﺒﺎﺭِ ﻟﻺِﻳﺠﺎﺩِ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭَﻓْﻖِ ﺍﻟﺘﻘْﺪِﻳﺮِ ﺧﺎﻟِﻖٌ .

[10] Abu Bakr Al-Bayhqiyy (458 AH), Al-Asmaa’ Wa-ş-Şifaat li-l-Bayhaqiyy , 1st ed. (Jedda, Saudi Arabia: Maktabah Al-Sawaadiyy), 1/608-609.

[11] SħamsudDiin Adħ-Dħahabiyy, Siyar ‘Aˆlaam An-Nubalaa’ (Beirut, Lebanon: Mu’assasatu-r-Risaalah, 1413), 9/166.

[12] ﺍﻷﺳﻤﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻔﺎﺕ ﻟﻠﺒﻴﻬﻘﻲ – ‏( ﺝ 1 / ﺹ 609-608 ‏) -547 ﻭﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﺎ ﺃﺑﻮ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻓﻆ ، ﻭﺃﺑﻮ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﺮﻭ ، ﻗﺎﻝ : ﺣَﺪَّﺛَﻨَﺎ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺱ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ، ﺣَﺪَّﺛَﻨَﺎ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺇﺳﺤﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﻏﺎﻧﻲ ، ﺣَﺪَّﺛَﻨَﺎ ﺣﺴﻴﻦ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﻮﺩ ، ﻗﺎﻝ : ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻭﻛﻴﻌﺎ ، ﻳﻘﻮﻝ : ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻛﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﻤﺨﻠﻮﻕ ، ﻓﻤﻦ ﺯﻋﻢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﻓﻘﺪ ﻛﻔﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻢ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺔ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻧﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻭﺯﻱ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻫﺸﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﻓﺎﻋﻲ ، ﻋﻦ ﻭﻛﻴﻊ ، ﻗﺎﻝ : ﻣﻦ ﺯﻋﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻕ ، ﻓﻘﺪ ﺯﻋﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ ، ﻭﻣﻦ ﺯﻋﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ ﻓﻘﺪ ﻛﻔﺮ
ﺳﻴﺮ ﺃﻋﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻼﺀ – ‏( ﺝ 9 / ﺹ 166 ‏) : ﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﺑﻮ ﻫﺸﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﻓﺎﻋﻲ : ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻭﻛﻴﻌﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ : ﻣﻦ ﺯﻋﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻕ، ﻓﻘﺪ ﺯﻋﻢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ، ﻭﻣﻦ ﺯﻋﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ، ﻓﻘﺪ ﻛﻔﺮ .
[13] ﺳﻴﺮ ﺃﻋﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻼﺀ – ‏( ﺝ 9 / ﺹ 141-140 ‏) : ﻭﻛﻴﻊ * ‏( ﻉ ‏) ﺍﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺠﺮﺍﺡ، ﺑﻦ ﻣﻠﻴﺢ، ﺑﻦ ﻋﺪﻱ، ﺑﻦ ﻓﺮﺱ، ﺑﻦ ﺟﻤﺠﻤﺔ، ﺑﻦ ﺳﻔﻴﺎﻥ، ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺭﺙ، ﺑﻦ ﻋﻤﺮﻭ، ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﻴﺪ، ﺑﻦ ﺭﺅﺍﺱ، ﺍﻻﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻓﻆ، ﻣﺤﺪﺙ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺍﻕ، ﺃﺑﻮ ﺳﻔﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﺍﺳﻲ، ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻓﻲ، ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﻻﻋﻼﻡ . ﻭﻟﺪ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺗﺴﻊ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﺌﺔ، ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺣﻨﺒﻞ . ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﺧﻠﻴﻔﺔ ﻭﻫﺎﺭﻭﻥ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺎﺗﻢ : ﻭﻟﺪ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ . ﻭﺍﺷﺘﻐﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺼﻐﺮ . 4 ﺳﻴﺮ ﺃﻋﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻼﺀ – ‏( ﺝ 9 / ﺹ 144 ‏) : ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺣﻨﺒﻞ : ﻣﺎ ﺭﺃﻳﺖ ﺃﺣﺪﺍ ﺃﻭﻋﻰ ﻟﻠﻌﻠﻢ ﻭﻻ ﺃﺣﻔﻆ ﻣﻦ ﻭﻛﻴﻊ . ﻗﻠﺖ : ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﻳﻌﻈﻢ ﻭﻛﻴﻌﺎ ﻭﻳﻔﺨﻤﻪ . ﻗﺎﻝ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺎﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻴﺼﻲ : ﺳﺄﻟﺖ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ : ﻭﻛﻴﻊ ﺃﺣﺐ ﺇﻟﻴﻚ ﺃﻭ ﻳﺤﻴﻰ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ؟ ﻓﻘﺎﻝ : ﻭﻛﻴﻊ، ﻗﻠﺖ : ﻛﻴﻒ ﻓﻀﻠﺘﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻳﺤﻴﻰ، ﻭﻳﺤﻴﻰ ﻭﻣﻜﺎﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﻔﻆ ﻭﺍﻻﺗﻘﺎﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻋﻠﻤﺖ ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ : ﻭﻛﻴﻊ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﺎ ﻟﺤﻔﺺ ﺑﻦ ﻏﻴﺎﺙ، ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﻭﻟﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ، ﻫﺠﺮﻩ، ﻭﺇﻥ ﻳﺤﻴﻰ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﺎ ﻟﻤﻌﺎﺫ ﺑﻦ ﻣﻌﺎﺫ، ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﻭﻟﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ، ﻟﻢ ﻳﻬﺠﺮﻩ ﻳﺤﻴﻰ
[14] ﺳﻴﺮ ﺃﻋﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻼﺀ – ‏( 11 / 288 ‏) : ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺇﺳﻤﺎﻋﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻣﺬﻱ : ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺣﻨﺒﻞ، ﻳﻘﻮﻝ : ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﻝ : ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ، ﻓﻬﻮ ﻛﺎﻓﺮ .

[15] Ibid., 11/288.

[16] ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺼﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ – ‏( ﺹ ٢٠٢ ‏) : ﻣﻦ ﺃﺑﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻗﻠﻨﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻗﻴﻞ ﻟﻪ : ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻭﺻﻔﺖ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﻢ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻕ، ﺃﺧﻠﻘﻪ – ﺇﺫ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻨﺪﻙ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻗﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ، ﺃﻡ ﻓﻲ ﻏﻴﺮﻩ، ﺃﻡ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ؟ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺯﻋﻢ ﺧﻠﻘﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ، ﻓﻘﺪ ﺃﻭﺟﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻣﺤﻼ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻖ، ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﻛﻔﺮ .

[17] Abu Jaˆfar Aţ-Ţabariyy, At-Tabşiir fii Maˆaalim Ad-Diin, 1st ed. (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Daar Al-ˆAaşimah, 1416), 202.

[18] ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﻓﺘﺢ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺮ ـ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﻟﻠﻤﻄﺒﻮﻉ – ‏( 3 / 397 ‏) : “ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺄﺗﻴﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻛﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺭﺑﻬﻢ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ ” ﻣﻦ ﻻﺑﺘﺪﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻳﺔ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻝ ﺑﻮﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﺬﻛﺮ ﻟﻜﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﺤﺪﺛﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻛﺮ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻭﺃﺟﻴﺐ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻧﺰﺍﻉ ﻓﻰ ﺣﺪﻭﺙ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻛﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺻﻮﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺮﻭﻑ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻣﺘﺠﺪﺩ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺰﻭﻝ ﻓﺎﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ ﺗﻨﺰﻳﻠﻪ ﻭﺇﻧﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﺰﺍﻉ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺴﻲ ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺌﻠﺔ ﺃﻋﻨﻲ ﻗﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻭﺣﺪﻭﺛﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺑﺘﻠﻰ ﺑﻬﺎ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻀﻞ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺄﻣﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﺘﺼﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺍﺛﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﺟﺮﻯ ﻟﻺﻣﺎﻡ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺣﻨﺒﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺟﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﺸﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺒﺲ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻳﻞ ﻭﺿﺮﺏ ﺑﺴﺒﺒﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﻖ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻧﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺨﺰﺍﻋﻲ ﻭﺻﺎﺭﺕ ﻓﺘﻨﺔ ﻋﻈﻴﻤﺔ ﻓﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻭﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺪﻩ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺼﺔ ﺃﺷﻬﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺬﻛﺮ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﺣﺐ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﻮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺘﻬﺎ ﻃﺎﻟﻊ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﺍﻹﻣﺎﻡ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺣﻨﺒﻞ ﻓﻰ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻼﺀ ﻟﻤﺆﺭﺥ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻫﺒﻲ ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﺻﺎﺏ ﺃﺋﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺑﺎﻣﺘﻨﺎﻋﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺨﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻭﺣﺪﻭﺛﻪ ﻭﺣﻔﻆ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻬﻢ ﺃﻣﺔ ﻧﺒﻴﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻻﺑﺘﺪﺍﻉ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﻢ ﺭﺣﻤﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺟﺎﻭﺯﻭﺍ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻡ ﺑﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﻭﻟﻢ ﻳﻘﺘﺼﺮﻭﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻛﻔﺮﻭﺍ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﺪﻭﺙ ﺑﻞ ﺟﺎﻭﺯﻭﺍ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻟﻔﻈﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﺑﻞ ﺟﺎﻭﺯﻭﺍ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻭﻗﻒ ﻭﻟﻴﺘﻬﻢ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺠﺎﻭﺯﻭﺍ ﺣﺪ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﻒ ﻭﺇﺭﺟﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻋﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻐﻴﻮﺏ ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺴﻤﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻒ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﻟﺢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺎﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺑﻌﺪﻫﻢ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻗﻴﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻨﺔ ﻭﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﻓﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺌﻠﺔ ﺷﺊ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﻭﻻ ﻧﻘﻞ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻓﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻻﻣﺘﻨﺎﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﺎ ﺩﻋﻮﺍ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻤﺴﻚ ﺑﺄﺫﻳﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﻒ ﻭﺇﺭﺟﺎﻉ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻋﺎﻟﻤﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺜﻠﻰ ﻭﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﻠﻮﺹ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮ ﻃﻮﺍﺋﻒ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻟﻠﻪ ﺳﺒﺤﺎﻧﻪ

[19] Muĥammad ibn ˆAliyy Asħ-Sħawkaaniyy, Fatĥu-l-Qadiir (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Al-Fikr), 3/397.

[20] ﻓﺘﺢ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﻱ – ﺍﺑﻦ ﺣﺠﺮ – ‏( 13 / 497 ‏) : ﻭﻗﺪ ﻧﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﻬﺮﻭﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻭﻕ ﺑﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺣﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﺳﺄﻟﺖ ﺇﺳﺤﺎﻕ ﺑﻦ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﻨﻈﻠﻲ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺑﻦ ﺭﺍﻫﻮﻳﻪ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺄﺗﻴﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻛﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺭﺑﻬﻢ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻗﺪﻳﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺭﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺰﺓ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ
ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺳﻠﻒ ﺍﻟﺒﺨﺎﺭﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ

[21] ﺍﻟﻔﻘﻪ ﺍﻷﻛﺒﺮ ‏( ﺹ . 5 ‏) : ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻛﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺎﺣﻒ ﻣﻜﺘﻮﺏ , ﻭﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻮﺏ ﻣﺤﻔﻮﻅ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻟﺴﻦ ﻣﻘﺮﻭﺀ , ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻣﻨﺰّﻝ , ﻭﻟﻔﻈﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﻭﻛﺘﺎﺑﺘﻨﺎ ﻟﻪ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻗﺔ ﻭﻗﺮﺍﺋﺘﻨﺎ ﻟﻪ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻗﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻕ .

[22] Abuu Ĥaniifah (80-150 AH/ 699-767), Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar , vol. 1 (Ĥaydar Aabaad, India: Majlis Daa’iratu-l-Maˆaarifi-n-Niţħaamiyyah, 1342), 5.

[23] ﺍﻟﻔﻘﻪ ﺍﻷﻛﺒﺮ ‏( ﺹ . 6 ‏) : ﻭﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻻ ﻛﻜﻼﻣﻨﺎ ﻭﻧﺤﻦ ﻧﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﺑﺎﻵﻻﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺮﻭﻑ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﺑﻼ ﺁﻟﺔ ﻭﻻﺣﺮﻭﻑ . ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺮﻭﻑ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻗﺔ ﻭﻛﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻕ .

[24] Ibid., 1:6.

[25] ﺣﺎﺷﻴﺔ ﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﺎﺭ – ‏( 4 / 14 ‏) : ﻭﺣﺎﺻﻠﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﺑﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻛﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻻ ﺑﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺰﻟﺔ، ﻏﻴﺮ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﻟﺌﻼ ﻳﺘﻮﻫﻢ ﺃﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ .

[26] Muĥammad-Amiin Ibn ˆAabidiin, Ĥaasħiyatu Raddi-l-Muĥtaar (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Al-Fikr, 1415), 4/14.

[27] ﻣﻔﺎﺗﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﻐﻴﺐ ‏( 16 / 24 ‏) : ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻮﺍﺏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﺩﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺇﻥ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺟﺴﻢ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻣﻨﻜﺮ ﻟﻺﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥ ﺇﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺠﺴﻢ ﻭﻻ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺴﻢ ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﺃﻧﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺴﻢ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺃﻧﻜﺮ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻓﺎﻟﺨﻼﻑ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻮﺣﺪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺔ ﺑﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻓﺼﺢ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺴﻢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳﺆﻣﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻪ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺣﻜﻴﺘﻤﻮﻫﺎ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺔ ﻓﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺇﻟﺰﺍﻡ ﻣﺬﻫﺐ ﺍﻟﺤﻠﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺮﻭﻓﻴﺔ ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻧﻜﻔﺮﻫﻢ ﻗﻄﻌﺎً ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻛﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﺎﺭﻯ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺪﻭﺍ ﺣﻠﻮﻝ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠَّﻪِ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻴﺴﻰ ﻭﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺪﻭﺍ ﺣﻠﻮﻝ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠَّﻪِ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺮﺃ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﻷﺟﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻛﺘﺐ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﻠﻮﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺣﻖ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻳﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻔﻴﺮ ﻓﻸﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﻠﻮﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺣﻖ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻭﺍﻷﺟﺴﺎﻡ ﻣﻮﺟﺒﺎً ﻟﻠﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻜﻔﻴﺮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻭﻟﻰ
[28] FakħrudDiin Al-Raaziy, Mafaatiiĥ Al-Għayb , 1st ed. (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Al-Kotob Al-ilmiyah, 1421), V. 16/ P. 24.

[29] Abu-l-Faraj Ibn Al-Jawziyy (508-597 AH/ 1114-1201 AD), ˆAbdurRaĥmaan ibn ˆAliyy ibn Muĥammad Al-Jawziyy Al-Qurasħiyy, Al-Bagħdaadiyy was probably the greatest scholar of history and ĥadiitħ of his time. He was born and died in Bagħdaad. He wrote some 300 books (Al-‘Aˆlaam, 3/316).

[30] ﺯﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺮ – ‏( 1 / 22 ‏) : ﻭﻗﺪ ﺧﺺ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺴﺮﻭﻥ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺁﻟﻢ ﺑﺨﻤﺴﺔ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺃﺣﺪﻫﺎ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻌﻠﻢ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺍﻻ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﺰ ﻭ ﺟﻞ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺳﺒﻖ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻥ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺃﻋﻠﻢ ﺭﻭﺍﻩ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﻟﻀﺤﻰ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ ﻭﺑﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻣﺴﻌﻮﺩ ﻭﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺟﺒﻴﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﺴﻢ ﺭﻭﺍﻩ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺻﺎﻟﺢ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ ﻭﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺍﻟﺤﺬﺍﺀ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻜﺮﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﺣﺮﻭﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺳﻤﺎﺀ ﺛﻢ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻗﻮﻻﻥ ﺃﺣﺪﻫﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﻟﻒ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺒﺮﻳﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ ﻓﺎﻥ ﻗﻴﻞ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻨﻮﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺍﺳﻢ ﺣﺮﻓﻪ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺍﻛﺘﻔﺎﺀ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻠﻢ ﺃﺧﺬﺕ ﺍﻟﻼﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺒﺮﻳﻞ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﺧﺮ ﺍﻹﺳﻢ ﻓﺎﻟﺠﻮﺍﺏ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺒﺘﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻓﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺎﺑﺘﺪﺍﺀ ﺃﻭﻝ ﺣﺮﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﻤﻪ ﻭﺟﺒﺮﻳﻞ ﺍﻧﺨﺘﻢ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺰﻳﻞ ﻭﺍﻹﻗﺮﺃﺀ ﻓﺘﻨﻮﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﻤﻪ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﺣﺮﻭﻓﻪ ﻭ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻣﺒﺘﺪﺃ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻹﻗﺮﺃﺀ ﻓﺘﻨﻮﻭﻝ ﺃﻭﻝ ﺣﺮﻑ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﻟﻒ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻡ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻄﻴﻒ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺠﻴﺪ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺎﻣﺲ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺍﺳﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺳﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﻣﺠﺎﻫﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻌﺒﻲ ﻭﻗﺘﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﺑﻦ ﺟﺮﻳﺞ .

[31] Abu-l-Faraj Ibn Al-Jawziyy (508-597 AH/ 1114-1201 AD), Zaadu-l-Masiir , 3rd ed. (Beirut, Lebanon: Al-Maktab Al-Islamiyy, 1404), 1/22.

[32] ﺯﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺮ – ‏( 1 / 22 ‏) : ﻭﻗﺪ ﺧﺺ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺴﺮﻭﻥ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺁﻟﻢ ﺑﺨﻤﺴﺔ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺃﺣﺪﻫﺎ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻌﻠﻢ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺍﻻ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﺰ ﻭ ﺟﻞ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺳﺒﻖ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻥ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺃﻋﻠﻢ ﺭﻭﺍﻩ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﻟﻀﺤﻰ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ ﻭﺑﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻣﺴﻌﻮﺩ ﻭﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺟﺒﻴﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﺴﻢ ﺭﻭﺍﻩ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺻﺎﻟﺢ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ ﻭﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺍﻟﺤﺬﺍﺀ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻜﺮﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﺣﺮﻭﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺳﻤﺎﺀ ﺛﻢ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻗﻮﻻﻥ ﺃﺣﺪﻫﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﻟﻒ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺒﺮﻳﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ ﻓﺎﻥ ﻗﻴﻞ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻨﻮﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺍﺳﻢ ﺣﺮﻓﻪ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺍﻛﺘﻔﺎﺀ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻠﻢ ﺃﺧﺬﺕ ﺍﻟﻼﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺒﺮﻳﻞ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﺧﺮ ﺍﻹﺳﻢ ﻓﺎﻟﺠﻮﺍﺏ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺒﺘﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻓﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺎﺑﺘﺪﺍﺀ ﺃﻭﻝ ﺣﺮﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﻤﻪ ﻭﺟﺒﺮﻳﻞ ﺍﻧﺨﺘﻢ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺰﻳﻞ ﻭﺍﻹﻗﺮﺃﺀ ﻓﺘﻨﻮﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﻤﻪ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﺣﺮﻭﻓﻪ ﻭ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻣﺒﺘﺪﺃ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻹﻗﺮﺃﺀ ﻓﺘﻨﻮﻭﻝ ﺃﻭﻝ ﺣﺮﻑ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﻟﻒ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻡ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻄﻴﻒ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺠﻴﺪ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺎﻣﺲ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺍﺳﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺳﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﻣﺠﺎﻫﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻌﺒﻲ ﻭﻗﺘﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﺑﻦ ﺟﺮﻳﺞ .

[33] ﺍﻷﻋﻼﻡ ﻟﻠﺰﺭﻛﻠﻲ – ‏( 4 / 332 ‏) ﺳﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﻵﻣﺪﻱ ‏( 551 – 631 ﻫـ = 1156 – 1233 ﻡ ‏) ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﺎﻟﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻠﺒﻲ، ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻦ، ﺳﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﻵﻣﺪﻱ : ﺃﺻﻮﻟﻲ، ﺑﺎﺣﺚ . ﺃﺻﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺁﻣﺪ ‏( ﺩﻳﺎﺭ ﺑﻜﺮ ‏) ﻭﻟﺪ ﺑﻬﺎ، ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺎﻡ . ﻭﺍﻧﺘﻘﻞ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ، ﻓﺪﺭﺱ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﺷﺘﻬﺮ . ﻭﺣﺴﺪﻩ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﻬﺎﺀ ﻓﺘﻌﺼﺒﻮﺍ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﺷﺘﻬﺮ . ﻭﺣﺴﺪﻩ ﻳﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﻬﺎﺀ ﻓﺘﻌﺼﺒﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﻧﺴﺒﻮﻩ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻓﺴﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻘﻌﻴﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﻄﻴﻞ ﻭﻣﺬﻫﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ، ﻓﺨﺮﺝ ﻣﺴﺘﺨﻔﻴﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ” ﺣﻤﺎﺓ ” ﻭﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ” ﺩﻣﺸﻖ ” ﻓﺘﻮﻓﻲ ﺑﻬﺎ . ﻟﻪ ﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﺼﻨﻔﺎ، ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ” ﺍﻻﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺃﺻﻮﻝ ﺍﻻﺣﻜﺎﻡ – ﻁ ” ﺃﺭﺑﻌﺔ ﺃﺟﺰﺍﺀ، ﻭﻣﺨﺘﺼﺮﻩ ” ﻣﻨﺘﻬﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻮﻝ – ﻁ ” ﻭ ” ﺃﺑﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻻﻓﻜﺎﺭ – ﺥ ” ﻓﻲ ﻃﻮﺑﻘﺒﻮ، ﺍﻻﻭﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﻨﻪ، ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ، ﻭ ” ﻟﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻻﻟﺒﺎﺏ ” ﻭ ” ﺩﻗﺎﺋﻖ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﺎﺋﻖ ” ﻭ ” ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺍﻷﻋﻼﻡ ﻟﻠﺰﺭﻛﻠﻲ – ‏( 4 / 332 ‏) ﻣﻌﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻤﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺘﻜﻠﻤﻴﻦ – ﺥ ” ﻛﺮﺍﺳﺘﺎﻥ، ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺑﺪﻣﺸﻖ ‏( 1 ).
SayfudDiin Al-Aamidiyy (551-631 AH/ 11561233 AD) ˆaliyy ibn Muĥammad ibn Saalim At-Tagħlabiyy was a scholar of belief and fiqh methodology and an authenticator from Aamid in today’s northern Kurdistan. He was born there, but studied in Bagħdaad and Syria. Then he moved to Cairo, where he became famous and became subject to much envy, to the extent he had to leave and go to Syria where he eventually died and is buried. Az-Zirikliyy, Al-‘Aˆlaam (2002) (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar El-Ilm Lil-Malayeen, 1423), 4/332.

[34] Muĥammad ibn Yuusuf As-Sanuusiyy (896 AH), Sħarĥu-l-Muqaddimaat , 1st ed. (Maktabatu-l-Maˆaarif, 1420), 245.

[35] Ibid., 247.

[36] Ibid., 248.

[37] Ibid., 250.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Ibid.

[40] ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻗﺪﺍﻡ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ – ‏( ﺝ 1 / ﺹ 236 ‏) : ﻓﺈﺫﺍً ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺟﺢ ﻟﻠﺼﺪﻕ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺋﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺻﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﺃﻣﻮﺭ ﻛﺜﻴﺮﺓ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﻕ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﻘﺮﻭﻧﺎً ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻋﻮﻯ ﻭﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺳﻼﻣﺘﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺭﺿﺔ ﻓﺎﻧﺘﻬﻀﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺋﻦ ﺑﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﻬﺎ ﺩﺍﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﺪﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻋﻲ ﻧﺎﺯﻟﺔ ﻣﻨﺰﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺪﻳﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺻﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺎﺋﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺋﻦ ﺃﻋﻨﻲ ﻗﺮﺍﺋﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻝ ﻭﻗﺮﺍﺋﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻝ .

[41]Muĥammad ibn Yuusuf As-Sanuusiyy, Ĥaasħiyatu-d-Dusuuqiyy ˆalaa Ummi-l-Baraahiin wa Sħarĥuhaa (Beirut, Lebanon: Al-Maktabah Al-ˆAşriyyah, 1426), 280.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s