Chapter: 8 Theses Of Philosophers And Theologists Regarding Denial Of God's Corporeity And Locality
Keshful Murad Fi Sharhi Tajridulitiqad page 154:
Text: For every corporeality there is a natural space required when left from the nearest way.
Explanation: Absolutely every corporeality wants a space to occupy. It is impracticable for any corporeality to be existing without space. Necessarily that space is natural for the corporeality. Supposing corporealities are deprived of contingent affairs they shall be either occupying no locality at all or occupying the entire space. The earlier is impracticable and the latter is essentially void and null. Corporealities may occupy some locations that should be natural. Accordingly every corporeality should return to its position. Usually corporealities take the most straight paths when return.
Text: It shall be nonexistent when innumerable.
Explanation: There is only one natural space for each corporeality. If there were two or more places one should be left during the corporeality's occupying the other. This left place would no longer be natural. This is the meaning of his saying that nonexistence of naturality should be ruled when there are numerous places for a single corporeality.
Keshful Murad Fi Sharhi Tajridulitiqad page 317:
10. Allah The Exalted Is Not Compound.
Text: As well as composition in all its forms…
Explanation: This implies that necessity of existence requires denial of composition. This is evidenced by the fact that every compound being lacks its parts since it shall be nonexistent unless these parts compose its being. Besides parts of a being vary each other. Things lacking others are possible. Correspondingly Allah the Necessary is possible if He lacks parts. So necessity of existence rules of denial of composition.
Composition may be either inherent or extrinsic. The first is that composed of genus and class while the second is that composed of material and form such as corporealities or amounts. All these things are dispelled from Allah the Necessary. The entire compound matters lack their parts while the Lord has no genus class or any other material parts.
13. Allah is not incarnating in other beings.
Text: …and incarnation…
Explanation: Necessity of Existence requires that Allah the Exalted does not incarnate in other beings. Majority of intellectual people agree upon this point.
Some of the Christians who claim the Lord's incarnating in Messiah and the Sufis who believe in the Lord's incarnating in corporealities of some of their spiritualists disagree. This faith is too ridiculous to be discussed since the credible concept of incarnation means that a being that is incapable of existing independently finds a location in another on basis of fellowship. This meaning however is impracticable for Allah the Exalted since it necessitates possibility.
14. Denial of the Lord's combination
Text: …and combination…
Explanation: Necessity of existence contradicts combination. Previously we have explicated that necessity of existence requires oneness. In case the Necessary Existent combines with another thing it is most surely that thing should be possible. Thus qualities of the possible existent will be born by the being combining it. As a result the necessary existent will be transferring into a possible existent.
Furthermore in case of combination the two combined beings should be either independently existent; hence the combination will be null or both or one of them will be nonexistent; hence the combination will be null too or the necessity will be null. Consequently the necessary existent will be possible. This is contrast.
15. Denial of the Lord's occupying a locality.
Text: …and locality…
Explanation: This is one of the rulings required by the Necessary Existent. The entire corporalists disputed about this point. They believed in the Lord's occupying a definite locality. Followers of Abu Abdillah Bin Al-Karram were engaged in discrepancy in this regard. Mohammed Bin Heitham claims the Lord's being in an endless region atop the Throne. He also claims that the distance between the Lord and the Throne is infinite. Some claim the finitude of that distance. Others adopted corporalists' claim of the Lord's being over the Throne. All the previous beliefs are valueless since every occupant is demonstrated and suffering contingent manners. Contingent beings however are not necessary.
Al-FAKHR ARRAZI'S THESIS OF DENIAL OF ALLAH'S CORPOREALITY
Al-Metalibul Aliya volume 2 part 2 page 25:
Chapter Three: Providing evidences on impracticability of Allah's being a corporeality
In this regard scholars have two opinions. Majority of Muslims compromised that Allah is promoted against having a corporeality and occupying a definite
space. Others corporalists claimed His being defined by a certain space. However the latter disagree upon certain points.
1. Regarding the Lord's having a definite look there are two opinions. Some claimed the Lord's having the appearance of human beings while others denied so. Muslim anthropomorphists claim the Lord's having an appearance of a young man. Jew anthropomorphists claim His having an appearance of an old man. Others claim His being a tremendous light.
Abu Mashar the astronomer asserts that because the preliminary people adopted faith of the Lord's being a corporeality and being a tremendous light while the angels are less tremendous they betook a pagan larger than the others so as to express the Great Lord. They also betook smaller pagans with different manners so as to express the angels. They engaged themselves in adoring these statues considering them as the Lord and the angels. This was the main reason beyond paganism. This proves that paganism is a branch of anthropomorphism.
2. Corporalists disagreed upon the idea whether the Lord is able of coming going moving and stilling. A group of Karramites refuted so while others affirmed. Majority of Hanbalites affirmed.
3. Adopters of Allah's being a light deny His having organs and limbs; such as the head the hand and the foot. Most of Hanbalites assert the Lord's having organs.
4. Unanimously corporalists opted for the Lord's being in the highest space. This provides three probabilities. The Lord is either coping with the Throne varying it in a limited dimension or varying it in a limitless dimension. Hence corporalists were of three groups depending on the three previous probabilities.
5. Corporalists agree upon the Lord's having a limit from beneath. They however disagree about the other five sides. Some claim the Lord's being limited from the entire sides. Others claim the Lord's being limited only from beneath. Others claim the Lord's being limitless from the upward and limitless from the other sides.
6. corporalists disagree whether the Lord occupies that definite space by Essence or for an idiosyncratic objective that necessitates His being in that space. This is similar to their contrariety on the idea whether Allah the Exalted is Knowing by His Essence or by means of knowledge.
7. Corporalists disagree whether the Lord's knowledge competence will hearing seeing and articulation are equal manners of His corporeality or each of these attributes occupies a definite part of His corporeality exclusively dedicated to the attribute involved.
There are a number of proofs evidencing that Allah the Exalted is promoted against having corporeality and definite size.
First proof: No necessary Aseity can be possible existent by essence. Every occupant is possible existent by essence; therefore the necessary Aseity can never be occupant. The minor is logically acceptable. The major is provable since every occupant is component. Every composite is possible existence by essence. Hence every occupant is possible existence by essence. For proving that every occupant is component the following points are provided.
1. There must be a difference between the right and the left of every occupant. Hence it must be component. This means that every occupant is component. Full rendition regarding this point is cited during providing evidences on denial of atoms.
2. Philosophers said "Every corporeality is composed of prime matter and form."
3. Every occupant shares others in having a space and varies them in having a clear space. The common feature of occupation enjoyed by every occupant is different from the distinctive feature consecrated to occupants exclusively. It is inevitable that every occupant should be composed of that common space and the distinctive feature. Hence every occupant is composed.
For clarifying that every composed being is possible it is to say that every composed being lacks its definite space which is unlike it. Every composed being lacks other matters. Every being lacking others is possible existence be essence. This results in the fact that every composed being is possible existent by essence.
Second proof: The Lord resembles other occupants in matters of quiddity if He is occupant. This is impracticable since the first is impracticable.
To explicate so it is to say that if the Lord is an occupant He will be equal to other occupants in feature of having space. This leads to one of two probabilities; either contrasting other corporealities in one of the fundamentals of quiddity or not. The first is logically invalid since if the Lord is equal to occupants in feature of being spaced and contrasts them in one of the fundamentals of quiddity then the common feature of occupation is variant from the distinctive feature and by the same token the Lord's occupation is different from competency of contrasting; therefore the second is valid.
Proving this we say that the two previous features should be either attributes of each other or not or the distinctive feature is attributed while the common feature is the attribute. The first three probabilities are invalid. Hence the fourth is only endurable. This leads to the fact that corporealities are analogous in ultimate quiddity. Nullity of the first probability is proved by the fact that providing it is true each should be independent and idiosyncratic. This is
untrue because of their being lacking others. Likewise nullity of the second probability is proved by the fact that should that have been true the two features would not have been interrelated. This however is not a discussion of the coalescing essence. Nullity of the third probability is proved by the condition that if the distinctive feature was the essence and the common feature was the attribute then the distinctive feature should be either given the space exclusively or not. If the previous is adopted it is then an occupying corporeality that is essentially the part of quiddity of a corporeality should be a corporeality. This is logically impracticable. If the latter is adopted it is then impossible for occupants to have space since that being is not practicable to spaces. Occupants as a matter of fact necessarily occupy that space. It is intellectually impracticable for the necessarily occupying matters to occur to matters that are impossibly occupying spaces.
Thusly the three previous probabilities are null and void. Only should the fourth endure. It is that the common feature which is the process of occupation is the essence and the distinctive feature is the attribute. Proving that there is only one concept for the process of occupation. This alludes to the fact that the entire occupants are similar in quitty and entity. This verifies our claim that the Lord should have been similar in quitty and entity to the other occupying beings had He been occupant. For the following reasons we maintain impracticability of that exposition.
1. Inevitably matters fully similar in quitty should be equal in necessities and results. Hence corporealities as a whole should be either selfsufficient from the Agent or depending totally on the Agent. The earlier is null since we have previously proved contingency of the cosmos and its necessity to the Agent. Hence the second is active. This leads to proving the fact that every occupant is in necessity to the Agent. Hence the Creator of everything is not an occupant.
2. That corporeality's exclusive knowledge competence and godhead should be either necessary or possible. The earlier is null and void. Supposing it is true it is necessary for the entire corporealities to enjoy these attributes since it is provable that matters of the same category should enjoy the same necessities. The latter is also void since if it is true it is occurred by a definite specialist actor. If that actor is a corporeality the same wording should be resaid otherwise it will be the required.
3. Supposing corporealities are similar they all should enjoy the same attributes. Hence it is impracticable to regard some of them as anterior while the others as contingent. If so the anterior should be contingent and the contingent should be anterior. This is logically infeasible.
4. Like other corporeality's the Lord's corporeality should be suffering separation and amputation. Similarly as other corporealities suffer extension
reduction decay and corruption the Lord's should be suffering so too. Familiarly this is infeasible and null.
5. Parts of that corporeality are supposed to be fully equal in quiddity. Since some of them occur in the lower part while others occur in the upper then it is practical for those falling in the lower to occupy the place of those of the upper. Supposing so position of each part must have been chosen by an expert actor. For the lord of this cosmos this is impracticable. Although this proof is very effective philosophers do not rest upon since it supports the ideas of separability and cicatrization of the cosmos.
Third proof: The Lord is finite if He is occupant. Every finite is possible. Necessary Existent is not possible. Hence the occupant is not necessary existent by essence. The idea that every finite is possible is proved by a number of evidences referring to finitude of dimensions. Likewise by citing the fact that it is supposable to believe that every amount must have been increased or decreased we can prove that every finite is possible. Besides it is essential to acquaint affirmation of the possibility involved. This asserts possibility of every occupant. The Necessary Existent is not possible. This arises the conclusion that no single occupant is necessary existent. By reversing so it is to say that no single necessary existent is an occupant.
Fourth proof: The Lord is equal to other occupants if He is occupant. Thus He is either having the same fundamentals of other occupants or not. Regarding the earlier the occupant should be a genus subclassified into species. Regarding the latter the occupant should be a species subclassified into persons.
The earlier is null. Providing its validity the necessary existent must be composed of species which is the common feature of occupants and the class which is the distinctive feature. Every composed being is possible. This will arise the contrast that the necessary existent is the possible existent.
The latter is null too. The common feature of occupation is shared by the entire persons. The distinctive feature is dedicated to each person independently. Hence the distinctive feature is inordinate to the quantitative nature. In addition that feature is necessitated by the consecratory characteristic. But we have previously decided its being common among persons. This is then contradiction.
If the feature is independent then each person of the occupying corporeality will be identified by an independent reason; therefore it will not be necessary existent by essence. This confirms that every corporeality is possibly existent by essence. Whatever is not possible necessary by essence should never be a corporeality.
Fifth proof: The Lord suffers separability and laceration if He is a corporeality. As the earlier is impossible the latter is impossible too. Supposing the Lord is constituent each of His parts must be continually decomposable till it becomes simple. If so then characteristics of the right side must not be different from these of the left lest He should be compound. Similarly if equality of the two sides in nature and quiddity is proved then it is positive that what is touched by a side must be touched by the other in the same manner. This implies that whatever touches the other part with one of its two faces can validly touch with the other. This proves practicability of separation and laceration.
Impossibility of the Lord's being separable and decomposable is proved by the thesis that inseparability of the Lord cannot be preferred to His separability unless there is a favorable extraneous reason. This shows the Lord's lacking an extraneous reason. It is unrealizable for the necessary existent by essence to lack. Hence the necessary existent by essence is not a corporeality.
Sixth proof: The Lord is a corporeality if He is occupier. No sane confirms the Lord's being as minute as an atom. Corporealities are compound. Attributes of knowledge competence and the like should either be a part of that corporeality or the amount. Assuming the earlier is true the Lord must be that part alone. This results in considering the Lord as minute as an atom. Considering the latter these attributes should be either comprised by the entire parts or distributing parts of the attributes on parts of the corporeality or an independent part of each attribute occurs in each part of the corporeality. The earlier is null since it is impracticable for a single attribute to occupy more than a single position. The second is impracticable since it is unworkable for knowledge for instance to be divisible. The latter is also impracticable since it requires that each part of the corporeality should bear the whole divine attributes. This leads to variety of lords.
It may be suggested that the previous proofs are dedicated to corporealities of humans that are divisible. Hence each part should have an independent knowledge competence and the like. This means a single man should be a number of knowledgeable and competent numbers.
As an answer we say that philosophers deny claims of wholeness. They ascribe qualities of knowledge competence and the like to souls consecratorily. Otherwise impossibility should be supposed. Al-Ashari adopted the claim that each part of human corporealities comprises definite knowledge competence and the like. This is positively inaccurate. It is however not impossible.
Ascribing so to the Lord is definitely impossible. It leads to claiming variety of gods.
Seventh proof: If the Lord is corporeality He is either moveable or immovable. Both probabilities are impossible; therefore the Lord is not an occupant.
If the lord of the cosmos is moveable then there should be no blame to reckon the planets with gods. The sun the moon and other planets can be gods unless they have three matters.
1. They are compound.
2. They are limited and bound.
3. They are moveable.
Supposing these three matters do not impede godhead it will be trivial to criticize godhead of such planets. The same is said about the divine Throne and Chair. This is the very atheism and tergiversation and denial of the Creator.
The claim that the Lord of the cosmos is a corporeality that is not submitted to transference and moveableness is also null for a number of reasons.
First the Lord shall be seen as the handicapped that is disable to move if He is immovable. This is however a blemish which is impracticable for Allah.
Second like other corporealities Allah should be capable of moving if He is a corporeality.
Third adopters of God's being composed of parts claim His ability of moving. They ascribe processes of going and coming to Him. Once they assert the Lord's reposing on the Throne while His feet are on the Chair. This is indeed stillness. Once they relate that He descends to the heavens. This is the moveableness.
Al-JIRJANI'S THESIS OF DENYING GOD'S OCCUPANCY
Al-Jirjani's Sharhul Mawaqif part 8 page 19:
First concept: God the Exalted does not occupy a definite location and space. Anthropomorphists reject this concept when they entirely regard the atop point as the Lord's locality. However they disagree upon secondary details. Abu Abdilah Mohammed Bin Karram resembles the Lord's being in a position to the other corporealities' being in a position. He claims the Lord can be pointed and materially demonstrated. He says "The Lord is touching the top of the Throne and able of moving transference and shifting into other locations." The Jews adopt this faith so exceedingly that they claim the Throne's creaking under the Lord. They also claim that a four finger distance from the two sides of the Throne is vacant while the Lord is sitting there. A number of anthropomorphists such as Mudar Kuhmus and Ahmed Al-Hujeimi added that believers can hang the Lord in this world as well as in the Hereafter. Some claim the Lord's being adjoining not matching the Throne. Others claim finitude of the distance between the Lord and the Throne. Others claim infinity of the distance between the Lord and the Throne. Others assert that the Lord's occupying a definite position is unlike the corporealities' occupying
positions. The disputation with the latter depends on the articulation not the purports. Comprehensiveness of wording relies upon regulations defined by the Islamic doctrine.
For proving our concept there is a number of points to be cited:
First: Anteriority of the space or the location occupied by the Lord the Exalted should be measured as same as the Lord's anteriority. Nevertheless we have previously proved the Lord's uniqueness in anteriority. This is unanimously agreed upon by the entire parties.
Second: The occupying beings are in such an exigent need for their places that their existence is grounded on these position. Places however are not in need for occupiers since vacancy is realistic. The result is occupancy of the necessary existence and necessity of the place. Both are indeed null and void.
Third: Should the Lord have occupied a definite locality He would have been either occupying certain or the entire points. Both are null since points of a locality are equally the same. For theologists place is the similar vacancy. Hence relation of the Necessary Essence to these points should be equal. Then dedicating certain points to the Lord should be reckoned with the baseless preference unless there is an extraneous attributer. The necessary existent in his occupancy will be necessitating another factor if there is an extraneous attributer. Regarding the point of the Lord's occupying the entire points of a place we provide that this requires interaction of occupants since some of the points of that place should be occupied by another corporeality. Necessarily interaction of occupants is impracticable. In addition regarding the latter this calls for the Lord's associating with dirt of the cosmos.
Fourth: Since The Lord is impossibly an accident He will be a matter if He occupies a definite place. If the Lord is a matter He will be either indivisible or divisible. Both probabilities are null. Nullity of indivisibility is proved by saying that indivisible matters are the most miniature. Allah be promoted against being miniature. Divisibility implies that the Lord should be a compound corporeality. Previously it has been proved that external composition contradicts the essential necessity. Furthermore it has been proved that corporealities are contingent. Accordingly the Necessary Existent must be contingent.
For nullifying the latter claim some provide the following discussion.
If the Necessary Existent is a corporeality each part of Him will bear knowledge competence and mortality different from these born by other parts since it is necessarily impossible for the single accident to hold two positions. Hence each part of the claimed corporeality of the Lord will independently have attributes of perfection. This leads to variety of gods.
At any rate this discussion implies that each single mankind is a variety of knowledgeable competent and mortal beings since such qualities are available in a single human being. Thence this discussion is valueless.
Another discussion maybe rendered.
The Lord will is in quiddity to other occupants if He is an occupant. This necessitates anteriority or contingency of corporealities since equal matters are concordant in affairs.
This discussion is based upon equality of corporealities or to some extent equality of occupants.
Another discussion is rendered.
The Lord resembles other corporealities in occupancy if He is an occupant. Hence it is essential for the Lord to be unlike other corporealities which leads to His being composite.
Previously we could prove imperfection of this discussion when we proved commonness and equality of accidents do not necessarily require composition.
Second concept: Allah the Exalted is not a corporeality. This concept is adopted by the right people. Some of the ignorant adhered to the faith that Allah is a corporeality. Afterwards they are engaged in discrepancies. Karramites some of them in fact claim affirming the Lord's existence by alleging His being a corporeality. Others claim that the Lord is an idiosyncratic corporeality. So we differ with the two only in ascribing a corporeality to the Lord.
Corporalists such as Muqatil Bin Suleiman and the like claim the Lord's being a realistic corporeality that is composed of flesh and blood!
Others believe in the Lord's being a light twinkling like a silvern coin and being seven arms length. Others surpass when they claim the Lord's having the same appearance of mankind. They assert His being youth beardless and hairbraided or a grayhaired old man. Allah be Exalted against sayings of the wrong.
This is nullified by the fact that the Lord will be an occupant if He is a corporeality. Previously we have provided evidences on nullity of this claim. Besides each corporeality should be compound and contingent. The Lord will enjoy qualities of corporealities if He is a corporeality. If He enjoys the entire qualities then concurrence of opposites will befall. If He enjoys some this implies the baseless preference unless there is an extraneous factor. That equality represents the Lord's Essence's relation to these qualities as a whole or His Essence's prerequisite to other factors for enjoying such qualities. By the same token if the Lord is a corporeality He must be finite. Hence He must have certain amount and form. The Lord's exclusive amount and form
should be occurred by an attributer that is out of His Essence in order that a baseless preference will not be required. This implies the Lord's necessity for other factors so that he will gain that exclusive form and amount…
0%
Author: Ali Al-Kurani Al-Amili
