Jewish philosophy -- Early works to 1800; Judaism -- Works to 1900; Philosophy, Medieval -- Early works to 1800
In like manner the Dualist might say, that it is impossible
for one Being to act alone, and that this circumstance constitutes no
imperfection in either of the Deities, because the absolute existence
of one Deity necessitates the co-existence of the other. Some of the
Mutakallemim, weary of these arguments, declared that the Unity of God
is a doctrine which must be received as a matter of faith, but most of
them rejected this theory, and reviled its authors. I, however, hold,
that those who accept this theory are right-minded, and shrink from
admitting an erroneous opinion; when they do not perceive any cogency
in the arguments, and find that the proofs advanced in favour of the
doctrine are inconclusive, they prefer to assume that it could only be
received as a matter of faith. For the Mutakallemim do not hold that
the Universe has any defined properties on which a true proof could be
founded, or that man’s intellect is endowed with any such faculty as
would enable him to form correct conclusions. It is, however, not
without a motive that they defend this theory; they wish to assume such
a form of the Universe, as could be employed to support a doctrine for
which otherwise no proof could be found, and would lead us to neglect
the investigation of that which in fact can be proved. We can only
appeal to the Almighty and to those intelligent persons who confess
their error when they discover it.
CHAPTER LXXVI
The reasonings and arguments of the Mutakallemim to demonstrate the
Incorporeality of God are very weak, and indeed inferior to their
arguments for the Unity of God. They treat the doctrine of the
Incorporeality of God as if it were the logical sequence of the theory
of His Unity, and they say that the attribute “one” cannot be applied
to a corporeal object. Those who maintain that God is incorporeal
because a corporeal object consists of substance and form—a combination
known to be impossible in the Divine Being, are not in my opinion
Mutakallemim, and such an argument is not founded on the propositions
of the Kalâm; on the contrary, it is a logical proof based on the
theory of substance and form, and on a right conception of their
properties. It has the character of a philosophical argument, and I
shall fully explain it when treating of the arguments of the
philosophers. Here we only propose to discuss the arguments by which
the Mutakallemim desire to prove the Incorporeality of God in
accordance with their propositions and the method of their reasoning.
First Argument.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account