Mutakallimīn metodologiyasini ko'rib chiqsak, u noto'g'ri metodologiya ekani va uni qo'llash imonga yoki imonning mustahkamlanishiga olib kelmasligi ravshan bo'ladi. Uni qo'llash hatto fikrlashga yoki fikrlashning mustahkamlanishiga ham olib kelmaydi. U faqat oddiy bilimga olib keladi; bilim esa imondan ham, fikrlashdan ham farq qiladi. Bu metodologiyaning xatosi bir necha jihatdan ochiq-oydin ko'rinadi:

Upon surveying the methodology of the Mutakallimīn, it becomes evident that it is an incorrect methodology and that applying it does not lead to imān or the strengthening of imān. Applying it does not even lead to thinking or to the strengthening of thinking. It only leads to mere knowledge; and knowledge is different from imān and different from thinking. The error of this methodology is obvious from several aspects:

Birinchidan: bu uslubda ular isbotni sensor asosga emas, balki mantiqiy asosga tayanadilar. Bu ikki sababga ko'ra noto'g'ri. Birinchidan, bu musulmonni Allohning mavjudligini isbotlay olishi uchun mantiq ilmini o'rganishga muhtoj qiladi, الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ; bu shuni anglatadiki, mantiq bilan tanish bo'lmaganlar o'z aqidasining to'g'riligini isbotlay olmaydilar. Bu, shuningdek, mantiq ilmi ilm al-kalom munosabatida, arab tili buzilib ketganidan keyin arab tilini o'qishga nisbatan nahv ilmi qanday bo'lsa, shunday bo'lib qolishini anglatadi, holbuki mantiq ilmi aqidaga aloqasi yo'q va isbotga ham aloqasi yo'q. Darhaqiqat, Islom paydo bo'lgan davrda musulmonlar mantiq ilmini bilmas edilar; ular xabarni yetkazdilar va mantiq ilmiga hech tayanmasdan o'z aqidalariga qat'iy dalillar keltirdilar. Bu shuni isbotlaydiki, mantiq ilmining islomiy madaniyatda o'rni yo'q va islomiy aqidaning hech qanday isbotida unga ehtiyoj yo'q. Ikkinchidan, mantiqiy asos sensor asosdan farqli o'laroq xatoga moyil bo'lib, sensor asos narsalarning mavjudligi yoki yo'qligi borasida mutlaqo xatosizdir; xatoga moyil bo'lgan narsa imon uchun asos bo'la olmaydi.

Firstly: in this methodology, they base their proof on a logical basis not on the sensory basis. This is wrong because of two reasons. Firstly that it makes the Muslim in need of learning the science of logic in order for him to be able to prove the existence of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ; this means that those who are not acquainted with logic are incapable of proving the correctness of their ‘aqīdah (creed); it also means that the science of logic becomes, in relation to ‘Ilm al-Kalām, like the science of grammatical syntax in relation to the reading of Arabic after the Arabic tongue has deteriorated, although the science of logic is irrelevant to the ‘aqīdah and is irrelevant to proof. Indeed at the advent of Islam the Muslims did not know the science of logic; they carried the message and established definitive evidence to their creeds without relying on the science of logic whatsoever. This proves that the science of logic has no presence in the Islamic culture and that there is no need for it in any proof of the Islamic ‘aqīdah. Secondly, that the logical basis is susceptible to error unlike the sensory basis, which with regard to the existence or otherwise of things is absolutely infallible; what is susceptible to error should not be a basis for imān.

Mantiq (logika) bo'rttirib ko'rsatishga moyil bo'lib, uning xulosalari noto'g'ri bo'lishi mumkin. Chunki u asosiy shart qilib, dalillarning to'g'riligi va ularning tuzilishining sog'lomligini qo'yadi, lekin u bir dalilni boshqasiga silogizm qilishdan iborat bo'lgani uchun xulosaning to'g'riligi shu dalillarning to'g'riligiga bog'liq bo'ladi. Bu dalillarning to'g'riligi kafolatlanmaydi, chunki xulosa to'g'ridan-to'g'ri sezgiga asoslanmaydi, balki dalillarni birini ikkinchisiga silogizm qilishga asoslanadi va shu sababli xulosaning to'g'riligi kafolatlanmaydi. Buning sababi shundaki, unda sodir bo'ladigan narsa dalillarning birini ikkinchisiga silogizm qilinishidir: aqlda tasavvur qilinadigan narsalar o'xshash narsalar ustiga, natijada o'sha narsa kelib chiqadi; sezgi orqali idrok etiladigan narsalar o'xshash narsalar ustiga, natijada o'sha narsa kelib chiqadi. Tasavvur qilinadigan narsalarni tasavvur qilinadigan narsalar ustiga silogizm qilish esa xatoga yo'l qo'yishga va ziddiyatli xulosalarga olib keladi, shuningdek, nazariy jihatdan va taxminan oqilona, lekin voqelikda mavjudligi jihatidan emas bo'lgan dalillar va xulosalar zanjiriga og'ib ketishga olib keladi, hatto ko'p o'sha silogizmlarda oxirgi natijalar butunlay xayoliy va bema'nilikdir. Shunday ekan, tasavvur qilinadigan narsalarni tasavvur qilinadigan narsalar ustiga silogizm qilish orqali dalil keltirish xatoga moyildir. Masalan, mantiqan aytiladi: Qur'on Allohning kalomidir الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ, u voqelikda tartiblangan va ketma-ketlikka solingan harflardan tarkib topgan, va voqelikda tartiblangan va ketma-ketlikka solingan harflardan tarkib topgan har qanday kalom hodisadir; xulosa: Qur'on hodisa va yaratilgandir. Dalillarni bunday silogizm qilish sezgilar uchun yetib bo'lmaydigan xulosaga olib keldi; shuning uchun aql uning (to'g'riligi haqida) tekshirish yoki hukm chiqarishga qodir emas. Shunday ekan, bu farazий hukm bo‘lib, haqiqiy hukm emas; bundan tashqari, bu aql muhokama qilishdan man etilgan masalalardan biridir. Chunki Allohning الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ sifatlarini muhokama qilish Uning الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ zotini muhokama qilish demakdir, Allohning الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ zoti haqida esa hech qanday shaklda muhokama qilish joiz emas. Shunga qaramay, xuddi shu mantiq orqali bunga zid xulosaga kelish mumkin. Shunday deyiladi: Qur’on Allohning الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ kalomidir va u Uning sifatlaridan biridir, Allohning الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ sifati bo‘lgan har qanday narsa esa azaliydir; xulosa: Qur’on azaliy va yaratilmagan. Shunday qilib, bir xil bir taklifning o‘zida mantiqiy ziddiyat yaqqol ko‘rinadi. Xuddi shunday, anglash mumkin bo‘lgan narsalarni anglash mumkin bo‘lgan narsalarga tatbiq etishdan kelib chiqadigan ko‘plab mantiqiy taklif­larda mantiqshunos juda ziddiyatli va g‘alati xulosalarga keladi. Hislar orqali idrok etiladigan narsalarni hislar orqali idrok etiladigan narsalarga tatbiq etishga kelsak, agar muqaddimalar hislarga borib taqalsa va xulosa ham hislarga borib taqalsa, natija to‘g‘ri bo‘ladi, chunki u muqaddimalardagi hislarga asoslangan bo‘ladi va xulosa faqat taklif­larni qiyoslashga asoslanmagan bo‘ladi. Lekin amalda haqiqatga erishishda taklif­larni qiyoslashga tayaniladi, hislar orqali kuzatish esa taklif­lar yakunlanadigan narsa bilan chegaralanib qoladi. Ba’zan taklif aniq bir haqiqatga mos deb o‘ylanadi, aslida esa u shunday emas. Shuningdek, umumiy chegaralar bilan ta’riflangan taklif faqat uning ayrim qismlariga nisbatan to‘g‘ri bo‘lishi mumkin, va bu qismlardagi haqiqat uning barcha qismlariga tegishli degan aldamchi xulosaga olib kelishi mumkin. Shuningdek, bayonda haqiqatdek ko'rinadigan narsa bo'lishi mumkin, lekin aslida u noto'g'ri bo'ladi; bu esa bayonning rostligini aldamchi tarzda ko'rsatadi. Yana shuningdek, xulosa to'g'ri bo'lishi mumkin, lekin undan chiqarilgan asoslar yolg'on bo'ladi; shunda xulosa to'g'ri bo'lgani uchun asoslar ham to'g'ri, deb o'ylash mumkin… va shu kabi. Masalan, aytilganki: Ispaniya aholisi musulmon emas, va aholisi musulmon bo'lmagan har bir yer Islom yeri emas; xulosa shuki, Ispaniya Islom yeri emas. Bu xulosa noto'g'ri. Uning xatosi ikkinchi asosning xatosidan kelib chiqadi: aholisi musulmon bo'lmagan har bir yer Islom yeri emas, degan gap yolg'ondir, chunki yer Islom yeri hisoblanadi, agar unda Islom hukmi yurgan bo'lsa yoki aholisining ko'pchiligi musulmon bo'lsa. Shu sababli xulosa noto'g'ri; Ispaniya haqiqatan ham Islom yeri hisoblanadi. Yana bir misol: aytilganki, Amerika yuqori iqtisodiy darajadagi mamlakat, va yuqori iqtisodiy darajadagi har bir mamlakat qayta tiklangan mamlakatdir. Xulosa shuki, Amerika qayta tiklangan mamlakatdir. Bu xulosa Amerika haqida to'g'ri, garchi ikki asosdan biri yolg'on bo'lsa ham: yuqori iqtisodiy darajadagi har bir mamlakat qayta tiklangan emas; qayta tiklangan mamlakat yuqori ilmiy-ma'naviy darajaga ega bo'lgan mamlakatdir. Shunday qilib, xulosasi to'g'ri bo'lgan bu qiyos, xulosa chiqarilgan asoslarning ham to'g'ri ekanligini aldamchi tarzda o'ylashga olib keladi. U shuningdek, Quvayt, Qatar va Saudiya Arabistonining har biri yuqori iqtisodiy darajaga ega bo'lgani uchun qayta tiklangan mamlakat ekanligiga olib keladi, holbuki haqiqatda bular qayta tiklangan mamlakatlar emas. Demak, barcha qiyoslarning xulosalari to'g'riligi asoslarning to'g'riligiga bog'liq. Asoslarning rostligi kafolatlanmaydi, chunki ularda kamchiliklar bo'lishi mumkin. Shuning uchun dalilni isbotlashda mantiqiy asosga tayanish xatodir. Bu shuni anglatmaydiki, mantiq orqali erishilgan haqiqatlar yolg'on yoki mantiq orqali dalilni isbotlash xato, balki dalil isbotlashda mantiqiy asosga tayanish xato va dalillarni asoslashda mantiqni asos qilib olish xatodir. Dalil va isbot uchun asos qilinishi kerak bo'lgan narsa — sezgi organlaridir. Mantiqqa kelsak, u biror gapning to'g'riligini isbotlash uchun ishlatilishi joiz, va agar barcha mukammallar to'g'ri bo'lsa hamda ular xulosa bilan birgalikda sezgilarga borib taqalsa, bu to'g'ri bo'lardi. Xulosaning to'g'riligi uning mukammallardan kelib chiqishidan kelib chiqadi, boshqa biror narsadan emas. Ammo uning xato bo'lishga moyilligi sababli, uni dalilni isbotlashda asos qilib olish shart emas, chunki u butunligicha xatoga moyil, noaniq asosdir, garchi uning ba'zi shakllari orqali isbot qat'iy bo'lishi mumkin. Dalil sifatida sezgi organlari asos qilinishi kerak, chunki u butunligicha narsalarning mavjudligi yoki yo'qligi haqida aniq asosdir va u xatoga butunlay yo'l qo'ymaydi.

Ikkinchidan: mutakallimlar sezgi orqali bilib bo'ladigan narsadan chiqib ketdilar; ular sezgi orqali bilib bo'lmaydigan narsaga o'tdilar va g'ayb ishlarini tekshirdilar: Allohning zoti الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ va sifatlarini, sezgilar idrok eta olmaydigan narsalarni o'rgandilar hamda buni sezgi orqali bilib bo'ladigan narsalarga oid masalalarni tekshirish bilan bog'ladilar. Ular g'aybni zohir bilan qiyos qilishda haddan oshdilar, ya'ni Allohning الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ insonga qiyos qilindi, shu sababli ular ...

Secondly: the Mutakallimīn departed from the sensorially accessible; they went beyond it to the sensorially inaccessible, and inquired into the supernatural: the essence of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ and His attributes, into that which the senses cannot perceive, and they connected this with inquiries into matters related to the sensorially accessible. They went into excess in drawing analogy of the unseen with the apparent, that is, drawing analogy of Allahالله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ with man, so they necessitated The Islamic Personality Vol.1 37

insoniyat tomonidan bu dunyoviy hayotda tasavvur qilinadigan adolat, Allohga nisbatan. Ular Alloh سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ o'sha ishni qilishi zarur deb hisobladilar, unda foyda bor. Ularning ba'zilari hatto Alloh سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ eng yaxshisini qilishini zaruriy deb bilishdi, chunki (ularning fikricha) Alloh سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ hikmat egasidir va U سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ biror ish faqat maqsad yoki hikmat uchun qilmaydi; maqsadsiz ish behuda va foydasizdir; donishmand zot o'zini yoki boshqalarni foydalantiradi, Alloh سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ esa foydalanishdan ancha yuksak bo'lgani uchun, U faqat boshqalarga foyda keltirish uchun ish qiladi.

justice, as envisaged by man in this worldly life, upon Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ. They deemed it necessary that Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ do that in which there is betterment. Some of them even necessitated upon Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ that he do that which is the best, because (according to them) Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ is Wise and He الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ does not do anything except for a purpose or a wisdom; an action without a purpose is meaningless and futile; a wise (being) either benefits himself or others, and since Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ is too sublime to be benefited, He الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ only acts to benefit others.

Shunday qilib, ular hislar bilan idrok etib bo'lmaydigan narsalar va aql hukm chiqara olmaydigan masalalar ustida fikr yuritishga haddan oshib ketdilar va shu tariqa adashdilar. Ular hislar bilan idrok etiladigan narsa tushunarli ekanini, Allohning zoti esa tushunib bo'lmas ekanini, shuning uchun birini ikkinchisiga qiyos qilish mumkin emasligini e'tiborga olmadilar. Ular Allohning adolati inson adolatiga o'xshamasligini va bu dunyo qonunlarini, bu dunyoning Yaratuvchisi va o'zi belgilagan qonunlar asosida uni boshqaruvchi Allohga tatbiq etish noto'g'ri ekanini e'tiborsiz qoldirdilar. Biz ko'ramizki, insonning nuqtai nazari tor bo'lib, u narsalarni ma'lum bir tarzda tushunadi va nuqtai nazari kengayganda uning adolat haqidagi tasavvuri ham, hukmi ham o'zgaradi. Unday bo'lsa, ilmi hamma narsani o'z ichiga olgan, olamlarning Rabbi Alloh سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ ni biz o'zimiz adolat deb biladigan ma'noda Uning adolatiga qiyos qilish qanday bo'lishi mumkin? Yaxshilik va eng yaxshi narsaga kelsak, u ularning adolat haqidagi qarashlariga bog'liqdir; ular bu haqda adolat haqida aytganlarini aytadilar. Bu borada kuzatiladiki, inson ma'lum bir narsani yaxshi deb ko'rishi mumkin, ammo uning nuqtai nazari kengayganda uning qarashi o'zgaradi. Masalan, bugungi kunda musulmonlar dunyosi Islom hukmronligidan voz kechib, dor al-kufrga aylangan; shuning uchun barcha musulmonlar uni buzuq dunyo deb biladi va ularning aksariyati uni islohotga muhtoj deb aytadi. Lekin xabardorlar islohot degani mavjud holatdan buzuqlikni yo'qotish ekanini ko'radilar, bu esa xato: musulmonlar dunyosi kufr hukmronligini yo'q qiladigan va Islom hukmronligini joriy etadigan tub va keng qamrovli o'zgarishga muhtoj; har qanday (oddiy) islohot buzuqlikning davom etishini o'z ichiga oladi. Shunday qilib, insonning yaxshilikka bo'lgan qarashi qanday o'zgarishi ko'rinib turadi. Biz Allohning hukmini inson hukmiga bo‘ysundirib, Uning uchun yaxshi yoki afzal deb bizning ko‘rganimizni qilishni zarur deb hisoblashimiz qanday bo‘ladi? Agar aql-idrokimizni hakam qilib olsak, Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ aqlimiz hech qanday yaxshilikni ko‘rmaydigan ishlarni qilganini ko‘ramiz. Masalan, Iblisni va shayotinlarni yaratib, ularga insonni adashtirish qobiliyatini berishda qanday yaxshilik bor? Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ nega Iblisga Qiyomat kunigacha muhlat berdi va nega bizning Ustozimiz Muhammad ﷺ vafot etishiga yo‘l qo‘ydi? Bularning hammasi odamlar uchun yaxshiroqmi? Nega U الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ Yer yuzidan Islom hukmronligining yo‘qolishiga ruxsat beradi, kufr hukmronligining ustun kelishiga imkon yaratadi, musulmonlarni xo‘rlaydi va ularning kofir dushmanlarining ustunligiga imkon beradi? Bu Uning الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ bandalari uchun yaxshiroqmi? Agar biz minglab amallarni sanab chiqib, ularni aqlimiz va yaxshilik hamda afzallik ma’nosini tushunishimiz bilan baholasak, ularning birortasini ham yaxshi deb topmagan bo‘lardik. Shuning uchun Allohni insonga qiyoslash to‘g‘ri emas va Allohning zimmasida hech narsa vojib emas:

Thus they overstepped into discussions of the sensorially inaccessible and of issues which the intellect is incapable of judging, and so they blundered. They missed the point that the sensorially accessible is comprehensible and that the essence of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ is incomprehensible, so it is not possible to draw analogy of one upon the other. They were inattentive to the fact that the Justice of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ is incomparable to the justice of man, and that it is invalid to apply the laws of this world to Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ, who is the Creator of this world and the one who regulates it according the laws he set for it. When we do see that the perspective of man is narrow, he understands matters in a given way and that once his perspective widens, his view of justice changes and his judgement changes as well; how then do we compare (to ourselves) the lord of the worlds الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ whose knowledge encompasses everything and give His الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ justice the meaning of justice that we ourselves see to be justice? As for betterment and that which is best, it is linked to their view of justice; they say about it what they say about justice. It is observed in this regard that man can view a given thing as good, but once his perspective widens his view changes. For example, the Muslim world today is dar al-kufr having abandoned the rule of Islam; so all Muslims view it as a corrupt world and most of them say that it is in need of reform. But the aware see that reform means the removal of corruption from the status quo, and this is erroneous: the Muslim world is in need of a radical and comprehensive change that removes the rule of kufr and implements the rule of Islam; any (mere) reform includes the prolongation of corruption. Thus it is seen how the view of man changes towards what is good. How do we then subject Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ to the judgement of man and deem it necessary for Him الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ to do what we see as good or better? If we made our mind the judge, we would see that Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ did things which our minds see no good whatsoever in; what good is there, for example, in the creation of Iblīs and the shayātīn and giving them the ability to misguide man; why did Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰgive Iblīs respite until the Day of Judgement and let our Master Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم die? Is all this better for people? Why does he الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ allow removal of the rule of Islam from the Earth and enable the dominance of the rule of kufr, humiliate the Muslims and enable the dominance of their kafir enemies? Is this better for His الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ servants? If we proceeded in the enumeration of thousands of acts and judged them by our mind and our understanding of the meaning of good and better, we would not find them good. Therefore the comparison of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ to man is not correct, and nothing is incumbent upon Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ:

Darhaqiqat, mutakallimlarni bunga tushib qolishga olib kelgan narsa ularning tadqiqot uslubi va Allohni insonga o'xshatishlaridir (Allohga ular kabi nisbat berishlari, aslida Allohning Zoti ulug' bo'lsin, Uning Zoti va sifatlari uchun va Uning ulug'ligi uchun).

Indeed, what made the Mutakallimīn slip into all this is their methodology of inquiry and their comparing Allahالله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ to man.

Uchinchidan: Mutakallimlar metodologiyasi aql-idrokka barcha narsa haqida, sezgi orqali idrok etiladigan va sezgi orqali idrok etilmaydigan narsalar haqida tadqiq qilish erkinligini beradi. Bu muqarrar ravishda aql-idrokning o'zi hukm qila olmaydigan masalalarni tekshirishiga, taxmin va tasavvurlarni o'rganishiga hamda mavjud bo'lishi yoki bo'lmasligi mumkin bo'lgan narsalarning oddiy tasavvurlarini qo'llab-quvvatlash uchun dalil topishiga olib keladi. Bu esa aniq mavjud bo'lgan narsalarni rad etish imkoniyatini yaratadi: biz uchun axborotining haqiqati qat'iy bo'lgan, lekin aql-idrok tushunmaydigan manbadan xabar berilgan narsalarni. Shuningdek, u aql tomonidan o'ylab topilgan, hech qanday mavjudligi bo'lmagan xayoliy narsalarga iymon keltirish imkoniyatini ham beradi. Masalan, Mutakallimlar Alloh الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ ning zoti va sifatlari haqida bahs yuritdilar: ba'zilari sifat va sifat egasi bir-biriga aynan teng deb, boshqalari esa sifat sifat egasidan boshqadir deb aytdilar. Ular Alloh الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ ning ilmi ma'lumning o'zi qanday bo'lsa, shundayligicha ochilib namoyon bo'lishidir, ma'lum esa bir vaqtdan ikkinchi vaqtga o'zgaradi, masalan, daraxtning bargi tushmagan bo'lsa-yu, keyin tushadi, deb aytdilar. Holbuki, Alloh الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ shunday demoqda:

Thirdly: The methodology of the Mutakallimīn gives the intellect the freedom of inquiry into every thing, into the sensorially accessible and the sensorially inaccessible. This inevitably results in the intellect inquiring into matters that it is incapable of judging, and inquiring into suppositions and imaginations, and establishing evidence to support mere conceptions of things that may exist or may not exist. This allows for the possibility of the rejection of things which 38 The Error in the Methodology of the Mutakallimīn definitely exist: things of which we were informed by a (source) the truth of whose information is definite for us but the intellect does not comprehend them. It also allows for the possibility of having imān in fantasties having no existence, which have been conjured up by the mind. For example, the Mutakallimīn discussed the essence of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ and his attributes: some of them said that an attribute is one and the same as the attribute carrier; others said that the attribute is other than the attribute carrier. They said that the knowledge of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ is the unfolding of the Known as it is, and the known changes from one time to another: the leaf of a tree falls after not having fallen, and Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ says,

Allohning ilmi bilan narsa o'z holicha ro'y beradi; shunday ekan, Alloh سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ narsa bo'lishidan oldin uning bo'lishini biladi, narsa bo'lganda uning bo'lganini biladi va narsa yo'q bo'lganda uning yo'qligini biladi. Unda narsalar o'zgarishi bilan Allohning ilmi qanday o'zgaradi? Yangi narsalarning o'zgarishi bilan o'zgaradigan ilm yangi ilmdir, yangi narsa esa Allohda bo'lmaydi, chunki yangilik bilan bog'liq bo'lgan narsaning o'zi yangidir. Mutakallimlardan boshqalari bunga shunday javob berdilar: Zayd bizning oldimizga keladi, degan ilmimiz bilan u haqiqatan kelganini bilishimiz bir-biridan boshqa ekanligi o'z-o'zidan ayon. Bu farq ilmning yangilanishidan kelib chiqadi. Lekin bu insonga taalluqlidir, chunki ilmi yangilanadigan kishi insondir, sababi uning ilm manbai, ya'ni sezgi va idrok yangilanadi. Allohda esa kelajakda bo'ladigan belgilangan narsa, sodir bo'lgan voqe'lik, amalga oshgan ish va bo'ladigan bashorat o'rtasida hech qanday farq yo'q. Darhaqiqat, Uning haqidagi ma'lumot bir holatdadir. Mutakallimlardan boshqa biri javob berdi: Alloh سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ o'tgan va bo'ladigan barcha narsani o'z-o'zidan biladi, barcha ma'lumot Unga bir xil ilm sifatida ma'lumdir, bo'ladigan va bo'lgan narsa o'rtasidagi farq narsalarning o'zgarishidan kelib chiqadi, Allohning ilmida emas. Bu butun bahs sezgi bilan erishib bo'lmaydigan masalalar haqida bo'lib, aql ularga hukm qila olmaydi; shuning uchun aqlga ularni tekshirish joiz emas. Ammo ular bu masalalarni muhokama qilib, har narsani tekshirishga aqlga erkinlik beradigan o'z uslublariga muvofiq shu xulosalarga keldilar. Ular turli narsalarni tasavvur qilib, ularni muhokama qildilar. Masalan, ular Allohning irodasi (Allohning irodasi) bandaning (insonning) harakati bilan bog‘liq deb tasavvur qildilar: banda harakatni istagan vaqtda, ya’ni Alloh subhanahu va ta’ala banda qodir va xohlagan paytda harakatni yaratadi, bandaning qudrati va irodasi bilan emas.

With the knowledge of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ a thing unfolds as it is; thus Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ knows that a thing will be before it is and He الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ knows that a thing was when it was and He الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ knows that a thing no longer is when it no longer is. So how does the knowledge of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ change with the change in things? The knowledge that changes with the change of recent things is a recent knowledge and a recent thing does not lie in Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ because that with which the recent is associated is itself recent. Others amongst the Mutakallimin replied to this by saying: it is self-evident that our knowledge that Zayd will come to us is other than our knowledge that he has indeed come; this distinction is due to the renewal of the knowledge; but this is applicable to man because it is he whose knowledge is renewed because the source of his knowledge, sensation and comprehension, is renewed. But with Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ there is no distinction between something destined that will be, a realised thing that was, an accomplished thing that occurred and a predicted thing that will occur. Indeed, information with regards to Him الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ is of one state. Other Mutakallimin replied: Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ inherently knows all that was and that will be, all information is known by him as the same knowledge, and the difference between what will be and what will stem from the change in things not in the knowledge of Allahالله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ. All this discussion deals with matters that are sensorially inaccessible, and upon which the intellect cannot judge; so it is not allowed for the intellect to inquire into them. But they discussed them and reached these conclusions in line with their methodology that gives the intellect the freedom to inquire into everything. They imagined things and discussed them. For example, they conceived that the Will of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ is associated with the action of the servant (man), when the servant willed the action, that is, Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ created the action when the servant was capable and willing, not with the servant’s capability and will.