those thirteen characteristics, although [Moses] apprehended all His good¬ ness — I mean to say all His actions — because these are the actions proceeding from Him, may He be exalted, in respect of giving existence to the Adamites10 and governing them. This was [Moses’] ultimate object in his demand, the conclusion of what he says being: That I may know Thee, to the end that I may find grace in Thy sight and consider that this nation is Thy people11 — that is, a people for the government of which I need to perform actions that I must seek to make similar to Thy actions in governing them.
It thus has become clear to you that the ways and the characteristics are identical. They are the actions proceeding from God, may He be exalted, in reference to the world. Accordingly, whenever one of His actions is apprehended, the attribute from which this action proceeds is predicated of Him, may He be exalted, and the name deriving from that action is applied to Him. For instance, one apprehends the kindness12 of His governance in the production of the embryos of living beings, the bringing of various faculties to existence in them and in those who rear them after birth — faculties that preserve them from destruction and annihilation and protect them against harm and are useful to them in all the doings that are necessary to them. Now actions of this kind proceed from us only after we feel a certain affection and compassion, and this is the meaning of mercy. God, may He be exalted, is said to be merciful, just as it is said, Like as a father is merciful to his children,13 and it says, And I will pity them, as a man pitieth his own son}* It is not that He, may He be exalted, is affected and has compassion. But an action similar to that which proceeds from a father in respect to his child and that is attached to com¬ passion, pity, and an absolute passion, proceeds from Him, may He be exalted, in reference to His holy ones, not because of | a passion or a change. And just as when we give a thing to somebody who has no claim upon us, this is called grace in our language — as it says: Grant them graciously 15 — [so is the term applied to Him:] Whom God hath graciously given ^ 6 Because God hath dealt graciously with me}1 Such instances are frequent. For He, may He be exalted, brings into existence and governs beings that have no claim upon Him with respect to being brought into existence and being governed. For this reason He is called gracious.
12. Literally: when the kindness...In the Arabic text the sentence continues until “merciful” or even farther.
17. Gen. 33:11.
126 The Guide of the Perplexed 1-54 [ 66a Similarly we find among His actions that proceed with regard to the Adamites great calamities overtaking certain individuals and destroying them, or some universal event18 annihilating whole tribes or even an entire region,19 exterminating the children and the children of the chil¬ dren, leaving in existence neither the products of the soil nor the offspring of living beings — for instance, submergence of land, earthquakes, des¬ tructive storms, military expeditions of one people against others in order to exterminate the latter by the sword and to efface all traces of them. Many of these actions would proceed from one of us in reference to another only because of a violent anger or a great hatred or a desire for vengeance. With reference to these actions He is called jealous and avenging and keeping anger and wrathful,20 meaning that actions similar to those that proceed from us from a certain aptitude of the soul — namely, jealousy, holding fast to vengeance, hatred, or anger — proceed from Him, may He be exalted, because of the deserts of those who are punished, and not because of any passion whatever, may He be exalted above every deficiency. Similarly all [His] actions are such as resemble the actions proceeding from the Adamites on account of passions and aptitudes of the soul, but they by no means proceed from Him, may He be exalted, on account of a notion superadded to His essence. It behooves the governor of a city, if he is a prophet, to acquire similarity to these attributes, so that these actions may proceed from him according to a determined measure and according to the deserts of the people who are affected by them and not merely because of his following a passion. He should not let loose the reins of anger nor let | passion gain mastery over him, for all passions are evil; but, on the con¬ trary, he should guard against them as far as this lies within the capacity of man. Sometimes, with regard to some people, he should be merciful and gracious, not out of mere compassion and pity, but in accordance with what is fitting. Sometimes, with regard to some people, he should be keeping anger and jealous and avenging in accordance with their deserts, not out of mere anger; so he may order an individual to be burned without being angry and incensed with him and without hating him, because he per¬ ceives the deserts of that individual and considers the great benefit that many people will derive from the accomplishment of the action in question. Do you not see in the texts of the Torah, when it commanded the exter¬ mination of the seven nations and said thou shall save alive nothing that 18. Literally: matter.
19. Or: an entire climate. I.e., one of the seven climates into which the earth was divided.
20. Cf. Nah. 1:2.
666] The Guide of the Perplexed I • 54 727 breatheth,21 that it immediately follows this by saying: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods and so ye sin against the Lord your God?22 Thus it says: do not think that this is hard-heartedness or desire for vengeance. It is rather an act required by human opinion, which considers that everyone who deviates from the ways of truth23 should be put an end to and that all the obstacles impeding the achievement of the perfection that is the apprehension of Him, may He be exalted, should be interdicted. In spite of all this, it behooves that acts of mercy, forgiveness, pity, and commiseration should proceed from the governor of a city to a much greater extent than acts of retaliation. For the thirteen characteristics are all of them, with one exception, characteristics of mercy — the exception being: visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children 2* For it says: And that will by no means clear the guilty 25 The meaning is: and He will not utterly destroy — an interpretation deriving from the words: And utterly destroyed, she shall sit upon the ground.26 Know that his speech — visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children — only applies to the sin of idolatry in particular and not to any other sin. A proof of this is His saying | in the ten commandments: unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me 27 For only an idolater is called hater: for every abomination to the Lord, which He hateth.2S He restricts Himself to the fourth generation only because the utmost of what man can see of his offspring is the fourth generation. Accordingly, when the people of an idolatrous city are killed, this means that an idolatrous old man and the offspring of the offspring of his offspring — that, is, the child of the fourth generation — are killed. Accordingly Scripture, as it were, predicated of Him that His commandments, may He be exalted, which undoubtedly are com¬ prised in His actions, comprise the commandment to kill the offspring of idolaters, even if they are little children, together with the multitude29 of their fathers and grandfathers. We find this commandment continuously in the Torah in all passages. Thus he commands with regard to the city that has been led astray to idolatry: Destroy it utterly and all that is therein 30 — all this being done with a view to blotting out traces that bring about necessarily great corruption, as we have made clear.
We have gone beyond the subject of this chapter; however, we have made clear why Scripture, in enumerating His actions, has confined itself 21. Deut. 20:16. 22. Deut. 20:18. 23, al-haqq. The word may also mean “God.”
24. Exod. 34:7. 25. Exod. 34:7. 26. Isa. 3:26. 27. Exod. 20:5. 28. Deut. 12:31. 29. ft ghumar or fi ghimar. The latter reading may also have the meaning “in the calamity.”
50. Deut. 13:16.
128 The Guide of the Perplexed 1-55 [ 67a here to those mentioned above, and that those actions are needed for the governance of cities. For the utmost virtue of man is to become like unto Him, may He be exalted, as far as he is able $ which means that we should make our actions like unto His, as the Sages made clear when interpreting the verse, Ye shall be holy}1 They said: He is gracious, so be you also gracious; He is merciful, so be you also merciful}2 The purpose of all this is to show that the attributes ascribed to Him are attributes of His actions and that they do not mean that He possesses qualities.33 CHAPTER 55 It has already been said before in a number of passages of this Treatise that | anything that entails corporeality ought of necessity to be negated in reference to Him and that all affections likewise should be negated in reference to Him. For all affections entail change, and moreover the agent who effects those affections is undoubtedly not identical with him who is acted upon [or affected]. Accordingly if He, may He be exalted, were subject to affection in any respect whatever, someone other than He would act upon Him and effect change in Him. Likewise all privation ought of neces¬ sity to be negated in reference to Him $ it should be negated that He some¬ times lacks a certain perfection, while that at other times it exists in Him. For if this should be supposed, He would be only potentially perfect. Now privation is necessarily attached to all potentiality, and everything that passes from potentiality to actuality cannot but require some other thing existing in actuality that causes the former to pass to actuality. For this reason, all His perfections must exist in actuality, and nothing may belong to Him that exists potentially in any respect whatever. One must likewise of necessity deny, with reference to Him, His being similar to any existing thing. Everyone has already been aware of this $ clear statements are made in the books of the prophets negating the conception that He is like any thing. He says: To whom then will ye liken Me, that I should be equal?1 He says: To whom then will ye liken God? Or what likeness will ye compare unto Him?2 He says: There is none like unto Thee, O Lord} This occurs frequently. The basis of the matter is that anything that leads to one of 31. Lev. 19:2. 32. Siphre to Deut. 10:12. 33. Literally: quality.
6 yb ] The Guide of the Perplexed I • 55 129 these four kinds of attributions ought of necessity to be negated in reference to Him by means of a clear demonstration; namely, anything that leads to attributing to Him corporeality, or that leads to attributing to Him affection and change, or that leads to attributing to Him, for example, a statement that He has not something in actuality and thereafter this occurs to Him in actuality, or that leads to attributing to Him a likeness to a thing among His creatures.
These are some of the useful teachings of natural science with regard to the knowledge of the deity. For he who has no knowledge of these sciences is not aware of the deficiency inherent in affections, and does not understand the meaning | of what is potential and of what is in actuality, and does not know that privation attaches necessarily to everything poten¬ tial and that what is potential is more deficient than that which is in motion — because in the latter case potentiality is passing into actuality — while that which is in motion is in its turn deficient in comparison4 to that for the sake of which it moves until it achieves actuality. And even if such a one5 knows these things, he does not know them through their demonstrations. Accordingly he does not know the particular corollaries following neces¬ sarily from these universal primary propositions. For this reason he does not have at his disposal a demonstration of the existence of God or one of the necessity6 of negating these kinds of attributions in reference to Him.
Having made this introduction, I will start upon another chapter in which I will make clear the absurdity of what is thought by those who believe that He has essential attributes. But that can be understood only by someone who already possesses knowledge of the art of logic and of the nature of being.
4. Literally: in its relation.
5. One who has not studied science.
6. luzum. The word means here logical or scientific necessity.
CHAPTER 56 Know that likeness is a certain relation between two things and that in cases where no relation can be supposed to exist between two things, no likeness between them can be represented to oneself. Similarly in all cases in which there is no likeness between two things, there is no relation between them. An example of this is that one does not say that this heat is like this color, or that this voice is like this sweetness. This is a matter that is clear in itself. Accordingly, in view of the fact that the rela¬ tion between us and Him, may He be exalted, is considered as nonexistent — I mean the relation between Him and that which is other than He — it follows necessarily that likeness between Him and us should also be con¬ sidered nonexistent.
Know also that any two things that fall under the same species1 — I mean to say thereby that their essences [ are the same — even if these things differ in regard to bigness and smallness or strength and feebleness or in other similar ways, are all of them necessarily alike even if they differ in this kind of way. An example of this is that a mustard grain and the sphere of the fixed stars are alike in having three dimensions 3 even though the latter is exceedingly big and the former exceedingly small, the notion of the existence of the dimensions in both of them is the same. Similarly wax melted in sunshine and the element of fire are alike in respect to heat; even though this heat is very intense in the latter and very feeble in the former, the notion of the appearance of this quality in both of them is the same.
Similarly it behooves those who believe that there are essential attri¬ butes that may be predicated of the Creator — namely, that He is existent, living, possessing power, knowing, and willing— to understand that these notions are not ascribed to Him and to us in the same sense. According to what they think, the difference between these attributes and ours lies in the former being greater, more perfect, more permanent, or more durable than ours, so that His existence is more durable than our existence, His life more permanent than our life, His power greater than our power, His knowledge more perfect than our knowledge, and His will more universal than our will. In this way both notions2 would be, as they think, included in the same definition. However, the matter is not so in any respect. For the comparative is used only with regard to things in reference to which the 1. The word nauf (species) seems to be used here in a rather loose sense.
2. That of a divine attribute and that of a human one designated by the same term.
notion in question is used univocally. And if this is so, there is necessarily a likeness between the things in question. According to the opinion of those who consider that there are essential attributes, His | essential attributes, may He be exalted, in the existence of which they believe, must not be like the attributes of other beings and must not be comprised in the same definition, just as His essence, may He be exalted, is necessarily not like other essences. However, they do not act upon this opinion. Rather do they think that the divine and human attributes are comprised in the same definition, however clear it is to all those who understand the meaning of being alike that the term “existent” is predicated of Him, may He be exalted, and of everything that is other than He, in a purely equivocal sense. Similarly the terms “knowledge,” “power,” “will,” and “life,” as applied to Him, may He be exalted, and to all those possessing knowledge, power, will, and life, are purely equivocal, so that their meaning when they are predicated of Him is in no way like their meaning in other applications. Do not deem that they are used amphibolously. For when terms are used amphibolously they are predicated of two things between which there is a likeness in respect to some notion, which notion is an accident attached to both of them and not a constituent element of the essence of each one of them. Now the things attributed to Him, may He be exalted, are not accidents in the opinion of anyone among the men engaged in speculation, while, on the other hand, all the attributes belonging to us are accidents according to the opinion of the Mutakallimun. Would that I knew accord¬ ingly whence the likeness could come so that the divine and the human attributes could be comprised in the same definition and be used in a uni¬ vocal sense, as these people believe.
Accordingly this is a cogent demonstration that the meaning of the qualificative attributions ascribed to Him and the meaning of the attribu¬ tions known to us have nothing in common in any respect or in any mode; these attributions have in common only the name and nothing else. This being so, you must not believe that there exist in Him notions superadded to His essence that are like the attributes that are superadded to our essence, because the name is common. The conception is of immense sublimity according to those who know. Keep it in memory and realize its true mean¬ ing so that it be ready to hand with a view to what we wish to make you understand. | CHAPTER 57 On the attributes} more obscure than what preceded. It is known that existence is an accident attaching to what exists. For this reason it is something that is superadded to the quiddity of what exists. This is clear and necessary with regard to everything the existence of which has a cause. Hence its existence is something that is superadded to its quiddity.
As for that which has no cause for its existence, there is only God, may He be magnified and glorified, who is like that. For this is the meaning of our saying about Him, may He be exalted, that His existence is necessary. Accordingly, His existence is identical with His essence and His true reality, and His essence is His existence. Thus His essence does not have an accident attaching to it when it exists, in which case its existence would be a notion that is superadded to it. For His existence is necessary always; it is not something that may come suddenly to Him nor an accident that may attain Him. Consequently He exists, but not through an existence other than His essence; and similarly He lives, but not through life;1 He is powerful, but not through power;2 He knows, but not through knowledge.3 For all these attributes refer back to one notion in which there is no idea of multiplicity, as will be made clear.
It is likewise necessary to know that oneness and multiplicity are accidents that attain an existent thing with regard to its being many or one. This is made clear in the “Metaphysics.” Oneness is not identical with the thing that becomes one, just as number is not identical with the things that are numbered. For all these things4 are accidents belonging to the genus “discrete quantity,” which is attached to the existent things that have the disposition to receive accidents of this kind.
Now to ascribe to Him — whose existence is necessary, who is truly simple, to whom composition cannot attach in any way — the accident of oneness is just as absurd as to ascribe to Him the accident of multiplicity. | I mean to say that oneness is not a notion that is superadded to His essence, but that He is one not through oneness.
These subtle notions that very clearly elude the minds cannot be con¬ sidered through the instrumentality of the customary words, which are the greatest among the causes leading unto error. For the bounds of expression in all languages are very narrow indeed, so that we cannot represent this l. Other than His essence. 2, Other than His essence. 3. Other than His essence. 4. I.e., Oneness, number, etc.
70 a ] The Guide of the Perplexed I • 57 ijj notion to ourselves except through a certain looseness of expression. Thus when we wish to indicate that the deity is not many, the one who makes the statement cannot say anything but that He is one, even though “one” and “many” are some of the subdivisions of quantity. For this reason, we give the gist of the notion and give the mind the correct direction toward the true reality of the matter when we say, one but not through oneness, just as we say eternal in order to indicate that He has not come into being in time. For when we say eternal, we speak loosely, as is clear and manifest, since eternal can only be predicated of a thing to which time attaches. Now time is an accident of motion that is attached to a body. And eternal is like¬ wise something correlated. For your saying eternal is said with reference to the accident of time, similar to your saying long and short with reference to that other accident, the line. For with regard to all the things to which the accident time is not attached, it cannot be truly predicated that they are eternal or that they come into being in time — just as it cannot be predi¬ cated of sweetness that it is either crooked or straight, and just as it cannot be predicated of sound that it is either salty or insipid. These things are not hidden from one who is trained to understand notions according to their true reality and has considered them with the apprehension that the intellect has of them and in the manner the latter has of stripping them [of accidents and matter], that is, has considered them not merely in the summary fashion of which words are indicative.
All passages that you find in the Scriptures5 in which it is predicated of Him, may He be exalted, that He is the First and the Last 6 are analogous to those in which it is predicated of Him that He has an eye or an ear. The purpose of this is to indicate that He, may He be exalted, | is not subject to change and that no notion is produced in Him anew. It is not meant to indicate that God, may He be exalted, falls under time, so that there would be some analogy between Him and that which is other than He and is in time, so that He would be the First and the Last. All these words as applied to Him are according to the language of the sons of man. Similarly when we say one, the meaning is that He has no equal and not that the notion of oneness attaches to His essence.
5. Literally: books. 6. Cf., e.g., Isa. 44:6.
CHAPTER 58 More obscure than what preceded. Know that the description of God, may He be cherished and exalted, by means of negations is the correct description — a description that is not affected by an indulgence in facile language and does not imply any deficiency with respect to God in general or in any particular mode. On the other hand, if one describes Him by means of affirmations, one implies, as we have made clear, that He is associated with that which is not He and implies a deficiency in Him. I must make it clear to you in the first place how negations are in a certain respect attributes and how they differ from the affirmative attributes. After that I shall make it clear to you that we have no way of describing Him unless it be through negations and not otherwise.
I shall say accordingly that an attribute does not particularize any object of which it is predicated in such a way that it is not associated by virtue of that particular attribute with other things. On the contrary, the attribute is sometimes attributed to the object of which it is predicated in spite of the fact that the latter has it in common with other things and is not particularized through it. For instance, if you would see a man at some distance and if you would ask: What is this thing that is seen? and were told: This is a living being — this affirmation would indubitably be an attri¬ bute predicated of the thing seen though it does not particularize the latter, distinguishing it from everything else. However, a certain particularization is achieved through it; namely, it may be learnt from it that the thing seen is not a body belonging to | the species1 of plants or to that of the minerals. Similarly if there were a man in this house and you knew that some body is in it without knowing what it 3s and would ask, saying: What is in this house? and the one who answered you would say: There is no mineral in it and no body of a plant — a certain particularization would be