Sharhul Aqaid
Author : Sa'ad al-Din Masud ibn Umar ibn Abd Allah al-Taftazani
Translated to English by : Muhammad Sajeer Bukhari
The Affirmation of Realities and the Refutation of Sophistry
والعلم بها متحقق خلافا للسوفسطائية
(والعلم بها) أى بالحقائق من تصوراتها والتصديق بها وبأحوالها (متحقق ) وقيل: المراد العلم بثبوتها للقطع بأنه لا علم بجميع الحقائق. والجواب: ان المراد الجنس، ردا على القائلين بأنه لا ثبوت لشيء من الحقائق، ولا علم بثبوت حقيقة ولا بعدم ثبوتها
(And knowledge of it), meaning knowledge of realities of things from their concepts and verification of them and their conditions (is realized). It has also been said that what is meant is knowledge of their existence, since there is no knowledge of all realities. The response is that what is meant is the genus, countering those who claim that nothing of the realities is established, and there is no knowledge of the establishment or non-establishment of any reality.
Contradicting the Sophists
(خلافا للسوفسطائية) فان منهم من ينكر حقائق الأشياء، ويزعم أنها أوهام وخيالات باطلة وهم العنادية، ومنهم من ينكر ثبوتها. ويزعم أنها تابعة للاعتقادات، حتى ان اعتقدنا الشيء جوهرا فجوهر، أو عرضا فعرض، أو قديما فقديم، أو حادثا فحادث وهم العندية. ومنهم من ينكر العلم بثبوت شيء ولا ثبوته. ويزعم انه شاك. وشاك فى أنه شاك وهلم جرا. وهم اللاأدريِة.
(Contrary to the Sophists) For some of them deny the realities of all things, claiming that they are mere illusions and false imaginations; these are the Intransigents (al-'Inadiyah). There are also those who deny the (objective) existence of these realities, asserting that they are dependent on (subjective) beliefs. For instance, if we believe something to be a substance, it is a substance; or if we believe it to be an accident, it is an accident; or if we believe it to be eternal, it is eternal; or if we believe it to be transient, it is transient; these are the Subjectivists / Relativists (al-'Indiyah). Additionally, there are those who deny the knowledge of the existence or non-existence of anything, claiming that they are skeptical, and skeptical about their own skepticism, and so on ad infinitum - These are the Agnostics (al-Lā'adrīyah).
Proof and Verification of Reality
لنا تحقيقا: أنا نجزم بالضرورة بثبوت بعض الأشياء بالعيان، وبعضها بالبيان. والزاما: أنه ان لم يتحقق نفى الأشياء، فقد ثبتت، وان تحقق، فالنفى حقيقة من الحقائق، لكونه نوعا من الحكم، فقد ثبت شيء من الحقائق، فلم يصح نفيها على الاطلاق.
We have (proof) as verification: We necessarily affirm the existence of some things through direct perception, and others through assertion. And necessarily: if the negation of something is not affirmed, then it is established. And if it is affirmed, then the negation becomes a reality among realities, as it is a type of judgment. Therefore, its absolute negation cannot be valid.
Addressing Objections of the Sophistry
ولا يخفى أنه انما يتم على العنادية. قالوا: الضروريات منها حسيات، والحس قد يغلط كثيرا، كالأحول يرى الواحد اثنين، والصفراوى يجد الحلو مرا. ومنها بديهيات. وقد يقع فيها اختلافات. وتعرض شبه يفتقر فى حلها الى أنظار دقيقة. والنظريات فرع الضروريات. ففسادها فسادها. ولهذا كثر فيها اختلاف العقلاء
And it is not obscure that this response applies only to the Intransigents (al-‘Inadiyah). They argue that necessaries (aḍ-ḍarūrīyāt) are either sensory perceptions (ḥissīyāt), and the senses can often make mistakes, such as the squint-eyed seeing one object as two, or the choleric person finding something sweet to be bitter, or they are self-evident truths (badīhīyāt). There may be disagreements about them, and doubts may arise that require careful consideration to resolve. Theoretical knowledge (an-naẓriyāt) is a branch of necessities. So, the corruption of necessities leads to the corruption of theories as well. This is why there is much disagreement among rational thinkers.
قلنا: غلط الحس فى البعض، لأسباب جزئية، لا ينافى الجزم بالبعض بانتفاء أسباب الغلط. والاختلاف فى البديهى لعدم الألف أو لخفاء فى التصور، لا ينافى البداهة. وكثرة الاختلافات لفساد الأنظار، لا تنافى حقيقة بعض النظريات. والحق: أنه لا طريق الى المناظرة معهم، خصوصا اللاأدريِة. لأنهم لا يعترفون بمعلوم، ليثبت به مجهول، بل الطريق تعذيبهم بالنار، ليعترفوا أو يحترقوا.
We responded: The mistakes of the senses in some cases, due to specific reasons, do not contradict the certainty in other cases when the reasons for mistakes are absent. Disagreement on self-evident truths due to unfamiliarity or obscurity in perception does not negate their self-evidence. The abundance of disagreements due to flawed perspectives does not negate the validity of some theories. The fact is that there is no way to debate with them, especially the Agnostics, because they do not acknowledge anything as known to establish something unknown. Instead, the way to deal with them is to torture them with fire until they either confess or burn.
Origins of the Term 'Sūfastā'
و «سوفسطا» اسم للحكمة المموهة. والعلم المزخرف، لأن «سوفا» معناه العلم والحكمة و «اسطا» معناه المزخرف، والغلط. ومنه اشتقت السفسطة، كما اشتقت الفلسفة من «فيلاسوفا» أى محب الحكمة
And 'Sūfastā' (the Arabic term for Sophistism) is a term for disguised wisdom and ornate knowledge, because 'Sūfā' (σοφία - sophia) means knowledge and wisdom, and 'istā' (ίστος - istos) means ornate and false. From this, sophistry (as-safsatah) was derived, just as philosophy was derived from 'Philosūfā' (φιλοσοφία - philosophia), meaning love of wisdom.