446 Dominik Schlosser
- thus his polemically pointed reference to the doctrine of Incarna-
tion, toward which he takes a rejecting stance eo ipso. Considering his
postulation of the absolute sublimity and utter perfection of God, Ibn
al-Qayyim argues that the idea that a woman’s pudenda could contain
God is as ridiculous and unacceptable as the thought that God would
have himself born from a woman in order to come to earth as a bawl-
ing newborn that had to be suckled. Ibn al-Qayyim does not explic-
itly make the self-suggesting accusation that the Christian notion that
God had been conceived and born implies a definite doubt as to God’s
omnipotence, which eliminates the distance between the Creator and
his creatures and thereby degrades him to their level, but this indict-
ment can be found between the lines and a Muslim readership prob-
ably automatically associated (and associates) it.
Ibn al-Qayyim counters the qualification of the person of Jesus as
a godhead, which he reproves as unjustifiably attributing human traits
and passions to the one God,^123 by referring to the perfection of God,
who is, in his view, free of needs like nutrition and sleep^124 that burden
the beings he created in their imperfection. Quite in contrast to God,
who, if he were to descend to earth, would neither sleep nor eat, much
less defecate, Jesus – as Ibn al-Qayyim presents it, citing the unani-
mous conviction of the Christians – did all of this.^125 His argumenta-
tion here aims at the conclusion that Jesus is therefore to be considered
a mere creature of God and in no way to be worshipped as a God
become a human being.
As can be expected, for Ibn al-Qayyim, the reprehensibility of
Christian doctrine is expressed not least in the belief in Jesus’ death
by crucifixion. The Damascene scholar decries the adherence to a God
humiliated and tormented by human beings, his creatures, a God hang-
ing helplessly on the cross and suffering death on it, as inescapably
questioning God’s sovereignty (rubūbiyya) as creator of the world.^126
Tellingly, however, Ibn al-Qayyim does not anticipate a possible
rejoinder that would point out that the divine nature of Jesus, who,
unlike the human, created nature, neither suffers nor dies, even though
he is familiar with the doctrine of Jesus’ twofold nature, as other pas-
sages in the Hidāyat al-ḥayārā make clear.^127
123 Ibid., p. 254.
124 Ibid., p. 523.
125 Ibid., p. 497.
126 Ibid., p. 427; see also pp. 497–480.
127 Ibid., pp. 535–536; see also p. 574.
Brought to you by | Nanyang Technological University
Authenticated