What is the difference between permissibility and lawfulness, and between likening and comparing?

The questioner : Honorable Shaykh, is there a difference between permissibility and lawfulness? And what is the difference between likening and comparing in the names and attributes?

The Shaykh : Permissibility and lawfulness, in terms of the ruling, have no difference between them. One says this is permissible, one says this is lawful, and one says this is halal, and all of this means the same thing. As for in rational matters, the permissible for them is what is the opposite of the impossible and the opposite of the obligatory. The opposite of the impossible and the opposite of the obligatory is called permissible, and it is also called possible. For example, if someone says it is possible for an effect to exist without an agent. Do you say? It is not possible. So it is impossible for an effect to exist without an agent, meaning a created thing without a creator, a building without a builder, a writing without a writer. This is impossible, right or not? If an effect exists, it is obligatory that an agent exists. So the existence of the agent for the effect is obligatory, and the existence of the effect without an agent is impossible, is that not so? The permissible thing is what is not obligatory in existence and not obligatory in non-existence, which can exist or not exist. They call this possible and they call it permissible. Is this known? As for comparing and likening, there is a difference between them.
Therefore, it is recommended that when we speak about the names and attributes, we say "without distortion, without denial, without asking how, and without comparing," instead of saying "without figurative interpretation, without denial, without asking how, and without likening." The expression using "comparing" is better. Why? First, because it is the one that corresponds to the wording of the Qur'an. Pay attention. It is necessary that it proceeds, never otherwise. He has obligatory questions. I say the expression using "comparing" is better than "likening." First, because it is the wording that corresponds to what came in the Qur'an. Where is the Qur'an? "There is nothing like unto Him" and it did not say "There is nothing like His likeness" and it did not say "Do not make likenesses for Allah." This is one. Second, that "likening" has become a name or a description. People differ in understanding it. So for some people, affirming the attributes is likening. And they say whoever affirms an attribute for Allah is a mushabbihah. Even the Mu'tazilah now call the affirmers mushabbihah. You find, for example, in al-Zamakhshari's tafsir al-Kashshaf, if he says "and the mushabbihah said," he means the people of the Sunnah and the community. So if we say "without likening" and the person believes that likening is affirming the attributes, the meaning of our saying "without likening" becomes "without affirming attributes." Third, that negating likening in an absolute sense is not correct. Meaning, negating likening between the attributes of the Creator and the attributes of the created in an absolute sense is not correct, because there are no two affirmed attributes except that there is a sharing in the original meaning between them, and this sharing is a type of similarity. And Allah, this is a difficult research, and for this reason some of you now approximately.
Okay, I say. Negating likening in an absolute sense is not good and not sound. Why? Because there are no two attributes, or if you wish a broader expression, there are no two things that agreed in something except that they shared in its origin. For example, knowledge: the human has knowledge and the Lord, Mighty and Majestic, has knowledge. There is now a sharing between the knowledge of the created and the knowledge of the Creator in the original meaning, but there is no equality between the knowledge of the Creator and the knowledge of the created. But the original meaning is affirmed. The original meaning, or their sharing in the original meaning, has a type of similarity in this origin. For this reason, it is not correct for us to say "without likening" absolutely, so that the person suspects from this expression pure denial.
Okay, but if we say "without comparing," then yes, because here we negate similarity, which is equality in every aspect, between the attributes of the Creator and the attributes of the created. Clear, brothers? Okay, there are also some people who express it by saying "without figurative interpretation and without denial," without figurative interpretation. And the correct is that we say "without distortion," because figurative interpretation in the names and attributes of Allah is not negated in all cases. Rather, the figurative interpretation indicated by the evidence is affirmed, and it means interpretation. The blameworthy is distortion, which is diverting the wording from its apparent meaning without evidence, as the people of denial did, who differed in what they affirmed and negated regarding the attributes and names of Allah. The people of denial, pay attention now. Some of them affirmed the names and some of the attributes, and negated most of the attributes. This is one. And some of them affirmed the names and negated all the attributes. And some of them negated all the names and attributes, they negated them all. And some of them negated every affirmation and every negation, saying do not describe Allah with an affirmed or a negated attribute. And as for the people of the Sunnah and the community, they are all free from this, and they affirm for Allah the Exalted everything He affirmed for Himself of names and attributes. But distortion is better than figurative interpretation for the reason you now know, that figurative interpretation may be correct and not negated. And another aspect is that distortion is what the text came to blame, so He said, the Exalted: , and it did not say "they interpret." And adhering to the legal terms that came in the Book and the Sunnah is better than inventing other terms, because they are more solid and more upright, because I mean the terms that came in the legal texts are more solid and more upright. Yes.