What is the ruling on the book *Shadows of the Qur'an* by Sayyid Qutb?

The questioner : What is your opinion of Sayyid Qutb’s book *Shadows of the Qur'an*, given that it is known that this book contains the belief in the unity of existence?

The Shaykh : Is this a claim that the book contains the belief in the unity of existence? Because if this were established, it would be among the greatest forms of disbelief.
But we say to this claimant: bring the proof, bring the proof for what you said, that this book contains the statement of the unity of existence or the establishment of the unity of existence. In any case, I have not read the book. But I have read some of the criticisms leveled against it by some of our distinguished scholars. In some of its discussions, it has good points, as we hear from some of the brothers. And in some matters, it has errors.
Ibn Rajab (may Allah have mercy on him), who was one of the scholars of the Hanbali school and a student of Ibn al-Qayyim, said in his book *The Jurisprudential Maxims*: “Allah does not grant infallibility to any book other than His Book, and the one who overlooks a person’s few errors in the midst of much correctness is the one who is in the right position. Who is free from error? Every son of Adam errs, and the best of those who err are the ones who repent and return to the truth.” So the book contains errors and it contains correctness. We accept the correct parts and reject the erroneous ones. Regarding his exegesis of the surah *Qul Huwa Allahu Ahad*, I said I have not read the book, but give it to us now so we can look at it.
What is it? How? In any case, we do not say anything until we see it with our own eyes, because the matter is very serious. And I tell you, if something is issued by a scholar known for his sincere advice to the Muslim community, and if it contains what suggests truth and what suggests falsehood, then attribute it to the best of the two interpretations, whether in creed or otherwise, as long as he is known for his sincerity to the Muslim community and his words are ambiguous and not explicit, attribute it to the best interpretation, taking into account the man’s condition. We look at the man’s condition. And I tell you, incidentally, there are now people—may Allah guide us and them—who track down the sins of scholars and then highlight them, while remaining silent about the good deeds, which are many times greater than these sins. And this is wrong. Creed, may Allah bless you, is like other matters in that error may occur in it. Do you not know that the scholars differed on the eternity of the Fire? Is it eternal or not? Among the Salaf and the Khalaf, and this is creed, or is it not creed? I ask you, it is creed, and they differed on it. The Sirat that is placed over Hellfire: is it a path like other paths, or is it finer than hair and sharper than a sword? There is disagreement. Listen: what is weighed on the Day of Resurrection? Is it the deeds, or the doer of the deeds? The companions of the deeds? No, I am telling you about the disagreement. Did the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) see his Lord or not? Is the soul returned to the body in the grave, and is the punishment on the body and the soul, or on the soul alone?
All these are matters of creed. Now, I want to give you a rule regarding the negation of *istiwa'* (rising above the Throne) and other attributes. Whoever negates the attributes by way of denial is a denier of the Qur'an. And whoever negates them by way of *ta'wil* (figurative interpretation), his *ta'wil* is examined. Do you understand? For example, if someone says that Allah did not rise above the Throne, is this negation what? Denial or *ta'wil*? Denial.