How do we respond to those who say: Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) is not in the earth nor in the sky?

The Shaykh: ... It occurred to me, while you were telling us about that doctor who claimed that he does not say that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is in the sky, just as he does not say: that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is in the earth. I said about him: he does not say that Allah is in the earth because it implies indwelling, but we did not understand from you why he does not say what Allah (Mighty and Majestic) said: for the same reason, or for another reason; either you did not tell us about it, or we did not hear it?

The questioner: He says: The verses mentioned regarding the High are verses about the attributes, not about the Essence. This is the detail.

The Shaykh: Do not deviate, do not deviate.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: I specified the verse for you; why does he not say what Allah said: ? What is the prohibition for him? We know the prohibition for him from the fact that he does not say: Allah is in the earth. He does not say this, and this is the truth without doubt, by transmission and by reason. But my question is: why does he not say what Allah said: ? Why does he not say what Allah said? I mean, what is his viewpoint? What is his interpretation? Do you know about it or not? I want to know the answer for the sake of being fair to the man, otherwise the word in my heart does not depend on this knowledge; so what is the answer?

The questioner: Our Shaykh, he mentioned in his book, I don't remember, I read it a while ago...

The Shaykh: Please, do not deviate!

The questioner: Good, he is speaking.

The Shaykh: About the verse.

The questioner: About this verse and similar ones that speak about the High and speak about Him being in the sky.

The Shaykh: This verse does not speak about the High in its apparent meaning. What would its meaning be?

The questioner: He said, in the sense of, he says about it? I mean, exactly in this verse, I do not know!

The Shaykh: May Allah forgive you! We did not benefit from anything; at first you told me about the verse, and the second time you told me about the verse, and then?

The questioner: I researched the verses of the...

The Shaykh: My brother, you started the conversation about the verses, so I brought you back to the topic of the question. May Allah forgive what has passed. Look, my brothers, this verse is either interpreted according to its apparent meaning ; as we learned from the scholars of language, it is a preposition of place. So either it remains as a preposition of place, or it is taken out of this meaning and interpreted to mean "upon." If it is interpreted to mean "upon," then at that time the sky is not a preposition of place for Allah, just as the earth is not a preposition of place for Allah. If the difficulty for that doctor is that he stopped at the apparent meaning of the verse, this is a preposition of place in the Arabic language; then there is no difference for him between one who says: Allah is in the earth, or Allah is in the sky; because Allah is greater than all of that, and this is a fact. So how do we interpret the verse?
The answer: Based on the fact that it is in its category a preposition of place, we say if we keep as a preposition of place, we interpret the sky to mean the absolute High, not the created sky which is the seven heavens. Do you understand how? At that time, the difficulty falls from its root; because the difficulty is based on "in the sky"; meaning: this sky which is a creation of Allah like the earth. So just as He is not in the earth, He is not in the sky. From here, they come to the difficulty and they deny it, and they say: No, Allah is not in the sky. First, as a matter of etiquette with the Divine speech, it is not permissible to say this. But what is permissible, indeed obligatory, is to understand the Quranic verse with a correct understanding. So the first interpretation for it, based on keeping in its category in this case, is to interpret the sky in the Arabic language - also - which means the absolute High. So if we say that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is in the absolute High, it means He is not in a creation. The difficulty falls, and it is not equal at that time to say that Allah is in the sky as the negated saying that Allah is in the earth. First: because there is nothing in the Book or the Sunnah that Allah is in the earth, this is first; it is not equal to say: Allah is in the sky as to say: Allah is in the earth; because this is not transmitted. Second: the meaning we interpreted earlier has no prohibition from it, as the prohibition follows from our saying: Allah is in the earth. This is if we interpret "in" and make it in its category, we have interpreted the sky to mean the absolute High; at that time, the other verses that establish the High for Allah (Mighty and Majestic) meet with this verse; okay?
Or we say here: means upon, and as we also learned from the scholars of knowledge that prepositions can take the place of each other; especially in such a place; it is said: Allah is in the sky, meaning: in the sense of upon. So "upon" here is in the place of "in," or the reverse; is in the place of "upon," and this has many witnesses in the Book and the Sunnah. So the verse: , , ; does not mean the inside of the earth, but rather upon the earth. does not mean one who is in the inside of the created sky, but rather upon the sky; for this reason, you find the deniers of the attributes in the present age, and at their head is this fool, truly the one who called him a fool, denies the authenticity of this hadith; because for him it is the breaking of his back; because he cannot interpret it to mean the worms and insects in the earth, but rather these livestock that Allah has tamed for us and created for our sake, so have mercy on those in the earth, and He who is in the sky will have mercy on you. So just as: here means upon, so means upon; therefore he poured his effort to weaken this hadith; knowing that even those who preceded him to such denial of attributes have authenticated it, because hadith-wise they did not find a way to weaken it... even the Ghumariyyah, who are the tail for them, they authenticate this hadith.

The questioner: Our Shaykh, al-Kawthari denies its attribution to "Sahih Muslim."

The Shaykh: He denies what?

The questioner: The authenticity of the attribution of this hadith; meaning he says: the correct copies of Muslim do not contain this hadith.

The Shaykh: He went and perished to a hadith other than mine. You went and perished to the hadith of the girl! I did not touch the hadith of the girl.

The questioner: No, the beginning of the hadith is from the speech of...The Shaykh .

The Shaykh: No, the beginning of the hadith is and do not hold me to account.

The questioner: May Allah reward you with good. May Allah bless you.

The Shaykh: ... The important thing is that this hadith was authenticated by a group, and this one denied its authenticity; because it is stronger in indication than the hadith of the girl. Now, the professor has the merit of reminding me of the hadith of the girl. This is more explicit in indicating the correct meaning of the verse; because the hadith of the girl: she said: in the sky. So she answered with the Quranic answer, but she remained an Arab, she understands what the meaning of "in" is? It does not mean the worms in their burrows and so on. No, the important thing is this hadith: ; meaning: whoever is upon the earth, meaning: upon the sky. Up to here ends what I wanted to say as a comment on what you may have heard of the interpretation of that doctor for this verse.
But what I want to say now is that the error of this doctor and his like stems from the initial interpretation of "in" (fi) as a preposition of location, and then their negligence regarding the original meaning of the word "sky" (sama'), which is elevation. So when they fall into this negligence, they look and say: We cannot say that Allah is in the belly of the sky; that is, that the created sky surrounds Him. We agree with them on this point, but they stray from the truth by their false understanding and their turning away from it. Then they find no refuge in knowing the correct opinion or understanding. Why? Because they also understand that when we interpret "in the sky," the problem remains for them and in their minds. The problem exists because they imagine that what is above the sky is? The Throne. And above the Throne, if we say: "Allah is above the Throne" (istawa) as Allah said, and we interpret it with the meaning of "above" (ala) as is the Salafi interpretation, then you have also crammed Him into a place. Here their misguidance begins. So what I want to remind you of now is that we should not get entangled in a wrong understanding and imagine that the verse: means that Allah, by His essence, is in the belly of the sky. No, rather Allah, by His essence, is above the absolute elevation, and the absolute elevation is above the Throne. Above the Throne there is no place. From here they strayed; they imagine that there is a place above the Throne. So they placed Him in a place. And there is no difference then between a place above the Throne, a place above the seven heavens, a place above the lowest heaven, or in the lowest heaven, or on the earth, or in the earth. All of it is not befitting for Allah (Mighty and Majestic). We say: All of it is not befitting except the being above the Throne; because above the Throne there is no place. And we know, as they know, but they neglect or feign ignorance: . So when Allah was and there was nothing with Him, we and they agreed—or they agreed with us—that when Allah was and had not created anything, He was not in a place. And if someone calls that state a place—I do not want to call it a place myself, because that would be repeating words—if someone calls that state in which Allah was a place, that is a convention; because "place" is derived from "existence" (kawn): . So Allah was and there was nothing with Him, then He created the creation. With the existence of the creation and the creation of the creation, place came into existence. But Allah did not come into existence in this place; because Allah was before place and was before time. So if we say: , and we cite all the verses and hadiths that establish the attribute of elevation, that does not mean that we assign a place to Allah, nor does it mean that we made Him contained by a created thing. Consequently, it does not mean what this fool and his like attribute to us, that we ascribed a body to Him. Glory be to Allah! Did we ascribe a body to Him? Are you with us? Did you ascribe a body to Him when you said: Allah was and there was nothing with Him? Was He a body?
So from this perspective, He is now as He was, in the sense that He is not a body, and that He is . He is now—after the creation of the universe—as He was before the creation of the universe. The only thing is that we differ from these misguided ones because we affirm the existence of the Lord of the worlds above the created things, above the Throne, He is established (istawa). As for them, the wise prince’s statement is enough for you when he heard the scholars who opposed the call to the truth, the call of the Salaf, the call of Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), which he revived through his struggle. Ibn Taymiyyah’s views are a summary of this. As for those, they said: No, Allah is transcendent from place. Allah is not above, not below, not right, not left, not in front, not behind, not inside the world, not outside it. That prince said: These are people who have lost their Lord! Indeed, I say: If it were said to the most eloquent of those who speak Arabic: Describe for us the non-existent? He would not be able to describe it except by describing their Lord as these fools do... In the face of these facts; that is, he would not be able to say as the Mu'tazilah say, as the Asha'irah say, and as the Maturidiyyah say that Allah is in every place. This is the most foolish thing that can be said regarding the Lord of the worlds who is transcendent.
This fool and some of his teachers found that this statement is not acceptable; so what do they say? They say: "He exists without a place." A subtle deception!! He exists without a place, but ask him: Where is He? There is no answer. And that is why they weaken the hadith of the girl; because it contains the question: Where is Allah? The answer: In the sky. So they say: Allah (Mighty and Majestic) exists but without a place. In reality, this answer leads to the statements of those fools we mentioned: not above, not below, not right, not left, to the end of the list. And so, if you are afflicted with this fool or some of his followers, know how to handle the shoulder. When he tells you he exists but is not in a place. Okay; where is He? He tells you: This question is not valid! Why is it not valid when it is valid in the authentic hadith? This hadith is weak. Who weakened it? The Dajjal of the last age, who is the fool. But in reality, he is preceded by others. He is preceded as al-Kawthari said, and I refuted al-Kawthari in the "Introduction to the Explanation of the Tahawi Creed"; because this person known as Abu Ghaddah, who claims affiliation with al-Kawthari due to his blindness to him and his imitation of him, belongs to his school. He says: Al-Kawthari. So he took some formal objections against me because I say: Authentic, narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim. Authentic, narrated by al-Bukhari. This means that the hadith does not become authentic until al-Albani authenticates it!! So this means that there are many hadiths that al-Albani weakens from those narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim. So I slapped him with that slap. Look, your teacher al-Kawthari explicitly states that such-and-such hadith and such-and-such hadith and such-and-such hadith, despite the narrationThe Shaykh : by one of them or both: It is a weak hadith!! ... .
So the point is that al-Kawthari weakens this hadith, the hadith of the girl, and al-Ghamari, this one named Abdullah, also weakens this hadith. And one of the worst things I recently read in "Tafsir al-Bahr al-Muhit" by Abu Hayyan is that he interpreted the previous verse: "Are you secure, O polytheists, from Him who is in the sky, according to your claim!!" That is, a person is bewildered at how great scholars fall into such an interpretation, or rather, such a denial of the divine attributes (ta'til)!

The questioner: Our Shaykh, you have prolonged the discussion of the prepositional aspect of and the flaw in which al-Razi fell. Al-Razi posed a great problem and wrote long pages in his tafsir of the verse and said: prepositional aspect. And he began to deny that the intended meaning is Allah (Mighty and Majestic), and said: It is the command of Allah or the angels of Allah or ... .

The Shaykh: Yes.