Exegesis and Interpretation of the Verses of the Qur'an According to Their Apparent Meaning

The Shaykh :
The principle in interpreting the Qur'an is that it should be interpreted according to its literal truth, not according to metaphorical usage, and according to the apparent meaning of the expressions
in the Qur'an, not according to the figurative interpretation (ta'wil) to which the later generations usually incline, and particularly in the verses of the attributes
and the hadiths of the attributes. Here What comes to the mind of the Arabic reader of this verse is
as he said, attributing this to the Arabs, because the reality of the Arab is that he does not understand from the verse anything other than that the intended meaning is Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He)
So it was obligatory that the verse be interpreted according to its apparent meaning. But among the harms of the science of theology (kalam) that dominated the beliefs
of the scholars of the later generations (Khalaf) is that it leads them to interpret verses in a way that agrees with the beliefs they hold. Among these is what
we are in, for they do not believe that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has the attribute of being above and the attribute of being high above all creation
and consequently they do not believe that He is in the sky. So when they are confronted with this verse, they are forced to interpret it so that it
does not differ from their previous belief which tells them that Allah is not in the sky. So they made their belief the
primary principle, and the Qur'an and the Sunnah the secondary. So whatever from the Book and the Sunnah agreed with their belief, they held onto it according to its apparent meaning
and whatever from the Book and the Sunnah contradicted their belief, they interpreted it in various ways of interpretation. Among these is this critique that is before you. So this
interpretation or figurative interpretation (ta'wil) is incorrect for many reasons. First, because it is contrary to the Arabic usage which is based on
understanding the verses according to their literal truth, not according to metaphorical usage, and according to the apparent meaning that comes to the minds from the meaning of the verse, not according to
its interpretation. Second, because the many verses and hadiths have continued to affirm this meaning from which this
interpreter fled, which is that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is in the sky. So take as an example the authentic, famous, widely circulated hadith on
the tongues of people. How can it be interpreted other than as the verse itself was interpreted? He (peace and blessings be upon him) said
"Show mercy to those on the earth, and the One in the sky will show mercy to you." Do you think the intended meaning is the angels and not the Lord of the Worlds? If
they could escape from interpreting the previous verse according to its apparent meaning, what do they do with this hadith? They say
"The One in the sky will show mercy to you" means the angels show us mercy, and not the Lord of the Worlds whom we describe in every rak'ah of
the prayers, whether they are obligatory or voluntary. So we say His saying (peace and blessings be upon him) "Show mercy to those on the earth, and the One in the sky will show mercy to you" cannot
absolutely be interpreted other than as what comes to the mind of every listener of this hadith and every reader of that noble verse. So
His saying (Blessed and Exalted is He) "Are you secure from the One in the sky" is like His saying (peace and blessings be upon him) "The One in the sky will show mercy to you. Show mercy
to those on the earth, and the One in the sky will show mercy to you."

The questioner :
.....

The Shaykh :
Of course, because this is by the command of the Lord of the Worlds, all of it. But we...

The questioner :
"The One in the sky will show mercy to you." They say you pray to Him and supplicate to Him.

The Shaykh :
What is possible?

The questioner :
"The One in the sky will show mercy to you." That the angels pray and seek mercy, and not there...

The Shaykh :
Of course, of course, everything is possible, and the truth and the sun are shining. It is not possible for a person to say that it is not shining
It is possible with stubbornness.

The questioner:
Stubbornness, but it is possible, meaning

The Shaykh:
Okay, it is possible, correct. But is this logic? There is nothing impossible in this world. And long ago they said "Anazah
is here and it flew. What will come out of your hand? You argue with these people. But we are speaking in the Arabic style. I say in many
of these occasions that the Arabic language has a style and a way of understanding with people. People received this
language from the predecessors as is the case with all languages. So if the speaker says "The prince came," every Arab understands that the
prince came, and does not understand that the prince's servant came. But it is possible for one to interpret by saying that the one who said "The prince came" meant that
the prince's servant came. Of course, it is possible, but is this an Arabic style? The answer is no, the answer is no.
So I said once to some of the extremists of the Sufis to whom we present clear disbelief in the books of Ibn Arabi from
al-Futuhat al-Makkiyyah, regarding the ruling: "O brother, these expressions are not to be taken according to their apparent meaning, they are interpreted." Okay,
why are they interpreted? And is the way of understanding with people and writing for people to understand them the religion of Allah to speak in words
whose apparent meaning is disbelief, but we claim that the reality is faith and the oneness of Allah (tawhid)? In that case, we disbelieve a disbeliever in the world. We can interpret
his speech and make it pure tawhid in this way of estimating the omitted added noun (mudaf mahduf). For example, what is the opinion of one
who interprets such an interpretation if a person said "Iblis created the heavens and the earth"? I seek refuge in Allah, this is disbelief.
No, no, be patient. This is interpretation. What is its interpretation? "The Lord of Iblis." There is nothing wrong with this. This is a style in the
Arabic language, and you want the proof from the Noble Qur'an?
"And ask the town." The town will be asked. The caravan, no, it was.
The people of the town and the people of the caravan are an omitted added noun. So if Iblis created the heavens and the earth, there is nothing wrong with it from
the perspective of the Arabic style, because the intention of the speaker is with the estimation of the omitted added noun, which is "The Lord of Iblis created
the heavens and the earth." So the disbelief turned into tawhid. Why? Because of the polishing of the Arabic language and not adhering to it
with its rules and its etiquettes. And therefore the scholars of language said that the principle in every expression is that it should be carried according to its literal truth. So if
the literal truth is excused, then at that time it is resorted to metaphorical usage. So when Allah (Mighty and Majestic) said "And ask the town" and "the caravan," what comes
to the mind of any person is that the Lord of the Worlds is speaking here that He said "Ask the walls of the town, its trees, and its stones"
Likewise, "Ask the caravan" means the camels and what was on them of loads. This meaning does not come to mind at all. And therefore
all people do not understand except one understanding, a correct understanding: "Ask the town" means its people, and "the caravan" means its people. But
it is not so with "Iblis created the heavens and the earth," especially if the speaker is a person who may be
a believer and may be a disbeliever atheist. So here when the Lord of the Worlds said "Ask the town," the indication is present
that here there is an omitted added noun, namely the people of the town. And on that basis, the scholars of rhetoric bring the famous example: it is said "The prince built the city" or the fortress or the castle. No one comes to mind that the prince became a mason, became a builder, and descended
and rolled up his sleeves and entered into the mud and the sludge, and so on. And you have smelled it, and indeed he gave the building of the city, but they
all, without exception, understand "The prince built" to mean "he ordered." So here, because there are no possibilities that waver in the ear
of the listener, he intended such or such, in one word: "Ask the town" means the people of the town, "The prince built the city" means he ordered its building
and so on. But "Are you secure from the One in the sky," "The One in the sky will show mercy to you," ask anyone who has not read the science of
theology and has not been influenced by the science of the Romans and their philosophy. What does the verse mean? ... "Are you secure from the One in the sky" means the Lord
of the Worlds is... "The One in the sky will show mercy to you" means the Lord of the Worlds is the Lord of the Worlds, the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy, etc.
So why the interpretation? We know why the interpretation... Yes.
For the denial of the divine attributes (ta'til)

The questioner:
For the denial of the divine attributes (ta'til)

The Shaykh:
For the denial of the divine attributes (ta'til). We know why the interpretation, because a false belief arose in their minds, which is that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is not
above, nor below, nor right, nor left, nor in front, nor behind, not inside the world, nor outside it. So if I say that
Allah is in the sky, they claim that you have confined Him, and this contradicts their saying as you have heard of the negations: not above, not below, not...
and so on. So they said to these people of the Salaf and the followers of the Salaf that the meaning of this speech is the denial of the existence of the Lord
of the Worlds originally, exactly like the atheists. Because if you said to the most eloquent of the Arabs in speech, "Describe to me the non-existent with an attribute," he would
not be able to describe this eloquent Arab the non-existent who has no existence with more than the description of the scholars of theology
for their worshipped Lord: not above, not below. If this is non-existence, when this false belief arose in their minds
they were forced to fall into another falsehood, which is the interpretation of this verse. And in reality, they understood the verse with a
wrong understanding from another side. From the side of the preposition here, "Are you secure from the One in the sky," they understood it as a preposition of
consideration or based on the understanding of hearing, and this created creature like the earth. And this is an error, because if they persist
Based on the understanding that the sky is this created body, which is one of the many meanings of the word "sky," for the sky
has many meanings. So if they insist on interpreting the sky in this sense, as this created body, then it is not
necessary at that point to take in its literal sense, and that we interpret "in" in the sense of "upon," as He Blessed and Exalted is He
narrated regarding Pharaoh, who said to those of the magicians who believed in the God of Abraham and Moses: Every Arab understands that "in" here means "upon," because the pole being inside the trunk is impossible.
So the context here, in the very mention of the trunk, shifted the understanding of "in" from its literal sense to the understanding of "in" meaning "upon." Therefore,
Allah Mighty and Majestic, when He mentioned in dozens of verses, in addition to the many hadiths, that He is above all creation, and that
He is upon the Throne, and it was known by the Shari'ah that the Throne is above all created things, it became obligatory at that point to interpret
"in the sky" to mean "upon the sky."
And it is possible to preserve "in" and keep it in its literal sense, but at that point, it is necessary to interpret "the sky" to mean
absolute height, because whatever is above you is a sky. So "the sky" in that same verse remains in its apparent sense and does not need
any figurative interpretation at all. We say the verse means: "Are you secure from [Him] in the sky?" That is, Allah is in the sky, that is, absolute height.
And likewise the previously mentioned hadith. In fact, this hadith clarifies for us that the "in" in the verse and the hadith are not in their literal senses.
The "in" mentioned in the hadith and the "in" mentioned in the verse mean "upon," because we hear the hadith say:
"Have mercy on those in the earth." Does it mean those in the interior of the earth? Of course, it means those on the surface of the earth, where
we live, whether human, animal, plant, or anything else that has life. So have mercy on them and enjoy them as a good
enjoyment. So this action of "in" in the first part of the hadith was evidence that the "in" in the other part of
the hadith is the same as the "in" in the first part of the hadith. Both mean "upon." "Have mercy on those in
the earth," that is, on the earth, and "He will have mercy on you who are in the sky," that is, on the sky. At that point, the verse follows
the previous interpretation: that is, on the sky. And what supported this interpretation is His saying, Blessed and Exalted is He,
"At that point, the verse follows the interpretation: His saying, Exalted is He: and the rest
of the evidence mentioned in the Book and the Sunnah, all of which converge in supporting this meaning, which is affirming the absolute height
of Allah, Lord of the worlds. Allah described His believing servants by saying, for example: This
superiority mentioned in this verse and that height mentioned in the previous verse, "The Most Merciful is upon the Throne."
This is the intended meaning in the verse that the narrator interpreted with the previously mentioned distortion of the verse's meaning. In reality,
the hadiths also came to confirm this meaning of affirming the absolute height of Allah Mighty and Majestic. And the clearest thing
that refutes this false interpretation is the hadith in Muslim's Sahih, when the girl came in a long hadith
which we are not currently discussing. He said to her, "Where is Allah?" She said, "In the sky." He said to her, "Who am I?" She said, "You are the Messenger of Allah." He said,
"Set her free, for she is a believer." This testimony that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) gave to the girl, who
explicitly stated that Allah is in the sky, was rejected by the scholars of kalam and figurative interpretation. And this rejection and
refusal led them to interpret the verses of Allah and the hadiths of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in a way other than their true interpretation.
And finally, these people who interpret all these verses were finally forced to say that Allah is neither above nor below, and so on.
They say this only because they imagine that if we affirm the attribute of superiority for Allah Mighty and Majestic, we have confined Him to a place.
And this is pure illusion, and it arose from narrow thinking. In fact, it arose from analogizing the Lord of the worlds to one of
His creations, because His creations, as we observe, cannot be imagined except in a place. So they thought that if we say Allah Mighty and Majestic
is in the sky, or "He is upon the Throne" in its apparent sense, as He Blessed and Exalted is He said, we have made Him like we made

The Shaykh : the king upon his throne. If the throne were pulled fromThe Shaykh : under the king, or the throne from under the king,
each of them would fall on his head. They imagined all of this regarding the Lord of the worlds, the One who is free from all the worlds.
The source of the illusion is that they imagined that what is above creation is a place, whereas the truth is that His place is above creation. And as I said
to one of the sheikhs of al-Azhar about sixty years ago, and we were in Mina.

The questioner:
"Above the Throne, is there anything?"

The Shaykh:
"There is no place above the Throne, but there is something, and it is the Lord of the worlds." That is, yes, I know, but I wanted to
point out that a discussion took place on this issue with that scholar from al-Azhar, who is from the group of the Sharia Association.
You call them --- or the two groups. I said to him, "Is the created thing, or is the universe, limited or unlimited?" He said, "Limited."
I said to him, "Is place an existent thing or a non-existent thing?" He said, "It is an existent thing, not a non-existent thing." The meaning is existent,
meaning it has a reality in this universe, not like any imagination a human imagines. Each of us can imagine
a person, a dead man, a dead eye, a hand, etc.
But this is an imagination that has no entity, no existence. So this is what is meant: is place an existent thing or a non-existent thing? He said,
"Existent, not non-existent." So I said, "I agree with you on this, but let us keep what we agreed upon: the universe is confined, and place
is not place an existent thing and not non-existent." I said, "I agree with you on this, but let us keep what we agreed upon: the universe
is confined, and place is an existent thing. So we are on this." He said, "Yes." I said to him, "Is there anything above the first sky?"
He said, "Yes, the second, third, fourth, and seventh. And what is above the seventh sky?" He said, "The Throne." I said,
"And what is above the Throne?" He said, "The Karubiyyun." I said, "Who are these Karubiyyun? I know this, but I wanted to make a joke
on one hand, and to alert the attendees, who were a large group, and stronger than that, how the scholars of al-Azhar speak.
I said, "Who are these Karubiyyun?" He said, "These are angels." I said to him, "These angels are above the Throne?" He said, "Yes." I said,
"What is the evidence for that? Do you have a verse or a hadith from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)?" He was silent for a while and said,
"By Allah, I do not remember. This is how our sheikhs taught us." I said, "How strange! We hear from our sheikhs about your sheikhs that the creed
is not established even by an authentic hadith; the hadith must be mutawatir. That is what they say. And we have a treatise printed recently
which you may come across soon, refuting this statement. But I am speaking to them
with what I believe and what I wish. They do not establish the creed with an authentic hadith unless it is mutawatir. So how can you believe in the Karubiyyun and that they are above
the Throne? "The Most Merciful is upon the Throne," not the Karubiyyun upon the Throne, and you have no verse or hadith." I said, "This is an interjected phrase. We do not stop here, because this is not the main point of our speech. The main point is
to continue the discussion. I do not believe there is anything above the Throne from the created things at all, because we have no verse
or hadith, not even an ahad hadith. But in Sham, there is a saying: "If it does not come with you, come with it." So I
cannot bring you with me now and make you believe with me that there are no Karubiyyun above the Throne, especially since this is an
interjected phrase. I am walking with you now. Suppose there are Karubiyyun above the Throne, a creation from the creations of Allah Mighty and Majestic. Is there
another creation above the Karubiyyun? The dialogue stopped
at the obstacle; he did not know what to say. I said, "O Professor, you will reachThe Shaykh : with us the infinite regress, and we will invalidate our first claim that the universe is created. So you must say, if you said, for example, as you said,
"Above the Throne are the Karubiyyun," then what is above the Karubiyyun? He said, "There is something else, and something, and something."
And then you must not set a limit, because we agreed that the universe is limited. He said, "This statement is correct. The important thing is, no matter
how you chain the topic, you will set a limit that this Throne is the end of the universe, or the Karubiyyun, or what is above
the Karubiyyun. The statement ends, is that not so?" He said, "Yes." I said, "We come to place, and we agreed that it is existent, not
non-existent. So after the universe is defined, either by the Throne or by something else, what is above this limited thing, that is, the Throne, for example?
Is there a place?" He said, "No." I said to him, "Glory be to Allah! So why do you accuse the Salafis, who say that Allah is above
all created things, of likening Him to creation and giving Him a place, when you believed with me that there is no place
All created things, because they likened Him to creation and assigned Him a place, whereas you believed with me that there is no place.
The reality is that these scholars of *kalam* (theological discourse) imagine that by affirming the above-ness of Allah, we have confined Him to a place. The truth,
is that there is no place. What confirms this for us is a belief agreed upon by all sects of Muslims: Allah existed and there was nothing
with Him. Correct, this is so. Yes, correct.
So, when Allah existed, was He in a place? He is not in a place now, because Allah is free from need of all creation.
Negligence regarding a point or an issue leads to another sin, and then the errors continue to multiply and manifest
until the matter reaches the point of interpreting verses that do not need any interpretation at all. But because they fell into
such a sin, they imagined that if it is said that Allah is in the sky, meaning in absolute elevation according to the
correct interpretation, we have placed Him in a place. They forgot or neglected that behind creation there is no place...
Disbelief is of two types: the first is doctrinal disbelief, and the other is practical disbelief. The interpreter of the Qur'an,
'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and his father), referred to this classification in his interpretation of the statement of our Lord, Blessed and Exalted is He: He said: "Disbelief less than disbelief, disbelief less than disbelief." He means that this verse is sometimes interpreted according to
its apparent meaning: "And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, it is those who are the disbelievers." Sometimes it is interpreted according to its apparent meaning, meaning that whoever does not
judge by what Allah has revealed is a disbeliever who has apostatized from his religion. And sometimes it is interpreted as a disbelief less than that disbelief, and that is when
the one who judges by other than what Allah has revealed does not consider it permissible in his heart to judge by other than what Allah has revealed. Unlike the first one, who does consider it
permissible in his heart. The one who judges by other than what Allah has revealed is, in reality, and Allah knows what is in his chest, in one of
two states: either he believes when he judges by other than what Allah has revealed that his judgment is the correct one, and the law of Islam and the religion
of the Muslims. The least he says is that it was valid in a past time that has ended, but today his judgment and law is
the correct one, and it is what should govern the people. This is doctrinal disbelief; its owner has exited from
his religion and slips out of it, just as a hair slips out of wet dough.
The second type: that in his judgment by other than what Allah has revealed, he does not consider it good in his heart. Rather, the affair of every Muslim
is that he makes mistakes, even the one who commits unlawful sexual intercourse, even the one who steals. We all know that these people who commit these major sins are not
disbelievers, even though they have opposed the Shari'ah by what they did of sins and crimes, such as stealing and unlawful sexual intercourse and the like. But it is possible
that some of these people have doctrinal disbelief, and that is if they consider permissible what they committed of sins and crimes.
For example, the one who considers *riba* (usury or interest) permissible, considers unlawful sexual intercourse permissible, and says there is no forbidden, no lawful. This is one who has considered permissible what Allah has forbidden, not
just in action, but also in belief. This is an apostate from his religion. But the one who eats *riba* and says "Allah will accept our repentance," his disbelief is
practical disbelief. Likewise, everyone who judges by other than what Allah has revealed, his case fluctuates between his disbelief being doctrinal
and his disbelief being practical. The criterion in that is: if he considers permissible in his heart what he opposed Allah in,
then he is a disbeliever with doctrinal disbelief, meaning an apostate from his religion. And if he dies, he is not buried in the Muslim cemeteries. And if, in what
he judges by other than what Allah has revealed, he does not consider it permissible in his heart, but rather he denies it, and he may sometimes say that if we could
judge by what Allah has revealed, it would be better for the people, then his disbelief is practical disbelief, not doctrinal disbelief. To this reality
Ibn 'Abbas referred in his interpretation of the verse when he said: "Disbelief
less than disbelief." That is, whoever judges by other than what Allah has revealed while considering it permissible in his heart, his disbelief is major disbelief. And whoever judges by other than what Allah has revealed
his disbelief is less than that, and it is practical disbelief, not doctrinal. And what establishes this for you is that we leave these judges who
judge by other than what Allah has revealed, and we come to a judge by the Shari'ah who judges by the law of Islam. But we know
It is a necessity of Islam that any ruler who rules by Islam is not infallible from following his desires, and he said
Allah, Mighty and Majestic, to Dawud (peace be upon him) Dawud is addressed by his Lord, and he says: "So do not follow desire, lest it lead you astray from the path of Allah" — and others of the q...
the path of Allah." So if we imagine a judge who judges by the Shari'ah, and two men come to him in a case, and we assume it is a financial
case, and one of them claims against the other. Let us suppose one thousand Syrian pounds. The judge ruled in favor of the claimant for that amount, but he
knows and it is established for him that the claimant's claim is false, and that this right he claims against his opponent is not his right.
But for a bribe, for fear, for cowardice, for any material reason, he ruled in favor of the claimant against the defendant, while he knows in his heart
that in this judgment, the judge himself knows
that it is invalid and that he gave the right to one who is not its rightful owner. Here is a simple question:
Is this judging by what Allah has revealed? Of course not. Is this a disbeliever? It is not permissible for us to say this is a disbeliever or not a disbeliever
because Allah said: But we cannot pronounce
that he is a disbeliever, because people today do not know. But most people do not know. They do not know this reality
that was explained earlier, that disbelief is divided into two parts: doctrinal disbelief and practical disbelief. And doctrinal disbelief is
that which causes its owner to remain in the Fire eternally, while practical disbelief does not cause its owner to remain in the Fire eternally. So this judge who ruled
for Zayd with the thousand, while he knows that he does not deserve this thousand, we said by consensus that he judged by other than what was revealed. Do you think
does this make him a disbeliever or not? According to the previous detail: if he considers this permissible in his heart and says there is no forbidden, no
lawful, then he is eternally in the Fire. And whether his judgment was for a thousand pounds, fifty pounds, or a single coin, the case is not
a case of value. No, the case and its danger is judging contrary to what Allah, the Exalted, has revealed. So if he considers this
judgment permissible, and he knows that it is contrary to what Allah has revealed in his heart, then this is equal to one who opposes the Qur'an and the Islamic Shari'ah in
all its details, in the sight of Allah, the Exalted, because he considered permissible in his heart what Allah has forbidden and judged by other than what Allah has revealed.
But if he believes that he is not correct in that, and that he is mistaken in his action, and that he hopes for Allah to forgive him,
as many of the sinners say, "Why, my brother, you..." etc., he will say, "Allah will accept our repentance." This means that
there is still a glimmer of the light of faith in his heart, because he is a believer. While the greatest criminal will say, "There is no forbidden,
no lawful. It is only a matter of pushing away kin and swallowing the earth." So the governing criterion is that we know the disbelief that
causes its owner to exit the religion from the disbelief that does not cause its owner to exit the religion. It is the belief: if his
belief denies his opposition to the Shari'ah, then we now call him an open sinner, not an apostate disbeliever. If his belief denies what
he judged by from the Shari'ah, then he is an open sinner, not a disbeliever. And if he does not deny it, but rather considers it permissible, then he is a disbeliever, an apostate
from his religion. If we know this detail in disbelief, then we can understand every mention of disbelief in a verse
or hadith. We interpret the disbelief in one of these two ways, as Ibn 'Abbas said: "Disbelief less than disbelief." For example, one of
the famous hadiths: "Between a man and disbelief is the abandonment of prayer." So whoever abandons prayer has disbelieved. Many
people may understand this hadith on its apparent surface without the previous detail. Disbelief means apostasy from his religion. Beware that you
do not rush to declare a disbeliever one who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, before you know whether his disbelief is doctrinal
or practical. The same detail as the previous one regarding the Shari'ah judge when he ruled for someone what is not his right.
Likewise, we say here: whoever abandons prayer has disbelieved. If he abandons prayer while considering it permissible in his heart, then he is a disbeliever, an apostate from
his religion. And if he abandons prayer while denying it in his heart, and says, "Allah will accept our repentance and forgive our sins," then he is
an open sinner, not a disbeliever.

The questioner :
Or a disbeliever with practical disbelief.

The Shaykh :
Yes, a disbeliever with practical disbelief.

The questioner :
....

The Shaykh :
Yes, we have finished with that:
But now we have proceeded to call the one with practical disbelief an open sinner. Likewise, for example, there is a hadith in the two Sahihs (authentic collections) where he
(peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking one another's necks."