Do we use our minds in understanding the Book and the Sunnah and matters of creed, such as the rising above the Throne?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : In the religion.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : What do you mean by ...?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : How do we use our minds? How do we use our minds in what He says? If you mean we use our minds in understanding what He says.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : There is no doubt about this. Do we not use our minds in what is said? This is like if I said: I use my mind in what I say, in what you say ... you are addressing me, or I am using my mind in what you say; because you are a human being and I am a human being. But the speech of the Lord of the Worlds is not placed on the level of humans. Perhaps you do not mean this?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Good, so we use our minds in understanding what is said.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Good, I understand your point.

The questioner : ... says - for example - that Allah - (Glorified and Exalted is He) - ... and if a questioner asks ... the statement of Malik: "The rising above the Throne is known, the how is unknown, and asking about it is a religious innovation" ... .

The Shaykh: All right.

The questioner : These Companions intended ... ... or a cultural distinction ... specific beliefs that you cannot agree with ... and for this reason I say ... ... .

The Shaykh : Yes, the scholars of kalam, my brother ... in the path of defending Islam, and in the path of removing the doubts of the disbelievers, the Romans and the Greeks and the like, the truth is that their duty was to bring Islam closer to the innate logic, not to the Greek logic. But in reality, they did the exact opposite. And the matter is, as they say, history repeats itself. We are now in a trial that is exactly like that trial. The Islamic writers today and the scholars of Muslims today are divided into two schools; exactly, history repeats itself. Some people are now trying to make Islam compliant, to Europeanize it; to make it European Islam and American Islam. Is this to clarify Islam and show that it is in harmony with sound reason and sound fitrah (the innate natural disposition), or is it a figurative interpretation of Islam that is in harmony with the culture of these Europeans and Americans? So now the scholars are of two types: a group that tries to explain Islam by first understanding it correctly, and by presenting it - also - in a correct and sound manner. And another group says: presenting Islam this way and with these old meanings, these Europeans do not understand it; we should explain Islam to them in a way that their souls accept. This is what the scholars of kalam did, led by the Mu'tazilah (a rationalist theological sect), and this was the cause of the weakness of Islam and the introduction of ideas foreign to Islam. So these lecturing professors ... in reality, they do not understand Islam, but they are influenced greatly by the scholars of kalam, so they delude themselves that their work was in the service of Islam, and it should have been so, but what should be is not what is. Yes, that is right.
I say now: the scholars of Muslims have harmed the Muslims; as proof, the Islamic world now lives on the crumbs of the scholars of kalam, so it is lost and confused. And it is sufficient that I gave you an example recently, and it seems you were present?! Good, the question of the slave girl to the Messenger - (peace and blessings be upon him) - : . And her statement: In the sky. Ask today whomever you wish of the lecturers themselves, you will not find an answer with them. So what did they benefit from this knowledge that they revere and magnify, and that they claimed was a necessity of the time in the path of defending Islam?! They did not defend Islam; on the contrary, they deviated Islam toward other religions or ideas foreign to Islam.
The sentence you quoted accurately from Imam Malik is in reality the standard of the Salafi call; for he says: "The rising above the Throne is known." What do the scholars of kalam say? The scholars of kalam went so far as not only to give a figurative interpretation to the texts of the Book and the Sunnah, which is similar to denial of the divine attributes, but they gave a figurative interpretation to the very statement of Imam Malik, a laughable interpretation; so that they could prevent the statement of Malik from being an argument against them. They say the meaning of Malik's statement: The rising above the Throne is known; means it is textually stated. How does it mean textually stated? It means mentioned in the Qur'an. This is a denial similar to the denial of the interpreters of the Arabic text of this noble Imam. The questioner says: O Malik, ; what is the meaning of "He rose above"? So this questioner knows that the answer is mentioned in the Qur'an; so how does Malik say to the questioner: The rising above the Throne is mentioned in the Qur'an, and he reminded him of it, and he is asking about this mentioned in the Qur'an, which he knows and is not ignorant of, and says: O Malik, how did He rise above? The answer was: The rising above the Throne is known; meaning: linguistically ... so it is a text that the meaning of the rising above the Throne is known in the language, and that it is rising above. And when this was an argument against the interpreters and the later generations, they nullified this argument with a simple interpretation, saying: Malik means the rising above the Throne is mentioned. What does mentioned mean? It means mentioned in the Qur'an. Why would he ask the questioner: Is there a verse in the Qur'an in which the rising above the Throne is mentioned, so that the answer is: Yes, the rising above the Throne is mentioned in the Qur'an? The question could not be about this; the question was about the how of the rising above the Throne, and the question was in ... the verse about which he is asking, which he knows and mentions; so what is the meaning of the statement of these later scholars that Malik means by his statement: The rising above the Throne is known; it means mentioned?! It is a denial of the text of Malik.
Finally, we say: O scholars of kalam, what is the meaning of: ? And they say, and their statement reminds us of a story and a joke; they will say: There are two statements in this issue. The Salaf (the earliest generations) say: The rising above the Throne is rising above. And the Khalaf (the later generations) say: The rising above the Throne is seizing. There are two statements in this issue. And the joke is: They claimed that a clever, intelligent mufti (a scholar who issues fatwas) had to travel outside the town, so he appointed his father to manage the process of issuing fatwas in his place. He said to him: O my father, I am a man who is not a scholar, and I am not qualified to do this ... on your behalf. He said to him: I will show you a method; whenever a questioner comes to you and asks you, say to him: There are two statements in this issue. So he would get rid of the answer this way. Is it forbidden or lawful? There are two statements in this issue!! Is it permissible or not permissible? There are two statements in this issue, my brother!! And the religion is broad, and so on. So a clever one of the clever and a shrewd one of the shrewd noticed that there was something here in the matter, so he said to a friend of his: Ask the Shaykh, say to him: Is there any doubt about Allah? He said: O my master, the Shaykh, is there any doubt about Allah? He said: There are two statements in this issue!!

Those present : [Everyone laughs!]

The Shaykh : So the scholars of kalam deal with creed with this hesitation and this confusion. What is the meaning of the rising above the Throne? The Salaf say: The rising above the Throne is rising above. And the Khalaf say: It is seizing. What did they benefit from this denial? Nothing. So they are neither Salafis nor Khalafis. Why? Rather, they are confused, as I said recently about that noble prince who said: "These are a people who have lost their Lord." These people have lost the noble and self-evident meanings of the Qur'an. We said, and our Salaf said: Why do you give a figurative interpretation to the rising above the Throne to mean seizing? And this shows you that the issue is not an issue of defense and response to Roman Greek philosophy; no, that materialist philosophy entered into the hearts of these ... scholars of kalam, so it worked in them and diverted them from reasoning with the Qur'an. They said to them: Why do you interpret the rising above the Throne, mentioned in more than one verse in the Qur'an, as seizing, and not intend rising above, which is the Arabic meaning of this word? They said: If we say: The rising above the Throne in the verse is rising above, we have made a place for Allah. We have made a place for Allah, and Allah is free from place. This is a correct statement ... meaning: that Allah is free from place is correct, but their understanding of this is not correct; because their statement that if we say: He rose above, we have made a place for Him, is wrong. But their freeing their Lord from place is correct. And thus they mixed a good deed with an evil deed. We ask Allah to turn them in repentance. But did they get rid of the problem when they resorted to saying that the meaning of "He rose above" is "He seized"?! Like the one who "was under the eaves and ended up under the rain." Do you know the eaves, or do you not say this?

The questioner : We do not know.

The Shaykh : That is, the roof of the house drips from the rain, so there is a... or a crack that causes dripping, so we were under the gutter, or we were under the rain, like that it happened to them. So when they claimed dominion and cited a verse of poetry as evidence for that, he said:
"Bishr settled in Iraq *** without blood or a sword shed"

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : "Bishr settled in Iraq *** without a sword or blood shed"

The Shaykh : Blood shed.
So look now; the thing they fled from is what they fell into; because they likened the Lord of the Worlds’ rising above the Throne to the rising of what? Bishr over Iraq. What they fled from is what they fell into explicitly; whereas the scholars of the Salaf say: He rose in a manner befitting His perfection. They do not say that He rises as so-and-so rises over his throne, unlike the statement of these later scholars: "He settled as Bishr settled over Iraq." Notice this. So what did they say? That is, notice that their interpretation returned to them with the evil they had fled from. So what did they say? They said: No, we mean that He settled in a manner befitting His Majesty. Fine, say: "He rose in a manner befitting His Majesty" and the problem is solved. And stay Salafis, and don’t be Khalafis!!
So these people, when they engaged in figurative interpretation, it was not a response to the scholars of the Greeks and Romans with their philosophy and so on. Rather, doubts arose in their own hearts, so they defended themselves through the path of figurative interpretation, which led them to denial of the divine attributes. Therefore, now you find the scholars of kalam and those who defend them confused in their religion. Now, if you can, one day ask this lecturer who denounces the scholars of kalam the question the Messenger (peace be upon him) asked the slave girl, and he will not be able to answer you; because he does not know Islamic creed. He only knows general Islamic culture that the scholars of kalam and the Mu'tazilah responded to the disbelievers and the atheists. And perhaps some of the matter is like that, but they did not stop in their response at the texts of the Book of their Lord; rather, they made their minds the judge. So on the one hand, they intended reform, but they fell into corruption. And we live in this context today, unfortunately, except for a few of the sincere servants of Allah!
To complete the discussion, I say: They say, if we say: ... to respond to the philosophers; because I am going to speak now in the language of philosophy, and it will become clear that they know nothing of this philosophy, and it is truth in this field. So we say to them, indeed, this happened between me and some of the shaykhs of al-Azhar in one of the seasons of Hajj about four years ago, on a quiet night in Mina. We met an al-Azhari shaykh there, and the discussion took place regarding... the attributes, and specifically in this verse. I said to him: You accuse the Salafis of being anthropomorphists; because they... take the verses at their apparent meaning... they say: Indeed, so you call the Salafis anthropomorphists and likeners. I ask you now: when you attribute to the Salaf, both past and present, that they place their Lord in a place when they say: "Allah is in the sky," and "Allah rose above the Throne"; you say: they place Him in a place. I ask you now: place—here philosophy begins now, but logical philosophy as you will see; is place an existent thing or a non-existent thing? Think a little, then he answered with the correct answer. He said: Place is an existent thing, it is not a non-existent thing.
And I think the intended meaning of the question and answer is clear to you; that is, for example, when we imagine and when we read in books of language the word "al-Anqa," a name for a strange animal, a falcon and so on, does al-Anqa have existence or is it only a name in the imagination? They said: This al-Anqa has no existence; that is... it is imagined in the mind, it has no existence in the external world. This is the mental meaning that has no external existence. So when I asked: Is place an existent thing or a non-existent thing? Existent like all existing things, non-existent like al-Anqa, for example, and some of them also added to it... this has no existence except in the mind. That is what they said. Fine, is place an existent thing or a non-existent thing? He said: An existent thing. I said to him: Fine, is this existent thing preceded by non-existence? He said: Yes. So I said to him: Place came into existence after it was not; is that not so? He said: Yes. I said: The universe, in that it is created by Allah (Mighty and Majestic), is it limited or unlimited? He said: Limited. All this speech is correct. We said: So now we are on the earth, above us? He said: The first heaven. Above that? The second, like that, the seventh heaven, and above the seventh heaven what is there? He said: The Throne. And I said to him: Above the Throne what is there? He said: The Cherubim angels!! I said: What are these Cherubim angels? Did you read the Cherubim angels in the Qur'an? He said: No. I said: In the hadith? Is there a hadith mentioning angels called Cherubim? He said: I do not know. I said: How can you speak about something from the unseen—and none knows the unseen except Allah—you say that above the Throne there are Cherubim angels? He said: This is what we studied in the Noble al-Azhar.
They teach in al-Azhar mythical things like creed!! I said: There is no mention in the Sunnah, let alone the Book, that above the Throne there are angels at all, and specifically angels named Cherubim. But there is in the Qur'an: , the bearers of the Throne. As for above the Throne, look now how they reverse the facts? The legal facts state explicitly that what is above the Throne is Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He). They place Cherubim angels above the Throne. Glory to Allah the Great! They believe in the thing that has no existence, and they deny the thing that exists!! In any case, I wanted to walk with him to the end of the path. I said to him: Suppose there are Cherubim angels above the Throne; what is after that? He said: Nothing, it is finished, the universe is limited. He said: Nothing. I said to him: Is there a place? Look, we started the discussion with place. I said: Is there a place above the Cherubim angels? Is there a place? He said: No. I said to him: The Salafis say: Allah is above the Throne; that means in a non-place. By your admission that there is no place, Allah is above all creations, and the highest creation in our belief is the Throne, in another belief the Cherubim angels; the universe is finished and place is finished. So Allah (Mighty and Majestic), when we describe Him as being above the Throne, it means He is not in a place! So the man was stunned.
The scholars of kalam are living in this illusion, in this misguidance, that if we say: "Allah is above the Throne," it means we placed Him in a place; whereas there is no place, because there is no place and nothing with Him, as in the authentic hadith. So now, from this perspective; that is: from the fact that He was not in a place; He is now, from this perspective, as He was; He is not in a place. But when He created the creation, in this case, one of two things must be: either the creation is above Him, or He is, as is the reality, above His creation. We are certain that... and therefore, among the attributes of the believers is what their Lord of the Worlds described them with in the Noble Qur'an itself: , whereas the scholars of kalam, as you heard yesterday: "Not above, not below, not right, not left, not in front, not behind, not inside the world, not outside it"; this is disbelief itself!! So the scholars of kalam have not benefited us at all, on the contrary; rather, they bequeathed us this loss, a very serious creedal loss. The Muslims do not know where their Lord is!!