The Ash'ari interpretation of the attribute of Istiwa' as Istiwa' (dominion), and the refutation of them.

The Shaykh : Look at what the Ash'aris and the Maturidis did with one of these attributes that the Salaf affirmed—and we are with them in that, of course. They did what the Mu'tazilah did. The Mu'tazilah interpreted hearing and sight as what you know to be knowledge. They were told: "You have done nothing, because humans are also described as knowing. What do they say? The knowledge of Allah is not like the knowledge of these people. So leave the text alone and say: The hearing of Allah is not like the hearing of humans, and His sight is likewise."
The later Ash'aris did something similar. What did they say? You all know that they interpreted the verse of Istiwa' , as Istiwa' (dominion). You know this, but perhaps many of you did not know the objection raised against them, nor how they escaped from it. They were told: "O people, you interpreted the Istiwa' mentioned in the verse as Istiwa' (dominion) to escape likening Allah to creation, because you claim that if we say it involves likening Allah (Mighty and Majestic) to kings. So you said 'He established dominion.' But what you fled from, you fell into, and into something more severe. Because the word 'established dominion' implies that it preceded Allah (Mighty and Majestic), even for a moment in time, that He was overpowered in His affair, not established in His kingdom, and then He established dominion!"
This is far more dangerous than what you imagine from interpreting the verse of Istiwa' as an Istiwa' befitting His Majesty and Perfection. What did they say? They said: "No, we say: Istiwa' means Istiwa' (dominion), but we remove the meaning of overpowering." That is, the meaning by which they interpreted the Qur'anic text, in their claim to escape likening Allah to creation, they returned from, because if it is said: "So-and-so established dominion over such-and-such," it means he established dominion by overpowering. So they say: "No, we remove the word or meaning of overpowering." So nothing remained in their hands. If they had remained with the verse as the Salaf did, and as you just learned from the two narrations: , meaning: The Istiwa' is known and the how is unknown; if they had remained with this meaning, it would have been better for them than that figurative interpretation which they quickly disbelieved in and returned from. Yet they still argue with falsehood to this day, and say: "No, we do not say Istiwa' because on its surface it contains likening. Fine; what do you say?" Due to this figurative interpretation, whose falsity has become apparent, a group emerged who called themselves, or were called by others, "the Waqifah" (the standers). They are neither with the Salaf nor with the Khalaf, and I think this lecturer referred to is one of these people.