In His saying, the Exalted: {And it is to be made before My eyes}, is it derived from this the affirmation of the attribute of eyes for Allah, and likewise in the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)

The questioner : The last question: Is it derived from the verse that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, has an eye, and likewise the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) , is it derived from this that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, has fingers?

The Shaykh : There is no doubt, but it is not derived from the verse that it is in the eye of Allah, as some of the *ta'til* (deniers of attributes) imagine, because the verse here is in the sense they call *ta'wil* (figurative interpretation): "in the eye of Allah" means "in our eyes," i.e., in our observation and awareness. This is not *ta'wil* as many of the *ta'til* think; this is the meaning that an Arab who does not understand any other meaning would understand. This has examples, and some of the later scholars call it a matter of *ta'wil*. For example, when it came in Surat Yusuf, the saying of Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, This is because *ta'wil*, in their terminology, is when a sentence has two meanings: a real meaning that comes to mind first, and a figurative meaning that does not come to mind except through *ta'wil*. So they say that we only understand from the Arabic text by the first method, the meaning that comes to mind, which they call "reality" (*haqiqah*), unless there is evidence that compels us to interpret the text by the method of *ta'wil*. This is the first example , and the other example is . This description is not correct in them, meaning that whoever hears either of the two verses does not imagine in its meaning "in our eyes" in a circumstantial sense. And this is what our Lord addressed: that it is in the eye of Allah, i.e., in the interior of the eye of Allah. No one understands this meaning. Rather, they understand the second meaning, which they call "metaphor" (*majaz*) or call *ta'wil*. In this, the existing disagreement is reconciled. Whoever says *ta'wil* means the meaning is not what comes to mind; the meaning that comes to mind is the real meaning. For example, . This is a verse in the Qur'an. What comes to the listener's mind? "Allah came," He Himself, His essence, His greatness, and His majesty. They come and interpret it with a meaning that does not come to mind, saying "Your Lord came" means "the angels of your Lord," or "the mercy of your Lord," or something like that. So our saying here in the verse , the apparent meaning is that Allah came by His essence. It is not like the verse , meaning "its walls." No one understands this speech.
Therefore, the meaning that comes to mind is the real meaning, but terminologically, some of the later scholars call this *majaz* (metaphor); it is *majaz al-hadhf* (metaphor of omission), with an omitted addition: , meaning "the people of the village." This meaning is the correct one and is the reality. There are many examples in the Arabic language that show you that the matter has precision and involves a deviation from the way of the Salaf with doubts that have no value at all. When an Arab says "the gutter flowed," if you stop to consider the side of the one influenced by reality and metaphor, you must understand that "the gutter flowed" means a great heat surrounded the air of the gutter, so it melted like fire and flowed. Does anyone imagine this meaning from the Arab's saying "the gutter flowed"? No one. Rather, "the gutter flowed" means "the water of the gutter." This understanding is not *ta'wil*, my brothers; this is the intended meaning from the day the Arab's tongue ran with this phrase. "The gutter flowed" does not mean the gutter itself flowed, but what flows in it, the water. Likewise, when an Arab says "the river flowed," the river in language is the trench, the long hole in which water flows. So when an Arab says "the river flowed," it does not mean the land of the river, the trench, flowed, as for example we saw here at the airport, the electric escalator; when a person rides it, he walks on it. Rather, it means the Arab says "the river flowed," i.e., the water of the river. This meaning they call terminologically *ta'wil*, but the reality is the reality, and there is no metaphor. Why? Because there are not two meanings that can be interpreted this way and that way, but rather it is one meaning. This is unlike the examples they give where there is reality and metaphor. We say it is obligatory for us to interpret it according to the reality, because there is evidence that compels us to the metaphor. As we said, , , what compels *ta'wil*? There may be *ta'wil*, but the original is that there is no *ta'wil*; the original is to understand the phrase as it came. I say, on this occasion, in our country here in Syria, if we do not establish the rules that the scholars themselves established for regulating speech, speech becomes chaos with no end. Someone might say "the prince came," and then we find out he meant "the prince's servant came." What is the difference between "the prince came" and "the prince's servant came"? Is it permissible for an Arab to say "the prince came" while meaning "the prince's servant," without placing in his speech a context that makes the listener understand that he means the servant and not the prince? And so I say to those who believe in the unity of existence, the Sufis, these have very dangerous words that are explicit disbelief. Then their followers from the Sufis strain themselves and say, "My brother, this speech appears to be correct disbelief, but it has a *ta'wil*, it has a precise, high meaning that you people of the apparent do not understand." We say to them, what is the meaning of the saying of one of them, "Everything your eye sees is Allah"? Everything you see with your eyes of creation, there is no difference between the pure and the impure, between the good and the bad, it is Allah. And one of them says, "And the dog and the pig are nothing but our God, and Allah is nothing but a monk in a church." They say this speech has a second meaning. I say I challenge you: bring any phrase, however deep in misguidance, and I will convert it for you in one moment to pure *tawhid* (the oneness of Allah). By what method? The method of *ta'wil*. I say, for example, "The priest created the heavens and the earth." This is more disbelieving than this phrase. Take the added and omitted part and say, "Lord of the priest, the Lord of the priest created the heavens and the earth." Is this the rule that should be the basis for people understanding each other? No. The rule is that speech is reality except in a context. The context is what indicates to us that this meaning is not intended. Here in the examples we are discussing, and I feel I have lengthened this too much, it is not from the perspective of metaphor and reality, because all these verses have only one meaning, and this one meaning is what comes to the mind of every Arab listener: that the meaning is "ask the people of the village," "ask the people of the caravan," "in our eyes" means "in our observation" and "in our awareness," and praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.