An extensive discourse by the Shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him) regarding ta'wil (figurative interpretation).

The Shaykh : We hope you will be kind enough to give us a comprehensive explanation of everything related to the topic of ta'wil (figurative interpretation), and may Allah reward you with good? Ta'wil has two meanings: a linguistic meaning and a technical meaning. The linguistic meaning is synonymous with the meaning of tafsir (exegesis); ta'wil is tafsir exactly as it came in many verses , ta'wil meaning tafsir, yes, ; meaning: tafsir. And so, this ta'wil with this meaning is linguistic. There is ta'wil with a technical meaning, and this is what is frequently found in the statements of the scholars. The technical meaning of ta'wil is: taking the meaning of a text, whether from the Qur'an or a hadith, away from its apparent meaning to another meaning indicated by the Arabic style, such as, for example, interpreting a verse by metaphor (majaz) rather than by its literal truth. Interpreting a verse by its literal truth is tafsir in the technical sense, and interpreting a verse by ta'wil, meaning taking the text away from its apparent meaning, is the ta'wil that is technically defined, and this appears to be what is intended by the question. For example, the verse in which the Salaf (the earliest generations) and the Khalaf (the later generations) differed in interpretation: What is the meaning of istawa' (rising above the Throne)? The meaning of istawa' without ta'wil is "He rose above," and this is the interpretation of the Salaf, among them Abu al-'Aliyah, as narrated by al-Bukhari in his Sahih. As for the Khalaf, they interpret the verse, meaning they take its meaning away from its apparent meaning to another meaning that seems to them, saying, for example: istawa' means "He took control." This meaning, which involves taking the verse away from its apparent meaning, is ta'wil. And examples of this are numerous. For example, His saying - Blessed and Exalted is He - : , so the interpretation of this verse, "And your Lord comes," as some of the Salaf said, is that its interpretation is its recitation, meaning the matter is apparent: "Your Lord comes" with the angels. As for its ta'wil, meaning taking the text away from its apparent meaning, "Your Lord comes" means some of the verses of your Lord or some of the angels of your Lord. This is ta'wil. So, ta'wil in the technical sense is bringing a meaning to a text, whether it is Qur'an or Sunnah, that its apparent text does not indicate, and which is reached by way of metaphor, allusion, or the like. And this kind of ta'wil is not prescribed according to the scholars of the Salaf, and it is not permissible to resort to it except when the literal truth is difficult to attain, meaning it is difficult and impossible to interpret the text without ta'wil. In that case, they resort to ta'wil. And from here came the disagreement between the Salaf and the Khalaf. The Khalaf expand greatly in interpreting verses and taking them away from their apparent implications merely by excluding the apparent meaning of the verse. And often, the exclusion that took place in their minds was actually caused by their analogizing the unseen to the seen. And if the verse they are interpreting relates to Allah - Mighty and Majestic - and His attributes, then this is the furthest thing from correctness. When you interpret a verse in a way that diverts the text of the verse from its apparent implication, these people, for example, did not leave the verse on its apparent meaning, as is clear, but rather they said "some of the verses of your Lord." Why? They said because Allah is not described as coming, and they deduced from coming that it involves movement, so they said Allah is not described as moving. This statement means that these interpreters looked at the Lord of the worlds with their look at His creation. Just as a human is described with movement, they said it is necessary that we not describe Allah with what a human is described with. Movement for a human is his attribute, so it is not permissible to describe Allah with some of the attributes that are among the attributes of humans. This is what compelled them to ta'wil, "Your Lord comes" as an example. And there is no doubt for the rational person that if he looks at this cause that led them to ta'wil, it will become clear to him that it is one of the weakest causes, indeed it is a false cause. That is because the implication of this cause, and its limitation, is that as long as humans move, it is not permissible to describe Allah as moving, and as long as humans come, it is not permissible to describe Allah as coming. This is to be applied, and it is false without doubt by reason. As long as humans see and look, it is not permissible to describe Allah as seeing and looking. As long as humans hear, it is not permissible to describe Allah as hearing. While the texts of the Book and the Sunnah are mutually supporting, continuous, and abundant in describing Allah - Mighty and Majestic - as hearing and seeing. He - the Exalted - said to Musa and Harun: Similarly, our Lord - Blessed and Exalted is He - said: ; so is there a necessity to interpret these texts that establish for Allah - Mighty and Majestic - the attributes of hearing and seeing merely because of the human's verbal sharing with Allah in hearing and seeing? If they had done that, they would have fallen into what the Mu'tazilah (a rationalist theological sect) before them fell into, for the Mu'tazilah... by ta'wil, they denied hearing and seeing as well. While the Asha'irah (the Ash'ari theological school), for example, who interpreted "coming," attributed "coming" to other than Allah, and Allah - Mighty and Majestic - says: So these who interpreted this verse from the Asha'irah did not interpret , so they did not deny hearing and seeing. But the Mu'tazilah exaggerated and denied hearing and seeing. Okay, did they deny the verses that establish these two attributes, the attribute of hearing and the attribute of seeing? The answer is: No, but they denied the realities of their meanings. They said "Hearing and Seeing" equals "Knowing." He has something, and "Hearing" is something, and "Seeing" is something else. This is what the scholars of the Salaf call ta'til (denial of the divine attributes), meaning they nullified the implication of the verse that Allah is Hearing and Seeing by way of ta'wil. They said describing Allah - Mighty and Majestic - with Himself as Hearing and Seeing is an allusion to Him being Knowing. What is the necessity that compelled these people to interpret this text in a way that leads to denying these two attributes? They said because if we say that Allah is truly Hearing, it means we likened Him to humans who are described as Hearing and Seeing. , Allah described Adam. This is the doubt (shubhah) upon which the interpreters who interpret verses and take them away from their implication relied. This doubt is summarized by them looking at the fact that Allah - Mighty and Majestic - if we describe Him with what He described Himself with, we have likened Him to His creation, and it is not permissible for us to liken Him to His creation. The refutation of this doubt is, briefly and with extreme ease, to say: When Allah - Mighty and Majestic - established for Himself hearing and seeing, He preceded that with His saying: So Allah - Mighty and Majestic - at the beginning of this verse purified Himself from being like anyone of His creation in any of His attributes. So after He purified and denied that anyone of His creation resembles Him - Blessed and Exalted is He - in any of His attributes, He established for Himself - Blessed and Exalted is He - the attribute of hearing and seeing, saying: And if we say that Allah is Seeing, nothing is like His sight. Similarly, when we read "And your Lord comes," we say His coming does not resemble the coming of humans, nothing is like Him. Otherwise, if these interpreters persisted in interpreting the verses of attributes, their ta'wil would lead them to denying the existence of the Self of Allah. And you see in this, so that we say... to these interpreters: Is Allah existent, is there a real existence, or is it non-existence? Without doubt, they say He is existent. It is said to them: The creation that Allah created, humans, animals, trees, and stones, are they existent or non-existent? We are compelled to say they are existent. So here there are two existences: the existence of the Creator of all created things, and the existence of the created things themselves. So if we say that the created things are existent and Allah is existent, does that mean we likened Allah to His creations or likened the creations of Allah to Him? The answer is no, because we will say Allah is existent from eternity, first without a beginning and last without an end, and the human is not so. So when we established for Allah an existence, we established for Him an existence that contradicts the existence of humans. Similarly, when we established for Allah hearing, seeing, coming, rising above, descending, and a hand, and so on of many attributes mentioned in the Book and the Sunnah, we establish for Him attributes that do not resemble the attributes of the created things. Briefly, Allah has the attribute of existence, and the created thing has the attribute of existence. So this establishment of the two existences does not mean an establishment of a similar existence. The existence of Allah befits His eternity and His being the Creator, and the existence of the human befits his weakness and his incapacity and that he was non-existent so Allah - Blessed and Exalted is He - made him existent. So the establishment, therefore, is that there is a difference in the divine attribute from the attribute of the created things. This difference is what negates similarity, and it is what makes us believe in the attributes as they came in the Book and the Sunnah without likening to the created things, because Allah says: and without ta'til, meaning denial of the attributes, because Allah established for Himself the attributes, among them The summary of what Ibn al-Qayyim - may Allah have mercy on him - said on this occasion is: "The one who denies attributes worships non-existence, and the one who ascribes a body to Allah worships an idol." The one who denies attributes worships non-existence, why? Because he says: Allah says: He tells you that He does not come down to the lowest heaven every last night, saying "Is there anyone who calls?" He says He does not come down. He did not rise above the Throne. He did not rise above the Throne. He has no hand. He does not have a hand. This is the denial. Why do you say He did not rise above? In "He comes" there is similarity to one of His creations who comes. Okay, "Hearing and Seeing" has similarity, so He is not Hearing, He is not Seeing. So He is existent. If he says He is existent... He is existent, there is similarity in it. He said the escape from this is that His existence is not like our existence, and His sight is not like our sight, and all the attributes are not like the attributes of the created things. So the interpreters, and at their head the Mu'tazilah, then following them after them the Asha'irah, their matter reaches the point that if they say "we worship Allah," they are worshipping non-existence, because what are the attributes of this deity? We do not know Allah except by what He described Himself with. So if we come to the attributes with which He described Himself and we interpret them or take them away from their clear meanings on the excuse that if we say "the human comes," if we say "the human is Hearing," the scholars of the Salaf said: "This is ta'til." Allah also has a Self, and each of us has a Self. So we say there is no Self for Allah - Mighty and Majestic -? Their faith in Allah returned to non-existence. Therefore Ibn al-Qayyim said: "The one who denies attributes worships non-existence," because he does not establish for Allah an attribute, not even the attribute of knowledge, the attribute of hearing and seeing; he interpreted them to the attribute of knowledge. But he will be compelled to interpret knowledge as well, because we say Allah is Knowing. Okay, and so-and-so is Knowing. Allah said in the Noble Qur'an: , ; so Allah is Knowing and the human is Knowing. So what will we say, that Allah is not Knowing? Why? Because there became a sharing in their claim between the knowing human and the knowing Lord. On their way, there is absolutely no answer. But on the way of the Salaf, we say Allah is Knowing with a knowledge that is not like the knowledge of humans. And it is clear that the knowledge of Allah is intrinsic, while the knowledge of the human is acquired, meaning the human was ignorant and then learned. As for Allah - Mighty and Majestic - if the expression is correct, by the nature of His Self - Blessed and Exalted is He - He is Knowing, so He did not acquire knowledge after being ignorant as the human is. So the sharing in the name does not harm. Or if we say that Allah is Hearing and we say the human is Hearing, this is not likening, because it is merely a sharing in the name. And we say, for example, the human is existent and the animal is existent. We say if we say the human is existent and the animal is existent, that we either raised the animal to the attribute of the human or lowered the human from the rank Allah placed him in to the rank of the animal. Mere sharing in existence is not so. Rather, we say the existence of the human is proportionate to his humanity, and the existence of the animal is proportionate to its animality. Similarly, it is said: Is the inanimate object existent? Is the existence of the inanimate object like the existence of the silent or deficient animal? The answer is no. So this is what the scholars call a verbal sharing. The existence of the inanimate object, the existence of the human, the existence of the animal, and the existence of the Creator of all existent things, this is all a verbal sharing. As for the reality, there is no sharing in it at all. So the existence of the inanimate object is different from the existence of the animal in reality, and the existence of the dumb animal that does not speak is different from the existence of the speaking human in reality, and the existence of this human is different from the existence of the angels, different from the existence of the jinn, and the existence of all these created things is different from the existence of the Necessarily Existent - Glorified and Exalted is He -. Similarly, it is said exactly about all the attributes that come or are mentioned in the Book and the Sunnah. So Allah comes certainly, because the text is explicit , but... we imagine that He comes on His legs or comes on a car or a tank or a plane, and so on of what is of the nature of humans. Here we say nothing is like Him. The Salafi methodology is the combining of purification (tanzih) and establishment (ithbat). We establish and we purify. As for the methodology of the Mu'tazilah and those influenced by their methodology from the Asha'irah and others, it is that when their minds were too narrow to comprehend that there is a real existence for Allah that contradicts the existence of the created things, they were compelled to say He does not rise above the Throne, or He did not rise above the Throne, and He does not come down, and He has no hand, and He does not speak, until some of them said... greater and much, much greater. Allah - Mighty and Majestic - all Muslims, despite their different schools and inclinations, agree that He is a reality and not a meaning that exists in the mind. Meaning He has an existence outside the universe, a real existence, and He is not a meaning that a human imagines. So every existent has attributes, without doubt, otherwise it would be an illusion. So Allah - Mighty and Majestic - His existence is real and eternal. What are the attributes of this eternal existent? The mind may comprehend some of them, but it cannot enumerate all the attributes except by way of transmission, which is the Book and the Sunnah. So when we come to these texts that came in the Book and the Sunnah describing this real existent, which is the Necessarily Existent - Glorified and Exalted is He -, with attributes, our position toward those attributes was to interpret them and nullify their meanings. The existence of Allah - Mighty and Majestic - remained an imaginary existence, not real. And we said that the real existence has its appropriate attributes. So when we came to every attribute and interpreted it to the opposite of what the text indicates, at that time we believed in an imaginary existence that has no reality. As we said earlier and I repeat and say: Allah - Mighty and Majestic - described Himself with many attributes, He says He comes, He hears, He sees, and so on. If we say He does not hear, He does not see, no, no, no, it means we did not describe this real existence that is absent from us. We did not describe it. And since we did not describe it, we did not rule on its existence except with a mental ruling. And I gave you some of the previous examples.