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

The Shaykh : There is no god but Allah.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes, in the religion, how do you mean...?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : How do we use our minds? How do we use our minds? If you want to use our minds in understanding them...

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : There is no doubt about this. As for using our minds in what is like this, it is as if you said, "I use my mind in what I say, in what you say... or I use 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 does not descend to the level of humans. Perhaps you asked me about this?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Now, how do we use our minds in understanding the Sunnah?

The questioner : ...that Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He)... as Imam Malik said: "The rising above the Throne is known, the how is unknown, and asking about it is a religious innovation"... a distinctive culture... specific beliefs that you cannot agree with... and for this reason I say...

The Shaykh : Yes, the scholars of kalam, my brother... in the way of defending Islam and in the way 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 they reversed that completely. As they say, history repeats itself. We are now in a trial that is exactly like that trial. So the writers of Islam today and the scholars of Muslims today are divided into two schools, exactly as history repeats itself. Some people are now trying to Americanize Islam, making it European Islam and American Islam. Is this to clarify Islam and show that it is in line with sound reason and sound nature? Or is it a figurative interpretation of Islam that aligns 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 then presenting it correctly and soundly. And another group says, "Presenting Islam in this old way... these Europeans do not understand it. We should make them understand Islam in a way they will accept..." This is what the scholars of kalam did, led by the Mu'tazilah. 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 heavily influenced by the scholars of kalam. They imagine that their work was in the service of Islam, and it should have been so, but what should be is not what is. Yes, I am saying now that the scholars of Muslims have harmed the Muslims. The proof is that the Islamic world is now living in the delusions of the scholars of kalam. It is lost and confused. That is enough... I gave you an example recently, and it seems you were present. Good. The question of the maidservant to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): "Where is Allah?" She said, "In the sky." Ask today any of the lecturers themselves, and you will not find an answer from them. So what did they benefit from this knowledge that they... and they exalt, and they claimed that it was a necessity of the time in the way of defending Islam? They did not defend Islam; on the contrary, they deviated from Islam to other religions or ideas foreign to Islam.
The phrase I quoted accurately from Imam Malik is in fact the standard of the Salafi call. He says: "The rising above the Throne is known". What do the scholars of kalam say? The scholars of kalam have gone 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 also gave a figurative interpretation to the very words of Imam Malik, a ridiculous interpretation, just to prevent Malik's words from being an argument against them. They say the meaning of Malik's words, "The rising above the Throne is known," means "it is mentioned in the text." How do you mean "mentioned in the text"? This is a denial similar to the denial of the interpreted text... from 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," when he is reminding him of it...? He is asking about this thing mentioned in the Qur'an, and he knows it and is not ignorant of it. And he says, "O Malik, how did He rise above?" The answer was, "The rising above the Throne is known," meaning linguistically... 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 by interpretation... They said, "Malik means by 'the rising above the Throne is known' that it is mentioned. What does 'mentioned' mean? Mentioned in the Qur'an..." Is there a verse in the Qur'an where the rising above the Throne is mentioned, so that the answer would be, "Yes, the rising above the Throne is mentioned in the Qur'an"? It was not possible to ask about this. The question was about the manner of the rising above the Throne, and the question was in... the verse about which he is asking. He knows it and he mentions it. So what is the meaning of the saying of these later scholars that Malik means by his saying "the rising above the Throne is known" that it is mentioned? It is a denial of Malik's text... We say to the scholars of kalam, "What is the meaning of ?" And their answer reminds us of a story and a joke. They will say, "There are two opinions in this matter. The Salaf say the rising above the Throne is rising above, and the Khalaf say the rising above the Throne is seizing control." There are two opinions in this matter. And the joke is that they claimed a clever, intelligent mufti had to travel out of the town, so he appointed his father to manage the process of issuing fatwas. He said, "I am not a scholar and I am not qualified to do this..." He said, "I will point you to a method. Whenever a questioner comes to you and asks you, tell him, 'There are two opinions in this matter.'" So he would get rid of the answer like this: "Is it forbidden or lawful? There are two opinions in this matter!! Is it permissible or not permissible? There are two opinions in this matter!!" ... So be careful. A clever man among the clever and a perceptive man among the perceptive noticed that there was something here in the matter. He said to his companion, "Ask the Shaykh. Tell him, 'Is there doubt in Allah?'" He said, "O my master, Shaykh, is there doubt in Allah?" He said, "There are two opinions in this matter." Hahaha.
The audience: They laugh.

The Shaykh : So the scholars of kalam deal with creed with this kind of hesitation and this kind of 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 the rising above the Throne is seizing control. What did they benefit from this denial? Nothing. So they are neither Salafi nor Khalafi. Why? Rather, they are confused, as I said recently about that good prince. He said, "These people have lost their Lord. These people have lost the noble and apparent meanings of the Qur'an..." We said, and our Salaf said, "Why do you interpret the rising above the Throne to mean seizing control?" And this shows you that the issue is not an issue of defense and response to Greek philosophy. No, that materialist philosophy entered into... the hearts of these scholars of kalam, and it worked in them and diverted them from using the Qur'an as evidence. They said to them, "Why do you interpret the rising above the Throne, which is mentioned in more than one verse in the Qur'an, as seizing control, 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." It is correct to say that Allah is free from place. It is correct. But their understanding of this is not correct. Because their saying, "If we say He rose above, we have made a place for Him," whereas 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 control," like the one who was under... and became under the rain, do you know...? Or do you not say this?

The questioner : We do not know.

The Shaykh : I mean... so we were under... we became under the gutter or we became under the rain. So this hit them. When they said "seizing control" and they argued for it with a verse of poetry, they said: "Bishr rose above Iraq *** without a sword and without spilled blood"
So look now at the thing they fled from: they have fallen into it. Because they likened the rising of the Lord of the Worlds above the Throne to the seizure of a human over Iraq, they have fallen into it explicitly. For the scholars of the Salaf say, "He rose in a manner befitting His perfection." They do not say, "He rose over his throne as so-and-so rose over his throne," unlike the statement of the Khalaf: "It is a seizure, just as a human seized Iraq." Notice this. What did they say? Notice that their figurative interpretation (ta'wil) returned to them with the evil they had fled from. What did they say? "No, we mean that He seized in a manner befitting His Majesty... He rose in a manner befitting His Majesty, and the problem is solved. And stay Salafis, and do not be Khalafis." So when these people interpreted, it was not a response to the scholars of the Greeks and Romans with their philosophy, etc. In truth, doubts arose in their minds, so they defended themselves through figurative interpretation (ta'wil), which led them to the denial of the divine attributes (ta'til). So now you find the scholars of kalam and those who defend them confused in their religion. Now, if I could one day lecture... to the scholars of kalam... the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), the slave girl cannot answer you because he does not know Islamic creed; he only knows general Islamic culture from the scholars of kalam, the Mu'tazilah, and their response to the disbelievers and the heretics. And perhaps some of the matter is like this. So there are two hadiths in which the command... regarding the texts of their Lord's Book, they have made their minds the judge. So from one aspect, they intended reform, but they fell into corruption. And we live in this context, unfortunately, except for a few of the sincere servants of Allah! To complete the discussion, they say if we say ... and this is a response to the philosophers... I am now speaking the language of philosophy, how, when they know nothing of this philosophy, and it is truth in this field? So we say to them, indeed, this happened to some of the sheikhs of al-Azhar in one of the seasons of Hajj, about four years ago, on a quiet night in Mina. We met an Azhari sheikh there, and the discussion took place... regarding the attributes, and specifically in this verse. I said to him, "You accuse the Salafis of taking the verses at their apparent meaning indeed, and you say of the Salafis that they are those who ascribe a body to Allah (tajsim) and liken Allah to creation (tashbih). 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: does the place here begin with philosophy? Now, but logical philosophy, as you will see. Is the place an existential matter or a non-existent matter? Think a little, then he answered with a correct answer. He said, "The place is an existential matter, not a non-existent thing." And I think the intended meaning of the question and answer is clear to you. For example, when we imagine and when we read in the books of language the word 'Anqa' (a mythical bird), a name for a strange animal, a falcon, etc. Does the Anqa have existence, or is it only a name in the imagination? They said that this has no existence. The Anqa means it is imagined in the mind; it has no existence in the external world. This is the mental meaning that has no existence in the external world. So when I asked, "Is the place an existential matter or a non-existent matter?" He said, "Existential, like all existing things. Non-existent, like the Anqa, for example... this has no existence except in the mind." That is what they said. Okay, is the place an existential matter or a non-existent matter? He said, "It is an existential matter." I said to him, "Okay, this existing thing is preceded by non-existence." He said, "Yes." I said to him, "The place came into being after non-existence, is that not so?" He said, "Yes." I said, "The universe, in that it is created by Allah the Exalted, is it limited or unlimited?" He said, "Limited." All this speech is correct... So now, we are on the earth, above us? He said, "The first heaven." Above that? "The second heaven"... up to the seventh heaven. 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? You read 'Cherubim angels'..." He said, "No." I said, "In the hadith, there is a hadith mentioning angels called Cherubim?" He said, "I do not know." I said to him, "How do you speak of something from the unseen, when no one knows the unseen except Allah? You say above the Throne there are Cherubim angels." He said, "This is what we were taught in the Noble Azhar. They teach in the Azhar matters..." I said, "There is no mention in the Sunnah, let alone the Book, that there are angels above the Throne, absolutely, and specifically angels named Cherubim. But in the Qur'an there is 'The bearers of the Throne.' But above the Throne, look now how they reverse the facts. The established facts of the Shari'ah determine that the One above the Throne is Allah, and... he said, "And they place Cherubim angels above the Throne." Glory be to Allah the Great. The thing they do not allow, they believe in it, and the thing that exists, they deny it. In any case, I wanted to walk with him to the end of the path. I said to him, "Are there Cherubim angels above the Throne? And what is after that?" He said, "Nothing. The universe is limited and it ends." I said to him, "Is there a place?" Look at... the hadith has intelligence. I said to him, "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... there is no place. Allah is above all creations, and the highest of the creations... the universe ends and the place ends. And Allah the Exalted, when we describe Him as being above the Throne, it means He is not in a place. The man was stunned. The scholars of kalam are living in this illusion, in this misguidance. If we say Allah is above the Throne, it means we placed Him in a place, because there is no place, because there is no place and nothing with Him. So now, from this aspect, since He is not in a place, He is now, from this aspect, as He was. He is not in a place. But when He created the creation, it must be in this case one of two things: either the creation is above Him, or He is, as is the reality, above His creation... And therefore, among the attributes of the believers is what their Lord of the Worlds described them with in the Noble Qur'an itself: While the scholars of kalam, as you heard yesterday, are not above and not below, not right and not left, not in front and not behind, not inside the world and not outside it. This is disbelief itself. If the scholars of kalam did not benefit us with anything... rather, they bequeathed us this loss, a very serious creedal loss. The Muslims do not know where their Lord is!!