Discussion of the understanding of Islam by the people of Kalam, and clarification of their harm to Islam and the people of Islam.

The Shaykh : The scholars of Kalam, my brother.
...
Between those you refer to when they say that the existence of scholars of Kalam... was in the path of defending Islam and in the path of removing the doubts of the disbelievers, such as the Romans and the Greeks and the like, the truth is that they were pleased to bring Islam closer to logical thought, not to Greek logic, but because they completely reversed that, and the matter is, as it is said, 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. I heard they are now trying to Americanize Islam, to Europeanize it, to make it European Islam and American Islam. Is it to clarify Islam and show that it is in harmony with sound reason and sound fitrah (innate natural disposition)? Or is it a ta'wil (figurative interpretation) of Islam that is in harmony with the culture of these Europeans and Americans? So now the scholars are two groups: a group that tries to explain Islam by first understanding it correctly, and by presenting it—also—correctly and soundly, and another group that says presenting Islam this way with these old meanings, these Europeans do not understand it, we should explain Islam to them in a way their souls 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 you refer to, in reality, do not understand Islam, but they are influenced greatly by the scholars of Kalam and they imagine that their work was in the service of Islam, and the obligatory was that it should be so, but not with all of them. What should be is not what is, yes.
I say now: The scholars of Kalam harmed the Muslims; as proof, the Islamic scholar today lives on the crumbs of the science of Kalam, so he is lost and confused. It is sufficient that I gave you an example recently, and it seems you were present. In the question of the maidservant to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): . And her saying: In the sky. Ask today whomever you wish of the lecturers themselves, you will not find an answer from them.
So what did they benefit from this science which they revere and magnify and claim was a temporal necessity in the path of defense? What did they do for 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. He says: "The istiwaa' (rising above the Throne) is known." What do the scholars of Kalam say? The scholars of Kalam reached the point where it was not only the ta'wil (figurative interpretation) of the texts of the Book and the Sunnah, which is similar to ta'til (denial of the divine attributes), but they also interpreted the very words of Imam Malik in a ridiculous way to prevent Malik's words from being a proof against them. They say the meaning of Malik's statement: "The istiwaa' is known" means "mentioned." What does "mentioned" mean? It means mentioned in the Qur'an. And this is ta'til (denial of the divine attributes) similar to the ta'til of the interpreters of the Arabic text of this noble Imam. The questioner says: O Malik, , what is the meaning of "He rose"? So this questioner knows that the istiwaa' is mentioned in the Qur'an, so how does Malik say to the questioner: The istiwaa' is mentioned in the Qur'an, and he interpreted it with, and he is asking about this mentioned in the Qur'an, he knows it and is not ignorant of it. He says: O Malik, , how did He rise? The answer was: "The istiwaa' is known," meaning: linguistically, , so...; because the meaning of istiwaa' is known in the language, and that it is rising above. And when this was a proof against the interpreters and the Khalaf (the later generations), they nullified this proof by interpretation... They said: Malik means the istiwaa' is mentioned. What does "mentioned" mean? It means mentioned in the Qur'an. Why does the questioner ask: Is there a verse in the Qur'an in which the istiwaa' is mentioned, so that the answer is: Yes, the istiwaa' is mentioned in the Qur'an? The question was not about this. The question was about the modality of the istiwaa', and the question was in affirming the verse about which he is asking, and he knows it and mentions it. So what is the meaning of the statement of these later scholars that Malik means by his saying: The istiwaa' is known, he means mentioned? It is ta'til (denial of the divine attributes) of the text of Malik!!
Finally, we say: O scholars of Kalam, what is the meaning of ? They will say—and their saying reminds us of a story and a joke—they say in the matter there are two opinions:
The Salaf (the earliest generations) say the istiwaa' is rising above, and the Khalaf (the later generations) say: The istiwaa' is seizing, in the matter there are two opinions. And the joke is that they claimed a clever, intelligent mufti (a scholar who issues fatwas) had a trip outside the city, so he appointed his father to manage the process of issuing fatwas. He said to him: O my father, I am a man who is not a scholar, and I do not know how to do this... on your behalf. He said to him: I will guide you to a method; whenever a questioner comes to you and asks you, say to him: In the matter there are two opinions. So he would get rid of the answer like this: Is it haram (forbidden) or halal (lawful)? In the matter there are two opinions. Is it permissible or not permissible? In the matter there are two opinions, my brother, and the religion is broad, and so on. So a clever one of the clever and a perceptive one of the perceptive noticed that there was something here in the matter, so he said to a companion of his: Ask the Shaykh, tell him: Is there doubt in Allah?! He said to him: O my master, the Shaykh, is there doubt in Allah? He said: In the matter there are two opinions [Everyone laughs!].
So the scholars of Kalam treat the creed with this hesitation and this confusion. What is the meaning of the istiwaa'? The Salaf (the earliest generations) say: The istiwaa' is rising above, and the Khalaf (the later generations) say: It is seizing. What did they benefit from this interpretation? Nothing. So they are neither Salafi (a follower of the Salaf) nor Khalafi (a follower of the later generations). Why? ... They are confused, as I said recently about that clever prince who said: These are a people who have lost their Lord!! These people have lost the noble and obvious meanings of the Qur'an. We said and they said—our Salaf (the earliest generations)—why do you interpret the istiwaa' as seizing? They said, and this shows you that the issue is not an issue of defense and response to Greek and Roman philosophy. No, that materialist philosophy entered into the hearts of these... the science of Kalam worked in them and diverted them from responding to the light of the Qur'an. They said to them: With what do you interpret the istiwaa' mentioned in more than one verse in the Qur'an as seizing, and you do not say rising above, which is the Arabic meaning of this word?
They said: If we say the istiwaa' in the verse is rising above, we have assigned a place to Allah, and Allah is exalted above place. Some of the speech is correct, meaning: That Allah is exalted above place is correct, but their understanding of this is not correct. Meaning their saying: If we say: He rose, we have assigned Him a place, is wrong. But their exalting their Lord above place is correct. And so . But did they get rid of the problem when they resorted to saying that the meaning of "He rose" is "He seized"? Like the one who was under the eaves and became under the rain. Do you know the eaves or not? It means the roof of the house drips from the rain, there are bottles or broken pieces that drip, so we were under the eaves and became under the gutter or became under the rain. This is what happened to them. When they said: Seizing, and they argued for it with a verse of poetry that said:
"Bishr rose over Iraq *** Without blood or sword shed"
Yes?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : How?

The questioner : "Bishr rose over Iraq *** Without a sword or blood shed"

The Shaykh : So look now; the very thing they fled from is what they have fallen into. Because they likened the rising of the Lord of the Worlds above the Throne to the rising of what? A human over Iraq. They openly fell into the very thing they fled from. Meanwhile, the scholars of the Salaf say: He rose in a manner befitting His perfection. They do not say, "He rises over his throne as so-and-so rises over his throne," contrary to the statement of these later scholars: "He rose as Bishr rose over Iraq." Observe this. So what did they say? I mean, observe that their figurative interpretation returned to them with the evil they had fled from. So what did they say? They said: No, we mean that He rose in a manner befitting His Majesty. Fine. Say: "He rose in a manner befitting His Majesty," and the problem is solved. And remain Salafis, and do not be of the later generations.
So, when these people resorted to figurative interpretation, it was not to refute the Greeks, the Romans, and their philosophy, and so on. Rather, doubts arose in their hearts, and they defended themselves through figurative interpretation, which led them to denial of the divine attributes. Therefore, you now find the scholars of theology and those who defend them confused in their religion... If you could one day ask this lecturer... the scholars of theology... ask him the question the Messenger (peace be upon him) asked the slave girl? I say: He cannot answer you. Because he does not know Islamic creed. He only knows general Islamic culture that the scholars of theology and the Mu'tazilah... refuted the disbelievers and the heretics. And perhaps the matter is so among them, but they did not stop at the texts of the Book of their Lord in their refutation; 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... unfortunately, except for a few of the sincere servants of Allah.
... To complete the discussion, I say: They say, if we say: , and this is part of... the refutation of the philosophers. Because I will now be speaking in the language of philosophy, it will become clear that they know nothing of this philosophy, which is true in this field. So we say to them, indeed, this occurred between me and some of the shaykhs of al-Azhar in one of the locations of Hajj about four years ago, on a quiet night in Mina. We met an al-Azhar shaykh there, and the discussion turned to the issue of... the attributes, and specifically this verse. I said to him: You accuse the Salafis of being anthropomorphists because they keep the verses on their apparent meanings. So they say He rose, and you call the Salafis anthropomorphists and those who liken Allah to creation. 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 is above the Throne," you say: They place Him in a place. I ask you now: Is 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 intent of the question and answer is clear to you. For example, when we imagine, when we read in books of language the word "al-Anqa" (the phoenix), a name for an animal... and so on. So al-Anqa means it has existence, or is it just a name in the imagination? They say that al-Anqa has no existence. It means a creation imagined in the mind that has no existence in the external world. This is the mental concept that has no external existence.
So when I asked: Is place an existent thing or a non-existent thing? Existent like all other existents, non-existent like al-Anqa, for example. Some of them also added... also, this has no existence except in the mind, so 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 preceded by non-existence? He said: Yes. I said: Place came into being 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. This is all correct speech. We said: So now, we are on earth, above us? He said: The first sky. Above that? The second, so on, up to the seventh sky. And above the seventh sky, what is there? He said: The Throne. 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, in a hadith mentioning angels, are they called Cherubim? He said: I do not know. I said: How can you speak of something from the unseen—no one 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 matters under the name of 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 in the Qur'an: , the bearers of the Throne. As for above the Throne, look now how they reverse the facts. The legal facts explicitly state that 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 what has no existence, and they deny what exists.
In any case, I wanted to take him to the end of the path. I said to him: Suppose there are Cherubim angels above the Throne. So what comes 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, in a place? He said: No. I said to him: The Salafis say Allah is above the Throne, meaning in no place. By your own admission that there is no place, so Allah is above all creations, and the highest of the creations in our belief is the Throne. In your belief, the Cherubim angels, the universe ends, and place ends. So Allah (Mighty and Majestic), when we describe Him as being above the Throne, it means He is not in a place. The man laughed.
The scholars of theology 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, even though there is no place. Because Allah was and there was nothing with Him, as in the previous hadith. So He is now, from this perspective—that is, from the perspective that He was not in a place—He is now, from this perspective, as He was. So He is not in a place. But when He created the creation, in this case, one of two things must be the case: either the creation is above Him, or it is, as is the reality, above His creation. We are certain that He is above the creations. Therefore, among the attributes of the believers is what their Lord, the Lord of the Worlds, described them with in the Noble Qur'an itself: . Meanwhile, the scholars of theology, as you heard yesterday, are not above, not below, not right, not left, not in front, not behind, not inside the world, and not outside it. This is disbelief itself!! So the scholars of theology have not benefited us at all. On the contrary, they have bequeathed us this loss, a very serious creedal loss. The Muslims do not know where their Lord is!!
Among the wonders—and if I forget, as they say, then I do not forget—I once left Damascus on a journey to call people to Allah toward Aleppo. The distance between Damascus and Aleppo is about four hundred kilometers. Then I headed toward Latakia, on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, about two hundred kilometers away. I was driving my own car with my friend, and we saw one of these foreign tourists standing by the side of a gas station. He was one of those beggars in the European style who ride for free and travel around the world for free; they have a specific, strange foreign name. He gestured, so I drove a short distance and consulted my friend: "What do you think? Should we stop the car and pick up this man to have some fun with him on the way, meaning to debate with him?" He said, "By Allah, that is the best thing you could say." So I reversed the car and let him in. It turned out that his wife was a short distance behind us. Had we known, perhaps we would not have been so encouraged, but we said, "There is no harm; they will ride behind us, and my friend is beside me." The strange thing, my brothers, was that it was easier for me to convince this disbelieving man of the Salafi creed...
...disbelievers do not have a Book or a Sunnah, but they have logical reasoning. And lo and behold, in the end, he became a Salafi with us, yes, by Allah. He believed that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has the attribute of being above. After we finished with that, we began to talk about many matters. For example, he is shaved, and this is in the category of killing two birds with one stone [The Shaykh laughs!].
I said to him—or rather, I said to my friend: "Ask him: You exalt Jesus (peace be upon him) more than we do. We believe that he is a messenger from the messengers of Allah and that he is a human being, not a god and... a god. So you exaggerate in exalting him. But we see that, on the other hand, you do not exalt him." He said, "How is that?" I said to him, "Did Jesus (peace be upon him) have a beard or not?" He said, "A beard." And they depict him with a magnificent, great beard. Well, we see you, O Christians, do not imitate your god, for he has a beard, and you do not have beards; why?" He said, "These are ordinary matters [The Shaykh laughs!], these are ordinary matters. We are not obligated to follow Jesus in that." I mention this as part of the discussions that took place afterwards. So, glory be to Allah, Islam is the religion of fitrah (the innate natural disposition), and as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . And here we are, living in Islam, becoming Magians, becoming Christians, and becoming Jews; in the name of what? Muslims. This is the great danger, because if a person knows that he is in error, it is hoped that he will return from it, unlike if he thinks that he is right, for then he will not return from it.