How to reconcile the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) (Allah was, and there was nothing with Him) with his statement (The first thing Allah created was the Pen)?

The Shaykh : Please go ahead.

The questioner : A question on the topic of the succession of events that...

The Shaykh : A question on

The questioner : the topic of the succession of events

The Shaykh : the succession of events

The questioner : You are trying to stretch me out, my Shaykh. Regarding the hadith of the Pen, is the intended meaning of the Pen that it is one of the observed things, meaning the statement of the Messenger

The Shaykh : observed?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : No. That is not the intended meaning.

The questioner : Okay, my Shaykh, the one who asked, the one who asked the question

The Shaykh : Who asked?

The questioner : The people of Yemen. The people of Yemen when they asked the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)

The Shaykh : The people of Yemen did not ask about the Pen.

The questioner : They did not ask the Messenger (may Allah's prayer and peace be upon him) about the beginning of this matter.

The Shaykh : The answer was the Pen.

The questioner : Excuse me, excuse me, yes, I have become confused between the two hadiths.

The Shaykh : Yes, go ahead.

The questioner : He (may Allah's prayer and peace be upon him) said and in the other narration in the other hadith, the hadith of the Pen, is the intended meaning

The Shaykh : What is the hadith of the Pen? What is it?

The questioner :

The Shaykh : It is not a created thing, yes, until the Day of Resurrection, yes.

The questioner : Until the Day of Resurrection. So now, how do we link between the two hadiths? The link between this hadith and this hadith? And if we also return to the verse that says , was there a period when Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) was suspended from action until the creation of the Pen, and the first creation was the Pen, and then He continued in creation?

The Shaykh : You were excused when you askedThe Shaykh : him to take you with his gentleness.

The questioner : Of course, with the preservation of the path of return, my Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Is this logic that you spoke of just now, is it Sharia-compliant?

The questioner : Which is?

The Shaykh : That is, was Allah before that suspended from creation and from action?

The questioner : My Shaykh, I want to understand the issue, meaning the issue, I have a problem with it, meaning until yesterday I was reviewing it and I am not able to understand it.

The Shaykh : Yes, it is clear on you... Why do you put yourself in these difficulties?

The questioner : I read in a book and this issue passed by me, I passed over it without understanding it.

The Shaykh : Events with no beginning, is there a text in the Noble Qur'an about them?

The questioner According to my knowledge, of course, meaning, excuse me.

The Shaykh : It appears the infection spread, and the deviation, you did not tell me if there is a text or if there is no text. You recited the verse to me and I am not understanding that the verse means that there are events with no beginning. Every Muslim knows that Allah is not compelled by another, but the other may be compelled by Him, so He is the Doer of what He wills. But my question is, is there a text, in what I know or in what I have read, that establishes this text, the philosophy of events with no beginning?

The questioner : No, I do not know.

The Shaykh : Did you see the difference between your previous answer, "He is the Doer of what He wills," and your answer now? So if we combine the two answers, it becomes clear that you were hasty in saying "He is the Doer of what He wills," because we all believe that He is the Doer of what He wills, but it has no relation to the topic of the question directed to you: events with no beginning. During your posing of the question, you mentioned the hadith of 'Umar ibn al-Husayn and you mentioned the hadith of the Pen. How to reconcile between them? From the aspects of reconciliation mentioned by the scholars of hadith, may Allah reward them with good, and they have conveyed it to more than a hundred aspects of reconciliation between two texts that appear to contradict each other. From that is to see which of the two texts is explicit in the topic of the supposed contradiction between the two texts? So now this question is directed to you: Is the hadith of 'Umar explicit in determining the first created thing is the Throne, or the hadith of the Pen?

The questioner : The hadith, the hadith of 'Umar...

The Shaykh : No, I am not asking you to repeat the hadith. Just say this or that, and I will repeat the question: Which of the two hadiths is more explicit in indicating the first created thing? The hadith of 'Umar or the hadith "The first thing Allah created was the Pen"?

The questioner : According to my understanding of the Pen, the hadith of the Pen.

The Shaykh : If the contradiction is removed, the contradiction is removed. This is first. Second, you and others may understand that the Pen is not the first created thing, but the Throne is the first created thing, correct?

The questioner : It is possible that something is before the Throne.

The Shaykh : You did not answer me, correct or not correct?

The questioner : What I understand from these hadiths is that the Pen is the first of the created things.

The Shaykh : Strange. May Allah increase your good and save me a long journey. Okay, if you understand this understanding and I am with you, would you not then be contradicting his statement (may Allah's prayer and peace be upon him) ? Is it possible that there is a created thing before the Pen?

The questioner : No, it is not possible.

The Shaykh : I say, if you believe with us that the first created thing is the Pen, do you not feel that when you say it is possible that the Pen is not the first created thing

The questioner : No, it is not possible. If I believe this belief, it is not possible for me to say that it is not possible for the Pen to be the first created thing.

The Shaykh : But you said this, so repent to Allah, correct?

The questioner : Correct.

The Shaykh : Yes, the issue of events with no beginning is finished. Is the topic of events with no beginning finished?

The questioner : Okay, my Shaykh, before the Pen

The Shaykh : Do you want to return? It is not like that. . So if you say with the saying of the Messenger, the saying of others is invalid by itself. And if you say with the opposite of the saying of the Messenger, you have invalidated the saying of the Messenger, and in it is what is not hidden from you...

The questioner : No, if Allah wills, we do not invalidate this.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. So why do we occupy our minds with something in which we contradict the speech of our Prophet (may Allah's prayer and peace be upon him), especially since this is a matter related to the secrets of secrets, which is the Lord of the worlds (Blessed and Exalted is He), with tolerance, of course, in expression. The truth is that Ibn Taymiyyah, when he investigated the topic, his investigation dragged him into a drag during his refutation of the philosophers who said with the antiquity of the world. But the Muslim should always and forever be present in his mind always that all good is in following the Salaf, and all evil is in the innovation of the Khalaf. We do not know the phrase "events with no beginning" in the history of the Salaf at all. This expression, we do not know it. But we know the hadith "The first thing Allah created was the Pen." And Ibn Taymiyyah himself discusses this topic, and you have relieved me from falling into the contradiction in which Ibn Taymiyyah fell. Ibn Taymiyyah in his treatise called the Al-'Arshiyyah Treatise leans towards the fact that after he mentions the disagreement among scholars in determining the first created thing, he leans towards the fact that the first created thing is the Throne, on the apparent meaning of the hadith of 'Umar ibn al-Husayn. So regarding what is related to events with no beginning, the topic of determining the first created thing has become secondary. The important thing is that there is a first of the created things, whether it is the Pen or it is the Throne. So if the saying of events with no beginning is invalid, but if we want to reconcile between the apparent meaning of the hadith of 'Umar and the hadith of the Pen, the hadith of the Pen, as we said just now, is more explicit in indicating priority. But if we suppose a person who insists that the first created thing is the Throne, we will not sit and fight with him, "You are right, you are wrong," and so on, because the whole research is in the topic of events with no beginning. So whether the first created thing is the Throne or it is the Pen, the important thing is that the issue of events with no beginning is invalid, because we agreed that there is a first created thing, but we disagreed on what is the first created thing. So some say the Throne and some say the Pen. So this is a second topic, so it is not appropriate then for us to occupy ourselves with researching events with no beginning, because this is not established against the hadith of 'Umar or against the hadith of the Pen, because each of the two hadiths establishes a first created thing, and the topic is finished.

The questioner : The hadith of 'Umar which says in it

The Shaykh : Yes, yes, go ahead.

Another questioner : What is the aspect of contradiction between the hadith of 'Umar and the hadith of the Pen?

The questioner : I mean, I did not intend, I intended the contradiction or clarifying the contradiction, but I intended clarification between this hadith. It is narrated by meaning. I must have you with me that it is narrated by meaning.

Another questioner : If you take me with your gentleness, O VirtuousThe Shaykh : you askedThe Shaykh : the reconciliation between

The Shaykh : This is a principle of others, of course.

Another questioner : So what is the aspect of contradiction that appeared to you and became clear between the two hadiths? Where is the contradiction?

The questioner : The contradiction is that at the beginning I mixed up between the two hadiths or between the two issues.

Another questioner : May Allah forgive what has passed. "Allah was and nothing with Him" or "Allah was and nothing other than Him"?

The questioner : "With Him" is a weak narration.

Another questioner : May Allah forgive her. Allah was, and there was nothing besides Him. What is the point of contradiction with the hadith of the Pen?

The questioner : There is no contradiction, but the issue is that Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, was from eternity.

Another questioner : Leave that alone; it is not our point of contention. Allah was from eternity. That is my question, meaning you have withdrawn from the question that there is no contradiction.

The questioner : Yes.

Another questioner : Allah was, and there was nothing with Him, then Allah was, and the Pen was with Him.

The questioner : These are two conditions present in the hadith.

The Shaykh : There is no benefit... In *al-Silsilah al-Sahihah*, the first thing Allah created was the Pen... Ibn Taymiyyah interpreted it figuratively.

The questioner : The first thing Allah created.

The Shaykh : Yes, but some explicit narrations refute this.

The questioner : As I said, may Allah reward you with good. The issue concerns events that have no beginning. If we understand it this way, that problem is resolved, and that understanding is that the Throne is before everything.

The Shaykh : Yes, the matter is concluded.