Explaining the weakness of the argument used by those who deny the vision of Allah, based on the statement of the Exalted: "No vision can grasp Him, but He grasps all vision..."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Who among you can bring me the verse indicating the vision of Allah in what we heard from the imam's recitation tonight?
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Well done. Allah the Exalted says:[Al-An'am 6:103] Allah says, "No vision can grasp Him." This verse was used as evidence by those who deny the vision.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Fine. The lack of encompassing knowledge means that He is not seen. Rest.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Here in this world? And this is an error. Rest. Because the verse is general. Listen, my brother:[Al-An'am 6:103] Which is more specific: grasping or absolute vision? The question is for everyone: which is more specific, grasping or absolute vision?
Grasping is more specific. That is why we see the sun at high noon, yet we do not grasp it. Vision is broader. I mean, vision is broader than grasping. So when Allah negates grasping, it indicates the existence of vision, because negating the more specific implies the existence of the broader. If both were negated, the broader would be negated, which would include the more specific. Therefore, this verse, which those who deny the vision of Allah boast about, is in their own scale evidence against them. And I will give you a rule, specifically for the students of knowledge: whenever a person makes an incorrect statement and argues for it with valid evidence, that evidence must be evidence against him. Listen, this is a clear rule: whenever a person prefers a weak or invalid statement and argues for it with valid evidence, that evidence will be evidence against him. The Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) committed to this in his book "Al-Dar' ta'arud al-'aql wa al-naql", because no one among the people of Kalam, philosophy, or logic argues for their falsehood with valid evidence without that evidence becoming evidence against them. So this verse is evidence against them. Fine.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Well done. Allah the Exalted says:
Vision perceives Him not, but He perceives [all] vision; and He is the Subtle, the Acquainted.
لا تدركه الأبصار وهو يدرك الأبصار وهو اللطيف الخبيرThe student: ... .
The Shaykh : Fine. The lack of encompassing knowledge means that He is not seen. Rest.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Here in this world? And this is an error. Rest. Because the verse is general. Listen, my brother:
Vision perceives Him not
لا تدركه الأبصارGrasping is more specific. That is why we see the sun at high noon, yet we do not grasp it. Vision is broader. I mean, vision is broader than grasping. So when Allah negates grasping, it indicates the existence of vision, because negating the more specific implies the existence of the broader. If both were negated, the broader would be negated, which would include the more specific. Therefore, this verse, which those who deny the vision of Allah boast about, is in their own scale evidence against them. And I will give you a rule, specifically for the students of knowledge: whenever a person makes an incorrect statement and argues for it with valid evidence, that evidence must be evidence against him. Listen, this is a clear rule: whenever a person prefers a weak or invalid statement and argues for it with valid evidence, that evidence will be evidence against him. The Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) committed to this in his book "Al-Dar' ta'arud al-'aql wa al-naql", because no one among the people of Kalam, philosophy, or logic argues for their falsehood with valid evidence without that evidence becoming evidence against them. So this verse is evidence against them. Fine.