And it is explicit in the invalidity of the statement of the one who interprets figuratively *** regarding the rising above the Throne by the subjugation of the One of authority (those who denied the rising above the Throne for Allah on the suspicion that it necessitates that Allah be a body and limited
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: "And it is explicit in the invalidity of the statement of the one who interprets figuratively *** regarding the rising above the Throne by the subjugation of the One of authority
And it is explicit that those who said this *** are the people of misguidance, by clarification"
Yes.
"It is explicit in the invalidity of the statement of the one who interprets figuratively *** regarding the rising above the Throne by the subjugation"
Who are these? The Asha'irah, the Mu'tazilah, and the like of them from those who denied the voluntary attributes, and they said: It is not possible that Allah rose above the Throne in a manner of settling or elevation, because this necessitates that He be a body, and some of them said: It necessitates that He be limited, because the Throne is limited, it has pillars, meaning it is defined. So if you say that He rose above the Throne, you have made Allah limited.
So they attributed this to two aspects. The first aspect: If you make the rising above the Throne a reality, it necessitates that Allah be a body, and bodies are similar in their estimation. If you make the rising above the Throne a reality, He becomes limited, what? Limited, He becomes limited upon a limited thing, meaning this necessitates that Allah be limited, and Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is not limited by anything.
So what is the meaning in their opinion? They say: He rose above the Throne means He took control of it, owned it, and subjugated it.
And you know that some of them, for the sake of this figurative interpretation, claimed that the creation of the Throne was after the creation of the heavens, so that no one would say: If Allah did not take control of the Throne until after the creation of the heavens, then who owned the Throne before that? Is that clear? And it is known that interpreting the rising above the Throne as subjugation and dominance is invalid, invalid from many aspects: that it is contrary to what the Salaf agreed upon, that it is contrary to what the language requires, that it entails that the Throne before the creation of the heavens and the earth was owned by other than Allah, and that it is permissible for us to say that Allah rose above the earth, because He is dominant over it, prevailing over it, subjugating it, and owning it. Rather, we say that Allah rose above something worse than this in their estimation, so it necessitates invalid consequences, so it is invalid, because what necessitates the false is false.
And it is explicit that those who said this *** are the people of misguidance, by clarification"
Yes.
"It is explicit in the invalidity of the statement of the one who interprets figuratively *** regarding the rising above the Throne by the subjugation"
Who are these? The Asha'irah, the Mu'tazilah, and the like of them from those who denied the voluntary attributes, and they said: It is not possible that Allah rose above the Throne in a manner of settling or elevation, because this necessitates that He be a body, and some of them said: It necessitates that He be limited, because the Throne is limited, it has pillars, meaning it is defined. So if you say that He rose above the Throne, you have made Allah limited.
So they attributed this to two aspects. The first aspect: If you make the rising above the Throne a reality, it necessitates that Allah be a body, and bodies are similar in their estimation. If you make the rising above the Throne a reality, He becomes limited, what? Limited, He becomes limited upon a limited thing, meaning this necessitates that Allah be limited, and Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is not limited by anything.
So what is the meaning in their opinion? They say: He rose above the Throne means He took control of it, owned it, and subjugated it.
And you know that some of them, for the sake of this figurative interpretation, claimed that the creation of the Throne was after the creation of the heavens, so that no one would say: If Allah did not take control of the Throne until after the creation of the heavens, then who owned the Throne before that? Is that clear? And it is known that interpreting the rising above the Throne as subjugation and dominance is invalid, invalid from many aspects: that it is contrary to what the Salaf agreed upon, that it is contrary to what the language requires, that it entails that the Throne before the creation of the heavens and the earth was owned by other than Allah, and that it is permissible for us to say that Allah rose above the earth, because He is dominant over it, prevailing over it, subjugating it, and owning it. Rather, we say that Allah rose above something worse than this in their estimation, so it necessitates invalid consequences, so it is invalid, because what necessitates the false is false.