A Scholarly Principle: The texts of promise are absolute and are restricted by the texts of warning, just as the texts of warning are absolute and are restricted by the texts of promise.

The Shaykh : Among these is that the texts of promise may sometimes be absolute, in which case they are restricted by the texts of warning. I say that the texts of promise are sometimes absolute and are restricted by the texts of warning, just as the texts of warning are sometimes absolute and are restricted by the texts of promise. Here, it is stated that Hellfire is forbidden to the one who says, "There is no god but Allah," seeking thereby the Face of Allah. If we were to take the apparent meaning of this hadith, then no one would be punished at all, provided their sin was less than shirk (associating partners with Allah), because Allah said: Even though some sins are such that their perpetrator deserves to enter the Fire. Either the meaning is that Hellfire is forbidden to the one who says, "There is no god but Allah," meaning that it is forbidden for him to remain in it eternally, not merely to enter it, because entering it is for the sinners, unless Allah (Mighty and Majestic) wills otherwise. Also, some people have used this as evidence that the one who abandons prayer does not become a disbeliever, based on the generality of the statement: The answer to this is to say that this is a general statement, while the texts regarding the disbelief of the one who abandons prayer are specific, and the specific takes precedence over the general. Or it can be said that in this hadith, the speaker is described with a quality that makes it impossible for him to abandon prayer, which is his saying: Everyone who seeks something must ask for it. In fact, the word "seeks" (yabtaghi) means "to ask for." Therefore, if one says, "There is no god but Allah," seeking thereby the Face of Allah, it necessarily follows that he must perform the prayer. Even if we said "and the other pillars of prayer," that would have a basis, because the pillars of Islam are its great foundations, which is why they are called pillars, as the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said in the hadith of Ibn 'Umar: It is known that if you brought five pillars and built a tent or a roof on them, and then removed one of them, it might collapse. Based on this, we say that this hadith does not indicate that the one who abandons prayer does not become a disbeliever, for two reasons: either it is said that this falls under the category of the general and the specific, or it is said that this hadith restricts the speaker with a quality that makes it impossible for him to abandon prayer, which is his saying, "seeking thereby the Face of Allah." It also points to the importance of sincerity (ikhlas). "Seeking thereby the Face of Allah" means we must look at our deeds: when we perform a deed, do we realize that we are seeking thereby the Face of Allah (Mighty and Majestic)? Intentions differ more than deeds do. We know that outward deeds differ; the person who prays and moves a lot is different from the person who prays and does not move much. There is no doubt that they vary, but there is no difference greater than the difference in intentions, which is far greater. You will find some people who pray because they are required to, but they do not feel that they are aiming for anything, such as attaining the honor of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) and the Face of Allah (Exalted is He). If we were to feel this, I do not think Satan would have power over a person who constantly realizes that he is seeking the Face of Allah in all his movements; Satan would stay away from him. It also affirms the Face for Allah (Mighty and Majestic), "seeking thereby the Face of Allah." This is true in its reality, but it cannot be similar to the faces of creation, because Allah says: And so, all verses regarding attributes must be affirmed as they are, without likening Allah to creation (tashbih). Now, is asking how an attribute is (takyif) permissible? No, it is not permissible in any case. One might say, "How do I describe it in a way that does not resemble the created? I say it is a very, very great Face, and I magnify it, and I say I am not saying it is like the face of a created being; it has no equal. But I am describing a specific manner for it." We say, no, it is not permissible. If you say that, and you ask how it is, you have said about Allah what you do not know, and you have stopped at what you have no knowledge of. And Allah says: And He said: If someone says, "Has it not been established in the authentic hadith that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade striking the face and said: The answer is yes, that is established. But the answer to it is from one of two angles: either it is said that the preposition "on" (ala) here is an addition of honor, meaning "on its image," i.e., on the image that He chose and to which His care is attached. If that is the case, no one should have the power to strike it, because that would scratch the face and change it, involving a kind of humiliation for it. So its addition here is from the category of addition of honor and care. Or it is said that it is on its image, but it does not imply exact similarity. General similarity is not specific similarity. Therefore, we say that there are no two existing things that do not share in the origin of existence, and sharing in the origin does not imply similarity and equality. The proof of this is that the Messenger informed that Is it similar and equal to the full moon in every respect? We know that it is not. The image is the image in terms of the general and the overall, but it is not similar. There is a difference between each existing thing being distinguished by what is specific to it while sharing in the origin, and between them being equal in every respect and being similar. There is a difference here. And this principle is useful for you and resolves many difficulties for you, as Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) said in *Al-'Aqidah al-Tamiriyyah*: "There are no two things that do not share in the origin of the attribute in which they agree" But each one is distinguished by what is specific to it. And thus, the oneness of Allah (tawhid) becomes apparent, meaning the oneness of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) in what is specific to Him of attributes. Is that clear? Good.