And as for the detailed explanation, it is based on every text that it is claimed the Salaf turned away from its apparent meaning.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And as for the detailed explanation, it is based on every text that it is claimed the Salaf turned away from its apparent meaning" means we answer regarding every text. It is better to say "from every text," because if the answer is preceded by the preposition "on" (ala), it is an answer to a questioner's question. If it is preceded by "from" (min), it is a refutation of a doubt raised by one who doubts. So if you want to respond to a person, say "The answer to your statement is from two angles." If you want to answer a questioner, say "The answer to the question is such and such." So in exams, what do we say? "Answer the question" or "Answer on the question"? Answer on the question.
Now, here we say that if it were said "from every text that it is claimed the Salaf turned away from its apparent meaning," it would be better. But "on" is acceptable if the context clarifies the meaning. I hope there is no harm in it. "Let us illustrate with the following examples, starting with what Abu Hamid al-Ghazali reported from some of the Hanbalis, who said: Ahmad did not interpret (ta'wil) anything except three things:
The first:Musannaf Abd al-Razzaq 12:796.
The second:Sunan Ibn Majah 3834.
The third:".
Do you understand? He says that Imam Ahmad did not interpret, and interpretation (ta'wil) is turning speech away from its apparent meaning, except in three things. The first isMusannaf Abd al-Razzaq 12:796. The people of doubt, the people of interpretation, claimed that the apparent meaning of the hadith is that the Black Stone in the Ka'bah, which is a stone, is the right hand of Allah the Exalted, which is His noble hand on earth, attached to the Ka'bah. Can any rational person think that this is the apparent meaning? Answer. No, by Allah, it is impossible. That is, a stone in a wall is the right hand of Allah? This is impossible. So how do these people say that this is the apparent meaning of the wording, except for the sake of disparagement and distortion?
The second, he says:Sunan Ibn Majah 3834 This is what they claimed. They claimed that this is the apparent meaning of the wording, if all the hearts of the children of Adam are between two fingers of the fingers of the Most Merciful. The hearts of the servants are between two fingers of the fingers of the Most Merciful. They say that the apparent meaning of the wording is that all hearts are between two fingers of the fingers of the Most Merciful, so the fingers of the Most Merciful would be in the chest of every person. This is what they claimed. Their claim is that this is the apparent meaning of the wording, if all the hearts of the children of Adam are between two fingers of the fingers of the Most Merciful. They said that this necessitates that the noble hand of Allah and the noble fingers of Allah be in the chest of every person. They said this is the apparent meaning. And there is no doubt that this is not the apparent meaning, as evidenced by another hadith: .
The third, he says:. They said the apparent meaning of the hadith is that Allah has a soul (nafs) and that it comes from the direction of Yemen. This is what they claimed. And it is known that one who knows Allah with true knowledge cannot imagine this meaning that they claimed is the apparent meaning of the wording, because the soul (nafs) undoubtedly requires a cavity to expel the soul and receive it, and Allah the Exalted is al-Samad (the Self-Sufficient), He does not eat and does not need a soul or anything else.
These are three things that al-Ghazali claimed Imam Ahmad interpreted and turned away from their apparent meaning. So let us answer by transmitting from him what Al-Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said on page 398, volume 5, of *Majmu' al-Fatawa*, and he said: "This report is a lie about Ahmad". Praise be to Allah, it is a lie. So do we need to answer it or not? I mean, do we need to answer regarding its attribution to Ahmad or not? We do not need to, as long as it is a lie, the structure has collapsed.
Now, here we say that if it were said "from every text that it is claimed the Salaf turned away from its apparent meaning," it would be better. But "on" is acceptable if the context clarifies the meaning. I hope there is no harm in it. "Let us illustrate with the following examples, starting with what Abu Hamid al-Ghazali reported from some of the Hanbalis, who said: Ahmad did not interpret (ta'wil) anything except three things:
The first:
The Black Stone is the right hand of Allah on earth
الحجر الأسود يمين الله في الأرضThe second:
Hearts are between two of the fingers of the Most Merciful
وقلوب العباد بين أصبعين من أصابع الرحمنThe third:
And I find the soul of the Most Merciful from the direction of Yemen
وإني أجد نفس الرحمن من قبل اليمنDo you understand? He says that Imam Ahmad did not interpret, and interpretation (ta'wil) is turning speech away from its apparent meaning, except in three things. The first is
The Black Stone is the right hand of Allah on earth
الحجر الأسود يمين الله في الأرضThe second, he says:
Hearts are between two of the fingers of the Most Merciful
قلوب العباد بين أصبعين من أصابع الرحمنHe turns them however He wills
يقلبها كيف يشاءThe third, he says:
And I find the soul of the Most Merciful from the direction of Yemen
وإني أجد نفس الرحمن من قبل اليمنThese are three things that al-Ghazali claimed Imam Ahmad interpreted and turned away from their apparent meaning. So let us answer by transmitting from him what Al-Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said on page 398, volume 5, of *Majmu' al-Fatawa*, and he said: "This report is a lie about Ahmad". Praise be to Allah, it is a lie. So do we need to answer it or not? I mean, do we need to answer regarding its attribution to Ahmad or not? We do not need to, as long as it is a lie, the structure has collapsed.