A question regarding the responses of the people of the Sunnah to the innovators?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Some people say ...?
The Shaykh : ... They say that you do not engage in debate so that others might engage in falsehood. Engage in the truth. The Salaf (may Allah have mercy on them), who lived in the time of desires, did they remain silent? No. They were more God-fearing and more knowledgeable about Allah than we are, and they did not remain silent. It is true that the Companions did not speak in this manner because this matter did not appear in their time. They read the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) as it had appeared to them. But when people were afflicted by desires and the people of desires, they spoke. And I think it passed us before: "When Imam Ahmad was asked, 'Why do we say the Qur'an is not created, while the Companions did not say that?' " What did he say? "He said, 'We say this because these people say it is created.' " These Jahmiyyah say it is created; why do we not say it is not created? We must say so. "And when it was said to some scholars, 'How do you say that Allah the Exalted rose above the Throne with His Self?' " This is an unnecessary addition. Why do you say "with His Self"? It is not in the Qur'an "with His Self," nor in the Sunnah "with His Self." "They said, 'Yes, we say it because these people say He did not rise with His Self, but that He took possession of it.' "
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Who is he?
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : No, but He rose above the Throne with His Self. The intended meaning is not the word "Self" (dhat), but rather that He rose with His Self. This phrase is not present [in the texts]. They said: "Yes, we say this because these people say 'rose' means 'took possession of,' not that His Self rose above it, but that He took possession of it, and we do not affirm the rising above."
The questioner :"And that is in the Self of the Deity" ...
The Shaykh : It differs from this. It differs because "dhat" (Self) in the Arabic language has not been used in the meaning of "the very essence" (ayn). In Arabic, it has not been used in the meaning of "the very essence," but rather in the meaning of "side" or "any thing," such as: "I descended upon it on a certain night," meaning any night of the nights. "With the Self of Allah" means in His path and His side; that is the meaning. "And that is in the Self of the Deity", and the meaning is not "in the Self of the Deity" meaning in His very essence, which is the very Deity. No. Therefore, "dhat" in classical Arabic originally means "possessor" (sahibah), the feminine of "dhu" (possessor). However, the reality of the matter is that when you divide and say "Self and attributes," there is no harm, there is no obstacle, and you make "dhat" mean "essence" and "very essence." Therefore, all scholars from the time of the Tabi'un and after them all say "dhat" as the counterpart to the attributes. Do not deny it. Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : ... They say that you do not engage in debate so that others might engage in falsehood. Engage in the truth. The Salaf (may Allah have mercy on them), who lived in the time of desires, did they remain silent? No. They were more God-fearing and more knowledgeable about Allah than we are, and they did not remain silent. It is true that the Companions did not speak in this manner because this matter did not appear in their time. They read the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) as it had appeared to them. But when people were afflicted by desires and the people of desires, they spoke. And I think it passed us before: "When Imam Ahmad was asked, 'Why do we say the Qur'an is not created, while the Companions did not say that?' " What did he say? "He said, 'We say this because these people say it is created.' " These Jahmiyyah say it is created; why do we not say it is not created? We must say so. "And when it was said to some scholars, 'How do you say that Allah the Exalted rose above the Throne with His Self?' " This is an unnecessary addition. Why do you say "with His Self"? It is not in the Qur'an "with His Self," nor in the Sunnah "with His Self." "They said, 'Yes, we say it because these people say He did not rise with His Self, but that He took possession of it.' "
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Who is he?
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : No, but He rose above the Throne with His Self. The intended meaning is not the word "Self" (dhat), but rather that He rose with His Self. This phrase is not present [in the texts]. They said: "Yes, we say this because these people say 'rose' means 'took possession of,' not that His Self rose above it, but that He took possession of it, and we do not affirm the rising above."
The questioner :"And that is in the Self of the Deity" ...
The Shaykh : It differs from this. It differs because "dhat" (Self) in the Arabic language has not been used in the meaning of "the very essence" (ayn). In Arabic, it has not been used in the meaning of "the very essence," but rather in the meaning of "side" or "any thing," such as: "I descended upon it on a certain night," meaning any night of the nights. "With the Self of Allah" means in His path and His side; that is the meaning. "And that is in the Self of the Deity", and the meaning is not "in the Self of the Deity" meaning in His very essence, which is the very Deity. No. Therefore, "dhat" in classical Arabic originally means "possessor" (sahibah), the feminine of "dhu" (possessor). However, the reality of the matter is that when you divide and say "Self and attributes," there is no harm, there is no obstacle, and you make "dhat" mean "essence" and "very essence." Therefore, all scholars from the time of the Tabi'un and after them all say "dhat" as the counterpart to the attributes. Do not deny it. Yes, indeed.