Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "… Thirdly: regarding that which has not been negated or affirmed from among the matters in which people have disputed, such as body, space, and direction, and the like"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: "As for the third category, that which has not been negated or affirmed from among the matters in which people have disputed", such as the term "body." Note that the term "body" has not been affirmed for Allah nor negated from Him. Why? Because it is not pure perfection nor pure deficiency. Likewise, regarding direction, it has not been stated that Allah is in a direction or that Allah is a direction, neither by negation nor affirmation. The reason? Because it is not pure perfection nor pure deficiency. If it were pure deficiency, its negation would have been transmitted, or if it were pure perfection, its affirmation would have been transmitted. But instead of direction, the concept of elevation came, and elevation is pure perfection, so Allah affirmed it for Himself.
Likewise, regarding space, is Allah in a space, for example? Is Allah spatially bounded? These three terms are what the people of denial of the divine attributes (ta'til) mostly dwell upon. They say to you, for example, if you affirm that Allah is established over the Throne with a real establishment meaning elevation over it, then likening Allah to creation (tamthil) necessarily follows. How? They say that affirming real establishment necessitates affirming that He is a body, and bodies are similar to one another. Sometimes they say that a thing is not described with attributes unless it is a body, and bodies are similar to one another. Look at this false proposition! Yes, this proposition is false in both its premises. For example, they say that only a body is described with an attribute, is that correct? No, it is not correct. Rather, attributes (a'rad) are described just as bodies are. Pray two rak'ahs, if you are in a state of ablution, pray two rak'ahs. You say, for example, "This is a long day," "This is intense heat," "This is a chronic illness," and the like. Are these attributes or bodies?
The student: Attributes
The Shaykh : Attributes, attributes, and they were described with an attribute. Also, their statement that bodies are similar to one another, is this correct? This is also a lie. They differ in their sizes, shapes, and in their very selves. If you grip iron, it compresses, does it not?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, and if you grip dough? It compresses. Did the bodies become equal? They do not become equal. So they confuse the common people, the general public. The general public do not know; they confuse them with such phrases. They say, "Allah is a body." If you say that Allah is a body, then the similarity of bodies necessarily follows, making you one who likens Allah to creation. Likewise, "Allah is in a space." How is Allah in a space? It means that things surround Him, and this is incorrect.
So regarding such phrases, what is our position toward them? We say that if people had remained silent about them, it would have been more fitting for us to do what? To remain silent. But if people engage in them, we must enter the arena. We do not leave the field for these people to play as they please. We say, "By Allah, these are terms that the text did not bring, and we are not saying anything about them. This is an error. Rather, if we are compelled to speak, we speak."
Look, now there are things that people introduced after the Companions, all in order to repel falsehood. If people had not spoken about them, we would not have spoken about them. The Qur'an is the speech of Allah, correct? And it was transmitted in the Qur'an that it is the speech of Allah, revealed?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Correct, and it was transmitted in the Qur'an that it is revealed. Uncreated? It was not transmitted, neither in the Qur'an nor in the Sunnah nor from the Companions. And it was said to "Imam Ahmad, O Abu 'Abdullah, uncreated, how?" He said, "If they say 'created,' we must say 'uncreated.'" We must say it. So if they bring up such things, we must enter the contest with them to clarify the truth. We do not leave the field silent, because if we remained silent, they would prevail over us. For this reason, those who say that the methodology of the people of the Sunnah and the community is pure referral (talfiz) and not delving into the meaning were attacked by the materialists. And what did they say? They said, "If you do not understand the meaning, then you are from the common people. Sit in… We are the ones who understand the meaning. The intended meaning is such and such," and they went on to elaborate. Because the one who knows the meaning is better than the one who does not know, a common person. So the result is, I say, what do we say about that which has not been affirmed or negated? We say, like body, space, direction, and the like. The like is such as the word "attribute." Is Allah a substance or an attribute? Is He a body, is He such and such? All of these were not transmitted. We have no right to affirm them. Why? Because they were not transmitted, and they are matters of the unseen for which there is no counterpart. And it is not permissible for us to speak about them, because if we spoke, we would be saying what we do not know. So we remain silent. For this reason, they criticized al-Safarini (may Allah have mercy on him) for his statement: "And our Lord is not a substance, nor an attribute, nor a body. Exalted is He, the Possessor of Majesty" Yes. So what do we say about them? We say we suspend judgment on the term; we neither affirm it nor negate it.
So if someone asks us, "Do you say that Allah is a body?" What do we say?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : We say, "I say nothing." "Is Allah not a body?" … I suspend judgment. I am not obligated to say "body" or that He is not a body, because it was not transmitted. But the meaning, we must inquire into it. So they do not affirm it because it was not transmitted, and as for its meaning, they inquire into it. If what is intended by it is falsehood, they refute it to purify Allah from it, and if what is intended by it is truth that is not impossible for Allah, they accept it. If what is intended by it is falsehood, they purify Allah from it. Do you see the word "purify" (yunaZZi)? This is a revealing attribute (sifat kashifah), not a negating attribute (sifat mani'ah). I do not know if this discussion is new or old?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : A revealing attribute. The revealing attribute is like a cause for what preceded it; it is like a cause for what preceded it. It is not intended to be a defining or restricting attribute. An example of that is…[Al-Baqarah 2:21] Well, our Lord who did not create us, do we worship Him?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : We have no Lord who did not create us. So the One who created you, the scholars call it a revealing attribute, meaning it clarifies the meaning. So it clarifies the meaning of "Lord" (Rabb).[Al-Baqarah 2:21], if the meaning of "Lord" is the One who created us, then it is like a cause for what preceded.
Well, what we have now is: if what is intended by it is falsehood, they purify Allah from it. Is there any falsehood from which Allah is not purified? No. Every falsehood, Allah is purified from it. So regarding this expression "falsehood from which Allah is purified," we say the phrase "from which Allah is purified" is a revealing attribute, meaning it is explanatory, because every falsehood, Allah is purified from it.
The questioner : Is it said by majority…
The Shaykh : … but the majority is otherwise. He said "from which Allah is purified, they refute it", huh?
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : The negating attribute. Yes, if I say, for example, "I honored the diligent students," the word "diligent" is a negating attribute that prevents the non-diligent from entering into it. Yes, that is right. Well, if what is intended by it is truth, they accept it, and if what is intended by it is falsehood, they refute it.
Likewise, regarding space, is Allah in a space, for example? Is Allah spatially bounded? These three terms are what the people of denial of the divine attributes (ta'til) mostly dwell upon. They say to you, for example, if you affirm that Allah is established over the Throne with a real establishment meaning elevation over it, then likening Allah to creation (tamthil) necessarily follows. How? They say that affirming real establishment necessitates affirming that He is a body, and bodies are similar to one another. Sometimes they say that a thing is not described with attributes unless it is a body, and bodies are similar to one another. Look at this false proposition! Yes, this proposition is false in both its premises. For example, they say that only a body is described with an attribute, is that correct? No, it is not correct. Rather, attributes (a'rad) are described just as bodies are. Pray two rak'ahs, if you are in a state of ablution, pray two rak'ahs. You say, for example, "This is a long day," "This is intense heat," "This is a chronic illness," and the like. Are these attributes or bodies?
The student: Attributes
The Shaykh : Attributes, attributes, and they were described with an attribute. Also, their statement that bodies are similar to one another, is this correct? This is also a lie. They differ in their sizes, shapes, and in their very selves. If you grip iron, it compresses, does it not?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, and if you grip dough? It compresses. Did the bodies become equal? They do not become equal. So they confuse the common people, the general public. The general public do not know; they confuse them with such phrases. They say, "Allah is a body." If you say that Allah is a body, then the similarity of bodies necessarily follows, making you one who likens Allah to creation. Likewise, "Allah is in a space." How is Allah in a space? It means that things surround Him, and this is incorrect.
So regarding such phrases, what is our position toward them? We say that if people had remained silent about them, it would have been more fitting for us to do what? To remain silent. But if people engage in them, we must enter the arena. We do not leave the field for these people to play as they please. We say, "By Allah, these are terms that the text did not bring, and we are not saying anything about them. This is an error. Rather, if we are compelled to speak, we speak."
Look, now there are things that people introduced after the Companions, all in order to repel falsehood. If people had not spoken about them, we would not have spoken about them. The Qur'an is the speech of Allah, correct? And it was transmitted in the Qur'an that it is the speech of Allah, revealed?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Correct, and it was transmitted in the Qur'an that it is revealed. Uncreated? It was not transmitted, neither in the Qur'an nor in the Sunnah nor from the Companions. And it was said to "Imam Ahmad, O Abu 'Abdullah, uncreated, how?" He said, "If they say 'created,' we must say 'uncreated.'" We must say it. So if they bring up such things, we must enter the contest with them to clarify the truth. We do not leave the field silent, because if we remained silent, they would prevail over us. For this reason, those who say that the methodology of the people of the Sunnah and the community is pure referral (talfiz) and not delving into the meaning were attacked by the materialists. And what did they say? They said, "If you do not understand the meaning, then you are from the common people. Sit in… We are the ones who understand the meaning. The intended meaning is such and such," and they went on to elaborate. Because the one who knows the meaning is better than the one who does not know, a common person. So the result is, I say, what do we say about that which has not been affirmed or negated? We say, like body, space, direction, and the like. The like is such as the word "attribute." Is Allah a substance or an attribute? Is He a body, is He such and such? All of these were not transmitted. We have no right to affirm them. Why? Because they were not transmitted, and they are matters of the unseen for which there is no counterpart. And it is not permissible for us to speak about them, because if we spoke, we would be saying what we do not know. So we remain silent. For this reason, they criticized al-Safarini (may Allah have mercy on him) for his statement: "And our Lord is not a substance, nor an attribute, nor a body. Exalted is He, the Possessor of Majesty" Yes. So what do we say about them? We say we suspend judgment on the term; we neither affirm it nor negate it.
So if someone asks us, "Do you say that Allah is a body?" What do we say?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : We say, "I say nothing." "Is Allah not a body?" … I suspend judgment. I am not obligated to say "body" or that He is not a body, because it was not transmitted. But the meaning, we must inquire into it. So they do not affirm it because it was not transmitted, and as for its meaning, they inquire into it. If what is intended by it is falsehood, they refute it to purify Allah from it, and if what is intended by it is truth that is not impossible for Allah, they accept it. If what is intended by it is falsehood, they purify Allah from it. Do you see the word "purify" (yunaZZi)? This is a revealing attribute (sifat kashifah), not a negating attribute (sifat mani'ah). I do not know if this discussion is new or old?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : A revealing attribute. The revealing attribute is like a cause for what preceded it; it is like a cause for what preceded it. It is not intended to be a defining or restricting attribute. An example of that is…
O mankind, worship your Lord, who created you and those before you
يا أيها الناس اعبدوا ربكم الذي خلقكم والذين من قبلكمThe student: ...
The Shaykh : We have no Lord who did not create us. So the One who created you, the scholars call it a revealing attribute, meaning it clarifies the meaning. So it clarifies the meaning of "Lord" (Rabb).
your Lord, who created you
ربكم الذي خلقكمWell, what we have now is: if what is intended by it is falsehood, they purify Allah from it. Is there any falsehood from which Allah is not purified? No. Every falsehood, Allah is purified from it. So regarding this expression "falsehood from which Allah is purified," we say the phrase "from which Allah is purified" is a revealing attribute, meaning it is explanatory, because every falsehood, Allah is purified from it.
The questioner : Is it said by majority…
The Shaykh : … but the majority is otherwise. He said "from which Allah is purified, they refute it", huh?
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : The negating attribute. Yes, if I say, for example, "I honored the diligent students," the word "diligent" is a negating attribute that prevents the non-diligent from entering into it. Yes, that is right. Well, if what is intended by it is truth, they accept it, and if what is intended by it is falsehood, they refute it.