Explanation of the author's statement: "If it is said: Is it permissible to interpret Allah's rising above His Throne as His dominion over it, as the deniers of the divine attributes interpreted it in order to escape these implications?"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"If it is said: Is it permissible to interpret Allah's rising above His Throne as His dominion over it, as the deniers of the divine attributes interpreted it in order to escape these implications?" This is now the point of contention between the people of the Sunnah and the community and the deniers of the divine attributes. The deniers of the divine attributes say that "istawa" means "he dominated," while the people of the Sunnah and the community say that "istawa" means "He rose." Is it permissible to interpret their "istawa" as meaning "he dominated"? It is not permissible, because we say to them first: What is your evidence that "istawa" comes to mean "domination," and what is the evidence? They will say: We have a witness from the Arabic language, which is the saying of the poet:
"Bishr has taken possession of Iraq *** without a sword or spilled blood"
And what does "istawa upon Iraq" mean? He dominated it. Did you understand? So what is our answer to that? Our answer to that is that
First, the one who said this verse is unknown. And if he is unknown, is he cited as evidence? He is not cited as evidence. It is possible that one of these deniers of the divine attributes composed this verse and claimed this witness. Yes, this is one point.
Second, we say that we deny that "istawa upon Iraq" is necessarily to mean "he dominated." It is possible that "istawa upon Iraq" means "he rose above it," but a conceptual rising, a conceptual rising.
Third, we say that even if "istawa" in this verse means "he dominated," we have interpreted it with that because it is impossible for "istawa upon it" to be like a person sitting on a bed. Iraq is a large area; can one person ride on it, or is it impossible? It is impossible. In any case, their argument with this verse is invalid. If their argument with this verse is invalid, we return to the meaning of "istawa" mentioned in the Book of Allah, and we find that none of the seven verses came with the word "istawala" in a single verse.
"Bishr has taken possession of Iraq *** without a sword or spilled blood"
And what does "istawa upon Iraq" mean? He dominated it. Did you understand? So what is our answer to that? Our answer to that is that
First, the one who said this verse is unknown. And if he is unknown, is he cited as evidence? He is not cited as evidence. It is possible that one of these deniers of the divine attributes composed this verse and claimed this witness. Yes, this is one point.
Second, we say that we deny that "istawa upon Iraq" is necessarily to mean "he dominated." It is possible that "istawa upon Iraq" means "he rose above it," but a conceptual rising, a conceptual rising.
Third, we say that even if "istawa" in this verse means "he dominated," we have interpreted it with that because it is impossible for "istawa upon it" to be like a person sitting on a bed. Iraq is a large area; can one person ride on it, or is it impossible? It is impossible. In any case, their argument with this verse is invalid. If their argument with this verse is invalid, we return to the meaning of "istawa" mentioned in the Book of Allah, and we find that none of the seven verses came with the word "istawala" in a single verse.