Explanation of the author's statement: "The Face of Allah the Exalted is among His essential attributes, established for Him in reality in the manner befitting Him."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh :"…distorting its meaning to reward", did anyone say that? Yes, the people of denial of the divine attributes said that the meaning of the Face of Allah is the reward of Allah. "All who are upon it will perish, and the reward of your Lord will remain, He who is Owner of Majesty and Honor." We say this is not correct: "First, it contradicts the apparent meaning of the text, and any meaning that contradicts the apparent meaning of the text requires evidence, and there is no evidence for that". So whenever anyone diverts the text from its apparent meaning, we say to him: bring the evidence, otherwise the default is that the indication of the texts is to their apparent meaning. If he brings evidence, fine; otherwise, it is obligatory for us to take the text as indicating what its apparent meaning requires. But the problem now is that some of them say that the apparent meaning of the text is impossible for Allah. That is the problem. And so they confuse the issue, saying that the apparent meaning of rising above the Throne is that Allah rose above it, meaning He elevated Himself above it and settled upon it, but this is impossible because if that were the case, it would necessitate that Allah is in need of the Throne. We say to them: this is not a necessary consequence. This rising above only necessitates this meaning in the rising above of the created being, which is the one who, if he rises above something and that thing falls, he falls. But the Creator is not so. These are the ones who say that if we attribute a Face to Allah, it would necessitate that He has a part, or that He has a part. And for this reason, they say: "Glory to the One who is free from purposes, and what comes after? And parts, and what comes after? And attributes." Glory to the One who is free from parts, purposes, and attributes. By Allah, this is a word of adornment. The one who hears it says, "What Allah willed, these are inspired people." And what do they want with this? "Glory to the One who is free from parts"—they say He has no hand, no face, no eye, and no foot, because these are parts. By Allah, He is free from parts, from purposes, and from wisdom, because Allah the Exalted does a thing not for a wisdom. He does it spontaneously, because if He did it for a wisdom, He would be in need of that purpose He wants. So He is free from purposes. And the third is from attributes. Attributes are the actual attributes. They say because an attribute is something that comes and goes, and He is free from descending to the lowest heaven, free from rising above the Throne, free from laughing, free from coming on the Day of Resurrection, and the like. Why? They say because these are attributes, and attributes do not subsist except in bodies, and bodies are similar to one another. And we have previously explained the invalidity of this evidence. Yes, that is right.
The Shaykh :"…distorting its meaning to reward", did anyone say that? Yes, the people of denial of the divine attributes said that the meaning of the Face of Allah is the reward of Allah. "All who are upon it will perish, and the reward of your Lord will remain, He who is Owner of Majesty and Honor." We say this is not correct: "First, it contradicts the apparent meaning of the text, and any meaning that contradicts the apparent meaning of the text requires evidence, and there is no evidence for that". So whenever anyone diverts the text from its apparent meaning, we say to him: bring the evidence, otherwise the default is that the indication of the texts is to their apparent meaning. If he brings evidence, fine; otherwise, it is obligatory for us to take the text as indicating what its apparent meaning requires. But the problem now is that some of them say that the apparent meaning of the text is impossible for Allah. That is the problem. And so they confuse the issue, saying that the apparent meaning of rising above the Throne is that Allah rose above it, meaning He elevated Himself above it and settled upon it, but this is impossible because if that were the case, it would necessitate that Allah is in need of the Throne. We say to them: this is not a necessary consequence. This rising above only necessitates this meaning in the rising above of the created being, which is the one who, if he rises above something and that thing falls, he falls. But the Creator is not so. These are the ones who say that if we attribute a Face to Allah, it would necessitate that He has a part, or that He has a part. And for this reason, they say: "Glory to the One who is free from purposes, and what comes after? And parts, and what comes after? And attributes." Glory to the One who is free from parts, purposes, and attributes. By Allah, this is a word of adornment. The one who hears it says, "What Allah willed, these are inspired people." And what do they want with this? "Glory to the One who is free from parts"—they say He has no hand, no face, no eye, and no foot, because these are parts. By Allah, He is free from parts, from purposes, and from wisdom, because Allah the Exalted does a thing not for a wisdom. He does it spontaneously, because if He did it for a wisdom, He would be in need of that purpose He wants. So He is free from purposes. And the third is from attributes. Attributes are the actual attributes. They say because an attribute is something that comes and goes, and He is free from descending to the lowest heaven, free from rising above the Throne, free from laughing, free from coming on the Day of Resurrection, and the like. Why? They say because these are attributes, and attributes do not subsist except in bodies, and bodies are similar to one another. And we have previously explained the invalidity of this evidence. Yes, that is right.