Explanation of the author's statement: "The reality of their school of thought is that the texts of the attributes brought by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) were not intended to be understood by their apparent meaning
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"The reality of their school of thought is that the texts of the attributes brought by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) were not intended to be understood by their apparent meaning, but rather the intended meaning is meanings that contradict it - that is, contradict the apparent meaning - which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) knew, but he left them for people to deduce with their minds, and then they try to direct the apparent meanings of the texts to them".
This is the school of the people of figurative interpretation. They say: The texts of the attributes are not intended to be understood by their apparent meaning - sit here - they are not intended to be understood by their apparent meaning[Taha 20:5] I do not intend the apparent meaning of rising above the Throne, the hand is not intended to be understood by its apparent meaning, the face, and so on.
What is intended by them? They said: What is intended by them is meanings that contradict the apparent meaning.
Who knows these meanings? The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) knows them.
Look, pay attention, so here are three matters:
First: Their apparent meaning was not intended.
Second: Meanings that contradict the apparent meaning were intended by them.
Third: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) knew these meanings.
This is their school, composed of these three matters, and all of them, as we have passed through, require evidence, and they have no evidence.
So their statement: That their apparent meaning was not intended, we say: This is contrary to the apparent meaning. Rather, the apparent meaning is that when Allah and His Messenger speak, the intended meaning is the apparent meaning of the speech. And just as we take the speech of people in their sales, purchases, endowments, pledges, and all their transactions to be what? To their apparent meaning, so why do we not take the speech of Allah and His Messenger to be its apparent meaning in matters of the unseen where there is no room for independent legal reasoning? Is it not more fitting for us to submit to these texts and take them by their apparent meaning?
Yes, because these are matters of the unseen where opinion has no place. Allah spoke about Himself and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) spoke about his Lord, so it was obligatory for us to take them by their apparent meaning.
But it must be known that their apparent meaning is not comparing Allah to creation, because comparing Allah to creation is negated from Allah (Mighty and Majestic), okay.
Meanings that contradict the apparent meaning were intended by them, meanings that contradict the apparent meaning were intended by them. Who said that meanings that contradict the apparent meaning were intended by them? It is permissible that neither the apparent meaning nor other meanings are intended, and that they be words left without meaning. Is this permissible or not permissible? Permissible.
So we demand from you evidence that other meanings contradicting the apparent meaning are intended by them, and they have no evidence for that, clear? Okay.
The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) knew them and did not clarify them to the Ummah. This is also a claim; if the person making it realized what follows from it, he would turn back on his heels. If the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) knew the intended meaning of these texts which their apparent meaning did not indicate, and did not clarify it to people, even though what concerns the names and attributes of Allah is the greatest of what the messengers brought, what would be the state of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)? Would he be a conveyer? No, not a conveyer. He would be the greatest of people in concealing the truth, because the truth is not known except from him, so he concealed it. The concealment of the truth by a scholar is less severe than the concealment of the truth by the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), because if a specific scholar conceals it, we go to another scholar and he informs us of it. But the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is the only one from whom we know the truth. So if the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) knew the meanings of these texts and did not clarify them to people, this would be the greatest criticism of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), or not?
So look, what follows from this invalid school, and I seek refuge in Allah, is lying, denial, and accusation.
So in that case, lying, because they say the intended meaning is other meanings and they do not know them.
Denial, because they denied the apparent meanings.
Accusation, huh? They accused the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) of concealing the clarification of the truth in this, and Allah (Mighty and Majestic) says to His Messenger:[Al-Ma'idah 5:67].
Look at the invalid schools and what follows from them? So now this school, the school of the people of figurative interpretation, has these invalid consequences that are among the most invalid of what is said of falsehood.
Okay, we ask them: Why did the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) not inform his Ummah of their meanings?
He said: In order to test the minds of people, which of them knows them, this is one. Second: In order to increase the reward in seeking to reach their meaning, because the meaning that contradicts the apparent meaning requires premises to reach it, because it requires evidence indicating that the apparent meaning is not intended, then it requires evidence indicating that what they claim is intended is capable of being borne by the wording, then evidence to specify the particular meaning.
So the important thing is that the Lawgiver or the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), according to their claim, did not clarify it in order to make people toil in reaching these meanings by tracing them to examples in language and seeking evidence indicating them, so that they thereby, huh? receive the reward, they receive the reward thereby, because the more work done to reach the truth, whether in knowledge or action, the more the reward. Are you with me or are you leaving? Okay.
We say to them: These two purposes are two invalid purposes, two invalid purposes.
As for the first: Your statement that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not clarify it in order to test minds, this is only valid if you were riddling to present people who answer what you riddled, if it was true you would accept it, and if it was false you would reject it. But since the matter is not so, this is not possible.
The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) riddled to his Companions one day where he said: and did not clarify it, but the people started stumbling, or mentioning things from the trees of the desert, yes, and they did not hit the target, so the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) informed them of that, and said: .
This is possible that the Lawgiver tests people, tests their intelligence in a matter that he clarifies to them afterwards. But to make the matter vague and test their intelligence until the Day of Resurrection, this is impossible.
And as for their statement: In order for them to receive much reward, we say: The attempt to increase reward in obscuring things from the creation is actually a punishment and a sin that deserves punishment, not reward, because people will stumble in these meanings as is the reality, they stumbled in them and contradicted each other, until some of them contradicted others, and until one of them would compose a composition on a meaning and then negate it a second time.
So it becomes clear, O brothers, that this school is invalid, or not invalid? Invalid, and among the most invalid of schools, and among the most invalid of schools, and what follows from it of obligations will come to us, if Allah wills, in the next chapter.
This is the school of the people of figurative interpretation. They say: The texts of the attributes are not intended to be understood by their apparent meaning - sit here - they are not intended to be understood by their apparent meaning
The Most Merciful [who is] above the Throne established.
الرحمن على العرش استوىWhat is intended by them? They said: What is intended by them is meanings that contradict the apparent meaning.
Who knows these meanings? The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) knows them.
Look, pay attention, so here are three matters:
First: Their apparent meaning was not intended.
Second: Meanings that contradict the apparent meaning were intended by them.
Third: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) knew these meanings.
This is their school, composed of these three matters, and all of them, as we have passed through, require evidence, and they have no evidence.
So their statement: That their apparent meaning was not intended, we say: This is contrary to the apparent meaning. Rather, the apparent meaning is that when Allah and His Messenger speak, the intended meaning is the apparent meaning of the speech. And just as we take the speech of people in their sales, purchases, endowments, pledges, and all their transactions to be what? To their apparent meaning, so why do we not take the speech of Allah and His Messenger to be its apparent meaning in matters of the unseen where there is no room for independent legal reasoning? Is it not more fitting for us to submit to these texts and take them by their apparent meaning?
Yes, because these are matters of the unseen where opinion has no place. Allah spoke about Himself and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) spoke about his Lord, so it was obligatory for us to take them by their apparent meaning.
But it must be known that their apparent meaning is not comparing Allah to creation, because comparing Allah to creation is negated from Allah (Mighty and Majestic), okay.
Meanings that contradict the apparent meaning were intended by them, meanings that contradict the apparent meaning were intended by them. Who said that meanings that contradict the apparent meaning were intended by them? It is permissible that neither the apparent meaning nor other meanings are intended, and that they be words left without meaning. Is this permissible or not permissible? Permissible.
So we demand from you evidence that other meanings contradicting the apparent meaning are intended by them, and they have no evidence for that, clear? Okay.
The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) knew them and did not clarify them to the Ummah. This is also a claim; if the person making it realized what follows from it, he would turn back on his heels. If the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) knew the intended meaning of these texts which their apparent meaning did not indicate, and did not clarify it to people, even though what concerns the names and attributes of Allah is the greatest of what the messengers brought, what would be the state of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)? Would he be a conveyer? No, not a conveyer. He would be the greatest of people in concealing the truth, because the truth is not known except from him, so he concealed it. The concealment of the truth by a scholar is less severe than the concealment of the truth by the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), because if a specific scholar conceals it, we go to another scholar and he informs us of it. But the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is the only one from whom we know the truth. So if the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) knew the meanings of these texts and did not clarify them to people, this would be the greatest criticism of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), or not?
So look, what follows from this invalid school, and I seek refuge in Allah, is lying, denial, and accusation.
So in that case, lying, because they say the intended meaning is other meanings and they do not know them.
Denial, because they denied the apparent meanings.
Accusation, huh? They accused the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) of concealing the clarification of the truth in this, and Allah (Mighty and Majestic) says to His Messenger:
O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message
يا أيها الرسول بلغ ما أنزل إليك من ربك وإن لم تفعل فما بلغت رسالتهLook at the invalid schools and what follows from them? So now this school, the school of the people of figurative interpretation, has these invalid consequences that are among the most invalid of what is said of falsehood.
Okay, we ask them: Why did the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) not inform his Ummah of their meanings?
He said: In order to test the minds of people, which of them knows them, this is one. Second: In order to increase the reward in seeking to reach their meaning, because the meaning that contradicts the apparent meaning requires premises to reach it, because it requires evidence indicating that the apparent meaning is not intended, then it requires evidence indicating that what they claim is intended is capable of being borne by the wording, then evidence to specify the particular meaning.
So the important thing is that the Lawgiver or the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), according to their claim, did not clarify it in order to make people toil in reaching these meanings by tracing them to examples in language and seeking evidence indicating them, so that they thereby, huh? receive the reward, they receive the reward thereby, because the more work done to reach the truth, whether in knowledge or action, the more the reward. Are you with me or are you leaving? Okay.
We say to them: These two purposes are two invalid purposes, two invalid purposes.
As for the first: Your statement that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not clarify it in order to test minds, this is only valid if you were riddling to present people who answer what you riddled, if it was true you would accept it, and if it was false you would reject it. But since the matter is not so, this is not possible.
The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) riddled to his Companions one day where he said:
Indeed, among the trees is a tree which is like the believer
إن من الأشجار شجرة مثلها مثل المؤمنIt is the date palm
إنها النخلةThis is possible that the Lawgiver tests people, tests their intelligence in a matter that he clarifies to them afterwards. But to make the matter vague and test their intelligence until the Day of Resurrection, this is impossible.
And as for their statement: In order for them to receive much reward, we say: The attempt to increase reward in obscuring things from the creation is actually a punishment and a sin that deserves punishment, not reward, because people will stumble in these meanings as is the reality, they stumbled in them and contradicted each other, until some of them contradicted others, and until one of them would compose a composition on a meaning and then negate it a second time.
So it becomes clear, O brothers, that this school is invalid, or not invalid? Invalid, and among the most invalid of schools, and among the most invalid of schools, and what follows from it of obligations will come to us, if Allah wills, in the next chapter.