What is the meaning of the statement by some scholars regarding the attributes that they have no meaning?

The questioner: And the word "no meaning" does not mean "no meaning."

The Shaykh: And it does not mean ta'wil (figurative interpretation).

The questioner: Do you mean there is a specific thing reported from him, or does it mean attributing it to his general speech, for example, and his madhhab (school of jurisprudence)?

The Shaykh: The Imam's phrase "without tashbih (likening Allah to creation)," like the hadith, is not understood in isolation; rather, one gathers everything related to it. For example, a general text is not permissible to understand as general until you see if there is a specific text that specifies it or not? Likewise, the words of the Imams are not permissible to stop at the word "this" and leave his other statements, all of which contain interpretation with tanzih (transcendence). In that case, you understand that "no meaning" means "no meaning" in the way of ta'wil (figurative interpretation), because he interprets and affirms transcendence. So when he says "no meaning," he means no meaning by way of ta'wil (figurative interpretation).

The questioner: Of course, is ta'wil (figurative interpretation) absolutely negated regarding the Salaf (the earliest generations), or is there, for example, an exception to that as well?

The Shaykh: Just as we discussed earlier regarding majaz (metaphor) and haqiqah (literal meaning).

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: What is called majaz (metaphor) by them, Ibn Taymiyyah does not call it majaz (metaphor). If they do not expand, if they do not expand, they call it majaz (metaphor), but he does not call it majaz (metaphor).

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: Likewise, in the matter you asked about, they interpreted phrases that the opponents call majaz (metaphor), but it is not majaz (metaphor); the opponents call it ta'wil (figurative interpretation).