What is the ruling on saying the phrase "There is no limit to Allah"?

The Shaykh : And they do not say "with His Essence," because there was no one among them who said: "His command comes down" or "His command descends" or the like. So the phrase "with His Essence" is a clarification of the meaning, and a person is compelled to use it to refute the statement of the people of innovation. Why? Because the meaning is not complete without it? No, the meaning is complete without it. Every action that Allah attributes to Himself, the intended meaning is Himself? "He created the heavens"—do you say "with His Essence"? No, "He created the heavens" is Himself. "He descends to the heaven"—there is no need to say "with His Essence," as long as He descends, meaning He, meaning the Self of Allah. "He comes to judge"—meaning He, and so on. But the Salaf (may Allah have mercy on them) were compelled to say something that does not contradict the intended meaning in order to refute the falsehood invented by the people of innovation. For example, Allah the Exalted said: Do you not know that what is well-known from the Salaf is only their saying: "He is with them by His knowledge." They said: This is as 'Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak said: "We say He is with them by His knowledge, and we do not say, as these people say, that He is in the earth." Their intention was "with them by His action," meaning a response to those who said that He is with them by His Essence, meaning in the place where they are. But if we return to the implication of the verse, regardless of the response to the people of innovation, we say: Just as Allah attributed creation to Himself, so He is with them, meaning Himself. But does being with them necessitate that He is in the earth? No, it does not necessitate it. Rather, it is impossible for Allah the Exalted to the utmost degree of impossibility. Pay attention to this. Although He is with us by His knowledge, His hearing, His sight, His power, His management, and everything that the meanings of lordship require, there are circumstances that compel a person to say something, to add something beyond the text, to clarify the text and respond to those who distorted it.
Have you seen now—even if we lengthen this for you—have you seen the sequence, for example? The principles of disagreement in it are three: prohibition in the future and the past, permissibility in the future and the past, and permissibility in the future and prohibition in the past. Do you know the sequence? It is the correct one, but you do not know it, because in reality it is also a created thing. This is from the created things. Has Allah, Mighty and Majestic, not always been and not ceased to be an Actor? Or was He in the beginning devoid of action, then He acted? This is one. And does He not cease to be an Actor, or will there come a day when the creatures end and everything perishes? This is two. Or that Allah the Exalted has not always been in the past and does not cease in the future to be an Actor? The third is the truth in which there is no doubt: that He has not always been and does not cease to be an Actor, but His action is subject to His will; if He wills, He acts, and if He wills, He does not act. This statement—that the sequence is permissible in the past and the future—is the necessary one. Is Paradise eternal or not? It is eternal. And the bliss that occurs in it is sequential to no end. And so is the Fire. In the past, Allah the Exalted did not inform us except of the creation of the heavens and the earth, the Throne, and the like. But we know that Allah the Exalted has the right to do what He wills before these created things, because He is Capable. And the one who is Capable of something is permitted to do it. And His saying, Mighty is He: includes the past and the future. And this is what the Book, the Sunnah, and reason indicate. Although some people criticized the Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) when he explicitly stated the permissibility of the sequence in the past, and they said: This is impossible. If you say the sequence is in the past, it necessitates that creation is with the Creator, and this is false to the furthest extent. Does it necessitate that the action is with the Actor? If I say that Allah is an Actor, it does not necessitate it. Rather, it is necessary that the acted-upon preceded by an action, and the action preceded by an Actor who wills. This is a rational matter. So I tell you: the research into the sequence, and the wearying of souls in it, and the wearying of minds, and filling books with it—all this only happened when the people of innovation spoke of it and it entered the Muslim community when the Roman and Greek books were translated into Arabic. Otherwise, people are unaware of this, on their fitrah (innate natural disposition), that our Lord, Mighty and Majestic, has not always been and does not cease to be an Actor, and that this does not necessitate the pre-existence of events. So the acted-upon is one thing, and the Actor is another. Pay attention to these matters; if you think, you will find that the safest, most knowledgeable, and most wise path is the path of whom? The path of the Salaf. And listen to the famous false statement that you find in the books of those known for righteousness and reform. They say: "The path of the Salaf is safer, and the path of the Khalaf is more knowledgeable and wiser." Glory be to Allah, how can it be more knowledgeable and wiser and not safer? Because we know that the most knowledgeable and most wise must be the safest. And we also know that if you affirm that the path of the Salaf is safer, then it is the most knowledgeable and most wise. But these people came where they did not understand the path of the Salaf. They thought that the path of the Salaf was tafwid (delegation), and that we should be before the verses of attributes and their hadiths like the illiterate who do not know the Book except wishes. They think that if you say to a Salafi: What is the meaning of "came"? "Allah knows best, so I am free from shirk (associating partners with Allah) of what I do not know." What is its meaning? He said: "I do not know." What is its meaning? He said: "I do not know." This is their opinion of the madhab (school of jurisprudence) of the Salaf. Is this truly the madhab of the Salaf? Absolutely not. The Salaf say: We know the meaning. We know that "Your Lord came" means that He, Mighty and Majestic, came in a manner befitting His Majesty. That He has a Face befitting His Majesty. That He has an Istiwa' (rising above the Throne) befitting His Majesty. We know this and we know the meaning. But if you ask me about the modality (how), no, I cannot speak of it because I have no knowledge of this. When they thought that the madhab of the Salaf was tafwid, meaning delegating the meaning and the modality, they said: "The path of the Khalaf is more knowledgeable and wiser." And we agree with them if the madhab of the Salaf is that they do not understand the meaning; the one who does not understand the meaning is better than the one who understands, without doubt in this, even if his understanding is wrong, but their method is sound. However, we say to them: The path of the Salaf is affirming the meanings, and this is well-known and mass-transmitted from them. They say regarding the verses of attributes and their hadiths: "Command them as they came without how" This phrase on which the Salaf agreed indicates that they affirm the meaning from two aspects:
First: They said: "Command them as they came," and we know that Allah the Exalted brought them and His Messenger brought them to affirm meanings, not to read empty words.
Second: Their saying "without how" indicates the establishment of the original meaning, because negating the "how" of what does not exist is vain speech. So if the original meaning exists and the modality is unknown, and Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) said when asked about the Istiwa': "The Istiwa' is not unknown, the how is not comprehensible, belief in it is obligatory, and asking about it is an innovation" When they thought that the Salaf do not affirm the meanings, they said: It is safer. And we say to them: Either you are lying about the Salaf or ignorant of the reality of their madhab; you do not go beyond this. So their speech about the Salaf is not free from injustice, and it is either speaking without knowledge or lying about the Salaf, and both are injustice. So they are unjust to the Salaf in this speech which they said is the madhab of the Salaf.