"None asks by the Face of Allah except Paradise" or "except Paradise"?

The Shaykh :"None asks by the Face of Allah except Paradise" or "except Paradise"? Is it "except Paradise" with a kasrah or a dammah? The one who says it is with a dammah, we demand from him a witness from the words of Ibn Malik.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Later.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : That is, it is correct, and this is a verse of poetry: "And if a previous one is emptied... later it is as... Aden", do you understand? Good, and therefore "except Paradise" with a kasrah is not correct, it does not stand, because "asks" is a present tense verb built for the passive, and what does it require? It requires... yes, "None is asked by the Face of Allah except Paradise."

The questioner : It does not become...

The Shaykh : No, no, yes. "None is asked by the Face of Allah." Is the meaning that one does not ask Allah by His Face except for Paradise, or that no one is asked by Allah except for Paradise? That is, do you understand the meaning now? Is the meaning: Do not ask Allah by His Face except for Paradise? So if I say, "O Allah, provide me with a car," what do you say? "I ask You by Your Face to provide me with a car," because it is not Paradise? Or is the meaning: Do not ask anyone by Allah, by His Face? Because the author followed it with the chapter "Whoever asks you by Allah, give him; do not turn away the one who asks by Allah." The scholars differed in explaining this hadith. Some said: Do not ask any of the created beings by the Face of Allah. And it is known that if you say "except Paradise," it means you do not ask by the Face of Allah absolutely, because no one is able to be asked for Paradise. Do you understand this? That is, if you want to ask someone by Allah, do not ask by His Face. Do not say, "I ask you by the Face of Allah for such and such." You say, "I ask you by Allah," and there is no harm in that. But "I ask you by the Face of Allah," no, because none is asked by the Face of Allah except Paradise, and the created beings are not able to give Paradise. Therefore, they are not asked by the Face of Allah absolutely. And it supports and shows that the author (may Allah have mercy on him) holds this opinion in explaining the hadith, because he confirmed it with his statement, as he followed it with the chapter "Do not turn away the one who asks by Allah." And it was said: Rather, the meaning is that Allah is not asked by His Face except for Paradise. So if you ask Allah for something, if it is Paradise or what necessitates entering Paradise, ask by the Face of Allah; otherwise, do not. According to this, if you ask Allah for something from this world, you do not ask Him by His Face. You do not say, "I ask You by Your Face for such and such" from the matters of this world. But from the matters of the Hereafter, you ask Him, for example, you say, "I ask You by Your Face to save me from the Fire." Yes, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) sought refuge by the Face of Allah when His statement, the Exalted, was revealed: He said: He said: He said: . So, if someone said that it covers both meanings, it would have a basis. And his statement "by the Face of Allah" affirms the Face for Allah, Mighty and Majestic, and it is established by the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the Salaf. In the Qur'an, for example: And He, the Exalted, said: And He said: And the verses on this are many. And the hadiths are also many on this.
And among them is what we referred to a little while ago: So what is this Face that Allah attributed to Himself? Is it a real Face, or is it a Face used to refer to the Essence? It is used to refer to the Essence, and Allah does not have a Face, but He has an Essence? Or does it refer to something intended by His Face, but it is not the real Face? Or does it refer to direction? Or does it refer to reward? Yes, there is disagreement, disagreement.
But Allah guided those who believed to the truth in which they differed, by His permission, and they said: The Face of Allah is a true Face. Because Allah, the Exalted, said: And when He intended other than His Essence, He said: Look, this is an attribute of the Lord, not of a name. But the Face of your Lord remains with an attribute, unlike a face. So the Face is the one described with majesty and honor. And if the Face is described with majesty and honor, it is not possible that reward is intended by it, nor is it possible that direction is intended by it, nor is it possible that the Essence is intended by it, because the Face of your Lord is other than the Essence of your Lord. Since the Essence is the Lord, and the Face is an additional thing, an additional thing. So it is among the attributes of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, established for Him in reality. A real Face.
As for the people of ta'wil (figurative interpretation), they said that Allah does not have a Face, refuge with Allah from that. And they said that the Face is an expression for the Essence, or direction, or reward. As for the Face in reality, no. Why, people? They said: Because if you affirm a real Face for Allah, it would necessitate that He be a body. And bodies are similar, and this necessitates affirming a like for Allah, Mighty and Majestic. Affirming a like for Allah is a denial of the statement of Allah, the Exalted: Do you understand how? Did you not understand?
The student: Yes, yes

The Shaykh : Good, they said: The real Face is not intended. Why, everyone? They said: If a real Face is affirmed, it would necessitate that Allah be a body. This is one. Second, bodies are similar. The result: It would necessitate that Allah be similar to the creation, similar to the creation. Good, and if it necessitates that He be similar to the creation, that becomes a denial of the statement of Allah, the Exalted: And you, people of the Sunnah, say that the one who attributes a like to Allah is a disbeliever. The one who believes that Allah has a like in what pertains to Him as Lord is a disbeliever, because he denies the Qur'an. Is it clear now?
Good, let us look. We say to them: If you say that if it is established that Allah has a real Face, it would necessitate that He be a body, what do you mean by body, which you are fleeing from? Do you mean by body the thing composed of bones, nerves, flesh, and blood, such that each part of it needs the other? If you intend that, yes, then we agree with you that Allah is not in this way, and it is not possible for Allah, the Exalted, to be in this way. And if you intend by body the real, established Essence, described with what is obligatory for Him of attributes of perfection, is there any harm in this? There is no harm in this. Yes, there is no harm at all.
And Allah, the Exalted, described Himself as One, the Self-Sufficient. Ibn Abbas said: "The Self-Sufficient is the one who has no cavity, He has no cavity". So Allah, Mighty and Majestic, is the Self-Sufficient, He has an Essence, but it does not resemble essences.
Good, then we say: Your statement that bodies are similar is one of the most false statements. Yes, so we ask you, O man: Is your body like the body of a bear? What does he say? No. Is your body like the body of an ant? No. So how do you say bodies are similar? Bodies have great variation in size, thinness, softness, and so on. Yes, here? And composition, and everything, meaning bodies are not similar, and no one doubts that. Good, so it is invalid that bodies are similar. If their argument is invalid, their result is invalid: that it would necessitate that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, be similar to the creation if we say that He has a real Face. And we now see among the created beings those that have faces, and they agree in faces, or not? Do they not agree?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : And humans do not agree, even humans do not agree in faces, correct or not? And therefore they say, they claim, I do not know if it is correct or not: There is no person in the world except that he has forty look-alikes. I no longer know if this is correct or not? But it is not correct, apparently. There is no person in the world, and Allah knows best, who resembles another. Glory to Allah, the Great, despite the multitude of creation, you do not find one who resembles another.
The student: Except twins.

The Shaykh : And never twins.
The student: ... the egg divided ...

The Shaykh : Look, may Allah bless you, we have seen people, twins, twins, there must be a difference.
The student: From two different eggs.

The Shaykh : We do not know again, from two eggs, the important thing is that it is not necessary.
The student: I know two, you never know one from the other.

The Shaykh : Look, may Allah bless you, now I do not know all of you in detail, but some of you speak to me today, then one like him comes tomorrow, I think it is him, meaning the difference is subtle. It is necessary to have a difference from every aspect.
The student: If you look at them with some people, you do not know them.

The Shaykh : It does not contradict what is given to us, let us see. Good, a subtle point now: We say bodies are not similar, faces are not similar, they are not similar. They say: Even the veins in the hand and foot are different. The veins of every hand are different from the veins of the second hand, and the veins of every foot are different from the veins of the second foot, here, yes? And fingerprints also.
In any case, the claim that bodies are identical is a false claim. And on this basis, it is obligatory for us to believe that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has a real Face, described with majesty and honor, which does not resemble the faces of the created beings, or more precisely, does not resemble the faces of the created beings. And note, my brothers, that the expression denying resemblance (mumathalah) is more precise and more correct than the expression denying similarity (mushabahah). Why? Because this is what the Qur'an brought, and because there are no two existing things that do not resemble each other in one aspect and differ in another. Is that not so?
So, we take what Allah expressed about Himself: ,
It remains to be asked: What do you say about his saying (peace and blessings be upon him), in what is established from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah and others: We say that this cannot be intended in its apparent meaning, by the consensus of the Muslims and the consensus of the people of intellect. Yes, because Allah (Mighty and Majestic) encompassed with His Footstool the heavens and the earth, and the Footstool is the place of the feet. All the heavens and all the earths, in relation to the Footstool, are like a ring thrown into a vast desert. And the excess of the Throne over the Footstool is like the excess of the vast desert over this ring. So what do you think of the Lord of the worlds? Yes, no one can encompass Him in description or imagination. Is it possible from this description that He be in the image of Adam, for example, sixty cubits? Is that not so? It is absolutely impossible, it is impossible. So the possibility that the intended meaning is likening (tamthil) is a false possibility, absolutely impossible. Rather, the meaning is that Allah the Exalted created Adam in an image He chose, the image of a Face that should not be ugly or struck. – Do you see a little, 'Abd al-Wahhab, wait a moment – Yes, why? Because when He attributed it to Himself, it necessitated an honor and distinction such that it should not be ugly or struck. This is a valid point, and this point is sound and proceeds according to the linguistic rules, because attribution (idafah) is for the slightest connection, and because Allah the Exalted attributed to Himself a house, a camel, and a spirit.
And it can be said that the mere fact that it is in His image does not necessitate resemblance. What is the evidence? The evidence is what is established by the authentic hadith: Does this necessitate that they be on the same moon? Is that not so? No, it is known that the moon is larger... The people of Paradise enter Paradise, their height being sixty cubits and their width, as came in some hadiths, seven cubits. Is it possible that their faces be like the moon, resembling the moon on the night of the full moon? The moon is large, is that not so? Very large. How can it be possible for them to be identical to it? So this is another point in deriving the hadith. Moreover, some of the scholars of knowledge interpreted it with another interpretation, saying: "In His image" means in the image of Adam, i.e., that Allah created Adam from the very beginning in this image, and not like His children who progress in creation. Do the children of Adam progress in creation or not? A drop, then a clot, then a lump, then another creation, is that so? But Adam was created like this from the very beginning. So the meaning is in the image He is in from the first time He was created, from the first time He was brought into existence.
But Imam Ahmad denied this interpretation that makes the pronoun refer back to Adam, and said that this is the interpretation of the Jahmiyyah and is not correct. Yes, because it deprives the hadith of its meaning, it deprives it of its meaning. Then, the other wording that explains the pronoun contradicts it. What is it? This wording, the explicit name, explains the pronoun. And the speech of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) explains some of it by some of it. And were it not for this explanation, the explanation of the implied pronoun by this explicit name, it could have been said that it has a point. It could have been said that it has a point... 'Abd al-Wahhab? ...
We say that the Face of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is real and does not resemble the faces of the created beings. And the saying: does not come back to us, given what you know of its derivation. Is that complete? Good. And the rest of the speech on this chapter will come, if Allah wills.
... Some of the scholars of knowledge weakened it and said that it is not authentic from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). But on the assumption of its authenticity, it indicates that it is from proper conduct not to ask by the Face of Allah except for what is from the matters of the Hereafter, namely success in Paradise or safety from the Fire. The author says in it there are two issues.

The questioner : Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes