Mentioning the benefits of the hadith. Then explaining a narration in Muslim: (and the mountains and the trees are on a finger, then He shakes them, and He says: I am the King, I am Allah).

The Shaykh : So in the verse there are several issues, and likewise in the hadith. First: affirming the fingers for Allah (Mighty and Majestic). Affirming the fingers for Allah. The evidence:
The student: ...

The Shaykh : The approval of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) of this scribe regarding what he said. And what is the finger? The finger is a real finger befitting Allah (Mighty and Majestic), just as the hand is a real hand befitting Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He). It is not intended by "on a finger" that its meaning is the ease of disposing of the heavens and the earth, as the one who says, "This is a simple matter, I say... with my finger... yes." Some people say that the finger is a metaphor for the ease of disposing of them and the perfection of power. We say this is an error, because the Messenger affirmed it by his approval. It is also established from him that he said: What did they say? When they said "between two fingers," he said, "Come, do you feel that Allah is touching your heart?"
The student: They said no.

The Shaykh : And what is the answer? No.
The student: No.

The Shaykh : No, so how can the hadith indicate a meaning that does not exist? We say to them: It is obligatory for us to accept what the Messenger (may the prayer and peace of Allah be upon him) said. It is not necessary for the "between" to imply touching, as evidenced by His saying regarding the sky: The cloud touches the earth.
The student: No.

The Shaykh : It touches the sky?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : No, and it is between them. For example, Unayzah is between al-Zulfi and... Does it have to be touching it and connected to it?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : It is not necessary. And you say Sha'ban is between Dhul-Qa'dah and Jumada, and it is not necessary that it be adjacent to them; it is not necessary. And thus it becomes clear that "between" does not imply connection, whether in time or in place. And so we say regarding what the Messenger (may the prayer and peace of Allah be upon him) said: It is not necessary from that that there be touching, nor that the fingers of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) be in the earth. As it is established from him (peace and blessings be upon him) that when a person is praying, Allah (the Exalted) is before his face. And is it necessary from being before that there be a wall between you and Him?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : Yes
The student: It is not necessary.

The Shaykh : ... the qiblah, and it is not necessary?
The student: It is not necessary.

The Shaykh : It is not necessary. And He is before your face, even if He is on His Throne. And I give you an example of that with the sun. When the sun is on the horizon, it is in front of you. Can it be in front of you and before your face, or not?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : And it is at the zenith of the sky. Yes, so it becomes clear by this that these people who distort, who want to liken Allah (Mighty and Majestic) to what is for humans or for the created, and then deny what Allah affirmed for Himself based on this corrupt assumption, are astray.
And as for the one who said that their methodology is more knowledgeable and more wise, he has gone astray. Because in a famous phrase they say, "The methodology of the Salaf is safer, and the methodology of the Khalaf is more knowledgeable and more wise." This statement, despite the contradiction in it, if a person thought about it, would find that it may lead to disbelief. First: there is a contradiction. We see that... because the status... the contradiction in it says the path of the Salaf is safer. And is it conceivable that the path is safer and another is more knowledgeable and more wise?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : No, because the safer implies that it is more knowledgeable and more wise. Since we know that there is no safety except with knowledge and wisdom: knowledge of the causes of safety and wisdom in following these causes. If there is no knowledge and no wisdom, there is no safety. If there is more knowledge and more wisdom, it follows that there is also more safety. Then we say: By what is the methodology of the Salaf more knowledgeable and more wise, and the Khalaf more knowledgeable and more wise? By distortion and denial of the divine attributes! Where is the knowledge and the wisdom? The wisdom is that we stand where we have been informed. This is the wisdom. And the knowledge is that we reach knowledge of the attributes of our Lord from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Then this implies that these later people are more knowledgeable about Allah than the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and his Companions. Is that right or not?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Because the methodology of the Salaf is the methodology of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and his Companions. So are these people more knowledgeable about Allah than the Messenger and his Companions? In the opinion of this one, they are more knowledgeable. And are they wiser than the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) with his Companions? Absolutely not. For this reason, if a person thought about this phrase, he would find that it may lead to disbelief, because it implies belittling the Messenger (may the prayer and peace of Allah be upon him) and disparaging him. Belittling him is the opposite of knowledge, and disparaging him is the opposite of wisdom. And this is a very great danger. And this phrase must be known that it is a phrase, and even if it was said by whoever said it from among the scholars, it is a phrase that is not correct; it is invalid, even if it intended a correct meaning, and that these people researched and delved deeply and engaged in things that the Salaf did not speak about. We say that their engagement in these things is what harmed them. And the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) spoke the truth when he said: If they had remained on what the righteous Salaf were upon, they would not have reached this doubt, confusion, and distortion. Until some of the imams among them, some of the people of theology, used to wish to die on the creed of their mother, the old woman who did not know these studies. Yes, and some of them said: "Here I am, I die on the creed of the old women of Naysabur" The creed of the old women, return it to them. That is, because of the intensity of the doubt, anxiety, confusion, and fatigue they saw. You do not think that a corrupt creed is something a person can live upon? Absolutely not. A person cannot live except on a sound creed, or else he is afflicted with doubt, anxiety, and confusion. Until some of the scholars said, and I think it was al-Shafi'i: "Most people who have doubt at death are the people of theology" And what about doubt at death, may Allah protect us, where a person is concluded with what contradicts faith? But if you take the creed from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger (may the prayer and peace of Allah be upon him) easily, and as the Salaf did, and you say as al-Razi said, and he is one of their great ones and leaders, he says: "I saw that the closest path is the path of the Qur'an. I read in affirmation:

The Most Merciful [who is] above the Throne established.

الرحمن على العرش استوى

[Taha 20:5]

So I affirm. And I read in negation:

There is nothing like unto Him

ليس كمثله شيء

[Ash-Shuraa 42:11]

but they do not encompass it in knowledge.

ولا يحيطون به علما

[Taha 20:110]

And whoever has tried my experience knows my knowledge" Because he acknowledged before the theological discourse we quote, he said: "I have contemplated the theological paths and the philosophical methodologies, and I did not find them to quench my thirst or cure my illness. And I found that the closest path is the path of the Qur'an" to the end of it.
So the result is that these deniers, these deniers, when the attributes of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) come in the Book and the Sunnah, relying on this corrupt assumption that they imply likening Allah to creation, these people have gone astray in a clear way. Did the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) discuss the Messenger with this?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : Or not?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : No doubt, which we almost testify to, if we do not testify to it, that when such a hadith passes them, they accept it in its reality, but they know that there is no likeness to Allah. So they combine the affirmation with the negation. So what is our position regarding such a hadith that affirms the fingers for Allah (Mighty and Majestic)? Yes.
The student: We affirm it.

The Shaykh : That we affirm it and accept it, and that we do not limit ourselves to merely passing it over without meaning, so that we are in the position of the illiterates who do not know the Book except as wishes. We read it and say, yes, this means a real finger on which Allah places these things. But do we imagine with our understanding or say with our tongues that it is like our fingers?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : Absolutely not. It is not permissible. We say: Allah knows best the manner of these fingers. Just as we do not know His sacred Essence, so we do not know these attributes from His attributes. We do not know their manner, but we refer the knowledge of it to Allah. And in a narration in Muslim: Is it a real shaking or a metaphorical one?
The student: Real.

The Shaykh : The Exalted and Majestic is He shakes them truly to make clear to the servants in that great station His greatness and His power, (Glorified and Exalted is He), and that nothing is too difficult for Him. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to recite this verse in the hadith of Ibn 'Umar: because of the intensity of the shaking of the pulpit. Why? Because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was speaking these words and his heart was filled with the magnification of Allah, (Glorified and Exalted is He). Does the pulpit hear or not? It hears, it hears. So this pulpit began to shake until he said: or Do not say that this inanimate object does not feel. It feels. The trunk that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to preach to, when the pulpit was made and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) stood up to preach from the pulpit, what did the trunk do?
The student: It yearns.

The Shaykh : ... It yearns just as a mother yearns for her children, missing the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), until the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) came down and it became quiet, just as a mother quiets her child until it is quiet. Do not say that this inanimate object does not know Allah, (Mighty and Majestic). Yes, everything glorifies the praise of Allah. Yes, even the birds in the sky and even the ants in their burrows, they all glorify Allah. Good, he said, even inanimate objects glorify Allah. The glorification of food and pebbles was heard in the presence of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Yes.

The questioner : Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : First, not everyone who sees or hears accepts that in their mind without feeling the representation... You are addressing the common people, you want to tell them, for example: "Represent it as the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) represented it." I believe that the common person will immediately assume...
The student: Likening Allah to creation

The Shaykh : ...the representation, because he is a common person and does not understand. So this is something we should refrain from, because this is not obligatory, so that we say it is obligatory for us to convey it as the Messenger conveyed it, by word and by action. It is not obligatory.
And as for when we are speaking with students of knowledge or with a stubborn person who denies this and wants to turn the matter to a meaning, not to a reality, to a metaphor, not to a reality, then at that time we do as the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did. For example, if someone says, "Allah is All-Hearing, All-Seeing," and he says, "All-Hearing without a hearing and All-Seeing without a sight," even though the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), when he recited: , placed his fingers on his eye and his ear, and Abu Hurayrah narrated it likewise. So this person who says "All-Hearing without a hearing and All-Seeing without a sight," this... is like the one who denies the reality of the Hand. He says: "Absolutely, Allah does not grasp the heavens with His Hand," but the meaning is that they are in His grasp, meaning in His control. And the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) says this with his hand, moving it, opening it and closing it. We say this is a reality, as the Messenger said, "This is how it is." So the situation is not very easy; it is a difficult and extremely precise matter. And whatever you fear that someone might fall into a prohibition regarding, you can hold back from them, and this is the action of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) in all his actions, if you reflect on them. Even practical matters, he might delay them if he feared fitnah or evil, such as when he delayed building the Ka'bah on the foundations of Ibrahim out of fear that there would be fitnah for the Quraysh who had recently embraced Islam. Yes.

The questioner : Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. In a narration of al-Bukhari: They both narrated it.
And the first hadith agrees with this and here he said: Does it contradict the first one?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : Why?
The student: There is an addition of knowledge.

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: There is an addition of knowledge.

The Shaykh : Let us see if it contradicts it or not? The first one says and here he combined Answer.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : That is, it is possible to combine them. How do we say? We can say that the water is on a finger, the water and the earth are on a finger, meaning the whole earth is on a finger, and the finger is intended as the genus, not the unit. Otherwise, it would contradict the hadith before it, because the one before it says: And it is known that if an indefinite noun is repeated with the indefinite article, is the second one the first one or another? If the name is repeated as indefinite, the second is usually not the first... If it is definite, the second is usually the first, not always. Good, here he says: four, and here he says: So either we say that the water and the earth is a metonymy for the whole earth, yes, or we say that the water and the earth are on a finger and he was silent about the rest. He was silent about the rest, either for brevity or for restriction.