How is deviation in the names?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : So how is deviation in the names? The scholars said that the definition of deviation in the names is: it is the deviation in them from what is obligatory. Note: the deviation in them from what is obligatory. This definition has types:
The first type: and that is to name Allah with what He has not named Himself with, as the philosophers named Him the Active Cause. The philosophers call the Lord the Active Cause, or the Christians naming Him Father. They call Allah the Father and Isa the Son. This is deviation in the names of Allah. Likewise, if one names Allah with any name He has not named Himself with, he is a deviator in the names of Allah. The reason for this is that the names of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, are based on revelation, so we cannot attribute to Him except what is established by explicit text, because the names are based on revelation. So if you name Allah with what He has not named Himself with, you have deviated and turned away from the obligatory. Clear, good.
Naming Allah with what He has not named Himself with is also injustice and aggression against Allah, Mighty and Majestic. That is, in addition to being bad manners, it is injustice and aggression. Because if someone called you by a name other than your name, or named you by a name other than your name, how would you consider that? He has encroached upon you and wronged you. He has no right to name you with other than what you named yourself. This is with the created being. How much more so with the Creator? So you have no right to name Allah with what He has not named Himself with. If you do so, you are a deviator in the names of Allah.
Second: that one denies one of His names, the opposite of the first. The first named Allah with what He has not named Himself with, and this strips Allah of what He named Himself with. He denies the name. You know, he denies the name, whether he denies all the names or some of those established for Allah. If he denies them, he has deviated in them. The reason for the deviation in them: when Allah established them for Himself, it is obligatory for us to do what? To establish them for Him. So if we deny them, this is deviation, turning them away from what is obligatory in them. Good. Did any of the people deny the names? Yes, the extremists of the Jahmiyyah denied the names. They said: Allah has no name ever. Why? They said: because if you establish a name for Him, you liken Him to existing things. He has no name. And it is known that this is invalid, and I think the speech on refuting it has preceded.
The third type: that one denies what they indicate of attributes. He establishes the name but denies the attribute that the name implies. For example, he says: that Allah is All-Hearing without hearing, and All-Knowing without knowledge, and Creator without creation, and All-Powerful without power. Glory be to Allah, is this reasonable? It is not reasonable. Can you come to a deaf person who does not hear, not even a cannon at his ear, and say, "By Allah, this one is All-Hearing"? Is that acceptable or not? It is not acceptable. All-Hearing without hearing is impossible. But there are those who establish the name and deny the attribute, and say: that Allah is All-Hearing without hearing, and All-Knowing without knowledge.
Then these people make the names pure proper nouns. They say the All-Hearing is other than the All-Knowing, but all of them have no meaning. The All-Hearing does not indicate hearing, and the All-Knowing does not indicate knowledge, but they are just pure proper nouns. For example, you have a son you name Saleh, and another Mubayyid, and what after? Suwaylih, and so on. The name did not change the meaning. They say: All-Hearing, All-Knowing, All-Seeing, and so on, are pure proper nouns that do not carry meaning, and their meaning is not one.
There is another who says: these names are one thing, so He is All-Knowing and All-Hearing and All-Seeing, all one. They do not differ except by the arrangement of the letters only. So he makes the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing, the All-Seeing one thing.
And all of this is something unreasonable. And therefore we say: it is not possible to believe in the names until the attributes they imply are established.
The first type: and that is to name Allah with what He has not named Himself with, as the philosophers named Him the Active Cause. The philosophers call the Lord the Active Cause, or the Christians naming Him Father. They call Allah the Father and Isa the Son. This is deviation in the names of Allah. Likewise, if one names Allah with any name He has not named Himself with, he is a deviator in the names of Allah. The reason for this is that the names of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, are based on revelation, so we cannot attribute to Him except what is established by explicit text, because the names are based on revelation. So if you name Allah with what He has not named Himself with, you have deviated and turned away from the obligatory. Clear, good.
Naming Allah with what He has not named Himself with is also injustice and aggression against Allah, Mighty and Majestic. That is, in addition to being bad manners, it is injustice and aggression. Because if someone called you by a name other than your name, or named you by a name other than your name, how would you consider that? He has encroached upon you and wronged you. He has no right to name you with other than what you named yourself. This is with the created being. How much more so with the Creator? So you have no right to name Allah with what He has not named Himself with. If you do so, you are a deviator in the names of Allah.
Second: that one denies one of His names, the opposite of the first. The first named Allah with what He has not named Himself with, and this strips Allah of what He named Himself with. He denies the name. You know, he denies the name, whether he denies all the names or some of those established for Allah. If he denies them, he has deviated in them. The reason for the deviation in them: when Allah established them for Himself, it is obligatory for us to do what? To establish them for Him. So if we deny them, this is deviation, turning them away from what is obligatory in them. Good. Did any of the people deny the names? Yes, the extremists of the Jahmiyyah denied the names. They said: Allah has no name ever. Why? They said: because if you establish a name for Him, you liken Him to existing things. He has no name. And it is known that this is invalid, and I think the speech on refuting it has preceded.
The third type: that one denies what they indicate of attributes. He establishes the name but denies the attribute that the name implies. For example, he says: that Allah is All-Hearing without hearing, and All-Knowing without knowledge, and Creator without creation, and All-Powerful without power. Glory be to Allah, is this reasonable? It is not reasonable. Can you come to a deaf person who does not hear, not even a cannon at his ear, and say, "By Allah, this one is All-Hearing"? Is that acceptable or not? It is not acceptable. All-Hearing without hearing is impossible. But there are those who establish the name and deny the attribute, and say: that Allah is All-Hearing without hearing, and All-Knowing without knowledge.
Then these people make the names pure proper nouns. They say the All-Hearing is other than the All-Knowing, but all of them have no meaning. The All-Hearing does not indicate hearing, and the All-Knowing does not indicate knowledge, but they are just pure proper nouns. For example, you have a son you name Saleh, and another Mubayyid, and what after? Suwaylih, and so on. The name did not change the meaning. They say: All-Hearing, All-Knowing, All-Seeing, and so on, are pure proper nouns that do not carry meaning, and their meaning is not one.
There is another who says: these names are one thing, so He is All-Knowing and All-Hearing and All-Seeing, all one. They do not differ except by the arrangement of the letters only. So he makes the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing, the All-Seeing one thing.
And all of this is something unreasonable. And therefore we say: it is not possible to believe in the names until the attributes they imply are established.