Explanation of the author's statement and his saying: (And He is the All-Knowing, the All-Aware)

The Shaykh : He said: "

And He is the All-Knowing, the All-Aware

وهو الْعَلِيمُ الْخَبِيرُ

The All-Knowing

الْعَلِيمُ

We have previously discussed this, and it concerns the attribute of knowledge for Allah the Exalted and Majestic. Is He knowing by the attribute of knowledge, or knowing by His essence? We say He is knowing by the attribute of knowledge, because the Mu'tazilah say that He has no attribute of knowledge; rather, He is knowing by His essence. They do not say that He is 'Alim (All-Knowing) in the sense of possessing knowledge; that is not appropriate. Rather, His essence is the knowledge itself. Therefore, they do not distinguish between Al-Sami' (The All-Hearing), Al-'Alim (The All-Knowing), Al-Khabir (The All-Aware), and Al-Basir (The All-Seeing), because in their view, all of these are the essence. They ask: Why? Because if you affirm for Allah the Exalted and Majestic eternal attributes such as knowledge, hearing, and sight, you become more of a disbeliever than the Christians. I seek refuge in Allah. Why? They say: Because the Christians affirmed three eternal beings, and you have affirmed ninety-nine, or more than ninety-nine. Whoever affirms an eternal attribute for Allah has affirmed the multiplicity of eternal beings, meaning the gods. In their view, Allah is Al-Qadir (The All-Powerful); this is a power that is an essence, so how many are there? Two. Hearing, so three. Sight, knowledge, so four. Life, and so on. So do not affirm an attribute. Then they say: 'Alim, yes, 'Alim, possessing knowledge by His essence, not by a knowledge. He knows by His essence, not by a knowledge. He hears by His essence, not by a hearing. Therefore, they make all these meanings one thing. This is false speech. And among the strange things—and there are many strange things—is that they say they are the people of intellect, not the people of intellect. They say: This intellect! Glory be to Allah. You come to an old woman, perhaps only one hair remains on her head, perhaps she is falling apart from old age, and you ask her: Do Al-'Alim, Al-Sami', and Al-Hakim (The Wise) mean the same thing? What does she say? She says: No, everyone knows. We say that He is 'Alim by a knowledge that is His attribute, and so it is with the rest of the attributes. And we say to them: We ask Allah to guide you. You are a man who has hearing, sight, knowledge, life, and power. How many are you? One, in your opinion? Are you more than one or not? How do you permit for yourselves that attributes are multiple in you, but you do not permit that for Allah, Lord of the worlds? And what defect or deficiency results from this? He said: " " Look, Allah the Exalted and Majestic combined Al-'Alim and Al-Khabir. If the name Al-'Alim had come alone, it would have included the name Al-Khabir. Why? Because we said Al-'Alim is All-Knowing of everything, the apparent and the hidden. He is All-Knowing of the inner realities of things. So here, a more specific description follows a more general description. When a more specific description follows a more general one, do we take the general one to mean something that excludes the specific one, or do we say that when the specific one came, it was like it was repeated twice? An example clarifies with an example. Do we say: If Al-'Alim and Al-Khabir are paired, we make Al-'Alim knowing of the apparent things, meaning Al-'Alim is knowing of the apparent things and Al-Khabir is knowing of the hidden things, so each name indicates a meaning independent of the other? Or do we say: Al-'Alim is knowing of the apparent and hidden things, and Al-Khabir emphasized it, and it is the knowledge of the hidden things, because knowledge of the apparent without knowledge of the hidden—knowledge of the hidden is deeper, is it not? Which is more appropriate? The latter, so that the knowledge of the inner realities of things is repeated twice: once by way of generality and once by way of specificity. And just as this is the case with meanings, it is the case with entities. For example, The spirit is from whom? Jibril is from the angels. Do we say that Jibril is included in the angels and then specified by name for the sake of honor, or do we say that he is not included in the angels in the first place because he was specified by name? Do you understand the difference? For example, we say: Except Jibril, then he said: This indicates the descent of Jibril, or do we say: The angels, among whom is Jibril, and Jibril was specified by mention as an honor for him? The latter, yes or no? So, Al-Khabir is the One who knows the inner realities of things, and He was specified by name because knowledge of the hidden is deeper than knowledge of the apparent. Yes, good.