Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "And the meaning of His saying 'He is with you' is not that He is mixed with creation, for this is not what the language requires."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The discussion of this is divided in the explanation or in the interpretation of the verses. The author mentioned this chapter to clarify, may Allah have mercy on him, that there is no contradiction or opposition between affirming the exaltation of Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, and His being with creation. We mentioned that he said, may Allah have mercy on him, that the meaning of His saying: is not that He is mixed with creation; this is not the meaning. He said: "Because the language does not require it".
We mentioned the difference between the two expressions: "for this is not what the language requires" or "for this is not what the language necessitates." He said "does not require" in response to those who say that the language requires it. If you affirm the reality of His being with you, it requires that He be mixed with creation. He said that the language does not require that; meaning, if we say that His being with you is real with respect to Allah, Mighty and Majestic, the language does not require that, so that you would compel us to say that He is in every place.
Now, the difference between "does not require" and "does not necessitate": We said that if he had said "for the language does not necessitate it," the expression would be incorrect. How? Because the language may necessitate that. There is a difference between saying the language necessitates it and saying the language requires it. If we say that the language requires that the reality of His being with you necessitates mixing, then we would be compelled to say what the Mu'tazilah say, and this is not correct. The author, may Allah have mercy on him, gave an example: "The moon is a sign of Allah, one of the smallest of created things, and it is in the sky, and yet it is said to be with us". This is despite the great difference between the Creator and the created. Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, is in the sky and on His Throne, yet all the heavens and the earth are in His hand, yes, as if they were a mustard seed in one of our hands, amounting to nothing. The greatness of the Lord of this creation allows Him to be above everything, and yet it is correct to say that He is with us in reality. But He cannot be with us on earth, because if He were with us on earth, several prohibitions would follow: first, division or multiplicity; second, that things would encompass Him, while He encompasses everything and nothing encompasses Him. Yes, if your mind is unable to conceive this—if it is unable, and I do not think anyone's mind is unable to conceive this with respect to Allah, Mighty and Majestic—if it is unable, then say to your mind: "Is the pen with you?" You say, "Yes." "Where is it?" "It is in my pocket." This is being with. And it is said: "Do you have knowledge, or are you ignorant?" "Where is the location of knowledge?" "It is in the chest." This is being with. And it is said: "So-and-so came with so-and-so." Yes, where was he? "He was in his pocket, and he came with him?" No, beside him. Yes, separate from him. And it is said of a man with his wife, even if she is in the East and he is in the West, "So-and-so is with so-and-so." See now, being with varies according to what it is attributed to, according to what it is attributed to. This is despite it being attributed to one thing, a created thing to a created thing. If it varies, then the being with of the Creator must differ from the being with of the created. Meaning, if we suppose that the being with of the created necessitates being with him in the same place, that does not necessitate it in the being with of the Creator; this does not necessitate it in the being with of the Creator. The matter is clear, praise be to Allah, but it remains to say: Is it correct to say that He is with us by His Essence? The answer is that this phrase must be avoided. Why? Because it suggests a defective meaning. Those who say in the doctrine of pantheism (hulul) will use it as an argument, and those who interpret being with as knowledge will use it as an argument against them. See now, two groups will come to you: one group will say, "Praise be to Allah who guided you to the truth," and what is the truth in their view?
The student: Pantheism (hulul).
The Shaykh : The proponents of pantheism (hulul) say this is the correct view, "Praise be to Allah who guided you to the truth." And another group will say, "You have gone astray, and you are not among those who are guided." Yes, how can you say that He is with you by His Essence? Is that correct? This is pantheism (hulul). They believe that if you say "with Him," He must be in a place. We have now explained, and the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah explained, that if you say He is with you in reality, it does not necessitate that He is in a place, because the language does not require that. Even if it may necessitate it with respect to created things, with respect to the Creator it is absolutely impossible, because you know that this necessitates division or multiplicity, which is a necessary consequence.
The second point, which is also defective, is that created things encompass Him, and this is impossible. So I want you to avoid the phrase "by His Essence" and similar phrases that may provoke some people to say, "You have made a mistake." The proponents of pantheism (hulul) may rejoice over you and say, "You have hit the mark, may Allah keep you safe, you have joined our ranks." Yes, and the thing that causes confusion for the common people is better left alone; indeed, it is obligatory if the common person will understand from this pantheism (hulul). It is obligatory for you not to say it this way; it is obligatory for you to stay away from it. Every phrase that suggests a deficiency in the rights of Allah, you must avoid it. Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) said:. Meaning, the common person may not be able to reconcile the exaltation of Allah with saying that He is with us by His Essence, while He is in the sky. He may not be able to reconcile this and that. So do not address him with that. Say, "He is with us, He knows us, He hears us, He sees us, and He encompasses us." What did you clarify for him? You clarified for him the necessitated meaning, because this is what his mind can grasp. Yes, this is what is obligatory for us. Everything that, if we utter it, suggests a false meaning that is not befitting Allah, it is obligatory for us to avoid this phrase. And we are, without doubt, if we say that His being with us is real, this is its meaning. What does "with you in reality" mean other than He Himself? But considering that this word has come to be used by those who hold to what? Pantheism (hulul), and its usage has become suggestive, I see that it is obligatory to avoid it. But your belief, between you and Allah, is that Allah is with you in reality and He is in the sky.
The questioner : We say that it is knowledge.
The Shaykh : What is the need to say that? We say that knowledge is a necessitated aspect of this being with, along with hearing and sight, as Ibn Rajab and Ibn Kathir and others said. Meaning, we do not restrict it to knowledge either, but to all encompassing: knowledge, power, authority, hearing, sight, and so on.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: It is as He is on His Throne...
The Shaykh : As He is on His Throne, and as He descends to the lowest heaven. The scholars have stated explicitly, saying "by His Essence," while He is in the exalted position. While He is in the exalted position, there is certainly no descent. And we also distinguish between descent and being with. Note, being with: we are not saying He is with us on earth while He is in the sky; this is impossible. But descent: we say He descends to the lowest heaven while He is in the exalted position. This is the difference. We say He is with us and He is above everything, because as we explained to you, and we must clarify it well, being with does not necessitate mixing, because the language does not require that, so that you would compel us. If we say that being with is real, you compel us and say, "It necessitates for you that He be present and mixed with you." The language does not require this. Being with varies according to what it is attributed to. If your mind is broad enough for this, then this is the truth, and it is what the general rule is based on: implementing the texts according to their apparent meanings, while purifying Allah from what is not befitting Him.
If your heart is not broad enough for this, then praise be to Allah, say, "He is with us, He knows us, He hears us, He sees us, and He encompasses us with power and authority and so on." Leave the word "reality" and the word "essential" behind completely, so that you do not fall into difficulty.
As for if you say that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, does not resemble any of the created beings in His attributes, and indeed the created beings, as the Shaykh al-Islam exemplified, are with you in reality while they are in the exalted position, then the matter is clear, praise be to Allah, and there is no difficulty. And what we must avoid is the word "by His Essence" or "essential" or similar, so that it does not suggest a defective meaning. Everything that suggests a defective meaning in what is attributed to Allah, it is obligatory for us, O brothers, to avoid it, to avoid it, so that we do not lead the servants of Allah to something that is not befitting Allah.
The questioner : Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes, no questions have come.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : They have come.
And He is with you
وهو معكمWe mentioned the difference between the two expressions: "for this is not what the language requires" or "for this is not what the language necessitates." He said "does not require" in response to those who say that the language requires it. If you affirm the reality of His being with you, it requires that He be mixed with creation. He said that the language does not require that; meaning, if we say that His being with you is real with respect to Allah, Mighty and Majestic, the language does not require that, so that you would compel us to say that He is in every place.
Now, the difference between "does not require" and "does not necessitate": We said that if he had said "for the language does not necessitate it," the expression would be incorrect. How? Because the language may necessitate that. There is a difference between saying the language necessitates it and saying the language requires it. If we say that the language requires that the reality of His being with you necessitates mixing, then we would be compelled to say what the Mu'tazilah say, and this is not correct. The author, may Allah have mercy on him, gave an example: "The moon is a sign of Allah, one of the smallest of created things, and it is in the sky, and yet it is said to be with us". This is despite the great difference between the Creator and the created. Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, is in the sky and on His Throne, yet all the heavens and the earth are in His hand, yes, as if they were a mustard seed in one of our hands, amounting to nothing. The greatness of the Lord of this creation allows Him to be above everything, and yet it is correct to say that He is with us in reality. But He cannot be with us on earth, because if He were with us on earth, several prohibitions would follow: first, division or multiplicity; second, that things would encompass Him, while He encompasses everything and nothing encompasses Him. Yes, if your mind is unable to conceive this—if it is unable, and I do not think anyone's mind is unable to conceive this with respect to Allah, Mighty and Majestic—if it is unable, then say to your mind: "Is the pen with you?" You say, "Yes." "Where is it?" "It is in my pocket." This is being with. And it is said: "Do you have knowledge, or are you ignorant?" "Where is the location of knowledge?" "It is in the chest." This is being with. And it is said: "So-and-so came with so-and-so." Yes, where was he? "He was in his pocket, and he came with him?" No, beside him. Yes, separate from him. And it is said of a man with his wife, even if she is in the East and he is in the West, "So-and-so is with so-and-so." See now, being with varies according to what it is attributed to, according to what it is attributed to. This is despite it being attributed to one thing, a created thing to a created thing. If it varies, then the being with of the Creator must differ from the being with of the created. Meaning, if we suppose that the being with of the created necessitates being with him in the same place, that does not necessitate it in the being with of the Creator; this does not necessitate it in the being with of the Creator. The matter is clear, praise be to Allah, but it remains to say: Is it correct to say that He is with us by His Essence? The answer is that this phrase must be avoided. Why? Because it suggests a defective meaning. Those who say in the doctrine of pantheism (hulul) will use it as an argument, and those who interpret being with as knowledge will use it as an argument against them. See now, two groups will come to you: one group will say, "Praise be to Allah who guided you to the truth," and what is the truth in their view?
The student: Pantheism (hulul).
The Shaykh : The proponents of pantheism (hulul) say this is the correct view, "Praise be to Allah who guided you to the truth." And another group will say, "You have gone astray, and you are not among those who are guided." Yes, how can you say that He is with you by His Essence? Is that correct? This is pantheism (hulul). They believe that if you say "with Him," He must be in a place. We have now explained, and the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah explained, that if you say He is with you in reality, it does not necessitate that He is in a place, because the language does not require that. Even if it may necessitate it with respect to created things, with respect to the Creator it is absolutely impossible, because you know that this necessitates division or multiplicity, which is a necessary consequence.
The second point, which is also defective, is that created things encompass Him, and this is impossible. So I want you to avoid the phrase "by His Essence" and similar phrases that may provoke some people to say, "You have made a mistake." The proponents of pantheism (hulul) may rejoice over you and say, "You have hit the mark, may Allah keep you safe, you have joined our ranks." Yes, and the thing that causes confusion for the common people is better left alone; indeed, it is obligatory if the common person will understand from this pantheism (hulul). It is obligatory for you not to say it this way; it is obligatory for you to stay away from it. Every phrase that suggests a deficiency in the rights of Allah, you must avoid it. Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) said:
You will not tell a people a story that their minds cannot grasp except that it will be a trial for some of them.
إنك لن تحدث قوما حديثا لا تبلغه عقولهم إلا كان لبعضهم فتنةThe questioner : We say that it is knowledge.
The Shaykh : What is the need to say that? We say that knowledge is a necessitated aspect of this being with, along with hearing and sight, as Ibn Rajab and Ibn Kathir and others said. Meaning, we do not restrict it to knowledge either, but to all encompassing: knowledge, power, authority, hearing, sight, and so on.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: It is as He is on His Throne...
The Shaykh : As He is on His Throne, and as He descends to the lowest heaven. The scholars have stated explicitly, saying "by His Essence," while He is in the exalted position. While He is in the exalted position, there is certainly no descent. And we also distinguish between descent and being with. Note, being with: we are not saying He is with us on earth while He is in the sky; this is impossible. But descent: we say He descends to the lowest heaven while He is in the exalted position. This is the difference. We say He is with us and He is above everything, because as we explained to you, and we must clarify it well, being with does not necessitate mixing, because the language does not require that, so that you would compel us. If we say that being with is real, you compel us and say, "It necessitates for you that He be present and mixed with you." The language does not require this. Being with varies according to what it is attributed to. If your mind is broad enough for this, then this is the truth, and it is what the general rule is based on: implementing the texts according to their apparent meanings, while purifying Allah from what is not befitting Him.
If your heart is not broad enough for this, then praise be to Allah, say, "He is with us, He knows us, He hears us, He sees us, and He encompasses us with power and authority and so on." Leave the word "reality" and the word "essential" behind completely, so that you do not fall into difficulty.
As for if you say that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, does not resemble any of the created beings in His attributes, and indeed the created beings, as the Shaykh al-Islam exemplified, are with you in reality while they are in the exalted position, then the matter is clear, praise be to Allah, and there is no difficulty. And what we must avoid is the word "by His Essence" or "essential" or similar, so that it does not suggest a defective meaning. Everything that suggests a defective meaning in what is attributed to Allah, it is obligatory for us, O brothers, to avoid it, to avoid it, so that we do not lead the servants of Allah to something that is not befitting Allah.
The questioner : Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes, no questions have come.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : They have come.