(Affirming the Exaltation of Allah above His creation and His rising above His Throne, and refuting those who oppose this, and explaining the invalidity of those who interpreted the rising as dominion, and a group came and approximated its description*** This and he added to it in the balance, saying: Listen, O people, do not let*** these hopes distract you; these are the worst of hopes.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : This chapter is long, it does not extend us, in any case, this other group says that he went seeking Allah and searched right and left, but he did not find anyone who guided him to Him except the people of hadith; they are the ones who guided him and explained that He, Exalted and Exalted is He, is above the highest heavens. The author provided several proofs for the Exaltation of Allah, which we will take one by one:
" They said: What you seek is above His servants *** above the sky and above every place
And He is the One who truly rose above the Throne *** but He dominated the universes "
Memorize this verse because it is important: He rose above the Throne and He dominated the universes. So "dominated" is not fitting for the Throne, but He dominated all the universes. As for "rose," it is specific to the Throne. Between the proofs:
From which aspect?
No, no, because this means only ownership.
Then the author provided proof for His Exaltation by his saying:
" To Him ascends every good word " in the Qur'an
" And to Him is raised the effort of the one who gives thanks "[Fatir 35:10]
" And the spirit and the angels descend from Him " and descent does not occur except from above. This is a second type of indication of Exaltation: the Exaltation of things to Him indicates His Exaltation, and their descent from Him also indicates His Exaltation. He said:
" And to Him they ascend " like the first.
" And to Him the hands of the supplicants are directed *** toward the height " This is a natural proof. No one has ever said "O Allah" without raising his hands to the sky. These are three.
" And to Him the Messenger ascended " This is like the first: the ascent of things to Him because He is above. But his saying: " that he was two bows' length from his Lord " is his statement here, but his statement in *Al-Tabyan fi Aqsam al-Qur'an* contradicts this, where he mentioned that the saying of the Exalted:[An-Najm 53:8-9] the intended meaning is Jibril. And this is the correct view: that the intended meaning of His saying: [An-Najm 53:8-9] is Jibril, not Allah, Mighty and Majestic. Yes, but the author, like other mujtahids, may have two or more statements on an issue. And this is one of the issues of the principles in which the Salaf, may Allah have mercy on them, differed. Yes, he said:
" And to Him Jesus was truly raised *** and he will surely descend so that he may be seen clearly "
This is also of the first type: the ascent of things to Him.
" And to Him ascends the spirit of every believer " from the first.
" And to Him the hopes of the servants are directed " from the third type, which is what? The fitrah. And for this he said: But rather, it is the nature of Allah. Good, he says:
" So I asked about them my companions and my loved ones *** the followers of Jahm "
This indicates that the man was a Jahmi. The followers of Jahm, the party of Genghis Khan or Chinggis Khan. This is the father of the Mongol kings, and he is the king, the first to rule among the Mongols with this name. Yes, then he said: " Who are these " until he mentioned of their descriptions until he said:
" They came to you with the revelation, but you came *** with the chiseling of thoughts and minds "
And what did the followers of Jahm say in his answer? He said: " Who are these " and what did they say?
" They said: You are those who liken and ascribe a body, so *** do not listen to the speech of a body-ascriber, an animal.
And curse them with a great curse, and wage war against them *** with the armies of denial, not a coward "
And is this correct? This is an error. They are the ones who deserve this ruling. Good, then they ordered: " Rule with the spilling of their blood " killing; this is a ruling. " And their imprisonment " naturally, life imprisonment. This is another ruling. And the third: " Or if not " meaning if you do not rule with that, " then expel them ". Who issued this ruling? The followers of Jahm and the followers of Genghis Khan, against the people of the Sunnah and the community. He said: Do not let them remain; either kill them, or imprison them, or expel them. We ask Allah for safety. Yes.
" Beware of your companions regarding them, for they are more astray *** than the Jews and the worshippers of the crosses "
I seek refuge in Allah. Look, they say this to the people of the Sunnah and the community because they repel people from them.
" And beware of debating them with 'Allah said' or *** 'the Messenger said,' for you will return in humiliation "
If you debate them with the Book and the Sunnah, you will return. What does "return" mean? You will be defeated and they will overcome you, because the Book and the Sunnah are with them. " How " meaning how will you overcome them when they are more worthy of it, having executed therein the powers of the minds and the bodies. " So if you are afflicted with them " meaning if it is decreed that you are afflicted with them in a council, then refute them by interpretation or exegesis. Interpretation when? When denial is not possible. Meaning, if they bring a verse and you cannot deny them, what do you do? You interpret. If they bring a mass-transmitted hadith and you cannot deny it, you interpret. If that is not possible, then if:
" And likewise, refute them in the denial of the singular reports " if the report is a singular report, then say: this is a lie. So it means he advised him to respond to the people of the Sunnah with what? With interpretation if denial is not possible, and with denial if the report is a singular report. And he says: these are two roots for our companions, and some of them bequeathed them to one another.
Now, if you and they gather in a session, do not let them speak. You start speaking and fill the session with lies and nonsense until the session is wasted. Do you understand how they advise one another? That is, if one wants to mislead, he says: when the session comes, do not let anyone speak; he speaks and starts bringing in nonsense and lies. Why? Because if they start speaking, they will overpower him.
"They will not overpower you with the athar and *** reports and the interpretation of the Furqan"
Because you either agree, disagree, or remain silent. Look, my brothers, how the enemy advises one another: if they bring the revelation, what do you do in front of them? You deny it if it is ahad, and you interpret it figuratively if it is not ahad, if it is mutawatir or from the Qur'an. If you sit with them, you occupy them with talk far removed from these matters, lies and nonsense, and so on. And if they take control of the session and become stronger than you in speech, yes, then you use one of three things; your situation is not free from three matters: either you agree, disagree, or remain silent. If they take control of the session and it becomes theirs, you are not free from three states: either you agree, disagree, or remain silent.
If you remain silent, they say, "This man is ignorant." If you agree, you become like them. We do not want you to become like them. If you disagree and they have the Qur'an and the Sunnah, you become a zindiq in the eyes of the other people in the session. He says, "This man contradicts the Book and the Sunnah." Is that clear, everyone? Now, this man advised his companion, or this party advised their companion, that he should have the first word in the speech. If they take control over him, let him be careful, because their situation is not free from these three states. He says:
"So I returned from my journey" and so on. Perhaps we should stop at this, it is better.
... the people of ta'til (denial of the divine attributes), how do they say "He took control of the universes"? The answer is: it is said that Allah took control of the universes in reality, so He is their wali (close friend of Allah) and they are His property, without doubt. And what the people of the Sunnah denied regarding the people of ta'til when they said "istawa" means "took control of the Throne" was that the people of the Sunnah said to them: "So was the Throne before His taking control of it belonging to someone else or not?" Because the istiwaa' mentioned came with "thum" (then)[Al-A'raf 7:54], so here Allah's taking control of it is a taking control after what? After the creation of the heavens and the earth. So before that, to whom did it belong? To other than Allah. But if we say that Allah took control of the universes without "thum," there is no objection. But if someone asks why Ibn al-Qayyim chose the word "took control" to show to those who said "istawa on the Throne" means "took control of it" that they erred, for the taking control of everything, do you say that Allah istawa on the earth? What is the answer? They say, "No, we do not say this. It necessitates for you to say He istawa on the earth, because you interpret istawa with took control, and Allah the Exalted has taken control of everything, so it necessitates for you to say He istawa on the earth and on the human being and on everything." And they do not say that, because it is kufr (disbelief). I think the objection is now gone, meaning there is no objection in Ibn al-Qayyim's words at all.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, now, if we say that Allah took control of everything, meaning He has the wilayah (guardianship) over everything, is this true or not true? This is true. Someone might say: How do we say it is true when we denied those who interpreted istiwaa' with taking control?
The answer is that we denied them because istawa does not mean took control; this is one point.
Second: because istiwaa' was coupled with "thum" which indicates that this is a subsequent event, meaning istiwaa' after the creation of the heavens and the earth. Do you say that Allah did not istawa on the Throne except after the creation of the heavens and the earth? The answer is we say, "No." But they say, "Then He took control after the creation of the heavens and the earth." And this is the aspect of the denial against them. So the result is that the word "took control of the kingdom" has no problem, or "took control of the creation" has no problem. The problem is interpreting istawa with took control from two aspects:
The first aspect: that istawa does not come to mean took control.
And the second: that it necessitates that the Throne was before Allah's istiwaa' upon it belonging to other than Allah. So this is the aspect of the denial against them. Yes, correct.
The questioner : It can also be said that your saying "took control of..." implies that another one had taken control of it before.
The Shaykh : No, no, absolutely not. This, if it came with what necessitates succession... but as a beginning, it is correct that Allah took control of everything. Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I told you that Ibn al-Qayyim chose "took control" in order to refute them, because if he said that istawa means took control, we would say, "He has taken control of everything, so say He has istawa on everything, otherwise it is a contradiction." Yes, this is the aspect of Ibn al-Qayyim's choice of the word "took control of other than Him." Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : We say "thum istawa." The word "thum" indicates succession and that before that it belonged to other than Allah. And yes, it is possible to specify some individuals of a general ruling by specification for it and attention to it, and this is common in the Arabic language. But the word "thum istawa" prevents the intended meaning from being taking control.
The questioner : Shaykh, what is the evidence for the word "taking control"?
The Shaykh : It does not need evidence.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, no, absolutely not. Everything that indicates a meaning befitting Allah, you may inform about Allah with it. Everything that indicates a meaning that is not impossible for Allah, you may inform about Allah with it. The reports are broader than the naming. Yes.
The questioner :[Taha 20:5] It does not have "thum"...
The Shaykh : This is correct, but we do not say "took control" because istawa is like istawa in its sister verses among the remaining verses. Allah mentioned istiwaa' in seven places.
The questioner : The Throne...
The Shaykh : There is no doubt He took control of everything. We do not prevent that He took control of the Throne. We say He took control of the Throne, but we prevent interpreting istawa with took control. Yes, read, read. I have clarified what I have here, but this has not been clarified now.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Taking control of a thing means having the wilayah (guardianship) over it in terms of ownership and management. And this does not contradict the perfection of Allah (Mighty and Majestic); rather, it is part of His perfection that He takes control of everything. Yes. But the objection is that we interpret istawa with what? With took control. This is the objection. This is one, because if you interpret istawa with took control, the Throne when the heavens and the earth were created was not the property of Allah or not? Because He said: This is two.
Third: Why did Ibn al-Qayyim choose "took control of the kingdom," for example? Why? To show the falsity of their interpretation of istawa with took control. The aspect of that is: we say, "We and you say that Allah took control of everything. Do you approve that we say Allah istawa on everything?" If they say no, they contradict themselves. If they say yes, they contradict the Ummah openly. Indeed, we may say that they are now disbelievers. We say: Do you interpret istawa? Do you make "took control of everything" valid so that we can say He istawa on everything instead of it? If they say yes, they contradict the Ummah or disbelieve. If they say no, they contradict themselves. And say, "Then it is not suitable."
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : How? I interpret...
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I mean, if I said that Allah istawa on the donkey, is this befitting? It is not befitting, even though the donkey and everything is His property. Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Praise be to Allah. Yes.
" They said: What you seek is above His servants *** above the sky and above every place
And He is the One who truly rose above the Throne *** but He dominated the universes "
Memorize this verse because it is important: He rose above the Throne and He dominated the universes. So "dominated" is not fitting for the Throne, but He dominated all the universes. As for "rose," it is specific to the Throne. Between the proofs:
From which aspect?
No, no, because this means only ownership.
Then the author provided proof for His Exaltation by his saying:
" To Him ascends every good word " in the Qur'an
To Him ascends
إليه يصعد" And to Him is raised the effort of the one who gives thanks "
and righteous work raises it
والعمل الصالح يرفعه" And the spirit and the angels descend from Him " and descent does not occur except from above. This is a second type of indication of Exaltation: the Exaltation of things to Him indicates His Exaltation, and their descent from Him also indicates His Exaltation. He said:
" And to Him they ascend " like the first.
" And to Him the hands of the supplicants are directed *** toward the height " This is a natural proof. No one has ever said "O Allah" without raising his hands to the sky. These are three.
" And to Him the Messenger ascended " This is like the first: the ascent of things to Him because He is above. But his saying: " that he was two bows' length from his Lord " is his statement here, but his statement in *Al-Tabyan fi Aqsam al-Qur'an* contradicts this, where he mentioned that the saying of the Exalted:
(8) Then he approached and descended (9) And was at a distance of two bow lengths or nearer.
ثم دنا فتدلى فكان قاب قوسين أو أدنى(8) Then he approached and descended (9) And was at a distance of two bow lengths or nearer.
ثم دنا فتدلى فكان قاب قوسين أو أدنى" And to Him Jesus was truly raised *** and he will surely descend so that he may be seen clearly "
This is also of the first type: the ascent of things to Him.
" And to Him ascends the spirit of every believer " from the first.
" And to Him the hopes of the servants are directed " from the third type, which is what? The fitrah. And for this he said: But rather, it is the nature of Allah. Good, he says:
" So I asked about them my companions and my loved ones *** the followers of Jahm "
This indicates that the man was a Jahmi. The followers of Jahm, the party of Genghis Khan or Chinggis Khan. This is the father of the Mongol kings, and he is the king, the first to rule among the Mongols with this name. Yes, then he said: " Who are these " until he mentioned of their descriptions until he said:
" They came to you with the revelation, but you came *** with the chiseling of thoughts and minds "
And what did the followers of Jahm say in his answer? He said: " Who are these " and what did they say?
" They said: You are those who liken and ascribe a body, so *** do not listen to the speech of a body-ascriber, an animal.
And curse them with a great curse, and wage war against them *** with the armies of denial, not a coward "
And is this correct? This is an error. They are the ones who deserve this ruling. Good, then they ordered: " Rule with the spilling of their blood " killing; this is a ruling. " And their imprisonment " naturally, life imprisonment. This is another ruling. And the third: " Or if not " meaning if you do not rule with that, " then expel them ". Who issued this ruling? The followers of Jahm and the followers of Genghis Khan, against the people of the Sunnah and the community. He said: Do not let them remain; either kill them, or imprison them, or expel them. We ask Allah for safety. Yes.
" Beware of your companions regarding them, for they are more astray *** than the Jews and the worshippers of the crosses "
I seek refuge in Allah. Look, they say this to the people of the Sunnah and the community because they repel people from them.
" And beware of debating them with 'Allah said' or *** 'the Messenger said,' for you will return in humiliation "
If you debate them with the Book and the Sunnah, you will return. What does "return" mean? You will be defeated and they will overcome you, because the Book and the Sunnah are with them. " How " meaning how will you overcome them when they are more worthy of it, having executed therein the powers of the minds and the bodies. " So if you are afflicted with them " meaning if it is decreed that you are afflicted with them in a council, then refute them by interpretation or exegesis. Interpretation when? When denial is not possible. Meaning, if they bring a verse and you cannot deny them, what do you do? You interpret. If they bring a mass-transmitted hadith and you cannot deny it, you interpret. If that is not possible, then if:
" And likewise, refute them in the denial of the singular reports " if the report is a singular report, then say: this is a lie. So it means he advised him to respond to the people of the Sunnah with what? With interpretation if denial is not possible, and with denial if the report is a singular report. And he says: these are two roots for our companions, and some of them bequeathed them to one another.
Now, if you and they gather in a session, do not let them speak. You start speaking and fill the session with lies and nonsense until the session is wasted. Do you understand how they advise one another? That is, if one wants to mislead, he says: when the session comes, do not let anyone speak; he speaks and starts bringing in nonsense and lies. Why? Because if they start speaking, they will overpower him.
"They will not overpower you with the athar and *** reports and the interpretation of the Furqan"
Because you either agree, disagree, or remain silent. Look, my brothers, how the enemy advises one another: if they bring the revelation, what do you do in front of them? You deny it if it is ahad, and you interpret it figuratively if it is not ahad, if it is mutawatir or from the Qur'an. If you sit with them, you occupy them with talk far removed from these matters, lies and nonsense, and so on. And if they take control of the session and become stronger than you in speech, yes, then you use one of three things; your situation is not free from three matters: either you agree, disagree, or remain silent. If they take control of the session and it becomes theirs, you are not free from three states: either you agree, disagree, or remain silent.
If you remain silent, they say, "This man is ignorant." If you agree, you become like them. We do not want you to become like them. If you disagree and they have the Qur'an and the Sunnah, you become a zindiq in the eyes of the other people in the session. He says, "This man contradicts the Book and the Sunnah." Is that clear, everyone? Now, this man advised his companion, or this party advised their companion, that he should have the first word in the speech. If they take control over him, let him be careful, because their situation is not free from these three states. He says:
"So I returned from my journey" and so on. Perhaps we should stop at this, it is better.
... the people of ta'til (denial of the divine attributes), how do they say "He took control of the universes"? The answer is: it is said that Allah took control of the universes in reality, so He is their wali (close friend of Allah) and they are His property, without doubt. And what the people of the Sunnah denied regarding the people of ta'til when they said "istawa" means "took control of the Throne" was that the people of the Sunnah said to them: "So was the Throne before His taking control of it belonging to someone else or not?" Because the istiwaa' mentioned came with "thum" (then)
who created the heavens and earth in six days and then established
خلق السماوات والأرض في ستة أيام ثُم استوىThe student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, now, if we say that Allah took control of everything, meaning He has the wilayah (guardianship) over everything, is this true or not true? This is true. Someone might say: How do we say it is true when we denied those who interpreted istiwaa' with taking control?
The answer is that we denied them because istawa does not mean took control; this is one point.
Second: because istiwaa' was coupled with "thum" which indicates that this is a subsequent event, meaning istiwaa' after the creation of the heavens and the earth. Do you say that Allah did not istawa on the Throne except after the creation of the heavens and the earth? The answer is we say, "No." But they say, "Then He took control after the creation of the heavens and the earth." And this is the aspect of the denial against them. So the result is that the word "took control of the kingdom" has no problem, or "took control of the creation" has no problem. The problem is interpreting istawa with took control from two aspects:
The first aspect: that istawa does not come to mean took control.
And the second: that it necessitates that the Throne was before Allah's istiwaa' upon it belonging to other than Allah. So this is the aspect of the denial against them. Yes, correct.
The questioner : It can also be said that your saying "took control of..." implies that another one had taken control of it before.
The Shaykh : No, no, absolutely not. This, if it came with what necessitates succession... but as a beginning, it is correct that Allah took control of everything. Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I told you that Ibn al-Qayyim chose "took control" in order to refute them, because if he said that istawa means took control, we would say, "He has taken control of everything, so say He has istawa on everything, otherwise it is a contradiction." Yes, this is the aspect of Ibn al-Qayyim's choice of the word "took control of other than Him." Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : We say "thum istawa." The word "thum" indicates succession and that before that it belonged to other than Allah. And yes, it is possible to specify some individuals of a general ruling by specification for it and attention to it, and this is common in the Arabic language. But the word "thum istawa" prevents the intended meaning from being taking control.
The questioner : Shaykh, what is the evidence for the word "taking control"?
The Shaykh : It does not need evidence.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, no, absolutely not. Everything that indicates a meaning befitting Allah, you may inform about Allah with it. Everything that indicates a meaning that is not impossible for Allah, you may inform about Allah with it. The reports are broader than the naming. Yes.
The questioner :
The Most Merciful [who is] above the Throne established.
الرحمن على العرش استوىThe Shaykh : This is correct, but we do not say "took control" because istawa is like istawa in its sister verses among the remaining verses. Allah mentioned istiwaa' in seven places.
The questioner : The Throne...
The Shaykh : There is no doubt He took control of everything. We do not prevent that He took control of the Throne. We say He took control of the Throne, but we prevent interpreting istawa with took control. Yes, read, read. I have clarified what I have here, but this has not been clarified now.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Taking control of a thing means having the wilayah (guardianship) over it in terms of ownership and management. And this does not contradict the perfection of Allah (Mighty and Majestic); rather, it is part of His perfection that He takes control of everything. Yes. But the objection is that we interpret istawa with what? With took control. This is the objection. This is one, because if you interpret istawa with took control, the Throne when the heavens and the earth were created was not the property of Allah or not? Because He said:
He created the heavens and the earth, then He istawa
خلق السموات والأرض ثم استوىThird: Why did Ibn al-Qayyim choose "took control of the kingdom," for example? Why? To show the falsity of their interpretation of istawa with took control. The aspect of that is: we say, "We and you say that Allah took control of everything. Do you approve that we say Allah istawa on everything?" If they say no, they contradict themselves. If they say yes, they contradict the Ummah openly. Indeed, we may say that they are now disbelievers. We say: Do you interpret istawa? Do you make "took control of everything" valid so that we can say He istawa on everything instead of it? If they say yes, they contradict the Ummah or disbelieve. If they say no, they contradict themselves. And say, "Then it is not suitable."
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : How? I interpret...
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I mean, if I said that Allah istawa on the donkey, is this befitting? It is not befitting, even though the donkey and everything is His property. Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Praise be to Allah. Yes.