"or an attribute of His attributes"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"or denying an attribute of His attributes" If one denies an attribute of His attributes, the apparent meaning of the author's words, may Allah have mercy on him, is that he is declared a disbeliever absolutely, because he used the general term "an attribute of His attributes." However, his example in the commentary indicates that the intended meaning is the essential attributes from which He cannot be separated, such as knowledge and power. Even so, there is a point to consider. The denier of attributes—what does that mean? It means the one who rejects them. And the one who rejects the attributes must be said to fall into two categories. The first is that he denies them by way of refutation, and the second is that he denies them by way of figurative interpretation. If he denies them by way of refutation, then he is?
The questioner : A disbeliever.
The Shaykh : a disbeliever in every case, because he is refuting what has been established for Allah, Mighty and Majestic. The one who refutes something from the Book of Allah or the established Sunnah of His Messenger is a disbeliever. An example of this is if someone says, "Allah has no hearing," "Allah has no face," "Allah has no hand," "Allah did not rise above the Throne," or the like. We say this is
The questioner : A disbeliever.
The Shaykh : a disbeliever. Why? Because he is refuting, and refuting the news of Allah and His Messenger is disbelief. This is the first category. The first category is that his denial is by way of refutation, so is he? A disbeliever in every case. Why?
The questioner : Because he is refuting Allah.
The Shaykh : Because he is refuting Allah and His Messenger, and refuting Allah and His Messenger is disbelief. It makes no difference whether the attribute is essential or active. Even if he refutes that Allah descends to the lowest heaven, we say he is a disbeliever. If he says that Allah does not descend to the lowest heaven, we say he is a disbeliever, because the Messenger said and this person says
The questioner : He does not descend.
The Shaykh : No, He does not descend. This is as if he is saying, "O Muhammad, you lied." As for the second category of denial, it is denial by way of figurative interpretation, where one denies an attribute of His attributes by way of interpretation rather than by way of refutation. He says, "Yes, Allah rose above the Throne, but the meaning of 'rose' is 'dominated.' Allah has two hands, but what is meant by them is
The questioner : mercy.
The Shaykh : mercy, and the like. This falls into two categories. If this interpretation has a basis in the Arabic language, then he is not declared a disbeliever, because this is what his independent legal reasoning led him to, so we do not declare him a disbeliever. But if there is no basis for it in the Arabic language, then he is a disbeliever, because the interpretation in this sense means
The questioner : refutation.
The Shaykh : No, it is not... it is refutation. It means refutation. Yes. An example of this is if I, for instance, said, "I bought the commentary of Ibn 'Aqil," and then someone came and said, "Muhammad bought al-Rawd al-Murbi' (The Round Garden)," and I said, "I meant by al-Rawd al-Murbi' the commentary of Ibn 'Aqil," ...
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : This means he lied to me. Does the reason allow for interpretation here?
The questioner : What admits of it.
The Shaykh : It does not allow for interpretation, because it is not possible to shift the meaning of "the commentary of Ibn 'Aqil" to the meaning of "al-Rawd al-Murbi'." So if there is no basis for the interpretation, then he is a disbeliever, because the meaning of this interpretation is rejection and refutation, since there is no justification for it in the Arabic language. Therefore, he is not thereby acknowledging the truth, so the author's statement here is not to be taken in its absolute sense. Yes. If he persists after it has become clear to him that the truth is contrary to his interpretation, even if his interpretation had a basis, but he persists, then he may be judged
The questioner : a disbeliever.
The Shaykh : a disbeliever and an apostate, because he rejected the reality of the statement while knowing that his interpretation is not correct. So he may be judged a disbeliever in this case.
The questioner : A disbeliever.
The Shaykh : a disbeliever in every case, because he is refuting what has been established for Allah, Mighty and Majestic. The one who refutes something from the Book of Allah or the established Sunnah of His Messenger is a disbeliever. An example of this is if someone says, "Allah has no hearing," "Allah has no face," "Allah has no hand," "Allah did not rise above the Throne," or the like. We say this is
The questioner : A disbeliever.
The Shaykh : a disbeliever. Why? Because he is refuting, and refuting the news of Allah and His Messenger is disbelief. This is the first category. The first category is that his denial is by way of refutation, so is he? A disbeliever in every case. Why?
The questioner : Because he is refuting Allah.
The Shaykh : Because he is refuting Allah and His Messenger, and refuting Allah and His Messenger is disbelief. It makes no difference whether the attribute is essential or active. Even if he refutes that Allah descends to the lowest heaven, we say he is a disbeliever. If he says that Allah does not descend to the lowest heaven, we say he is a disbeliever, because the Messenger said
He descends
ينزلThe questioner : He does not descend.
The Shaykh : No, He does not descend. This is as if he is saying, "O Muhammad, you lied." As for the second category of denial, it is denial by way of figurative interpretation, where one denies an attribute of His attributes by way of interpretation rather than by way of refutation. He says, "Yes, Allah rose above the Throne, but the meaning of 'rose' is 'dominated.' Allah has two hands, but what is meant by them is
The questioner : mercy.
The Shaykh : mercy, and the like. This falls into two categories. If this interpretation has a basis in the Arabic language, then he is not declared a disbeliever, because this is what his independent legal reasoning led him to, so we do not declare him a disbeliever. But if there is no basis for it in the Arabic language, then he is a disbeliever, because the interpretation in this sense means
The questioner : refutation.
The Shaykh : No, it is not... it is refutation. It means refutation. Yes. An example of this is if I, for instance, said, "I bought the commentary of Ibn 'Aqil," and then someone came and said, "Muhammad bought al-Rawd al-Murbi' (The Round Garden)," and I said, "I meant by al-Rawd al-Murbi' the commentary of Ibn 'Aqil," ...
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : This means he lied to me. Does the reason allow for interpretation here?
The questioner : What admits of it.
The Shaykh : It does not allow for interpretation, because it is not possible to shift the meaning of "the commentary of Ibn 'Aqil" to the meaning of "al-Rawd al-Murbi'." So if there is no basis for the interpretation, then he is a disbeliever, because the meaning of this interpretation is rejection and refutation, since there is no justification for it in the Arabic language. Therefore, he is not thereby acknowledging the truth, so the author's statement here is not to be taken in its absolute sense. Yes. If he persists after it has become clear to him that the truth is contrary to his interpretation, even if his interpretation had a basis, but he persists, then he may be judged
The questioner : a disbeliever.
The Shaykh : a disbeliever and an apostate, because he rejected the reality of the statement while knowing that his interpretation is not correct. So he may be judged a disbeliever in this case.