Part 2: Ibn Uthaymeen & the Neo-Muqatilliyyah – Istiwaa ‘Alal ‘Arsh – Negating the Anthropomorphism
In the previous discussion we made the claim that Ibn Uthaymeen, and in reality the Wahhabi movement of today, have revived the madh-hab of Muqaatil, a madh-hab of creed laced with tajseem and tashbeeh (anthropomorphism). There is yet another issue that manifests the fact that Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (rahimahullah) was a neo-Muqaatili. In his work “Aqidat Ahlus Sunnah Wal-Jama’ah” he states after mentioning Yunus:3,
واستواؤه على العرش: علوه عليه بذاته علوَّاً خاصاً يليق بجلاله وعظمته لا يعلم كيفيته إلا هو.
[We believe that He "created the Heavens and the Earth in six days, then He settled Himself on the throne; He manages everything" (10:3).] His “settling on the throne” means that He is sitting in person (bi-dhaatih) on His throne in a way that is becoming to His majesty and greatness. No one save He knows the kayfiyyah (howness, modality etc) [of the sitting].
One can read this claim for themselves by clicking the following link to the entire treatise(note in word format). The fact is this claim is being parroted by the neo-Muqaatili movement without shame. One can find, throughout the internet, claims that this is the “Quran’ic” perspective, claims which the “mu’attilah” – those who deny the attributes despise. The neo-Muqaatiliyyah are simply attempting to utilize their scare tactics to intimidate the Sunnis. The fact is their claim of “bi-dhaatih” is a bida’ah, unsaid by the Prophet Muhammad (‘alayhis salaam) and His Lord. As Imam Ibn Al-Jawzi (500+ A.H) stated,
“Whoever says: He established Himself over the Throne bi dhaatihi, has diverted from the sense of the Qur’anic verse to that of sensory perception. [...] The anthropomorphists said: He is established over the Throne ‘in person.’ But this addition is not related by anyone! It is only what they understood with their senses, namely, that one is not established other than with one’s own person.”
The same Ibn Abdul-Barr who is warned against for being a mujassim, as mentioned earlier, condemns the usage of “bi-dhaatih” and states in his Tamhid,
Others say that He descends with His Essence (bidhaatihi). Ahmad ibn ‘Abd Allāh told us that his father told him: Ah.mad ibn Khalid narrated to us: Yahya ibn ‘Uthman ibn Salih. narrated to us in Egypt: “I heard Nu‘aym ibn Hammad say the hadith of the descent as he was refuting the position of the Jahmiyya and Nu‘aym said: ‘He descends with His essence while He remains on His kursī.’” This is worthless in the view of the people of understanding among Ahl al-Sunna for it is a modality.” ((Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, al-Tamhīd 7:144 ))
Another scholar the neo-Muqaatiliyyah respect regarding their erroneous belief is Imam Adh-Dhahabi (yet they refuse to accept his stance on tawassul etc.). He stated regarding the phrase “bi-dhaatih” in his Siyar,
“There is no need for the expression bi dhatihi, and it disturbs the soul.” ((Al-Dhahabī, Siyar Arna’ūt. ed. 19:607. ))
Though we should not hide the fact that Adh-Dhahabi ‘disliked’ this view, he did not forbid such a statement outright. The fact is the majority of the Muslim scholars of the past detest such a statement, as it leads – or is – tashbih.
All of this leads us to yet another point, and that is direction and thus “place” being affirmed for Allah ta’alaa by the neo-muqaatiliyyah our this era. Some claim that Allah ta’alaa has a ‘place’ and is literally sitting upon (or I have even heard ‘over’) the throne. This belief is contrary to the belief of the noble Imams of Islam. The claim of this article is that a) such a claim is contrary to the many possible meanings of the language, b) that such a literal understanding contradicts ‘and there is nothing like unto him…’ c) and the Imams of Islam stated that Allah is as He always was, without place.
The erudite Hanbali, Ibn Al-Jawzi writes in Kitaab Akhbaar As-Sifaat the following regarding this issue ((Note: I have taken this from the recent -2002- Merlin Swartz’s edition which includes the arabic originals in the appendix. Where I feel that a word or a phrase that he translated could be more accurately understood by the Muslim with a substituted word, I have taken the liberty to do so. I will include the arabic for certain phrases so that you can better understand the text for yourself. Also check the footnotes for biographical info. )) :
- “Among the texts [relating to the attributes (sifaat)] is the following verse: “Then Allah
istawaa
- on the throne (‘alal ‘arsh)” (7:54) Khalil ibn Ahmad ((d 175 A.H. and composer of the earliest arabic lexicon Kitaab Al-’Ayn )) observed that the word ” عرش ‘Arsh – throne” is an سرير elevated seat which, when used by kings, is called an ‘arsh. [He went on to point out] that the term was well known among the Arabs during Jaahiliyya as well as in Islam. Umayya ibn Abis-Salt said in one of his poems:’Praise Allah, the One who is deserving of our praise, Our Lord who is great in the heavens. By a supreme work which preceded mankind, He established a throne (sareer) above the heavens, A Throne which no human eye can reach. Beneath it angels will be seen prostrating themselves.’ ((See Zaad Al-Maseer ))Know that the term istiwaa’ [the verbal noun of istawaa] has a variety of meanings in current Arabic usage. From them is the word Al-’Itidaal الاعتدال (i.e. even or equal)’. This sense of the word is expressed in a saying attributes to one of Banu Tamim
“The one who commits a wrong against a fellow tribesman and the person wronged are on a par with each other (istawaa)”
- meaning that the two of the men are equal. The term istawaa may also mean the perfection or completion of something (tamaamush – shay تمام السيء ) Thus the Qur’aan states,
وَلَمَّا بَلَغَ أَشُدَّهُ وَاسْتَوَى آتَيْنَاهُ حُكْماً وَعِلْماً وَكَذَلِكَ نَجْزِي الْمُحْسِنِينَ
” And when he attained his full strength and was [mentally] mature (istawaa), We bestowed upon him judgement and knowledge. And thus do We reward the doers of good..” ((Qur’an Sahih International translation: 28:14 ))
Meaning that he became an adult. The term istiwaa’ may also mean to form an intention to do (al-qasd ilaa ash-shay’ القصد الى الشيء ). [This is like] Allah’s saying,
هو الذي خلق لكم ما في الأرض جميعا ثم استوى إلى السماء فسواهن سبع سماوات وهو بكل شيء عليم
“It is He Who hath created for you all things that are on earth; then istawaa ilaa as-samaa’….”
Meaning He formed an intention (qasd) to create them (the heavens). Finally, the term istawaa’ is sometimes used to mean ‘making oneself master over – (الاستيلاء -Al-Istilaa’) something as one of the poets once said,
ثم استوى بشر على العراق من غيرسيف ودم مهراق
“Then Bishr made himself Master over (istawaa ‘alaa al-iraaq) Iraq, Without resorting to the sword or the shedding of blood.” ((Poetry from Al-Akhtal quoted in Lane’s Lexicon 1/1478 and Lisaan ))
Or as another poet has said,
اذا ما غزا قوما أباح حريمهم وأضحى على ما ملكوه استوى
“Whenever he raids another tribe, He takes their women captive (or could be translated as ‘violates their sanctuary’)…And by the time morning dawns He has made Himself master (istawaa) of what they possess.”
Isma’il ibn Abi Khalid At-Taa’i reported a tradition in which the throne (‘arsh) is described as consisted of red sapphire. I say: All of the salaf were in agreement (jamee’) that one should do Imraar (i.e. let it pass) without explaining it (tafseer) or without ta’weel (metaphorical interpretation). [...here he narrates the famous story of Imam Malik and the questioner. I have left this out because everyone aquainted with this topic knows the story...]
More recently however, some people have interpreted the attribute upon dictates of Al-Hiss الحس (Sense experience), and so they say ‘Allah has istawaa upon the ‘arsh in his essence (bi-dhaatih)’. This, however, is an amplification (زيادة – an extension to the phrase) that has not been reported. This understanding comes from their sensual experience (ihsaasahum), since the person who [literally] istawaa upon something actually sits upon it with their entity (dhaat). Ibn Haamid ((the Hanbali of old )) said, “Istiwaa is contact (مماسة) and is to be predicated as an attribute belonging to the divine essence and the intended meaning is Qu’ud (to sit).” Some of our fellow Hanbalis have insisted that while Allah is on the throne He does not actually fill all of it and so He will invite the Prophet to occupy it with Him! And [Ibn Haamid] said, “النزول الانتقال – An-Nuzool Al-Intiqaal – the ‘descent’ of Allah involves movement from one place to another.” I say: This [claim of theirs] is saying that Allah’s essence is smaller than the throne! How astonishing it is that these people say, ‘We are not from the Mujassimah!’
Ibn Zaaghuni was asked whether a new attribute came into being upon the creation of the throne which had not existed previously, and he replied, “No, only the world was created with the attribute of being beneath (sifat at-taht) and so, in relation to [the throne which Allah occupies], the world is asfal (lower). Now when the attribute ‘beneath’ is established for one of the two entities (dhaatayni), the attribute of aboveness (sifat al-fawq) is established for the other as a logical corollary. Since it has been established that there are no ‘places’ (amaakin) within the divine essence (fi dhaatihi) nor does he (dhaatuhu) exist within them – His seperation (infisaaluhu) from the being clear – it is necessary to posit a space (madan) in relation to which this seperation occurred. Thus when Allah says, “Thumma istawaa ‘alaal ‘arsh” we know that He meant to specify His location within a particular space (jiha). We have no alternative, therefore, but to conclude that His essence [may be described as] having defined limits (نهاية و غاية) that He knows.”
I say (i.e. Ibn Al-Jawzi): This man does not understand the implications of what he says, for when he ascribes to Allah a ghaaya and a fasl, that is, a seperation between the Creator and His creation, he imposes hudood (limits) on Him and, in effect, declares him to be a body (jism). In his book he writes, “Allah is not an atom (jawhar) since an atom is an entity that occupies space (ma tuhayyaza),” but then he goes on to ascribe to Allah ta’alaa a place (makaan) which he occupies (yatahayyaz). I say: All of this reflects the ignorance of its author and is tashbeeh (anthropomorphism) in its purest form! This shaykh does not comprehend what is necessarily entailed in Allah’s status as creator or what is incompatible with that status, for Allah’s existence (wujood) is not like the existence of atoms and bodies which occupy space necessarily. Spatial relations of ‘above’ and ‘below’ apply to entities which stand over against each other or exist side by side. It is a matter of logical necessity that one such entity be larger than another, or smaller than it or equal to it. Relationships of this sort, however, apply only to bodies (ajsaam). Whenever bodies are juxtaposed they admit of contact. Whatever admits of contact with (mumaassa), or seperation from (mubaayana), bodies must have a beginning in time (haadith), for it has been shown that the proof of the temporal origination (hudooth)of atoms lies in the fact that they admit of contact and seperation. If such persons allow the attribution of [contact and seperation] to Allah they concede his contingency (hadath), but if they deny [contingency while at the same time allowing Him the possibility of contact and seperation] they leave us no way by which to establish the contigency of atoms. It is absurd to suppose that two beings, one independent of spacial relations (المستغني عن التحيز) and the other dependent on location in space , can neither be contiguous to each other (mutajaawir) or seperate from each other (mutabaayin), for contiguity (tajaawur) and seperation (tabaayun) are concomitant attributes (lawaazim) of things that occupy space. How can a being who is free of localization in space – indeed, one for whom such localization is impossible – be contiguous to something other than itself or seperate from it since it has been established that conjuction (ijtimaa’) and seperation (iftiraaq) are attributes inseperable from things located in space? Localization in space (tahayyuz) cannot be attributed to Allah, for if He were localized in space (mutahayyiz) He would either have to be at rest in the space that He occupies or be moving from it. It is not possible that He should be characterized by movement (haraka), or rest (sukoon), or conjuction (ijtimaa’), or seperation (iftiraaq). What is contiguous with something or seperate from it is finite in its essence, and since a finite being is defined by limits it requires a cause to determine [that condition].
For this reason one should not say that Allah ta’alaa is inside the world (داخل العالم) or that He is (ليس بخارج منه) outside of it, for being inside or outside are concomitant attributes (lawaazim) of things located in space. Both of these relations along with movement (haraka), rest, and the other accidents (‘araad) are constitutive of bodies (اجرام). Regarding their words: “No places (amaakin) were created in the divine essence, and so His seperation from them (infisaaluhu ‘anhaa) was established,” I would respond as follows: The divine essence does not admit of any created entity existing within it or inhering in it. From the vantage point of sense experience, seperation (fasl) would require of Allah what is required of atoms, for inherent in the idea of location in space is the notion that what exists within a defined space necessarily excludes the possibility of anything like it occupying that same space. The views of these people are based entirely on sense experience, and this encouraged them to embrace an anthropomorphisti point of view (tashbeeh) and led to confusion, so much so, that one of their number said: “Allah referred to His sitting on the throne only because, of all existents, it is the things nearest to him!” This too is jahl (ignorance), for the notion of spacial proximity is conceivable only in relation to finite bodies. Another among them said: “The surface of the throne is contiguous to that contiguous portion of the divine essence that is next to it, and so [the throne] is not contiguous to all of the divine essence (جهة العرش تحاذي ما يقابله من الذات ولا تحاذي جميع الذات).” And to say this is blatant tajsim (speaking of Allah in corporeal terms) and tab’id (التبعيض – introducing division within the essence of Allah ta’alaa). It is difficult for us to hear these people saying they are from our madh-hab (guild). As evidence in support of them they appealed to the verses of Allah,
إِلَيْهِ يَصْعَدُ الْكَلِمُ الطَّيِّبُ
“Good speech ascends to Him” ((35:10 )) and the verse,
وَهُوَ الْقَاهِرُ فَوْقَ عِبَادِهِ وَهُوَ الْحَكِيمُ الْخَبِيرُ
“And He is Al-Qaahir who is above his slaves and He is al-Hakeem Al-Khabeer!” ((35:10 ))
They construe this to be in terms of spatial elevation (الفوقية الحسية) and they associate this spatial elevation with finite bodies and atoms. They forget, however, that the notion of elevation (fawqiya) is sometimes used to connote the idea of elevation in rank or status (علو الرتبة), as for example, when one says that person is above another person. Just as the Qur’an refers to Allah ta’alaa being “above His creatures” it also refers to Him as being ma’akum (with you). Those who interpret [ma'akum - with you] ‘in His knowledge’ provide their opponents with encouragement to interpret istiwaa as connoting His might or power (qahr).
‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Umar Ad-Dabbaas reported to be from Rizqullah ibn Abdul Wahhaab At-Tameemi that Ahmad ibn Hanbal said,
الاستواء صفة مسلمة وليست بمعنى القصد ولا الاستعلاء
“Al-Istiwaa is an attribute to be accepted without reservation, but it does not mean the notion of movement toward or elevation above something.”
According to Abu Muhammad At-Tamimi, Ahmad did not hold the view that the creator exists within a particular space (jiha – or direction), for finite spaces exclude what is outside of them. Ibn Haamid however said, “Allah is defined by [His location] in a particular place to the exclusion of other places (bi makaan duna al makaan); and His place – the locus of His very essence – is on the throne. Indeed a group of Hanbalis maintain that Allah fills the throne on which he sits (ملأه). The most acceptable view is that He is in actual contact with the throne (mumaass lil-’arsh) and that the Kursi serves as his footrest.” I say: Mumaassa (contact) involves a relationship that can only existed between two bodies. This man spared nothing in promoting a corporealist point of view (tajsim)!
….
[End quote from Kitaab Akhbaar As-Sifaat]
The exact arguments that Ibn Al-Jawzi has refuted above is forwarded in certain groups literature of our era. Yet this noble Hanbali refuses to apply the “literal” meaning of Istiwaa, saying that such would amount to tashbeeh. The literalists have no proof at all that the Sahabah (radhiya Allahu ‘anhum) ever literally affirmed Allah “sitting” on a throne. What they do have proof for is that the earliest Muslims, as was stated by Ibn Al-Jawzi in the extract above, recited these verses and narrations pertaining to Allah’s sifaat without explaining them and without interpreting them (ta’weel). Their defining Istawaa as literally sitting is nothing more than explaining these verses. If only they had recited these verses and remained silent they would have remained safe!
The majority of Ahlus Sunnah’s scholars held the view that Allah has no makaan (place, station). Imam ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (‘alayhis salaam) is recorded to have said,
كان- الله- ولا مكان، وهو الان على ما- عليه- كان
“Allah was without place, and He is now as He was [then].” ((الفرق بين الفرق لأبي منصور البغدادي [ ص / 333 ] ))
Abi Mansur Al-Baghdadi also quotes Imam ‘Ali (radhiya Allahu ‘anhu) as saying,
إن الله تعالى خلق العرش إظهارًا لقدرته لا مكانا لذاته
“Verily Allah, the exalted, created the throne to manifest His power, not as a place for his essence.”
Imam Zaynul-’Aabidin ’Ali ibn Al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (radhiya Allahu ‘Anhu) stated,
أنت الله الذي لا يحويك مكان
“You are Allah, who does not occupy place!”
Imam Muhammad ibn Idris Ash-Shafi’i is recorded to have said,
إنه تعالى كان ولا مكان فخلق المكان وهو على صفة الأزلية كما كان قبل خلقه المكان لا يجوز عليه التغيير في ذاته ولا التبديل في صفاته
“He, the exalted, was existent without place, [then] He created ‘Place/Space’, and He was upon the attribute of sempeternity, just as he was prior to creating “Place”. It is not permitted [to ascribe to him] change within his essence or tabdeel (change) in his sifaat (attributes).” ((It-haaf As-Saadat Al-Muttaqin 2/24 ))
Imam Al-Bayhaqi in his famous masterpiece “Asmaa’ was-Sifaat” states about Istiwaa’:
- “The meaning what the Muslims state regarding Allah’s istiwaa’ upon the throne is not that He is in contact with it, nor that He is fixed upon it, nor that He is circumscribed by any of its directions (
jihaat
- ). Rather, He is seperate from all of His creation. It is but a report whose terms are ordained and so we say it, at the same time denying any modality (takyeef) as Allah ta’alaa says, “There is nothing at all like Him, and He is As-Samee’u Al Baseer.” ((Taken from Imam Al-Kawthari’s edition pages 396-397 ))
Imam Al-’Izz ibn Abdus-Salaam said,
- “Allah ta’alaa istawaa upon the ‘arsh in the way that He says and with the meaning that he intended.
Istawaa
- in a manner transcending contact,
- (sitting), fixity (تمكن),
hulool
- (indwelling), or
intiqaal
- (movement).” ((Taken from His Mulhaa ))
He (rahimahullah) also stated,
ليس- أي الله- بجسم مصوَّر، ولا جوهر محدود مُقدَّر، ولا يشبه شيئا، ولا يُشبهه شىءٌ، ولا تحيط به الجهات، ولا تكتنفه الأرضون ولا السموات، كان قبل أن كوَّن المكان ودبَّر الزمان، وهو الآن على ما عليه كان”
“Allah, the exalted, is not a shaped form (or body). He is not an atom limited and contingent. He does not resemble anything at all and nothing resembles Him. He is not surrounded by directions. Neither the earths nor the heavens contain him. He existed (literally: was) before creating place (makān) and designing time. He is now as He was [then].” ((Tabaqāt Ash-Shāfi’iyyat Al-Kubrā beneath the Tarjamah of ‘Abdul-‘Azīz ibn Abdus-Salām 8/219 ))
Al-Hafith Ibn Hajr (rahimahullah) states in his Haadi-As-Saari regarding Istawaa’:
- “This [verse] is from the
Mutashaabih
- (المتشابه ambiguous verses) that one relegates knowledge of to Allah ta’alaa (يفوض علمه الى الله تعالى ).”
((Hadi As-Saari page 136 ))
And regarding the claim of the neo-Muqatilliyah of our time that Allah literally translocates, then Ibn Hajr states in his Fat-hul-Baari:
فمنهم من حمله على ظاهره وحقيقته وهم المشبهة تعالى الله عن قولهم
“And from them are those that carry the meaning (of nuzool) upon its thaahir (apparent) and literal, and they are the Mushabbihah (anthropomorphists), and exalted is Allah from what they say!” ((Fat-hul Baari 3/30 ))
The Shaykh and Qādhī (judge) Zakariyā Al-Ansārī Ash-Shāfi’ī said in his Sharh of Ar-Risālat Al-Qushayriyyah:
إن الله ليس بجسم ولا عَرَض ولا في مكان ولا زمان
“Verily Allah is not with body parts, nor is an accident, nor is he in place (makān) or time (zamān).”
He (rahimahullah) also stated,
لا مكان له كما لا زمان له لأنه الخالق لكل مكان وزمان
“He is not confined by space just as He is not confined by time. That is because He is The Creator of every space and time.” ((Both Quotes found in the Hāshiyah of Risālat Qushayriyyah pgs 2-5 ))
Imam Al-Qadhi Abu Bakr Al-Baaqilaani Al-Maliki stated,
- “We do not say that Allah’s throne is what He sits upon that it is His place. That is because Allah ta’alaa was without makaan. And when he created “place/space”, he did not change as He was.” [Al-Insaaf fimaa yjib 'itiqaaduhu wa laa yujuz al-jahl bih pg 65]
Imam Abu Sulaymaan Al-Khattaabi stated,
- “And it is not the intended meaning of the Muslims when they say ‘Verily Allah Istawa upon the ‘Arsh’ that he is in contact with it, or placed upon it (or therein) , or occupied in one of the directions. Rather, He ta’alaa is seperate (baa’in) from all of His creation. As for what is reported regarding this issue (from the Qur’an and the Sunnah) then stoppage (tawqeef) [is necessary] and we deny for any of it [knowledge of] the modality, as there is nothing like unto Him.” (Al-Asmaa’ was Sifaat of Al-Bayhaqi)
The Jurist and Imam, Abu Is-haq Ash-Shiraazi Ash-Shafi’i (476 A.H) stated in his treatise on ‘Aqidah,
- “Certainly, Allah’s Istiwaa’ is without istiqraar (sitting) and without contingency ( ملاصقة) that is because both are qualities of created bodies (entities), and The Lord, mighty and magnificent, is eternal, and this proves that He was without space/place, then he created place and He still was upon what He had been upon.” ['Aqidat Ash-Shiraazi]
The Shaykh Abul-‘Abbās Shihāb-ud-Dīn Ahmad ibn Muhammad Al-Qastalānī Al-Masrī (d. 933 AH) said in his Sharh (gloss) of Sahīh Al-Bukhārī,
ذات الله منزه عن المكان والجهة
“Allah’s essence is free from space (makān) and direction (jihah).” ((Irshād As-Sārī 15/451 ))
He also stated when explaining the verse, “…Looking at their Lord” [Qur’an 75:23]: “
بلاكيفية ولاجهة ولا ثبوت مسافة
“Without modality, without direction, without establishing distance.” [Irshād As-Sārī 15/462]
The Maliki Qadhi of Cordoba, Ibn Rushd the Elder (d. 520), said:
ليس- الله- في مكان، فقد كان قبل أن يخلق المكان
“Allah ta’alaa is not in a space, for He was before ‘space’ was created.” [Quoted by Ibn Al-Haaj in Al-Madkhal]
He also stated,
فلا يقال أين ولا كيف ولا متى لأنه خالق الزمان والمكان
“It is not to be asked ‘Where’, ‘How’, or ‘When’ for He created The time as well as space.” [Ibid 3/181]
He also stated,
وإضافته- أي العرش- إلى الله تعالى إنما هو بمعنى التشريف له كما يقال: بيت الله وحرمه، لا أنه محل له وموضع لاستقراره
“And the ascription of the ‘Arsh (throne) to Allah ta’alaa is with the meaning of honouring Him, just as it is said ‘The House of Allah and Its Sanctity”. It is not because it is His place or the abode for which he sits (istiqraar).” [Al-Madkhal 2:149, Also Ibn Hajr in his Fat-hul Baari]
The Shaykh Muhammad Al-Khatīb Al-Baghdādī stated (d 977 AH),
وقال الشيخ محمد الخطيب الشربيني المصري مانصه “ثبت بالدليل القطعي أنه- تعالى- ليس بمتحيز لئلا يلزم التجسيم ”
“It is established by the absolute proofs that He, the exalted, is not localized in space (mutahayyiz) as that necessitates tajsīm (anthropomorphism).”
He (rahimahullah) also said quoting the exegete Imām Al-Qurtubī,
قال القرطبي- المفسّر-: ووصْفه- تعالى- بالعلوّ والعظمة لا بالأماكن والجهات والحدود لأنها صفات الأجسام، ولأنه تعالى خلَق الأمكنة وهو غير متحيز، وكان في أزله قبل خلق المكان والزمان ولا مكان له ولا زمان، وهو الآن على ما عليه كان ” ا.هـ. أي موجود بلا جهة ولا مكان.
“And Allah, the exalted, ascribed to himself ‘Uluww (highness) and ‘Athmah (greatness), and this is without spaces (Al-amākan), directions, and limits as these qualities are attributes of ajsām (bodies or created things). That is also due to the fact that He, the exalted, created space and He is not localized in space (mutahayyiz), and He was in sempiternity before He created space and time, while there was no space for Him nor time. He is now as He was (exalted be He).” Al-Khatīb then says, “Meaning existing without direction or place.”
Imam An-Nasafi (701 or 710 AH) states in his Tafsīr,
إنه تعالى كان ولا مكان فهو على ما كان قبل خلق المكان، لم يتغير عما كان.
“Verily He, the exalted, was without place, and He is as He was before creating (the entity of) ‘place’, not changing as He was.” ((Tafsīr An-Nisfi Surah Taha Volume 2 ))
Ibn Battal, the renown Maaliki Jurist, is quoted by Ibn Hajr Al-’Asqalaani in Fat-hul Baari as stating:
غرض البخاري في هذا الباب الرد على الجهمية المجسمة في تعلقها بهذه الظواهر، وقد تقرر أن الله ليس بجسم فلا يحتاج إلى مكان يستقر فيه، فقد كان ولا مكان، وإنما أضاف المعارج إليه إضافة تشريف، ومعنى الارتفاع إليه اعتلاؤه- أي تعاليه- مع تنزيهه عن المكان
“Bukhari’s intent in this chapter is to respond and refute the anthropomorphists regarding their insistence on interpreting these verses based on a literal persuasion. It has been firmly established that Allah is without a body and needs not a place in which to reside, and He has always existed without a place. If “ascension” is attributed to Him, then it is an attribution of honor. The meaning of the “rising” that is attributed to Him is that He takes charge and commands each and every affair. In other words, His exalted stature is (fundamentally linked to) His transcendence from space.” ((Translated by Sidi Ibn Ahmed ))
In Fatawa Hindiyya from a group of scholars from India we find the following:
وفي كتاب “الفتاوى الهندية لجماعة من علماء الهند ما نصه: “يكفر باثبات المكان لله تعالى. ولو قال: الله تعالى في السماء فإن قصد له حكاية ما جاء فيه ظاهر الأخبار لا يكفر وإن أراد به المكان يكفر” ـ.
“A person commits disbelief by ascribing a place to Allah Ta’aala. And if one said, “Allah is in the sky”, then if he meant only a narration of what came outwardly in the texts (without divulging into it’s meanings) he did not commit KUFR. But if he meant the place (itself) he commits kufr (disbelief).” ((2/259 Taken from Ma’rifah Forums ))
For more quotes one can visit Ma’rifah forums for the discussion wherein Sidi Faqir utilized some of the translated quotes here within this post. And May Allah bless our beloved Sayyid Muhammad, his family, and his followers. Amin!
6 Responses to “Part 2: Ibn Uthaymeen & the Neo-Muqatilliyyah – Istiwaa ‘Alal ‘Arsh – Negating the Anthropomorphism”
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- Ibn Uthaymeen and the Pseudo-Salafis: Muqaatiliyyah: Seeking Ilm (Knowledge) - [...] Part Two [...]
Can i have the quote from Al-Dhahabi in arabic, please?
Donate $20 to http://www.islamic-relief.com/
and I will get you the quote in arabic – you must provide proof of payment as well.
Jazakum Allahu Khairan,
Abul Layth
Salaam. just want to say THE BEST site in defending Ahle-Sunnah. May Allah reward brother Abul Layth! plz check my videos out:
The Wahabi movement by Dr. Umar Abdullah al-Maliki
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PceGAR108Sg&feature=channel
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBd5Ue1BHO0&feature=channel
Salaam. great site and plz keep it up!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXgyiEeoOns
Imam Maturidi by Dr.Umar al-Maliki
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXgyiEeoOns
“And [Ibn Haamid] said, “النزول الانتقال – An-Nuzool Al-Intiqaal – the ‘descent’ of Allah involves movement from one place to another.” ”
Quote which I found attributed to Salafi Muhammad Khalil Harras:
فقد قال محمد خليل هرّاس في تعليقه على كتاب التوحيد لابن خزيمة (ص126) :
( يعني أنّ نزوله إلى السماء الدنيا يقتضي وجوده فوقها , فإنه “انتقال” من علوٌ إلى سفل!!)
http://www.aslein.net/showthread.php?t=15112