Wahabists' Ancestors Were Problematically Engaged In The Verse
As a matter of fact corporalists faced problem of this Verse many epochs before. When they rested upon the material meaning of 'face' mentioned in God's saying (Everything is perishable except his face.) they received a striking slap as they lacked convinced exegeses. As much as it is seemed that problem remained unsolved because of their insistence on rejecting interpretation. The same thing has been done by Al-Albani. Hence they acted cussedly and claimed their god's total termination except the face. We seek Allah's guardian against such claims!!
AsSuheili's ArRawdhulEnif part 2 page 179:
Al-Ashari states: 'Face' mentioned in God's saying (There shall remain only the face of your Lord.) is treated as same as the eye and hand that are exclusive attributes of Allah the Exalted and are neither realized by intellects nor by reported tenet.
AsShatibi's Alitisam part 2 page 330:
Corporalists claimed that including the essence of the Creator every thing is perishable saving His face. They cited God's saying (Everything is perishable except his face.) as their evidence.
One of the disadvantages of their ill exegesis of the Verse is that Hanbalite jurisprudents has not discussed swearing by Allah's face. I reviewed a considerable number of references of Hanbalite jurisprudence but I could not grasp a single item concerning this topic. For Hanbalite corporalists swearing by a part of Allah is not given the formal appearance of ritual swearing. Hanafites on the other hand discuss this topic and rule of legality of swearing by God's face since it is a metaphorical expression of His Person. "Oath would be invalid if its speaker was a corporalist " they add.
Al-Kashani's BedaiusSenaii part 3 page 6:
Swearing by face of Allah is decided as legal oath. Ibn Suma'a relates this to Abu Yousuf who relates it to Abu Haneefa. 'Face' attached to Allah is an expression intending His Person. The Glorified the Exalted says (Everything is perishable except His face). 'Face' stands for 'person'. Allah also says (And there will endure for ever the [face] of your Lord the Lord of glory and honor). Similarly 'face' stands for 'person'. Al-Hassan Bin Ziyad: Abu Haneefa: "Swearing by Allah's face is not reckoned with oaths." Ibn Shuja: "This form is not within people's oaths. It is the vile's."
Abu Haneefa's verdict of excluding swearing by Allah's face from circle of oaths is nearer to his ideology. He turned to antagonizing the Prophet's household and tending to corporalism after he had been a Zaidite a follower of Zaid Bin Ali Bin Al-Hussein. He however declared his repentance before the Abbasid ruler who admitted and designated him as the supervisor of the large new built mosque of Baghdad. Proximately antagonizing the Prophet' household and welcoming corporalism are concurrent matters. At any rate it is unacceptable to overlook the earlier narrative of Abu Haneefa's students.
Al-Kashani's BedaiusSenaii part 3 page 143:
'Face' stands for the person. 'Face' mentioned in God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face) stands for His Person. Saying "I guarantee soandso's face " indicates guaranteeing that person. It is provable that such organs represent the whole body. By the same token saying "Your face is divorced " is decided as a form of legal divorcement.
AsSerkhasi's Al-Mabsout part 8 page 133:
Swearing By The Face Of Allah:
Abu Yousuf and Mohammed decided this expression as a legal oath since 'face' stands for the person. God the Exalted says (And there endure the face of your Lord;). Al-Hassan decides that 'face' mentioned in the previous Verse stands for God's Person. Abu Shuja relates that Abu Haneefa reckons such an oath to the vile; the ignorant who intend ordinary faces. This proves disregarding that expression as a legal oath.
Abu Shuja's describing the swearers by God's face as ignorant testifies that corporalism was widespread during Abu Haneefa's time; early the second Hijri century. Numerous narratives of the Prophet's household (peace be upon them) show that corporalism was widespread in the first century as well. Imam Mohammed Al-Baqir refuted their dissidents' exegesis of the Verse.
Ibn Babawayih's Al-Imametu WetTabsira page 92:
Abu Hamza: Abu Ja'far (peace be upon him):
God says (Everything is perishable except His face). How is it rectified that everything perishes but the face exclusively endures? Allah is more majestic than being described.
Al-Kuleini's Al-Kafi part 1 page 143:
Al-Harith Bin Al-Mughira AnNasri:
Abu Abdillah Imam Ja'far AsSadiq was asked about God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face). He was told that dissenters claim that except for God's face everything shall be perished. He commented "Praised be Allah. They have said a critical thing. By 'face' God intends the characters through whom people should be advancing towards God."
Some attempt at escaping that perplexity by claiming that 'perishable' mentioned in the Verse does not stand for termination. In his Al-Mufredat page 544 ArRaghib explains 'perishable' as terminated. He records "…This is called termination. It is intended in God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face)."
AN OLD CORPORALIST AIMS AT SOLVING THE VERSE PERPLEXITY
Muqatil Bin Suleiman one of masters of corporalists aimed at solving the Verse perplexity by restricting the broad generality of the Verse; 'Everything'. However this was useless for Wahabists.
AmMizi's TahdibulKemal part 28 page 437:
Mekki Bin Ibrahim: Yahya Bin Shibl: "What for do you ignore Muqatil?" Ebbad Bin Kutheir asked. "My people hated him " I answered. "Do not hate him. None more knowledgeable than him in field of Quranic and prophetic texts is enduring " asserted Ebbad.
Yahya Bin Shibl: A young man cited the following question before Muqatil Bin Suleiman: "What is your opinion regarding God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face)?" "This is Jahmite!" spoke Muqatil. "What is Jahmite?" asked the young and added "If you have an information about this you should say it otherwise you may confess of your unfamiliarity." "Woe is you!" Muqatil said "Jahm had neither pilgrimaged to this House nor had he attended at the scholars' sessions. He was only given an eloquent tongue.
Regarding your question God intends only the souled substances. About Queen of Sheba He says (And she has been given everything. 27:23) while she was given nothing more than royalty of her kingdom. The same thing is cited about God's saying (And granted him means of access to everything. 18:84). That man was given nothing more than restricted royalty. God has showed in detail what is described by 'everything'."
Unfortunately this exegesis is useless for Wahabists since it is reckoned with interpretation which is deemed forbidden according to Wahabism. They should adopt for the extrinsic general meaning of 'everything'. This means that they should refer to the whole beings including Allah the Exalted. We seek Allah's protecting us against such matters! They would be conceding the base upon which they founded their Wahabism if they take in Muqatil's exegesis. Nevertheless Muqatil himself conceded the base upon which he founded his trend when he was encircled by the impending questions of that asker.
Secondly Muqatil's exegesis is not accurate. The Quranic expression 'everything' regarding beings is usually used for expressing perfect enduring general meaning or relative general meaning. For instance the following 'everything' mentioned in God's saying (Nay! It is what you sought to hasten on a blast of wind in which is a painful punishment destroying everything by the command of its Lord; so they became such that naught could be seen except their dwellings. 46:245) cannot be explained by the perfect enduring generalization since it is quite manifest that their dwellings were not destroyed by that wind. The meaning of God's saying (Do you not know that Allah has power over everything? 2:106) and many similar ones cannot be explained by the relative general meaning. It is unacceptable to exclude some things from God's absolute power or knowledge. In the same time we may explain the forecited Verse by the relative general meaning; by saying that 'everything' includes only what is enjoying existence and potentiality.
Back to the Verse engaged. It is unacceptable to explain God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face) by the relative general meaning intended by Muqatil since if perishability is dedicated to souled beings only it will comprise Allah the Elevated for His being a divinely souled Being. Then why is it only His face not other organs and limbs that is excluded. In addition Muqatil and his pupils opted for the relative general meaning of 'everything' for finding a solution for that perplexity they were facing. They should have interpreted 'His face' of the same Verse into 'His Person' so that the total perplexity should be null! The factual general meaning is extrinsic and as they claim the material meaning is also extrinsic. Why was it lawful to interpret one of them while it is unlawful to do the same thing with the other?
The Verse is dealing with termination of this world before Resurrection Day. Occasion or discernment and subject of the Verse imposes the factual general
meaning and in turns leads to nullity of excluding anything other than that excluded by Allah the Exalted. It also imposes that Allah the Exalted is out of the Verse subject since it deals with termination of creatures not the Creator. This conclusion allows to interpret 'His face' into 'certain creatures' or 'His Person' since the exception of the Verse is interrupted the excluded substance is of the same species of the general matter from which it was excluded.
Muqatil the inheritor of the Jew corporalists proved his lack to harmonize between his dialect and the Verse. He failed to seize out the enduring general meaning of 'everything' and restricting its meaning to the souled creatures.
THE OTHER SUNNIS' EXEGESIS OF THE VERSE
Unlike the corporalists who opted for the physical face Sunni scholars interpreted 'His face' mentioned in the Verse involved into 'His Person'. Some Shiite scholars agreed upon this interpretation.
Ashatibi's Alitisam part 2 page 303:
This proves that there are definite linguistic idioms unknown by some Arab individuals. Hence it is obligatory to ask about such items… The closest opinion to the fact is that the meaning is 'bearer of the face'. The Arab say "I did so for soandso's face." This means "I did it for him." Therefore the meaning of the Verse is 'Everything is perishable except Him.'
Al-Fakhr ArRazi's Book of Tafseer volume 3 part 6 page 437:
(Except His face) proposes 'except Him'. The word 'face' is usually used for expressing the person.
Al-Fakhr Ar-Razi's Book of Tafseer volume 13 part 26 page 22:
Various opinions were cited as the exegesis of God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face). Some interpreted 'perishability' into termination. Thus the meaning should be that Allah the Exalted will terminate everything but Him. Others interpreted 'perishability' into eradicating benefits by means of death or keeping parts cut apart. This meaning is usually used by the Arab. A third party cited possibility of individual perishing as the meaning of 'perishability'. They claim that saving Him everything is possibly existent and what is possibly existent is perishable.
It seems that ArRazi prefers the latter exegesis.
Al-Fakhr Ar-Razi's Book of Tafseer volume 13 part 26 page 24:
Corporalists brought this Verse as an evidence on their faith from two sides. First they claim that the Verse is evidently expressive in proving Allah's face. This results in corporalism. Second the word 'to' in (And to Him you shall be brought back) is used for conclusion of purposes. This befalls to corporals only.
As an answer of this claim we cite the following: Had this claim been correct the entire organs of the Lord should have been terminated except His face. Some of the Rafidite anthropomorphists like Bayan Bin Saman commit themselves to this saying. At any rate no single sane admits so.
Although it is categorically recorded in dependable references that the Hanbalite and Asharite corporalists committed to the previous saying ArRazi evaded recording so and rested on Bayan Bin Saman. I noticed that the modern corporalists like Al-Albani Bin Baz and their followers adopt this ill exegesis.
In reference books of Shias Bayan Bin Saman ArRazi imputes to Shias is incarnationist atheist and accursed. His father and he claimed godhood.
Taraiful-Meqal part 2 page 231:
Bayan Bin Saman At-Tamimi An-Nehdi claims Allah's having the appearance of an animal and that everything is perishable except His face and that Allah's soul was incarnated in Ali (peace be upon him) Mohammed Bin Al-Hanafiya Abu Hashim and Bayan respectively. Cursed be Bayan Bin Saman.
AnNubekhti's Al-Farqu Beinel-Furaq page 216:
The immoderate Bayanites:
They claim that Imamate was Mohammed Bin Al-Hanafiya's Abu Hashim Abdullah Bin Mohammed's and Bayan Bin Saman's respectively. They had various opinions about their head Bayan. Some claimed his prophesy and repealing Mohammed's religion. Some claimed his godhood. This sect is apostate and excluded from all the other Islamic sects since they claimed godhood of Bayan their head.
ArRazi however is not blamed for clinging Bayan Bin Saman to Shias. Tens of atheists and accursed individuals were imposed on our sect. Furthermore they have been encumbering us with flaws and blunders of such persons. Meanwhile our reference books besides cursing such individuals are crying with innocence.
Sunni scholars interpreted 'his face' into deeds intended for Allah's face. Some Shiite scholars agreed to this exegesis.
ArRaghib's Al-Mufredat page 513:
Exegesis of (And there will endure the face of your Lord;).
Some interpreted 'the face' into God's Person. Others interpreted it into pursuing the course of Allah by offering good deeds'. Regarding God's sayings (Whither you turn thither is Allah's [face]. 2:115) (Everything is perishable except his [face]) (Who desire Allah's [face]. 30:38) and (We only feed you for the [face] of Allah. 76:9) 'face' mentioned is stood for God's Person. On that
account meanings of the Verses should be 'everything is perishable except His Person' and so on.
As this interpretation was provided before Abu Abdillah son of ArRida he said "Praised be Allah. They have said a critical thing. By 'face' God intends the characters through whom people should be advancing towards God." The meaning of the Verse should be 'everything from the servants' deeds is perishable and void except what is intended for the sake of Allah…
In fact Abu Abdillah previously mentioned is Abu Abdillah Ja'far Bin Mohammed As-Sadiq (peace be upon him). He is not son of ArRida. It seems that ArRaghib was attracted by the forecited narrative recorded in Al-Kafi. Allah's being out of the Verse subject and correlation of exclusion the excluded substance of the same species of the general matter involved cited in the Verse were the two matters that incited ArRaghib on preferring this interpretation.
EXEGESIS OF THE VERSE CITED BY SCHOLARS OF AHLULBEIT SECT
Sharif Al-Murteda's Al-Amali part 3 page 46:
For citing exegeses of God's saying (Everything is perishable Except His [face]) (We only feed you for Allah's [face]) (There will only endure the [face] of your lord) and the other Verses in which 'face' is mentioned we provide the following:
In Arabic the word 'face' stands for variant meanings:
Face is that physical appearance of every animal.
Face is the headmost of everything. God says (And a party of the followers of the Book say: Avow belief in that which has been revealed to those who believe in the [face] first part of the day. 3:72)
Face is the intention of a deed. God says (And who has a better religion than he who submit [his face] himself to Allah. 4:125) and says (Then set your face upright to the religion. 10:105).
Face is the solution.
Face is the direction and the side.
Face is the standing and reputation.
Face is the chief of people.
Face is the self and the person. God says (Some faces on that day shall be bright. Looking to their Lord. And other faces on that day shall be gloomy. Knowing that there will be made to befall them some great calamity). God also says (Other faces on that day shall be happy. Wellpleased because of their striving. 8:88). It is inappropriate to attach brightness gloominess knowledge
happiness and pleasingness to faces actually. These adjectives were added extraneously to faces. They are actually added to the sentence as a whole. Consequently 'His face' mentioned in God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face) stands for His Person. The same thing is said about the word in God's saying (And there will endure for ever the [face] of your Lord Lord of glory and honor). As long as 'face' is intended to express the Lord's Person the attachment of (the Lord of glory and honor) is syntactically ascribed to 'face' not 'Lord' while in God's saying (Blessed be the name of your Lord the Lord of glory and honor. 55:78) the attachment of (the Lord of glory and honor) is syntactically ascribed to 'Lord' not 'name' since the two are of different references. (*)
There is another probable exegesis for the Verse involved. This exegesis is related to some earlier scholars. It is that 'face' stands for deeds intended and offered to Allah the Exalted exclusively. On this account meaning of the Verse should be 'Regard not any associate to Allah and call not upon any god other than Him. Every act intended and offered to other than Him is perishable and void.'
How is it acceptable for corporalists to rest upon the extrinsic meaning of this Verse and its likes? This will certainly be leading to Allah's full termination excepting His face. This faith is showing atheism and naiveté of its bearer. God's sayings (We only feed you for Allah's [face]) (The [face] of His Highest Lord. 92:20) and (who desire the [face] of Allah) are interpreted that these deeds are done for the sake of Allah intending His rewards contiguity and standing. God's saying (thither is Allah's [face]) is probably intending Allah's Person on meanings of awareness and knowledgeability not on incarnate meaning. It is also probable that 'face' stands for God's satisfaction reward and contiguity. Furthermore it is probable that 'face' implies localities. Hence the attachment shall be referring to God's royalty creation origination and making. The first attachment is Allah's saying (Allah's is the east and the west Whither you turn thither is Allah's [face]) refers to the fact that the entire directions are totally controlled and possessed by Allah the Exalted. Thanks to God this is clear and evident.
Margin of BiharulAnwar part 4 page 6:
* Pursuant to Arabic syntax, 'Thu' in the earlier Verse should be 'Thi' if it is attached to 'Lord', while in the latter, it is 'Thi' since it is attached to 'Lord'. Depending on this syntactic evidence, Al-Murteda intends to say that 'face' and 'Lord', mentioned in the earlier Verse are two different words of the same reference, while 'name' and 'Lord', mentioned in the latter, are two words or two different references.
There is a metaphorical expression in God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face). 'Face' expresses person and self. The same thing is said about God's saying (And there will endure the [face] of your Lord). Syntactically the subjunctive case used in the current Quranic text is a clear evidence on opting for 'person' as the interpretation of 'face'. The prepositional case would be used if the extrinsic material meaning of the Verse was intended…
Another exegesis is cited. Some interpret 'face' into 'virtuous deeds intended for the sake of Allah and for seeking His contiguity and favors. Hence the Lord informs us that everything shall be terminated saving His religion which is the only way to Him and the only way by which His favors and satisfaction are obtained.
Concisely Sharif Al-Murteda agrees with the Sunni noncorporalists on the exegesis that 'face' stands for the person. He also cites that the word intended should probably stand for the virtuous deeds intended to Allah exclusively.
Various narratives regarding dedicating signification of 'face' mentioned in the Verse involved as well as looking at the Lord's face in the Hereafter to the prophets and their disciples (peace be upon them all) since they are bearers of the Lord's divine knowledge and doctrines. Thus they are indeed the face from whom Allah is proceeded.
AtTebirsi's Al-ihtijaj part 2 page 190:
… "O son of the Prophet! What is the purport of the hadith (The reward of 'There is no god but Allah' is viewing at Allah's face.)?" I asked Imam ArRida. "O AbusSelt! He is apostatizing that whoever ascribes a material face to Allah." answered Imam ArRida and went on "Allah's face is His prophets apostles and disciples (peace be upon them) by whom God His religion and knowledge is sought. Allah the Almighty the Exalted says (Everyone [Everything] on it must pass away and there will endure for ever the [face] person of your Lord the Lord of glory and honor.) and (Everything is perishable except His [face]). Thus viewing at Allah's prophets apostles and disciples in their standings is a great reward for the believers. The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) stated 'He whoever bears malice against my household and progeny shall never see me and I shall never see him on Resurrection Day.' He also stated 'Among you there are persons who shall never see me again after my mundane departure.' O AbusSelt! A space cannot be attributed to Allah the Praised the Exalted. Views and illusions cannot comprehend Him."
Imam AsSadiq's narrative quoted from Al-Kuleini's Al-Kafi part 1 page 143 regarding the same subject has been forecited.
In his Book of hadith part 8 page 174 Al-Bukhari records that 'face' mentioned in the Verse involved hints at God's Person:
God's Saying (Say: What Thing Is The Weightiest In Testimony?)
Allah the Exalted calls 'thing' on Himself. He says (Say: What thing is the weightiest in testimony? Say: Allah). Likewise the Prophet (peace be upon him) called 'thing' on the Quran. It is one of the divine attributes. Allah says (Everything is perishable except His face).
Al-Bukhari proposes that 'thing' mentioned in the Verse comprises Allah the Exalted and the expression of exclusion hints at a correlation between the whole sentence and the excluded thing. This means that 'face' stands for His Person.
A more curious matter is that Al-Bukhari in his book of hadith part 6 page 17 records a statement near to the Prophet's household's exegesis of the Verse:
'Face' included in the Verse (Everything is perishable except His face) alludes to God's possession. Some cited deeds intended for God's sake as the exegesis of 'face' involved. Mujahid says: God's face is the argumentative news.
Probably a manuscript error has occurred to Al-Bukhari's previous words. Yet the entire versions of Al-Bukhari's book of hadith record the same 'argumentative news' which is very close to 'prophets and disciples' in writing. It seems that the origin is 'prophets and disciples' since this is the very exegesis pointed out by the Prophet's household.
A likelihood has been cited because Al-Bukhari presents Mujahid's exegesis under the title of exegesis of God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face) which is Verse 88 of sura of Qassas while he might intend to refer to Verse 66 of the same since the latter comprises the word 'news' which is confused with 'prophets'. Regarding so Mujahid would be recording a matter out of our debate.
Owing to this likelihood we have to undertake Al-Bukhari's confused statement and regard that he records the exegesis of an earlier Verse under the title of a latter one.
Finally it is acceptable to expose that the Verse concerned deals with the various generations of this earth before Resurrection Day. Hence the meaning should be that everything shall be perishing in this world before Resurrection Day except Allah's disciples who will endure till the last moments of this earth when he the Exalted shall raise His argumentative disciple from the earth and the 'divine scream' shall be befalling. From this cause the Verse pertains all what is perishable and what is consistent in social lives and origination of generations. This will cite a difference between perishability mentioned here and termination intended in God's saying (Everyone [everything] on it must pass away).
The earlier narratives recorded in Al-Imametu Wet-Tabsira page 92 and Al-Kafi part 1 page 143 are clear proofs of actuality of this exegesis.
As-Saduq's Kemaluddin page 231:
Abu Hamza: Regarding God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face) Imam Abu Ja'far stated "Is it acceptable that everything shall be perishing and God's face shall be the only enduring thing? Allah is more glorified than being described. The real meaning of the Verse is that everything shall be perishing except God's religion. We are the direction from whom Allah is approached. As long as Allah has a matter to do with His servants His argumentative disciples are endured. Otherwise God will raise us and do whatever he wills.
Personally this is the only reasonable exegesis of the Verse. It is absolutely impossible that God's Essence is included in perishability that it needs an exclusion to express. Depending on so we have to dedicate created things to 'everything' mentioned in the Verse. On that account the excluded should be God's prophets and argumentative disciples (peace be upon them).
In many other narratives; such as the previous it is emphasized that prophets and Imams (peace be upon them) are intended in 'Allah's face' frequently recorded in the holy Quran. It is also recorded that looking at those individuals is the accurate interpretation of looking at the Lord's face mentioned in various prophetic texts.. Finally this meaning does in no means oppose the previous meaning of the prophets and argumentative disciples' being the Lord's face.
WAHABISTS' TEXTS OF CORPORALISM
Ibn Baz's Al-Fetawi part 2 page 94:
Praised be Allah. Blessings and peace be upon Allah's apostle and his household and companions. Lately I inspected reply of Sheik Ahmed Mahmud Duhloub issued in Al-Belagh Magazine No. 637 regarding a question about the exegesis of God's saying (He settled on the Throne). Within his reply Sheik Duhloub referred pointing out that 'settle' implies 'seize and have in possession' to the worthy ancestors.
Since this reference is a candid mistake I just intend to attract attentions to this point so that readers shall not reckon that sentence with the master scholars' sayings. As a matter of fact the right thing is that exegesis is ascribed to the Jahmites and Mutazilites and their fellows who denied the divine attributes and denuded the Praised and Exalted Creator from attributes of perfection He used for Himself.
Scholars of the worthy ancestors denied such an interpretation and asserted that Allah's settling is treated as same as the other attributes that are confirmed for the Lord as they fit His glory passing over distortion denudation modification or representation. Malik stated "Settling is known and
its way is unexplored and believing in this is obligatory and questioning about it is heresy." Sunni descendants were brought up on this belief. In his ArRisaletul Hamawiya Ibn Teimiya writes down "This is the Book of Allah from beginning to end and this is the Prophet's traditions from beginning to end and these are words of the Prophet's companions and their followers and these are words of the other masters. All these are filled in either by text or extrinsic meaning with the fact that Allah the Praised and Exalted is the High and the Supreme Who is over and exalted on everything and over the Throne and over the heavens. This is proved by His saying (To Him do ascends the good words; and the good deeds lift them up. 35:10) and the innumerable authentic and qualified hadiths; such as the Prophet's ascending to his Lord and the angels' descending from and ascending to the Lord and the like."
Depending on our current debate it is now quite clear for readers that what is falsely imputed to the worthy ancestors by Ahmed Mahmud Duhloub has been such a calamitous mistake and indubitable prevarication that it is impermissible to regard. The worthy ancestors' words respecting this topic is positively familiar and continuously reported. This meaning is clarified by Sheikul-Islam Ibn Teimiya by contending that Allah's settling is highness on the Throne and believing in so is obligatory and the way of that elevation is exclusively known by Allah the Praised. This meaning is related to Ummu Salama Ummul-Muminin and Rabia Bin Abi Abdirrahman Malik's master. It is really the indisputable right. Unquestionably AhlusSunna adopted this opinion. The same thing is said about the other divine attributes; hearing viewing satisfaction ire hand foot fingers uttering will and the like. It is averred that such attributes are linguistically known; therefore it is obligatory to believe in even the way is unfamiliar for us and quite familiar by Allah the Praised exclusively. It is also imperative to believe in perfection of the divine attributes in such a way that He is not like any of His creatures. Hence Allah's hand fingers satisfaction are different from ours. He the Praised says (Nothing like the likeness of Him and He is the Hearing the Seeing). Believers however are required to adhere to what was told by Allah and His Prophet and what was pursued by the worthy ancestors; the Prophet's companions and their virtuous followers. They are also advised to beware themes of the heretic who shunned the divine Book and the Prophet's traditions and rested upon their ideas and intellectuals fanatically; therefore they deviated and led to deviation.
Ibn Baz's Al-Fetawi part 2 page 98:
In an article titled (For being the strongest nation) issued in No. 3383 3/4/1408 of Al-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper Muhyiddin AsSafi referring to discrepancy between the worthy ancestors and their descendants about the divine attributes writes down "In the Holy Quran there are some Verses accrediting material descriptions to Allah the Exalted. God's sayings (The hand
of Allah is above their hands) (Everything is perishable except His face) and (The Beneficent settled on the Throne) are good examples of the forecited fact. Scholars follow one of the following two courses in comprehending such Verses. First course of the worthy ancestors which is proving what Allah has proved for Himself passing over denudation modification or representation and observing evading depriving the Divine Essence of attributes. They also averred that the extrinsic meanings of aspects of such Verses are unintended. For God's saying (Nothing is like the likeness of Him and He is the Hearing the Seeing) promoting Allah the Exalted against whatsoever may be a means of comparison to the creatures was the base on which they depend in their faith. Second course of the worthy descendants which is interpreting such words and resting upon metaphoric meanings. Hence for them 'hand' 'face' and 'settling' suggest aptitude person and predominance and seizure respectively. Convictional proofs on Allah's being not a corporeality were provided. Besides God says (Nothing like the likeness of Him and He is the Hearing the Seeing) proves so. As a matter of fact both courses are accurate and authentically related and recorded in reference books of master scholars."
May God pardon him and us the writer of the previous article has made a mistake when he says "They also averred that the extrinsic meanings of aspects of such Verses are unintended." The worthy ancestors and their ever followers prove and believe in veracity of attributes of perfection that Allah and His Prophet (peace be upon him) proved for Himself as they fit His glory passing over distortion denudation modification representation interpretation or commendation.
In his Ar-Risaletul Hamawiya Sheikul-Islam Ibn Teimiya records "In His Al-Asma'u We-sSifat Abu Bakr Al-Beihaqi relates the following to Al-Awzai with an authentic documentation:
'The Prophet's companions' followers and we were wont to maintain that Allah the Exalted is atop His Throne. We also believed in the divine attributes related to the Prophet's traditions.'
Al-Awzai one of the four most remarkable scholars of the followers of the Prophet's companions' followers age relates commonness of maintaining that Allah the Exalted is atop His Throne and that He has audible attributes. This saying was declared after emergence of Jahm the denier of Allah's being atop His Throne and having attributes so that people could realize that the worthy ancestors' sect opposed such ideas.
The writer mentions that "course of the worthy descendants is interpreting such words and resting upon metaphoric meanings. Hence for them 'hand' 'face' and 'settling' suggest aptitude person and predominance and seizure respectively. Convictional proofs on Allah's being not a corporal were provided. Besides God says (Nothing is like the likeness of Him and He is the
Hearing the Seeing) proves so. As a matter of fact both courses are accurate and authentically related and recorded in reference books of master scholars." I say that these statements are not quite true. Not both courses are accurate. Course of the worthy ancestors is the only accurate and the obligatorily pursued since it represents ensuing the divine Book and the Prophet's traditions and acceding to attitudes of the Prophet's companions their followers and their followers. By proving attributes of perfection this course promotes Allah the Praised the Exalted against attributes of imperfection and nonorganic incomplete and privative substances. This is the truth indeed. The interpretation on the other hand is adopted by the worthy descendant theologists. It is opposite to the right since it is arbitration of the imperfect intellects and capricious representation of Allah's words. By adopting this depriving Allah the Glorified the Elevated of attributes of perfection is engaged. Thus interpreters escaped from anthropomorphism to fall in denudation.
Concisely course of the worthy ancestors is the only right that is bindingly followed and ensued. The other sect of interpreting attributes of Allah the Glorified the Elevated is wrong and contradictory to Allah's Book and the Prophet's traditions and the worthy ancestors of the nation.
The writer's claim Allah's being not a corporeality is unproved since neither the divine Book nor did the Prophet's traditions assert nor deny this matter. In this case the most apropos procedure is suspending such matters. Intellects are out of process of specifying the divine attributes. This process is consecratory. It is suspended on Quranic and prophetic texts.
Bin Baz's Al-Fetawi part 2 page 105:
From: AbdulAzeez Bin Abdillah Bin Baz.
To: Mohammed Bin Ahmed Sindi the esquire.
Having received your prolonged missive I noted the following points included:
1. The claim Allah is greatly promoted against occupying a space or being encompassed by a definite space.
2. Your saying "While I was reviewing Sa'd Sadiq's Sira'un Beinel Haqqi WelBatil …these Verses and hadiths were the argumentative evidences on God's material Exaltation. If I were able to realize what the author and his likes should gain from publicizing such beliefs that in most cases call forth seditious matters disorder and disunity… Ordinary people would heed this book and believe that Allah is existent in the heavens… Manifestly I have quoted words of Ar-Razi Al-Qurtubi and As-Sawi."
From your words it is clear that you lack knowledge in belief of the divine names and attributes. You also crave to a special critique and such a
confidential care that shows you the accurate belief. You God may bless you should understand that Sunnis including the Prophet's companions and their followers have been unanimously supporting the fact that Allah is in the heavens atop the Throne and that hands are raised towards Him. These facts are proved through Quranic and authentic prophetic texts. They also have unanimously proved that Allah the Praised is too selfsufficient to be in need for a throne or alike matters. AhlusSunna asserted similar things about other divine attributes. Malik for instance says "Meanings are realized according to requirements of the Arabic in which Allah addressed at His servants. The way is unknown."
These perfect and invariable meanings were used for exhibiting attributes of the Lord whose resemblant is nonexistent. Discussion of this mater needs further debate. God willing we intend to do so soon after arrival in Al-Madina. Besides we intend to show you erroneous points in your book. At any rate we advise you of reflecting upon the Holy Quran and believing that whatsoever indicated by the Quran with regard to the divine attributes as well as the other subjects is accurate and fitting Allah the Praised. It is illicit to interpret discount and commend the divine attributes. All these are acts of the heretic. AhlusSunna do neither interpret discount nor do they commend the Verses and hadiths appertained to the divine attributes. They believe that all whatsoever indicated by meanings is a consistent right fitting Allah the Praised in a form quite different from any of His creatures. Allah the Praised says (Say: He Allah is One. Allah is He on Whom all depend. He begets not nor is He begotten. And none is like Him. 112) (Nothing like His likeness; and He is the Hearing the Seeing.) Hereby God denied being like His creatures and confirmed hearing and sight to Himself in a fitting way. The same is said about the rest of the divine attributes.
We also advise you of reviewing the two replications of SheikhulIslam Ibn Teimiya to people of Hemah and Tadmur. These two answers Al-Hamawiya particularly carry a remarkable virtue and a detail rendition regarding the Sunnis' opinions and presentation of their words. In the reply involved there is sufficient replication on wording of the heretic. You are advised to see IbnulQeyim's Al-Eqidetun Nuniya and Mukhtassarus Sawaiq. Besides careful revision and demonstration of evidences inferred from the Quran hadith and opinions of the worthy ancestors exposition and clarification found in these two books may be not noticed in others.
Nothing new can be beheld in Bin Baz's previous words which were as same as Ibn Teimiya's. Truly one matter could be conceived from the above. Both the supreme juriscounsult master and his industrious disciple rested upon God's having a material face as they passed by God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face.)
Only had there been enough space to show models of IbnulQeyim's Al-Eqidetun Nuniya of which that respectful juriscounsult advises for taking in monotheism. In that poor so called poem IbnulQeyim composes six thousand lines of the worst wording ever used in Arabic poetry. He confused monotheism so complicatedly that he disciplined the Muslim scholars' objective cogency to death.
WAHABISTS BETOOK MALIK AS THEIR CEILING AND ASCRIBED THEIR FAITH TO HIM
Wahabists ensued their master Ibn Teimiya in citing Malik's statement about the exegesis of God's saying (The Beneficent settled on the Throne) as their evidence on decorum of their faith. Bin Baz and Al-Albani have been used to using this statement.
Bin Baz's Al-Fetawi part 2 page 171:
He the Praised is over His creatures and settling on His Throne in such a way fitting His glory and magnificence. On the contrary of claims of the heretic Jahmites and their likes who cited 'seize' as the interpretation of 'settle' the flawless meaning is that adopted by the worthy ancestors which is that Allah arose on His Throne. This is evidenced by Malik's answering the question about way of God's settling remarked in God's saying (The Beneficent settled on the Throne). Malik said "Settling is known and its way is unexplored and believing in this is obligatory and questioning about it is heresy."
Bin Baz's Al-Fetawi part 2 page 518:
"O Malik! (The Beneficent settled on the Throne) how His settling was?" a man asked. "Settling is familiar. Inversely to the commended meaning the known settling is the elevation. It way is unexplored… Take this man out. He is heretic " ordered Malik.
Considering Malik's verdict has been operative what should the ruling of Omar's demonstrating that Allah the Exalted reposes on the Throne which cracks and creaks squeaks or grate owing to the Lord's heavy weight be?
Second as Ahmed or another said "Pass these texts as they are." was Malik (God please him) adopting this belief when he provided that answer and decided heresy of that asker?
The asker however was not heretic when he asked about meaning of God's saying. He became heretic just after he had asked about the way of God's settling. The forecited saying of Malik represents completely course of the worthy ancestors and their ever followers. Malik stated that linguistic meanings of such texts are known while methods and ways are thoroughly not. None other than the Owner can recognize the way of the Essence and the attributes. Meanwhile settling hearing and sight are realizable matters.
As much as I think Ahmed indicated miscomprehending the Verses and commending them to Allah exclusively. This trend is followed by the descendants. This is indeed the very denudation that leads to denying the Praised and Exalted Creator. I am highly touchy to Sheikul-Islam Ibn Teimiya's saying "Anthropomorphists worship a pagan while Tatilites worship nothingness." The deviant heretics especially in this country claim that Allah is neither over beneath to the right to the left in nor out of this world. These are descriptions of nonexistent things. What should be the answer of any ordinary man if he is asked to provide a definition for nonexistence? Certainly he will answer: Nonexistence is nothingness. If he is also asked whether this nothingness is in or out this cosmos the answer will be: This is incorrect nothingness is neither in nor out of the cosmos. From this cause Ibn Teimiya said that Tatilites worship nonexistence.
We hereby concise the forecited prolonged essay of Bin Baz by citing the following instructions and commentaries: Allah the Exalted is a corporeality. Corporealities are the only things existing in or beyond nature. Allah's settling on the Throne is a material matter. It is not valid to ask how; otherwise you shall be decided as atheist whom should be dismissed or killed. Besides such procedures should not be regarded as intellectual terrorism since Malik had followed them. We however should refer to him in interpreting the divine attributes and religious terrorism. As a matter of face we disagree to his heretic verdict of permissibility of visitating the Prophet's tomb!! Say not that Omar the caliph had represented God's reposal on His Throne as a man's sitting on a new made chair which cracks creaks squeaks or grates due to heavy weight!! This interpretation is legal for Omar but illegal for others!!
Anyhow the commenders committed a single intellectual terrorism while Wahabists have been committing three ill deeds; two are reckoned with the intellectual terrorism and one to commendation. Commenders confessed of ignoring the Lord's way of settling on the Throne and deemed forbidden asking about so. Wahabists confined people between two options; either to rest upon the extrinsic material settling as the very meaning involved or to be lined up with Jahmites Tatilites deviants and atheists. After responding to the easier option; the previous they will rule of your dissidence for your exposing Allah's corporeality concealment of which He has ordered if you disregard commending that meaning to Allah. See how the forbidden commendation became obligatory after forcing on resting upon the material exegesis! Wahabists have been committing intellectual terrorism by forcing on resting upon the material exegesis and another one by forcing on commending the physical settling and forcing on abstaining from asking about the way!!
A commender says: Do not open the door to questions and evade entering this place.
A Wahabist says: Jump from that high place but evade falling to the ground!!
It was not proved that Malik had adopted the notion Wahabists held fast on.
1. At-Thehbi's Siyeru A'lamin-Nubela part 8 page 100:
Jafar Bin Abdillah: A man asked Malik "O Abu Abdillah! How was the Lord's settling mentioned in His saying (The beneficent settled on the Throne)?" Malik had never been in such embarrassing moments. He nodded the head down and stroke the cane in his hand to the ground and became sweaty. After a while he raised the head threw the cane and stated "It is impracticable to ask 'how' about Allah. His settling is not inconceivable. Believing in so is obligatory. Asking about so is a heresy. I think you are a heretic. Take this man out." Hence he dismissed the asker.
According to Salama Bin Shabib's narration Malik stated "I am afraid you are an aberrant."
2. AburRabi ArRashidini:
Ibn Wahab: We were attending at Malik when a man asked "O Abu Abdillah! (The Beneficent settled on the Throne) how was that settling?" Malik nodded the dead down and became sweaty. After a while he raised his head and said "The Beneficent settled on the Throne as he describes Himself. It is impracticable to ask 'how' about Him. 'How' is invalidated for Him. You are an ill heretic. Take him out."
3. Mohammed Bin Amr Qamshard AnNisapuri:
Yahya Bin Yahya: We were attending at Malik when a man asked… The same previous narrative with the following addition "Settling is not inconceivable."
4 5. At-Thehbi's Siyeru A'lamin-Nubela part 8 page 105:
Ibn Edi: Mohammed Bin Harun Bin Hassan: Salih Bin Yaqub: Habib Bin Abi Habib:
Malik stated "Affairs of our Lord the Blessed the Exalted are descended. He is everlasting and unchanging." Yahya Bin Bukeir commented "This is a qualified saying but I did not hear it from Malik directly."
Salih is unknown for me. Habib is so familiar. The most well known narrative related to Malik is that of Al-Walid Bin Muslim who asked about texts of the divine attributes. Malik answered "Pass them as they are without exegesis." Subject to authenticity of Habib's narrative Malik had two sayings in the question concerned.
6. Eyad the judge:
Abu Talib Al-Mekki: Malik (God please him) was the most distant from theologists. He was also opposite of the Iraqis.
Sufian Bin Uyeina: A man asked Malik "O Abu Abdillah! (The Beneficent settled on the Throne) how was that settling?" Malik could say nothing and became sweaty. After a while he said "His settling is familiar. It is impracticable to ask 'How' about Him. Asking about this is heresy. Believing in it is obligatory. I see you but a deviant. Take him out."
It is noticeable that there is no single narrative support Wahabists' claim of Malik's adopting for resting upon the extrinsic meanings of texts. Actually these narrations refer to the opposite. In the first narration Malik denied the general 'how' ascribed to Allah the Exalted. He did not negate the way of God's settling. He says "'It is impracticable to ask 'How' about Allah. His settling is not inconceivable." This means that settling for the Lord is originally out of a method or a way. It is not a material settling the way of which is not known as Wahabists claim. Malik's 'not inconceivable' means that it is decisively provable to Allah the Exalted by Quranic texts. Where is then the evidence on their claims of material settling?
The second and third narrations support the first. Malik said "The Beneficent settled on the Throne as he describes Himself. It is impracticable to ask 'how' about Him. 'How' is invalidated for Him." As a matter of face the expression "It is impracticable to ask 'how' about Him" is usually used in reports of AhlulBeit for negating materiality misalleged to Allah the Elevated. The expression is also used for promoting God against such unfitting matters.
In the fourth narrative Malik interpreted the Lord's descending into descending of His affairs. He says "Affairs of our Lord the Blessed the Exalted are descended. He is everlasting and unchanging." For Wahabists interpretation is a heresy denudation deviation and atheism. Therefore pursuant to rulings of their sect they should rule of heresy denudation deviation and atheism of Malik so that he may be free from being their ceiling!
The fifth narrative is pure commendation that does not stand for any sort of resting upon extrinsic or intrinsic meanings. At-Thehbi himself declares so "…asked about texts of the divine attributes. Malik answered "Pass them as they are without exegesis."
Malik's expression in the sixth narration "His settling is familiar. It is impracticable to ask 'How' about Him" shows denial of inquiring the way of settling. This means that he denies the Lord's material settling adopted by Wahabists. The word 'for him' shows that he denies ways of the Lord's settling or the absolute 'how' accredited to Him. Malik's saying 'familiar' insinuates that this matter is provable by Quranic texts.
How is it then adequate for them to claim Malik's acceding to their sect? What for are they taking Malik as their ceiling? What for do they delude Muslims that Malik is one of them and with them and they nearly would be about to issue his membership to their club!!
Al-Mudawwanatul-Kubra part 6 page 465: Malik nodded the head down sweated and thought for a considerable time when he was asked about God's settling in His saying (The Beneficent settled on the Throne). After a while he answered "It is impracticable to ask 'how' about Him. His settling is not unfamiliar. Believing in so is obligatory and asking about it is a heresy. I see you a heretic. Take him out." Hence the asker was dismissed.
The same is recorded in Asharani's AtTabaqat.
Like the earliest Malik's answer in this narration commences with denial of the Lord's material settling they believe in. How was it then possible for them to claim that by saying "Settling is not unfamiliar" Malik intended at the Lord's material settling on the Throne. Exalted be Allah against so!
Our claim is also supported by Ashafii's words recorded in AsSibki's TabaqatusShafiiya part 9 page 40:
Ashafii: As I asked him about monotheism Malik answered "It is absolutely inapplicable to think that the Prophet (peace be upon him) who trained his nation how to cleanse after defecation had not taught them monotheism. Once he (peace be upon him) said 'I have been ordered of fighting people till they say there is no god but Allah.'… He did not say that believing in Allah's occupying an elevated space is within monotheism."
15%
Author: Ali Al-Kurani Al-Amili
