Note: The following transcript was generated using AI and may contain inaccuracies.
Alhamdulillahi Rabbil Alameen, wassalatu wassalamu ala rasoolillahi sallallahu alayhi wasallam. Amma ba'd. Ustad Abdur Rahman Hassan, assalamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu. Wa alaykum assalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu. Welcome back to the Hosea podcast. Jazakallah khairan for having me. Jazakallah khairan.
So last time we were on here, we spoke about the background, the history, and some of the core beliefs of the group known as the Asha'ira. And you actually quoted a lot of statements from their own books and their own scholars, and really kind of—for lack of a better word—exposed some of their hidden beliefs.
We're now going to be talking, as a continuation of that topic, about what is probably the main point of contention between the two groups: the Salafis and the Asha'aris. And that is, how do we interpret and understand the names and the attributes of Allah?
And as usual, I'm going to give you an introduction, just like last time. I am going to limit the introduction to a 10-minute limit. And after that, we can get into a discussion, inshallah.
Inshallah. Go ahead and start.
Alhamdulillahi Rabbil Alameen. Lahu alhamd al-hasan wa al-thana'u al-jameel. Wa ashhadu an la ilaha illallah, wahdahu la sharika lah.
If you go into Ilm al-Kalam and you say something, it’s not just a mere claim—a mere mistake, sorry. It’s not just a mistake here; it’s heresy. Zandaqa.
Al-Shafi’i said, “There’s nothing more hated to me min al-kalamu ahli.” Al-Shafi’i said, “There’s nothing more hated to me min al-kalamu ahli.”
It’s the knowledge that was taken from—what’s his name—Aristotle, and the likes of these people. Simple as.
Al-Shafi’i (rahimahullah) said, “Hukmi fi ahli al-kalam…” My ruling—my ruling on the people of Ilm al-Kalam is: “An yudhrabu bil jareed wa al-ni’alan.”
That they get beaten, lashed. Al-Shafi’i is saying this—rahimahullah, Imam. How do they get beaten? Take branches from the tree, lash these people. Take your shoes off and lash them. And they are paraded in the market. “Wa yutafu bihim fil aswaq.” “Wa yunada alayhim.” “This is the reward of the one who abandoned the Book and the Sunnah and turned to Kalam.” “Hatha jaza’u man taraka al-Kitaba wa al-Sunnah wa aqbala ala al-Kalam.”
And they are paraded in the market. “Wa yutafu bihim fil aswaq.” “Wa yunada alayhim.”
This is where it started from. There was a man by the name of Ja’d ibn Dirham. Ja’d ibn Dirham. He went and sought knowledge from a man by the name of Aban ibn Sam’an. This Aban ibn Sam’an took it from Talut, the brother of Labid ibn al-A’sam.
Now you have to understand, Labid ibn al-A’sam is the man who did magic on the Prophet ﷺ. This is the chain where this whole “Names and Attributes of Allah” discussion started. It started from Labid ibn al-A’sam.
And this is something you have to understand: all the firaq, all the groups, they all started from disbelievers. The Qadariyyah—Sawsan, who was a Majusi—from him they took that concept. The Shia took it from Abdullah ibn Saba’, the Jew. The Asha’ira, the Mu’tazilah, and their likes— Anyone who took their path, they go back to Labid ibn al-A’sam in their concept.
For that reason, Imam al-Bukhari brings in his book Khalq Af’al al-‘Ibad, he says: “Shahidtu”—I was present when Khalid ibn Abdullah al-Qasri… Khalid ibn Abdullah al-Qasri was the Muslim leader in Wasit, and he was a governor there. On the day of Yawm al-Adha, the Day of Eid al-Adha, he said to the people: “Irji’u, fadhaahu.” “All of you go back and slaughter.” “Taqabbalallahu minkum.” May Allah accept it from you.
It was Eid al-Adha. He goes, “All of you go and slaughter your animals. I’m going to slaughter Ja’d ibn Dirham.” Why? He has claimed that Allah has not taken Ibrahim as His Khalil, and that Allah has not spoken to Musa. Allah is higher than all of that. “Yaqulu Ja’d ibn Dirham…”
He then came down and he slaughtered him.
He mentioned a story, and I’m going to conclude with that. I think the time is going to finish, so if I can just conclude with this before the time finishes.
Of course, of course. And you did ask, so go ahead.
So if I can just conclude this story. “Yaqulu Ja’d ibn Dirham…” The story is going to shock you.
“Yaqulu Ja’d ibn Dirham…” He said: I heard Ibrahim al-Balkhi saying—a man from the people of Marw. He was a friend of Ja’d ibn Safwan.
Now, Ja’d ibn Dirham’s student is Ja’d ibn Safwan. This is where the belief of the Jahmiyyah started from, by the way.
So this man, he was a friend of Ja’d ibn Safwan. They were very close friends. And he disconnected from him. He stopped. He didn’t want to be with him.
“Why have you cut this man? Why are you no longer his friend?” And then he said, “What has come from Ja’d ibn Safwan is something I cannot accept. This man has said things that I cannot tolerate.”
He said, “One day I recited a particular verse.” Then he said, “I forgot”—the rawi, he forgot what ayah it was. And then when he was reading the ayah, this man is reading it—Ja’d ibn Safwan is listening. And when he recited the ayah, he said, “Wallahi, who’s more clever than Muhammad?”
And he’s trying to say Muhammad ﷺ wrote the Qur’an. “I tolerated it from him.”
Then he recited Surah Taha. When he reached the ayah, “Wa kallamallahu Musa takleema…” He said—Ja’d ibn Safwan is saying—“If I could find a way where I can rub this verse out of the Mus’haf, I would have done it.”
“This man,” he said, “I tolerated it from him.” Then I recited— Then he recited, sorry, Surah Al-Qasas. When he reached the story of Nabi Musa, he said, “What is this?” He’s speaking to the Qur’an. He said, “What is this? He mentions the story somewhere, he doesn’t finish it. Then he goes somewhere else and doesn’t finish it.”
And then he threw the Mus’haf on the ground. He said, “What is this?”
Then he said, “I jumped on him. I became physical with him.” Then what you have to understand is that this is a very corrupt belief—but it goes somewhere. It goes back to something very devilish.
Like this man, Ja’d ibn Safwan—the Ummah unanimously agreed upon his deviation. Of course. Obviously, with those statements, I’m not sure anybody listening would be tolerant of those kinds of statements. But I’m trying to understand something—you said this is where the belief that the Jahmiyyah came from. We’re talking about the Asha’ira.
So what's that got to do with Jahm ibn Safwan? The great scholars of the Ashāʿirah, they themselves came to—after their final moments in life—they realized what they were upon, the path that they were treading on, is a path of confusion.
Let me just give you Fakhruddīn ar-Rāzī. In response to your question, Fakhruddīn ar-Rāzī, he said:
نهاية أقدام العقول عقال، وغاية سعي العالمين الضلال، وأرواحنا في وحشة من جسومنا، وحاصل دنيانا أذى ووبال، ولم نستفد من بحثنا طول عمرنا سوى أن جمعنا فيه قيل وقالوا
And he's saying: All of our efforts that we exerted, all of the efforts that we did—all of those—Fakhruddīn ar-Rāzī—all of that which I did, and what I’ve exerted, and what I did, and my research and everything, I'm in a state of confusion. All I've compiled is, he said, she said. I'm just confused.
Now he says, my belief is:
لقد تأملت طرق الكلامية—I've looked at the philosophical arguments—والمناهج الفلسفية—and all the methodological philosophy routes. I've looked at all of them.
He said:
فما رأيتها تشفي عليلًا ولا تروي غليلًا
It does not quench the thirst of a person who's in need of knowledge and understanding.
وَلِذَلِكَ Fakhruddīn ar-Rāzī—he, يعني, imām in this field—they have said about him:
وقد بدت منه في تواليفه بلايا وعظائم وسحر وانحرافات عن السنة، والله يعفو عنه، فإنه توفي على طريقة حميدة، والله يتولى السرائر
adh-Dhahabī, he said: In his works, there’s corruption, great magical claims, كلام سِحري، وانحرافات عن السنة—and a deviation from the Sunnah. But he said:
والله يعفو عنه
And Allah will forgive him for it.
فإنه توفي على طريقة حميدة
He died upon a good path.
And Allah Taʿālā judges the people upon what's in their hearts.
وَلِذَلِكَ Ibn Ḥajar in Lisān al-Mīzān:
أوصى بوصية تدل على أنه حسن اعتقاده
He gave a wasiyyah—which is that wasiyyah I just read to you. He gave that wasiyyah—the wasiyyah I just read to you. He gave it, and he perfected his iʿtiqād.
adh-Dhahabī, Ibn Ḥajar, they all say: So that path Jahm ibn Ṣafwān was upon—Jaʿd ibn Dirham—this Imām of the Ashāʿirah took it and finally realized, this is not working. It doesn't fulfill the goal that we're trying to achieve.
So I'm trying to make a distinction in my mind. Is this attribution of the Ashāʿirah to ʿIlm al-Kalām—Greek philosophy as you put it—is this something that the Salafis would say, that the Ashāʿirah took this kind of Greek philosophy into their belief? Or is this something that they themselves say as well? Like, is this a claim that you're making, or is this something that they attribute themselves to?
Yeah, this is something they admit to. They don't deny it. They just try to justify it by calling ʿIlm al-Kalām praiseworthy, and there's two types of ʿIlm al-Kalām, which is madhmūm and maḥmūd, and wahakadhā—they give those answers.
لكن we say: ʿIlm al-Kalām, according to the Salafis, mamnūʿ—they didn't allow it. Okay? Especially in issues of ʿaqāʾid, they didn't allow it. And anyone who used ʿIlm al-Kalām—whoever used it historically—didn’t use it as a form of evidence. They used it as an instrument to debunk people. But they took it as a form of belief. This is the evidence. The evidence is ʿIlm al-Kalām. And the Qur’an and the Sunnah is what? It's no evidence.
And I think I've... yeah, last time we were here...
Okay, let’s get into the—let’s see—that’s a good foundation. Bārakallāhu fīkum—let’s go into the main topic and see how this foundation trickles down into this main topic.
So when we're talking about the names and attributes of Allah, I’m really talking about the kind of attributes that are relevant here—are the things like: Allah having hands, Allah having a shin, Allah having legs, a face—all of these kinds of things. And obviously, the claim here is that these are attributes that we also have as human beings, and therefore, there is this anthropomorphism happening here, where you are actually likening Allah to His creation.
What is the correct belief, according to you—or as you would say, according to Ahl al-Sunnah—in terms of these kinds of attributes?
So when it comes to nuṣūṣ al-ṣifāt—Allah’s names and attributes—the evidences that come, the Qur’an and the Sunnah—the people are three types.
There is Ahl al-Taʿṭīl—and I’ll come back to that, in shā’ Allāh Taʿālā.
The second one is Ahl al-Tamthīl—I’ll use that word better.
So the first group are called Ahl al-Taʿṭīl. And the second group are called Ahl al-Tamthīl. And the third group are called Ahl al-Sawāʾ al-Samīl.
Let me go back to the first one, okay?
The first group are called Ahl al-Taʿṭīl. Ahl al-Taʿṭīl are a people who’ve distorted Allah's names and attributes. And they've taken three ways to distort it.
They are:
- The first one is called Ahl al-Takhyīl—and that’s the Maslak al-Falāsifah. They believe all of this—Jannah, Nār, Allah’s characteristics—all of that? Takhyīl. That’s myths.
- The second group are called Ahl al-Tajhīl—and these are the ones who took the Maslak al-Tafwīḍ. Yeah, they said: We don’t know the meaning of these characteristics—as a form of distortion.
- And the third group is Ahl al-Taʾwīl—those who distorted it by giving an interpretation.
I’m gonna come to each one of those—or we’re gonna come to it in the podcast.
The second group is—so we’ve finished Ahl al-Taʿṭīl—yeah, that breaks down into three. Some of them say that it’s all just fairytale, magical stuff.
Kind of like what they say—metaphorical?
Metaphor, yeah.
Is that fair to say?
Yeah, but they’re more worse than that because they believe these verses have a bāṭinī belief.
We’re not—that’s not the path that we’re... We’re not gonna talk too much about that.
Yeah, because they’re not the issue we’re suffering from now.
The second group say: We don’t know the meaning of these words—like when Allah says He has a hand, for example—we don’t know what the meaning is, but Allah knows.
So there’s two groups that we’re gonna, I think, in shā’ Allāh, we’re gonna focus on these two groups: Ahl al-Taʾwīl and Ahl al-Tafwīḍ.
Yes.
Now, Ahl al-Taʾwīl and Ahl al-Tafwīḍ, they’re under Ahl al-Taʿṭīl. They are distorters of Allah’s names and attributes. But they took two paths.
Okay, these two paths that are taken are: Taʾwīl or Tafwīḍ.
So what does both mean? First of all, they both have something in common, and they also differ on something.
Okay, go ahead.
What they both have in common is that the Muʾawwil and the Mufawwiḍ, both of them agree that al-Ẓāhir ghayru murād—the apparent meaning is not intended.
Okay, yeah.
The Muʾawwil and the Mufawwiḍ say: Yes, it’s true. When we read:
الرَّحْمَـٰنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى
‘Ala—he rose above, istawā—that’s not the murād that’s intended, they’d say.
The Muʾawwil would say: That’s not what is intended.
The Mufawwiḍ would say: That’s not intended.
The difference between the two is:
- The Muʾawwil will give it another meaning.
- Yeah, which is distortion, like you said.
So this is where Tafwīḍ does come in.
I’m gonna prove both of them are distortion. I’m gonna come to it, in shā’ Allāh, as it unfolds.
The second group, which is the Mufawwiḍ, what they do is that they then say: We don’t know. The Ẓāhir is not murād. So they’ve negated the apparent meaning of the verse. But then they said, with that being said, we don’t know what the meaning is.
So they don’t assert a meaning. And they say: Allah knows. Only Allah knows. That’s what they say.
So the Muʾawwil and the Mufawwiḍ are like that.
Now let’s go to the next group, which are Ahl al-Tamthīl.
Ahl al-Tamthīl are those who affirm the characteristics for Allah, but they give it a like. They liken it to the creation.
Now, this is important that we understand it because it really breaks down the whole discussion properly.
Ahl al-Tamthīl, Ishāq ibn Rāhwayh—however you want to say it, both ways it can be said—who is a friend of al-Imām Aḥmad. He’s a Shaykh of al-Imām al-Bukhārī, in the niʿmah of Sunnah, niʿmah of Ḥadīth—dawāwīn al-ḥadīth—you’ll find them.
Ishāq ibn Rāhwayh—he clarified what is Tamthīl. He said—or Tashbīh. He said:
إنما يكون التشبيه لو قيل: يد كيد، وسمع كسمع
Ahl al-Tamthīl—what they did is they took Allah’s characteristics and they likened it to the creation—which is what you were talking about: anthropomorphism. They likened the characteristics of Allah to the creation.
al-Imām Ishāq ibn Rāhwayh says: It means when the person says: Allah’s hand is like the hand of—this hand—or His hearing is the likes of this hearing.
Understand?
Okay.
That connection has to be made for someone to be a Mushabbih—for someone to fall into.
Anyone who says otherwise: فَأْتُوا بِبُرْهَانِكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ
Ishāq is al-imām—both parties agree with him. He’s from the Aʾimmat al-Salaf, the Shaykh of Imām al-Bukhārī.
He's the Shaykh of al-Imam. He's the one who brought the idea of compiling Sahih al-Bukhari. Who compiled it? Who gave the idea? Ishaq ibn Rahuyah did. Bukhari got the idea from his teacher, Ishaq ibn Rahuyah.
Ishaq is the friend of al-Imam Ahmad. So these are early Imams—Ahl al-Sawa’i al-Sabeel, which we hope to be from them.
What are they like? They believe—Ahl al-Sawa’i al-Sabeel believe—Allah Subh'anaHu Wa Ta-A'la has names and attributes. They're present in the Qur’an. What we do is, these characteristics of Allah Subh'anaHu Wa Ta-A'la, we affirm them for Him.
We affirm them: من غير تعطيل ولا تحريف ومن غير تكيف ولا تمثيل. I'm going to explain that later, insha’Allah.
Al-Imam al-Shafi’i, Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi’i, said: أصل القرآن والسنة. The Asl is the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
فإن لم يكن فقياس عليهم. The Asl is the Qur’an and the Sunnah, correct? If they’re not present, what do we do? We do Qiyas.
وإذا اتصل الحديث عن رسول الله وصح الإسناد عنه فهو سنة والإجماع أكثر من الخبر المنفردي والحديث على ظاهره وإذا احتمل المعاني فما أشبه منها ظاهر أولى به
What I mean by that is that we take the Qur’an and the Sunnah and the Ijma’. In this chapter of Aqeedah, we don't take Qiyas. Qiyas is in Fiqh.
Ahl al-Sunnah—what do they do? Ahl al-Sawa’i al-Sabeel—what do they do? Ahl al-Sawa’i al-Sabeel took the Qur’an and the Sunnah and the unanimous agreement of the three noble generations. Everything I mention here, insha’Allah Ta’ala, I’ll bring a verse for it. Hadith, Ijma’—fine.
I'm not going to bring you the kalam of the muta’akhkhireen—Muhammad Abdul-Ha’il said this, Ibn Taymiyyah said this, Ibn Qudamah said this, Ibn Rajab said this. I'm not going to bring that.
I'm saying to you, let’s stick to the three noble generations. Okay.
Ibn al-Mubarak transmitted a consensus on this issue—Ijma’. And there’s no difference of opinion that the Salaf had on this issue. And I’ll state each Imam who said it. I’ll name it for you, insha’Allah.
Ibn al-Mubarak رحمه الله said: أهل السنة مجمعون—the unanimous view of Ahl al-Sunnah— على إقرار بهذه الصفات—to affirm all these characteristics الواردة في الكتاب والسنة—that are present in the Qur’an and the Sunnah. ولم يكيفوا شيئًا منها—they never placed a how for any of these characteristics.وأما الجهمية والمعتزلة والخوارج — As for the Jahmiyyah, the Muʿtazilah, and the Khawārij Those are from the 72 groups, right?
فقالوا — They said: Anyone who affirms these characteristics — أهل السنة — Ahl al-Sunnah What do they (the Jahmiyyah, Muʿtazilah, and Khawārij) call these people?
المعتزلة، الخوارج، والجهمية — The Muʿtazilah, the Khawārij, and the Jahmiyyah What do they call them? They call them: أهل التعطيل — Ahl al-Taʿṭīl (the people of negation) Negators of Allah's Names and Attributes.
ولله الأسماء الحسنى فادعوه بها وذروا الذين يلحدون في أسمائه — And to Allah belong the best names, so call upon Him by them, and leave those who deviate concerning His names.
يعني: Allah's Names and Attributes — they did ilḥād — they deviated regarding Allah’s Names and Attributes.
Last person I'm going to mention for you — and I think his:
كلام يستحق أن يكتب بماء الذهب — His words deserve to be written in gold ink.
Because:
ابن عبد البر بوّب وجمع — Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, this great Imām, categorized and compiled (the matter).
This great Imām brings their names, each one.
And I think honestly after this, you can stop the discussion here, and the whole podcast could be over.
But I have some more questions for sure. I wonder what you have on those, in shā’ Allāh.
أبو عيسى الترمذي رحمه الله تعالى — Abū ʿĪsā al-Tirmidhī, may Allah have mercy on him.
And his Jāmiʿ — his Sunan/Jāmiʿ (collection of hadith) All parties agree upon this great Imām — we all agree.
وإمام الترمذي رحمه الله تعالى في جامعه، له كتابٌ يسمى كتاب الزكاة — And Imām al-Tirmidhī, may Allah have mercy on him, in his Jāmiʿ, has a book called “Kitāb al-Zakāh” (The Book of Charity).
وفيه بابٌ يسمى باب فضل الصدقة — And in it is a chapter called “Chapter: The Virtue of Charity.”
He speaks about the ḥadīth:
إن الله يقبل الصدقة — Indeed, Allah accepts the charity.
ويأخذها بيمينه — And He takes it with His Right Hand.
فيُرَبِّيها لأحدكم — And He nurtures it (the charity) for one of you.
Abū ʿĪsā al-Tirmidhī comments on that ḥadīth.
The ḥadīth is about the characteristics of Allah — not just a hand, but a right hand.
Look what he says:
وقد قال غير واحد من أهل العلم في الحديث وما يشبه هذا من الروايات — More than one scholar from Ahl al-ʿIlm (the people of knowledge) said about this ḥadīth and others like it from similar narrations...
All of the nuṣūṣ al-ṣifāt — texts about the divine attributes — that are similar to this:
من الصفات ونزول الرب تبارك وتعالى كل ليلة إلى السماء الدنيا — Such as the attributes and the descent of the Lord, Blessed and Exalted, every night to the lowest heaven...
The ḥadīth — I mentioned it.
This is what the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah said:
قالوا: تُثبَتُ الروايات في هذا، ويُؤمَن بها، ولا يُتَوَهَّمُ، ولا يُقالُ كيف — They said: These narrations are affirmed, and one believes in them, without imagining (how), and without asking how.
هكذا رُوي عن مالك وسفيان بن عيينة وعبد الله بن المبارك أنهم قالوا: أمروها بلا كيف — This is what was narrated from Mālik, Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah, and ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Mubārak — that they said: "Let them pass as they are, without asking how."
وهكذا قول أهل العلم من أهل السنة والجماعة — And this is the statement of the people of knowledge from Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamāʿah.
Who took from Mālik, from Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah, from ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Mubārak and their likes — what did they say?
وقد ذكر الله عز وجل في غير موضع من كتابه اليد، والسمع، والبصر — And Allah, Mighty and Majestic, has mentioned in more than one place in His Book: the Hand, the Hearing, and the Seeing.
These are three characteristics.
اليد — The Hand The Ashʿarīs never affirmed it. They say, “No, I don't affirm this one.” But for hearing and seeing, they affirm those characteristics.
الحمد لله — All praise is due to Allah He connected the three together. He didn’t make a distinction.
Look what he said:
فتأولت الجهمية هذه الآيات — The Jahmiyyah interpreted these verses...
Point number two — underline for me here:
فتأولت الجهمية — The Jahmiyyah performed taʾwīl (interpretation).
So, taʾwīl comes from the Jahmiyyah.
Hold that as point number two.
What did they do to it?
فتأولت الجهمية هذه الآيات من نصوص الصفات — The Jahmiyyah interpreted these verses — from the texts of attributes.
And taʾwīl means: They turned it from its apparent meaning — they gave another meaning to it. Correct?
ففسروها على غير ما فسر أهل العلم — They explained it contrary to the explanation of the scholars.
That’s point number three — from the words of Imām Abū ʿĪsā.
Which is: They gave a tafsīr — an interpretation — different from the tafsīr of Ahl al-ʿIlm.
أهل العلم have a tafsīr for these texts: اليَد، والسمع، والبصر — The Hand, Hearing, and Seeing.
Who did he say Ahl al-ʿIlm are?
If you look at the beginning of his statement — he said:
مالك، سفيان بن عيينة، عبد الله بن المبارك — Mālik, Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah, and ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Mubārak.
And he’s referring to:
وهكذا قول أهل العلم من أهل السنة — And this is the saying of the people of knowledge from Ahl al-Sunnah.
So Ahl al-ʿIlm here = Ahl al-Sunnah.
Okay, no problem.
There’s a tafsīr of the Jahmiyyah, and a tafsīr from Ahl al-Sunnah.
Underline that — point number three.
Then he said, what is the tafsīr they gave?
وقالوا: إن الله لم يخلق آدم بيده، وقالوا: إن معنى اليد هاهنا القوة — They said: “Allah did not create Ādam with His Hand.” And they said: “The meaning of ‘Hand’ here is power.”
إذن الأشاعرة تقتفي الجهمية — So the Ashʿarīs are following the Jahmiyyah — when they interpret and give the tafsīr of "Hand" as quwwah — strength or power.
هذا تفسير جهمي — This is a Jahmī interpretation.
Point that out for me.
Then he said something very powerful — which, by Allah, this statement by itself, as I said to you in the beginning:
يستحق أن يُكتب بماء الذهب — It deserves to be written in gold ink.
And I honestly believe — if this was presented to any honest person — والله — and read over again — they would understand: this is what the Salafīs are calling to. That’s all we’re saying.
Look what he said:
الإمام مالك، سفيان بن عيينة، وعبد الله بن المبارك — these are three imams, right? Would anyone dispute who they are?
When it comes to all of these, they said:
أمِّروها بلا كيف — Let them pass as they are, without asking how.
I’ll speak about that in greater detail later.
Then he said:
أهل السنة — Ahl al-Sunnah — the people of knowledge — they follow that path of:
مالك، سفيان بن عيينة، عبد الله بن المبارك.
A group went against all of them — who are they?
They negated those narrations. They rejected those narrations. They interpreted them. They rejected and said:
هذا تشبيه — "This is anthropomorphism."
These characteristics are all تشبيه. Shahid: This point is very important for me. When these people see Allah saying يَد, these characteristics—what comes to their head straight away is تشبيه. They are مشبهة. They call us مشبهة. They are the مشبهة. When they see these characteristics, they see تشبيه.
So this is exactly what الجهمية did. When they saw these نصوص:
وَقَالُوا هَذَا تَشْبِيهُ
So then, in order to fight with that تشبيه that just ran to their mind, what did they do?
فَتَأْوَلَتِ الجَهْمِيَةُ هَذِهِ الْآيَاتِ فَفَسَّرُوهَا عَلَى غَيْرِ مَا فَسَّرَ أَهْلُ الْعِلْمِ
The interpretation they gave is different from the interpretation of the people of knowledge. شاهد, there are two interpretations after that. And then what was their interpretation? They said:
يَدْ هِيَ هَا هُنَا الْقُوَّةُ
جهمية saying this. Then look what he said—he wants to comment on their argument that these نصوص, these texts, are تشبيه:
يَدُ اللَّهِ فَوْقَ أَيْدِيهِ مَا مَنَعَكَ أَنْ تَسْجُدَ لِمَا خَلَقْتُ بِيَدَيَّ وَيَبْقَى وَجْهُ رَبِّكَ ذُو الْجَلَالِ وَالْإِكْرَامِ الرَّحْمَٰنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى
All of these characteristics—they said تشبيه. Al-Tirmidhi wants to debunk them. He said:
وَقَالَ إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، نَعْنِي إِسْحَاقَ بْنَ رَاهُوْيَه، إِنَّمَا يَكُونُ التَّشْبِيهُ إِذَا قَالَ: يَدٌ كَيَدٍ، أَوْ مِثْلُ يَدٍ، أَوْ سَمْعٌ كَسَمْعٍ، أَوْ مِثْلُ سَمْعٍ.
If they say that… The قول I mentioned before—this gives us an understanding of two groups that have been debunked clearly and categorically. By who? The مؤولة, who did تأويل—جهمية. The first people who did it were the جهمية—we can discuss that more. And the second group of people he debunked: the مفوضة, who don't believe these have any meaning in them. He debunked them by saying:
There is a تفسير of the جهمية, and there is a تفسير of the أهل العلم.
So أهل العلم did تفسير of these نصوص, but he is saying not the تفسير of the جهمية. But the مفوضة, they don't believe these نصوص—they don't believe it has any meaning. It's just words that are written there. We can discuss it more.
Okay, so let's go into it in a bit more detail. First of all, the issue of تأويل, which is saying that these words that come in the Qur’an, for example, they have a different meaning than the apparent meaning, and we interpret it in a different way—like for example the word يَد, not meaning “hand” but meaning قوة, and things like that.
I've actually got statements of the salaf, and even the companions themselves making تأويل. They actually take these kinds of Ayat from the Qur’an and they interpret it differently. You want to go through them first?
Okay, so the first one you're going to bring is تأويل, so the listeners can keep up with us In shaa Allah Ta’ala. I don't know what you're going to go into deeply, but let me just say one thing for the viewers to know:
There’s تأويل and there's تفويض. Okay?
تأويل means—and the نصوص الصفات, these characteristics and attributes, those verses that come regarding Allah’s names and attributes—they say:
يَجِبُ حَمْلُهَا عَلَى خِلَافِ ظَاهِرِهَا
We have to take it in other than its apparent meaning. When Allah said in the ayah:
مَا مَنَعَكَ أَنْ تَسْجُدَ لِمَا خَلَقْتُ بِيَدَيَّ أَسْتَكْبَرْتَ أَمْ كُنْتَ مِنَ الْعَالِينَ
Iblis—“What prevented you from prostrating? What stopped you from prostrating? Why are you refusing to prostrate to the one—Adam—whom I created with My two hands?”
They say the ظاهر is not what we should take. What should we do? We should take it other than its ظاهر. Why? What's your reason? The reason is because the ظاهر, the apparent meaning, it has in it تشبيه—automatically. You can't strip it out of that. That’s what they’re saying.
And then so the مؤولة are saying: “Now since that's the case, we can't take the ظاهر, because the ظاهر has تشبيه. So what do we do?” They introduce a meaning. They what? Introduce a meaning from themselves. They say, “This is the meaning for it.”
Allah says in the Qur’an:
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُجَادِلُونَ فِي آيَاتِ اللَّهِ بِغَيْرِ سُلْطَانٍ أَتَاهُمْ ۖ إِنْ فِي صُدُورِهِمْ إِلَّا كِبْرٌ مَا هُم بِبَالِغِيهِ ۖ فَاسْتَعِذْ بِاللَّهِ ۖ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْبَصِيرُ
I believe they are arguing in the verses of Allah with no proofs and evidence.
So you're saying they literally pluck this meaning out of thin air and insert it in the Qur’an. This is a problem that happened, and I want you to go back to it. The word يَد—again, they’re not saying that the apparent meaning is what is intended. I just said that to you. The مؤول, the one who’s doing تأويل, he’s saying:
الظاهر فيه تشبيه
And by ظاهر, you mean “hand,” if we’re going to translate يَد into English—you mean “hand.” We say يَد, we keep it, because translation is another language and we don't go there. يَد—if you loosely want to translate it as “hand,” that's up to you. But I'm saying يَد—this is what the ayah uses: يَد of Allah سبحانه وتعالى.
When they see that, they see تشبيه. So they negate the تشبيه that's in their head. How? They give a meaning to it.
I now want to say, these characteristics of Allah—like:
مَا مَنَعَكَ أَنْ تَسْجُدَ لِمَا خَلَقْتُ بِيَدَيَّ أَسْتَكْبَرْتَ أَمْ كُنتَ مِنَ الْعَالِينَ
—are four questions for them. General, and then we go to each one in detail.
I have two responses to them: الرد which is إجمالي and الرد which is تفصيلي.
When you say: “These characteristics mean this”—first of all, I say stop.
أَكَانَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَعْلَمُ
Did the Prophet know that the meaning of these characteristics is what you guys have taken?
Yes? They would say yes. The Prophet knew it.
So the Prophet ﷺ knew that:
الرَّحْمَٰنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى
means استولى?
They’ve got two options. They can either say yes or no.
We know the Prophet ﷺ is the most knowledgeable:
إِنَّ أَتْقَاكُمْ وَأَعْلَمَكُمْ بِاللَّهِ أَنَا
The Prophet knew Allah more than anybody. Good.
So the question is this: Did the Prophet know this?
That’s good.
The Prophet knew الرَّحْمَٰنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى.
I ask you the second question:
أَكَانَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم Was the Prophet the most eloquent of people?
Yes. He was very eloquent in his speech. He could speak. Allah تبارك وتعالى chose him to clarify everything. So with his… He was eloquent, right?
The third question I have is:
هَلْ كَانَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم حَرِيصًا عَلَى أُمَّتِهِ، شَفِيقًا، مُرِيدًا لَهَا الْخَيْرَ
Was the Prophet ﷺ concerned for his Ummah? Yeah, he was. Did he want خير for his Ummah?
Because Allah said in the Qur’an:
عَزِيزٌ عَلَيْهِمَّا عَنِتُّمْ، حَرِيصٌ عَلَيْكُمْ، بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ رَءُوفٌ رَحِيمٌ
If the Prophet ﷺ was knowledgeable, مَعَ كَمَالِ الْعِلْمِ بِاللَّهِ, he had great knowledge of Allah سبحانه وتعالى, and كَمَالِ الفَصَاحَةِ, he was the most eloquent of people, and he was the most sincere and wanted خير for his Ummah…
Why did he not—why is it not being brought to us—him saying:
الرَّحْمَٰنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى means استولى?
Give me one place where he said it. Okay, two responses for that. First response is that it was known at the time that it couldn’t have meant يَد—could not mean يَد literally, upon the ẓāhir. It was known at the time—we have other āyāt that tell you that Allah is not like anything. So for example, if you say يَد, the companions know that we can’t affirm a hand for Allah. It was known at the time, he didn’t need to go into it.
This is where the problem comes to you then. You said—you used to negate يَد. You said, “I’m not going to affirm يَد for Allah, because يَد, it means I’m going to fall into tashbīh—I’m making Allah similar to His creation.” Then why did you affirm, yā Ashāʿirah, why have you chosen to affirm seven characteristics of Allah? You chose to affirm these seven, and the rest you chose to negate.
The seven characteristics, the poet he said: له الحياةُ والكلامُ والبصرُ، سمعٌ إرادةٌ وعلمٌ واقتدرُ. You affirmed life for Allah. You affirmed speech for Allah. You affirmed seeing for Allah, hearing, irādah, ʿilm, iqtidār. These are seven characteristics you affirmed, yā Ashāʿirah.
These seven that you affirmed—let’s just take two of them: al-samʿ and al-baṣar—hearing and seeing. Let’s not go far. Hearing and seeing. Allah affirmed it for Himself: ليس كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير. Allah is One who sees and One who hears.
Also in Sūrat al-Insān, He said: هَلْ أتى عَلَى الإنسانِ حِينٌ مِنَ الدَّهْرِ لَمْ يَكُنْ شيئًا مَذْكُورًا، إِنَّا خَلَقْنَا الإنسانَ مِن نُّطْفَةٍ أَمْشَاجٍ نَّبْتَلِيهِ فَجَعَلْنَاهُ سَمِيعًا بَصِيرًا. Allah affirmed for the human beings al-samʿ and al-baṣar. They can see and we can hear. And Allah affirmed it for Himself.
My question to you is: al-samʿ and al-baṣar is present in the creation—why hasn’t those two characteristics, when you were affirming it, tashbīh never came to your mind? Why did yad—tashbīh—come to you for it?
Okay, now we’re going into another topic, which is the difference between ṣifāt ‘aqliyyah and ṣifāt khabariyyah. The seven that you say that Ashāʿirah affirmed—for example, their answer to that question is that these characteristics are different from yad or sāq. These are different because our ʿaql shows us that Allah has these characteristics.
Can I respond to that then? Let me just explain the argument first before you do.
We know that Allah is a creator and a sustainer of the universe. For Him to be the creator and the sustainer of the universe, He has to have knowledge, power, hearing, seeing—all of these things. But does He have to have a hand, for example? Does He have to have a shin? No. Not to create the universe and to sustain it. That’s the argument they put forward.
You affirm knowledge because Allah is the creator, correct? They’re saying that we affirm ʿilm for Allah because we see all of these makhlūqāt, and to bring them about you must have had knowledge.
First of all, they say ability. They say ability has to be there. The reason why we say Allah’s qudrah is because wujūd hādhihi al-makhlūqāt shows ability. And then they say al-itqān—the way He’s perfected it—shows us what? That He has irādah. And He can’t have irādah unless He has ʿilm—wahakadhā, they give it.
What about ḥikmah—wisdom? Characteristic of wisdom— is it not needed as much as knowledge is needed? Why do you affirm ḥikmah for Him? It’s not in your seven characteristics.
Another question I have—I’m going to ask: The dalīl of ʿaql—they’re saying our evidence is ʿaql, right?
ʿAql shows many other characteristics. I can prove many. The fact that Allah has destroyed a group of people shows that He’s angry with these people. The fact that He’s given bliss and blessing to a group of people means He’s pleased with them.
—Of course, it doesn’t necessarily mean that. —Some of the kuffār in the dunya have…
Not the dunya. The fact that Allah is punishing a group of people with the Hellfire shows He’s angry with these people. And the fact that He’s taken a group of people—and I’m just talking about if you go according to ʿaql—ʿaql proves all of this.
Question—I bring it back to— But it will never prove hand or shin. Of course it does.
How does the ʿaql prove hand? Beautiful. Just because the ʿaql has shown these characteristics, it doesn’t mean he negated the rest.
Okay. You have to bring ʿaql for affirmation and negation.
But we have to negate them.
No, no, no—just stick to ʿaql. You’re saying: “I’m affirming these characteristics because the ʿaql showed it.” Agreed. I’m flipping the table on you. I’m saying the ʿaql didn’t also negate it.
It does, and I’ll tell you why.
So for these characteristics, I don’t have to—
No, no, no. The ʿaql understanding of the āyah in the Qur’an—they don’t just reject the Qur’an either. They totally—and they say: “None of these āyāt, we don’t take any of them.”
They understand the ayahs using the ʿaql (intellect). So, we have an ayah that says Allah is not like anybody—not like any of the creation. So, I have to reject the fact that He has a hand because of the ʿaql, and I don’t really need it, because they believe it’s tashbīh (likening Allah to creation).
But these ones (attributes like hearing and seeing), I have to affirm them—even though the human being has samʿ (hearing) and baṣar (sight). I have to affirm them because my intellect shows that Allah needs these things to create the universe.
So, you’re not using the ʿaql—or you’re using just one verse, which is an ayah. But when we use our intellect to understand that, they wouldn’t reject that ayah. I’m saying to you: see, this is where it really gets hard, and pressure gets put on the Ashʿarī.
When you said that these characteristics—ʿilm, qudrah, samʿ, and baṣar—and the seven you affirmed, you affirmed them with ʿaql. My question is simple and easy. It’s not complicated. The ʿaql that affirmed ʿilm should also affirm ḥikmah (wisdom). Are we all together?
If you say, “I affirm ʿilm for Allah,” what about ḥikmah—wisdom? That’s not in your seven. That’s one.
Second thing is that the ʿaql never negated it. For the sake of argument—it didn’t negate it. That’s one answer I want to give you. So these other ones—ghaḍab, yad, and sāq—they weren’t negated either. But there are qarā’in (indications) that do negate them. That’s my point.
Another question I have is: just because the ʿaql didn’t guide you to these characteristics... Sorry, I actually want to go back—because there is a response to that.
The ʿaql does negate hand. Because why do we need a hand? It’s to use it to do something. Allah doesn’t need things. Allah doesn’t need a hand.
This is where my argument is: you’re comparing Allah to the creation automatically by saying that the reason for Allah’s hand is the ḥājah (need) for it.
“The word yad does that automatically.”
No, it doesn’t.
“If you want to make ta’wīl, then it doesn’t.”
Yeah, but samʿ and baṣar still say hearing and seeing. Allah has them because He needs them?
“We’re not going to say ‘need’.”
Whatever you say about yad, can be said about any of the characteristics you affirm.
“No, there is a difference.”
First difference is: we know that He is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. If He’s sustaining the universe, then it must be a means for Him to hear us. He hears us, He sees us—because that’s how He sustains the universe. As for the hand, it’s got nothing to do with creating or sustaining the universe.
Okay, let me—for the sake of argument—I have three answers. I’ve got:
First reason I wanted to respond to is that your ʿaql—if your ʿaql has affirmed these characteristics, the same ʿaql has also shown other things like ḥikmah, for example, and many more. All of those characteristics—I can prove them to you in the same way that you’ve proven the others. I don’t know why you don’t want to take it—because you’re not able to be consistent.
Second reason I want to say is—even for the sake of argument—if I say the ʿaql didn’t show ghaḍab, yad, and sāq, okay, it didn’t show it—but it didn’t negate it either. And the qāʿidah is:
“ʿAdam al-ʿilm laysa ʿilman bil-ʿadam.” The absence of knowledge isn’t knowledge of absence.
Just because you don’t have knowledge of these other ones doesn’t mean they’re not there.
Another thing is that I’m saying to you: I have something more superior than the ʿaql. I have naql, text. I’m saying the text has proven these characteristics.
“But how do you understand that?”
I’m not saying to you the ʿaql affirmed it—no. The naql affirmed it.
“It doesn’t affirm the meaning. It just affirms the wording.”
And last but not least, my last question regarding this is: this yad (hand) that you negated—what do we do with it now? It’s there in front of us. What do we do with it?
We either make ta’wīl (figurative interpretation), okay, give us a ta’wīl of it. For example:
“Power.”
Okay, stop there. Power—you were running away from it, you’re still in it.
Power is present in the creation—we’ve got qudrah as well. Also, you ran away from it. You said yad means qudrah. Okay, no problem.
Let’s—for the sake of argument—say qudrah is present in the human being. I have qudrah. You have qudrah. Allah Taʿālā has qudrah.
Whatever you say about qudrah, I’ll say about yad. And if the response is that our qudrah is not the same as Allah’s qudrah, you can say the same about the yad. Fine.
So that issue is… another thing—don’t you see what’s happening here right now? You’re saying all of those times that the verses of the Qur’an were coming down on the Sahabas and the Prophet ﷺ—multiple places. He says:
“I swear by the Lord… I swear by the One in whose hand is my soul…”
All of those times he says that. And all of the times the word yad came in the Qur’an, the ẓāhir (apparent meaning) was never intended?
So then the Qur’an is calling the Sahabas and everybody to tashbīh? Look how dangerous this is.
How many places do the characteristics of Allah come? Ar-Raḥmān, Ar-Raḥīm. Just Ar-Raḥmān, Ar-Raḥīm—seven times it comes in the Qur’an in that way. Ar-Raḥmān. The other ways that it comes:
يَخَافُونَ رَبَّهُمْ مِنْ فَوْقِهِمْ أَمِنْتُمْ مَنْ فِي السَّمَاءِ
All of those places, the ẓāhir was never intended? So we’re reading a book—we’re reading a Qur’an—that the ẓāhir is not intended?
Don’t you think this can open the door to [distortion]?
I want two things for us to understand—please. Two things I want us to understand:
This ayah is min āyāt al-ṣifāt. This ayah is from the āyāt of the ṣifāt (attributes) of Allah tabāraka wa taʿālā.
“It is different from...”
This is the characteristics of Allah. What do you mean?
There are other things that can prove Allah tabāraka wa taʿālā’s characteristics. And this ayah—scholars might dispute whether it’s from the āyāt al-ṣifāt. They might say: “You know what? This is not from the āyāt al-ṣifāt.”
“But doesn’t that necessitate confusion?”
No, it doesn’t. An ayah doesn’t necessarily have to be—because Allah tabāraka wa taʿālā might say:
يَوْمَ يُكْشَفُ عَن سَاقٍ وَيُدْعَوْنَ إِلَى السُّجُودِ فَلَا يَسْتَطِيعُونَ
Yawm yukshafu ʿan sāq—okay, sāq here is not from the characteristics of Allah. This ayah is not even talking about any of the ṣifāt of Allah. The characteristic is affirmed with hadith. We don’t affirm it from this ayah. This ayah is not min āyāt al-ṣifāt.
“Okay wait, sāq in English? Because we do have an English-speaking audience.”
It means shin, upon the ẓāhir, upon the apparent.
“You’re saying that this ayah does not prove that Allah has a shin?”
No.
“But you’re saying the hadith does?”
This ayah—yawm yukshafu ʿan sāq—is talking about something totally different. It’s got nothing to do with shin.
“So that shows that we don’t take the ẓāhir?”
No, it’s not that. The ẓāhir for this is different.
“How can you have two ẓāhir?!”
Of course you could.
“Like... the ẓāhir is a shin. And now you’re also saying the ẓāhir is also...?”
How can something have two ẓāhir?
What does دابة (dābbah) mean in the Arabic language? Like animal, beast—whatever—دابة (dābbah) means all of that, right? Even ants and حشرات (ḥasharāt, insects) are considered دابة (dābbah), right? And then دابة (dābbah)—the Arabs, they say: "دابة هو كل ما يدب على الأرض من الحيوانات والحشرات" (A dābbah is everything that crawls or moves upon the earth from among animals and insects).
If I say استويت على الدابة (istawaytu ʿala ad-dābbah), which in English means “I rode on top of a دابة (dābbah),” what are you going to understand it as? Like a camel or a donkey or something. Why not an ant? So what I mean is that you have to understand—that’s because you put it in a context now. Of course, the ayah (verse of the Qur’an)—in the context, it is—it’s understood. No one ever said this ayah was used to prove Allah’s shin. We're proving that from ḥadīths (prophetic narrations), not from this ayah.
Don’t force a dalīl (evidence) you brought, and then make it—the ayah is ẓāhir (apparent) for something else, and the Arabs use it—it’s maʿrūf ʿinda al-ʿArab (well-known among the Arabs). Look at Majd at-Ṭabarī: yaks̱hifu ʿan sāq (he will uncover His shin)—it’s maʿrūf (well-known), Arabs use it in that way, and it's mā yatabādaru ilā adh-dhihn (what immediately comes to mind). They know it in that way. This is not from Āyāt aṣ-Ṣifāt (the verses about Allah’s attributes).
So what I say is that Āyāt aṣ-Ṣifāt (verses about the attributes) are known. This path of taʾwīl (figurative interpretation) is not, and we don’t believe in it. Also, I have a question. I want to respond to the point that it necessitates confusion. But you're saying that:
وَهُوَ مَعَكُمْ أَيْنَ مَا كُنتُمْ (And He is with you wherever you are) — [Surah al-Ḥadīd: 4]
Do you believe Allah is with you everywhere you are? So, Allah—before that, look what He said:
يَعْلَمُ مَا يَلِجُ فِي الْأَرْضِ (He knows what enters into the earth)
—yaʿlamu means knowledge—and the ending of the ayah, Allah says:
وَاللَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرٌ (And Allah is All-Seeing of what you do)
And the siyāq (context) is from the muqayyidāt (restricting qualifiers), so baṣīr, not ʿalīm. So wa huwa maʿakum (and He is with you) means ʿilm (knowledge). Let me finish—it’s between two words:
يَعْلَمُ مَا يَلِجُ فِي الْأَرْضِ (He knows what penetrates the earth) and وَاللَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرٌ (And Allah is All-Seeing of what you do)
That’s two—the context explains that.
And number two—this is ijmāʿ (consensus). There is no difference of opinion—wa huwa maʿakum—ijmāʿ that it means bi-ʿilmihi (by His knowledge). It’s ijmāʿ.
So I want to know: what is ijmāʿ that yad (hand) means khuzrah (power/strength)? Rather, bring me one of the salaf (pious predecessors) who said it, let alone ijmāʿ.
I interrupted you—you were going to make another point. Do you remember what the point was? I interrupted you and said I want to go back to this. You can’t remember? Okay fine.
So, the point that I'm trying to get at is that if you're saying taʾwīl is not allowed—and you actually called it—no, I'm saying taʾwīl is allowed with conditions.
Okay, what are the conditions now? Four conditions: taʾwīl sāʾigh, taʾwīl ghayru sāʾigh (valid and invalid interpretations). When we negate taʾwīl, we're talking about the type of taʾwīl they do, which is not acceptable.
Anyone who wants to do taʾwīl—first of all, he has to explain to us: iḥtimāl al-lafẓ lil-maʿnā (the possibility of the wording carrying that meaning). You have to explain to us—this word.
Remember we said that the ẓāhir (apparent)—the opposite of ẓāhir is muʾawwal (interpreted), but the muʾawwal is a lower percentage of the word. So for example, if I say:
رَأَيْتُ أَسَدًا (I saw a lion)
Straight away, what's coming to your mind? I saw a lion. Okay. And then I said to you:
رَأَيْتُ أَسَدًا يَخْطُبُ (I saw a lion giving a speech)
Then automatically—you say, “Oh, a courageous guy, a brave man giving a khuṭbah (sermon) in the middle of the battlefield,” something like that is going to come to your mind, right?
So I have to give you the qarīnah (contextual indicator) to turn this away from the apparent. So I need to give you, first of all, the possibility that this word can take this meaning in the Arabic language.
Yes. Number two—if the word can take many meanings in the Arabic language, why did you specifically choose this one? You have to give it to us. The lafẓ (wording) is mutashābih (ambiguous). It’s a lafẓ that is mushtarak (shared/multivalent). The lafẓ is mutashābih, the lafẓ is mushtarak. It has many meanings—why did you specify this one?
The third condition for a taʾwīl which is accepted is: iqāmat ad-dalīl aṣ-ṣārif lil-lafẓ ʿan ẓāhirih (bringing an evidence that diverts the word from its apparent meaning). You have to give me an evidence that turned this word from its apparent meaning. An evidence—I need an evidence. Because the aṣl (default) is what? The ẓāhir is the aṣl, and the ḥaqīqah (literal meaning) is the aṣl. Why did you leave the aṣl?
Number four is: any contention that is brought, you have to be able to respond to it. Because the one who is upon the ẓāhir and the ḥaqīqah doesn’t have to respond to anything—he’s upon the aṣl. Those four are the conditions that are set. If you follow those four conditions, we have no problem.
So let’s go into—because this is something that is brought forward quite a lot—the taʾwīl of the salaf, for example. So the ayah:
وَجَاءَ رَبُّكَ وَالْمَلَكُ صَفًّا صَفًّا (And your Lord will come, and the angels, rank upon rank) — [Surah al-Fajr: 22]
Ahmad ibn Hanbal is said to have said: wa jāʾa rabbuka (your Lord comes) does not mean wa jāʾa rabbuka—it means wa jāʾa amru rabbik (the command of your Lord comes). So he's actually inserted a word here. He’s not just given a taʾwīl—he’s put a word in here. So that doesn’t meet your four conditions.
Beautiful. And Imam Ahmad—that statement that was transmitted from him, which is wa jāʾa amru rabbik—where he said that—first of all, it was not authentically transmitted from him, and it’s not ṣaḥīḥ (authentic) that Imam Ahmad said this.
And the reason for this weakness is: Hanbal ibn Isḥāq is in the chain. Even though he’s the cousin of Ahmad ibn Hanbal—Hanbal ibn Isḥāq. But as Imam adh-Dhahabī mentioned, he is one who goes against the other students of Ahmad ibn Hanbal. So Imam adh-Dhahabī said:
له مسائل كثيرة عن أحمد ويتفرد ويغرب (He has many issues [narrated] from Ahmad, and he narrates alone and comes with strange things)
It’s very important—so he comes with gharāʾib (oddities). That’s what I’m saying.
Also, none of the students of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, like al-Khallāl, al-Marwudhī, and the sons of Ahmad—none of them transmitted this.
Also, Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī, in his book Fatḥ al-Bārī (his commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī)—Ibn Rajab is an imām of the madhhab (school of thought)—he didn’t like it. And Ibn Ḥāmid, he said:
رأيت بعض أصحابنا عن أبي عبد الله في الإتيان أنه قال تأتي قدرته، وهذا على حد التوهم من قائل، وخطأ في إضافته إليه (I saw some of our companions narrate from Abū ʿAbdillāh [i.e., Ahmad] regarding the coming [of Allah], that he said: ‘His power comes.’ But this is based on a misunderstanding by the speaker and a mistake attributed to him.)
So this is wrong. It’s a mistake on their behalf—they transmitted it from this. So we believe this transmission from Ahmad ibn Hanbal is not ṣaḥīḥ. If you haven’t brought anything that is ṣaḥīḥ, then it’s not accepted.
There’s another similar one though—Imam Mālik—when he’s talking about Allah descending, he said: “This is the amr (command) of Allah.” Where did he insert this word in? It’s not part of the four conditions—like you said, it has to be within the Arabic language. This is another word he’s put in.
Again—it’s not authentically transmitted from Imam Mālik. Do you have the sanad (chain of narration) for it?No, I might be wrong or right, but the viewers can check it out. In the chain of narration from Imam Malik is a man named Ṣāliḥ and Ḥabīb. And this Ḥabīb — the scholars critiqued him severely.
It was said about him that my father never praised this man and he is a liar. Even the scholars reached the conclusion that his narrations are موضوع (fabricated). And even Ibn Nasā’ī or Ibn Abī Ḥātim — someone said that he lies about the thiqāt (reliable narrators) — he inserts ḥadīth into the thiqāt. So that is also not authentically transmitted from Imam Mālik.
Let’s go into the Ḥabīb — the taʾwīl (interpretation) that you would accept. So for example, the word sāq in the verse in Sūrat al-Qalam — Ibn ʿAbbās for example said: This does not mean shin; this means shiddah (severity or distress).
So the four conditions you laid out — this fits the four conditions you claim. This āyah (verse) is not an aṣl (foundation) in the discussion. Why are you using this āyah? It is not an āyah ṣifah (verse of attributes); it does not mean it's from the verses of attributes.
My discussion with you is about this verse. First, we agree that it means an āyah of ṣifāt (a verse about Allah’s attributes). Once we agree it is an āyah of ṣifāt, then you can say the salaf (pious predecessors) said this about it. I will then have a discussion with you, because I believe in the verse:
وَجَاءَ رَبُّكَ وَالْمَلَكُ صَفًّا صَفًّا (And your Lord will come with the angels, in rows.)
Allah is coming.
Okay, I think we’ve comprehensively gone over the issue of taʾwīl — which is taking a word from the Qur'an and giving it a different meaning than the apparent meaning.
I now want to move on to the issue of tafwīḍ — which is when a word comes in the Qur’an and the person says it has a meaning — it definitely has a meaning — but I don’t give it another meaning either. They just say: I don’t know what the meaning is — Allah knows what the meaning is. That’s what I want to go into now.
You mentioned before the statement of al-Tirmidhī and how you believe it actually negates taʾwīl and tafwīḍ. You don’t have to say the whole statement again, but which part — just to refresh my memory — do you believe negates tafwīḍ (i.e., the position that only Allah knows the meaning)?
The part that negates it is when he said that the Salaf, they gave a tafsīr (explanation) to it — يعني أهل العلم (meaning the people of knowledge) — they gave a tafsīr to it other than the tafsīr of the Jahmiyyah.
So Ahl al-ʿIlm gave a tafsīr to it.
Okay, I have a student who said just reciting these verses is a tafsīr — qirā’atuhā tafsīruhā (its recitation is its explanation).
Okay, if that’s the case, then just reciting the word — just saying the word itself — is the tafsīr, and that is the tafsīr of Ahl al-Sunnah. You don’t have to affirm the meaning.
And then after that, Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah said: لَا كَيْفَ وَلَا مِثْلَ (There is no how, and no likeness). Yeah, no problem — that’s good.
Okay, first of all, Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah, he means — raḥimahu Allāh taʿālā — reciting it is its tafsīr, yes?
Did we not say the ẓāhir (apparent meaning) is what they’re trying to negate?
Okay, let’s go through it slowly. These people claim — the muʾawwilah (those who interpret) and the mufawwiḍah (those who consign meaning to Allah) — both parties agree on one thing, which is: the ẓāhir — what is apparent — is not what is intended. And you agree to that now?
So when you recite it, what comes to your mind? The meaning which is apparent.
No, no — something that we have to make a very important distinction about. The mufawwiḍah — the people who say Allah knows the meaning and I don’t know the meaning — they affirm the words.
No, I’m not saying what they’re saying — I’m going to come to the mufawwiḍah. I haven’t spoken about them yet.
I’m saying to you: before we come to what both groups say — when we read the Qur’an — these characteristics, other than the seven they affirm — these characteristics, they say the ẓāhir, the apparent meaning, is not what’s intended.
Yes, agreed, agreed — we all agree on that. The ẓāhir is not what is intended, because the ẓāhir has in it tashbīh (resemblance [to creation]). That’s what they say.
What does ẓāhir mean? What comes to the mind straight away. They say this is tashbīh. We don’t want this.
Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah — he said: Leave it — don’t read it as it is — as what comes to the mind.
You’re adding that into his statement — that’s not fair.
But I just said to you — they agree themselves. I’m not saying it myself. The Ashʿarīs are saying: Yes, these verses, when you read them, straight away there’s a meaning that pops into the head. But they’re negating that meaning.
Okay, I don’t want to talk about the muʾawwilah, because we’ve done taʾwīl.
Both parties agree on this part.
Yeah, I’m with you. But there’s tafsīr — because they agree on it based on different terms. They agree on it, but then what comes out of that is different. The way they go about dealing with the issue is different.
Both parties — the Ashʿarīs, in both maslak (paths) — they talk. They agree: the ẓāhir of the Qur’an that we recite today has a meaning. The ẓāhir has a meaning.
They’re not negating that. They’re saying the ẓāhir, it is obligatory to not accept it. We’re not going to accept it.
So what do we do next?
The muʾawwilah say something. And the mufawwiḍah say something.
The muʾawwilah say: We’re not going to take the ẓāhir — we’re going to give another meaning to it. That’s the path they took.
The mufawwiḍah — they say: The ẓāhir that we’re reading, that came to my mind straight away — it’s tashbīh — I can’t accept that. So what do I do? I say: Allāhu Aʿlam — Allah knows best. That’s not what’s intended.
Show me in his statement where he said that.
I’m going to come to it.
Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah — shāhid, you have to accept that both parties are saying the ẓāhir of the Qur’an has a meaning.
Yes, they do. But both parties — one is saying we’re not going to affirm a meaning. The ẓāhir is not what we’re going to affirm.
Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah is disagreeing with them by saying: Reading the Qur’an — leave it the way it is — leave it at its ẓāhir — what comes to them — leave it.
Where did he say ẓāhir? That’s the part we’re misunderstanding here.
There are two... there are two points that push you away.
Number one:
The first reason that pushes you to the corner is when he said: "لا كيف ولا مثل" (There is no 'how' and no likeness).
"كيف" (How) – you only say it to a person who affirmed the meaning. It's a very important point.
The مفوضة (those who make tafwid – consigning the meaning to Allah), they also say there is no كيف (how).
No, I'm not saying they don’t say that, right? They do say that, right?
So, Sufyan hasn't negated them? He hasn't gone against them?
He has, because if he doesn't believe in a meaning, then كيف (how) is meaningless. If a person doesn't even... if the person himself doesn’t talk... The Qur'an is revealed with wisdom. But the way you're understanding it is not.
That’s the first one I’m saying—any common-sense person would say: why did Sufyan say "ولا كيف" (and no how)? There’s no كيف (how) and there’s no مثل (likeness)?
Brother, you're not even letting me affirm the meaning. Where does how come from?
But he's already said what you do with the meaning. He said: you just read it—and that is the meaning.
But it doesn't need to say كيف (how).
Why does he need to say ignore it? If Sufyan negated the meaning—if he already negated the meaning—he doesn’t have to jump to the second one and say: “and don’t do how.”
How is a فرع (branch) of affirming the meaning.
They don’t say there is no meaning. That’s not fair. They negate the meaning that is ظاهر (apparent).
That’s what we’re talking about—Sufyan Ibn ʿUyaynah—him saying "ولا كيف ولا مثل" (no how and no likeness) is unnecessary if he’s negating the meaning. That’s my point. That’s one.
Whether they affirm it or agree with that—it’s common. Literally.
Point number two: Who knows the self better—me, or you, or them?
They do, of course. They know themselves better.
I already told you what Imam al-Tirmidhi said.
Yeah, but I’m trying to understand.
I agree with you—he negates the taʾwīl (figurative interpretation). But where did he negate the tafwīd (consigning the meaning)?
So Tirmidhi brought the name of this great Imam that you mentioned—Sufyan Ibn ʿUyaynah—and he brought the statement of who?
He brought the statement of Imam ʿAbdullah Ibn al-Mubarak. And he also brought the statement of Imam Malik.
So these are three great Imams, right?
You just mentioned one of them. Let’s bring the other two in.
Yeah, let’s bring them on.
What is it that they said?
Another statement—which means I’m going to go to that statement of his in great detail. Look what he said when he came to the statements of the Salaf (pious predecessors).
He said:
"الجهمية جاءوا إلى هذه الآيات ففسّروها على غير ما فسّر أهل العلم" (The Jahmiyyah came and they interpreted these verses in a way other than how the scholars interpreted them.)
They gave a tafsir (interpretation) to it other than the tafsir of the Ahl al-ʿIlm (people of knowledge).
I’m asking you a question—Sufyan Ibn ʿUyaynah, ʿAbdullah Ibn al-Mubarak, Malik Ibn Anas—what was it that they said?
A tafsir for these verses other than the tafsir of who?
The Jahmiyyah.
So when the Salaf were saying "أمِرُّوها كما جاءت" (let them pass as they came), meaning: "بلا كيف ولا معنى ولا تفسير" (without how, meaning, or interpretation)—all of these are transmitted from the Salaf—they’re talking about the tafsir of the Jahmiyyah.
There are two interpretations. They’re fighting with one that’s already there in their time, and they’re trying to push it to the side, which is the tafsir of the Jahmiyyah.
Malik didn’t like the tafsir of the Jahmiyyah.
ʿAbdullah Ibn al-Mubarak didn’t like the tafsir of the Jahmiyyah.
Sufyan Ibn ʿUyaynah doesn’t like the tafsir of the Jahmiyyah.
That’s why they’re saying: read it as it is. Don’t go into these meanings that the Jahmiyyah are bringing—saying "يد" (hand) means "قدرة" (power).
Where did you get that from?
You do realize that the Ahl al-Tafwīd (people of tafwid) use the same statements that you’re using?
It’s just semantics—it’s just how they understand it.
Because they say "أمِرُّوها كما جاءت" (pass them as they came).
Okay, let’s look at the word "الإمرار" (letting pass / affirming).
Khalīl Ibn Ahmad al-Farāhīdī, the teacher of Sībawayh, he says that the word "الإمرار" means الإثبات (affirmation).
Okay—that’s what it means.
Meaning the meaning of al-imrār is ithbāt (affirmation), as Khalīl Ibn Ahmad al-Farāhīdī says in Kitāb al-ʿAyn.
What does ithbāt mean? It means “affirm.”
Is there another meaning for it—just “to pass by”? Is that a meaning or not?
No, here it means...
Is there a meaning in the Arabic language—just “to pass by”?
I don’t know it like that. I don’t know imrār like that.
It’s to affirm something—lughah (linguistically). A poet even said:
"يأمنن قويٌّ نقضَ مرّتِه، إنّي أرى الدهرَ ذا نقضٍ وإمرارِ" (The strong one feels secure in his firm weaving, but I see time full of undoing and affirming.)
And it means ithbāt—it’s to affirm something.
So you're saying: the statement means to affirm them?
Affirm these words?
Affirm the words or the meaning? That’s where the خلاف (disagreement) comes.
You know the Salafīs—these are not babies. When you say affirm the word—everyone’s going to affirm the Qur’an. Who’s arguing about affirming the word?
You just told me at the start that Jahm ibn Ṣafwān said: “If I could remove this from the Qur’an…”
But he didn’t.
But he would like to.
But it shows...
So I don’t think that still shows that there might be people like him who come along later, and the Salafis were thinking ahead.
No, we affirm the words.
But what I’m saying to you is that this was not the problem.
Let’s not make a rare person doing something—or confuse individuals—and you’re just projecting your belief onto the statement.
I’m not. I’m saying to you: the word "معنى الإمرار" (meaning of imrār) is الإثبات (affirmation).
Yeah, ithbāt of the معنى (meaning) or the word?
Nobody is ever saying "كاء الرحمن على العرش" (as if reciting "Ka’a al-Rahman 'ala al-‘Arsh")...
Okay, but the Jahmī won’t...
It doesn’t matter. There might be people who come later.
The Jahmiyyah were distorting the meaning.
It was the meaning where the discussion was.
I just told you the statement of Imam Abū ʿĪsā where he said...
They didn’t say yad is not in the verse. They’re not distorting the word—they’re distorting the meaning. They’re saying yad here means qudrah.
That’s what they’re saying.
The معركة (conflict) is the meaning here.
Yes, you’re right—there were times they played with words here or there like "وكلم الله موسى تكليما" (And Allah spoke to Musa directly)—playing around. Who spoke to who?
"وكلم الله موسى تكليما" (And Allah spoke to Musa directly)...
They did play around with it like that.
But the قضية (issue) for them was what?
Also, shāhid (the key point):
The second response to "أمِرُّوها كما جاءت" (pass them as they came)—it makes sense to any individual—
"بلا كيف" (without how), "بلا كيف" (without how)...
Why would you say to me: without how?
Why would they say "ولا معنى" (and no meaning)?
"ولا معنى" meaning: the meaning of the Jahmiyyah.
That’s what they mean.
That’s the problem they had at that time.
The Jahmiyyah had given a meaning to these words which were wrong.
And there’s a statement he brought which is where he says:
"كل ما وصف الله به نفسه في كتابه فالتفسيره تلاوته، أما قراءته والسكوت عنه" (Everything Allah described Himself with in His Book—its tafsir is its recitation, meaning: read it and remain silent about it.)
They bring this...
Just say it in English so the viewers can kind of keep up.
He said: everything Allah described Himself with in His Book—the interpretation of it is to recite it. Just reciting it.
So he didn’t say: from the meaning. That’s very important.
He never said the tafsir is affirming the ظاهر (apparent) meaning. He said: just recite the word.
But I already told you—the zāhir (apparent meaning)—both parties agree. We all agree.
An Ashʿarī today will not argue with me that the yad from the zāhir—without you coming in—has a meaning.
He’ll say: yes, it does.
But the statement you literally just said is a bigger proof against you.
He just said: what we do with these kinds of verses is we recite them and we stay silent.
I’m saying yes—that’s what the mufawwid (the one who does tafwid) does.
You just recite it.
You go further—you’ve given a tafsir.
What’s the mufawwid saying?
Is he reading it?
He negates the meaning.
He reads it?
Does he pass by the word or just skip it?
I’m the one who reads it!
He reads it?
I’m saying Imam Sufyan Ibn ʿUyaynah is saying: the tafsir—the meaning—is by reading it.
Just by reading it.
They’re not just reading it. They’re saying: “This is not the meaning.”
I’ll show you...
The mufawwid, he reads the word yad and he says: "الله أعلم" (Allah knows best).
No, he’s not saying that!
I keep bringing you back to these two points. The mufawwiḍ (المفوّض) is saying: This word does not have the meaning that it seems to be having. Step one. Step two: What's the meaning? He's doing those two things. He's saying here, he hasn't negated that at all.
Repeat again: The mufawwiḍ is saying الظاهر غير مراد (the apparent meaning is not intended here). Okay, so what's intended? Is he saying that? Or is he saying الله أعلم (Allah knows best)—it might be the ظاهر (apparent meaning), but Allah knows best? Who? The mufawwiḍ. He's saying that the ظاهر is not intended. It's not intended. They're saying that because it necessitates tashbīh (تشبيه — resemblance or anthropomorphism).
Okay, so I want to give you an example, okay? The mufawwiḍ is reading the Qur'an, comes across the word yad (يد — hand). He reads it, correct? We agree that he reads it; he doesn't just skip over it. So far, he's in line with Sufyān's statement, correct? And then he says الله أعلم (Allah knows best). But this is the problem.
Remember, the Qur'an was read by the ṣaḥābah (صحابة — companions). He came to the Prophet ﷺ. The Prophet ﷺ said: يضحك الله (Allah laughs). He said: يضحك ربنا (Does our Lord laugh?). He said: "Does Allah laugh?" And then the Prophet ﷺ said: "Yes, He does." And then he said: "We will never give up on our Lord who laughs."
Shāhid, I'm asking you a question. They came and they interpreted it to mean "merciful." Abrazeen didn’t know. They said that Abrazeen is shocked with something. He said: "Does Allah laugh?" He knows Allah is merciful. He knows Allah is forgiving.
All of these interpretations — that's from your pocket. The Prophet ﷺ could have said to this companion — by the way, it’s a ḥadīth of Abrazeen رضي الله عنه — The Prophet ﷺ didn’t say: "What did you understand from it?" الظاهر غير مراد (the apparent meaning is not intended). But when men would come to the Prophet ﷺ and they would hear him saying: "I swear by the Lord in whose hand is my soul..." He didn’t say: يا قوم، يا أيها القوم، الظاهر غير مراد (O people, O group, the apparent meaning is not intended).
The muʾawwila (المؤولة — figurative interpreters) and the mufawwiḍa (المفوّضة — those who consign the meaning to Allah) have taken that step together to say: الظاهر غير مراد (the apparent meaning is not intended).
I'm saying to you: From Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah’s kalām (كلام — speech), the ṣaḥābah — By the way, the ṣaḥābah only came and said "this word means this" — they had to explain it like that when these people started coming. And they started to say... The imams of the Sunnah had to start going a step further every time these people came. Or else, from the time of Abū Bakr, these issues would not be a discussion. We would have read these verses, and everybody knows what it means — and that’s how it would have been. When they came and they said الظاهر غير مراد — "this is what it means" — And the other one came and said الله أعلم — "Allah knows what it means" — That’s when the Salaf (السلف رحمهم الله — the pious predecessors, may Allah have mercy on them) stepped in, and then they started to talk about these issues in great detail.
So at the time of Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah, the suffering was from the Jahmiyyah (جهمية — a heretical sect). The mufawwiḍa were not there. He was pushing these people away. And how was he pushing them away? He was pushing them by telling them: Stop giving these false interpretations that you're giving the verses. Go over the verses the way the ṣaḥābah went over it.
With that being said, he's not going to the statement of the mufawwiḍa. He's actually saying — and when they say — that clears to us that there's a meaning already affirmed. They're just saying الله أعلم — "Allah knows best." Which is what I mentioned from Isḥāq ibn Rāhūyah. Isḥāq said: You say Allah has a hand — but not kayd (كيد — plot) like samʿ (سمع — hearing). You can’t say that.
Okay, would you be more inclined to their belief if they brought you an āyah from the Qur’an which categorically proves their belief? So Āl ʿImrān, āyah number 7. When He talks about the mutashābihāt (متشابهات — ambiguous) and the muḥkamāt (محكمات — clear-cut) verses. What is that āyah?
So this — a summary of the āyah in the English language: Allah ﷻ divides the Qur’an into two — There are āyāt which are muḥkamāt, and there are āyāt which are mutashābihāt. Muḥkamāt are verses which are clear-cut. Mutashābihāt are verses which are very ambiguous. Allah then says:
فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاءَ الْفِتْنَةِ As for those in whose hearts is deviation, they follow that which is ambiguous from it, seeking fitnah (discord)...
وَابْتِغَاءَ تَأْوِيلِهِ ...and seeking its interpretation. وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلَّا اللَّهُ And no one knows its interpretation except Allah. وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ And those firmly grounded in knowledge... يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا They say: “We believe in it — all of it is from our Lord.” وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلَّا أُولُو الْأَلْبَابِ And none take heed except those of understanding.
The argument they put forward is: When Allah says وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلَّا اللَّهُ, They're saying that this proves — and they stop there — They say there's a waqf (وقف — pause/stop) there. You have to stop there. That proves that these āyāt, which are mutashābihāt — because we spent two hours discussing what they mean and what they don’t mean, etc. — They say this proves that nobody knows their taʾwīl (تأويل — interpretation) except Allah. And it’s a clear-cut verse. Why aren’t you accepting that verse?
So there are three muqaddimāt (مقدمات — premises) that they put here, and then after that, they reach the natījah (نتيجة — conclusion). They put three premises and a conclusion.
The first one is the one you mentioned: It is obligatory for us to stop at وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلَّا اللَّهُ — And then وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ. That first premise — we don’t accept it. We believe there are two ways of reciting it: وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ You can look at it in the books of tafsīr (تفسير — exegesis), and the scholars of tajwīd (تجويد — rules of recitation) and the ʿulamāʾ al-qirāʾāt (علماء القراءات — scholars of Qur’anic recitations) speak about it. Both ways are correct. You can stop, and you can carry on if you want to. So that premise is rejected.
The second muqaddimah is: These āyāt are from the mutashābih — الذي لا يعلم معناه إلا الله (That which none knows its meaning except Allah). The second premise is that these verses — these characteristics and attributes of Allah — are what? Mutashābih. The response that we flip on them is: What about the seven that you affirmed? How did you put an exception on that? Of course, they make that distinction. These seven — why did you make them not from the mutashābih? Because the ʿaql (عقل — intellect) affirms them. For example, if you go back to the ʿaql, and I go back to the ʿaql, I say: What about ḥikmah (حكمة — wisdom)?
The third muqaddimah that they use is that: They said وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلَّا اللَّهُ — They actually explain taʾwīl here to be the اصطلاح المتأخرين (the terminology of the later scholars): Taʾwīl meaning: ṣarf al-lafẓ ʿan ẓāhirih (صرف اللفظ عن ظاهره — diverting the wording from its apparent meaning). Meaning?
Taking the word from its apparent meaning to another meaning—that’s what they said. I mean, that’s what we’ve been discussing for the last two hours. That’s how we’ve used it.
But تأويل (ta’wīl, figurative interpretation) in that meaning is the اصطلاح المتأخرين (istilāḥ al-muta’akhkhirīn, terminology of the latecomers).
It is the usage of those who came after.
The متقدمين (mutaqaddimīn, early predecessors) never knew تأويل (ta’wīl) to be that.
What did they use تأويل for? تأويل (ta’wīl) meant تفسير (tafsīr, explanation) for them—and بيان (bayān, clarification).
What’s your proof of that? Ibn Jarīr’s tafsīr is called جامع بيان القرآن و تأويله (Jāmiʿ Bayān al-Qur’ān wa Ta’wīlih, The Comprehensive Clarification and Interpretation of the Qur’an).
Even if you look at the whole book of his—Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī—he mentions the word تأويل (ta’wīl) there.
It’s like me saying: when Allah says in the Qur’an مَتَاعًا لَكُمْ وَلِلسَّيَّارَةِ (matāʿan lakum wa lil-sayyārah), "sayyārah" here means cars.
And it’s not permissible to take the اصطلاح (istilāḥ, technical usage) which is متأخر (muta’akhkhir, later) as a contemporary usage of something and then impose it on the Qur’an and force the Qur’an to take that meaning.
So those three مقدمات (muqaddimāt, premises) are what we don’t accept:
First of all, وجوب الوقف على اسم الجلالة (wujūb al-waqf ʿalā ism al-jalālah, the obligation to stop at the name of Allah)—we don’t accept that.
The second one: claiming that this is from the آيات الصفات (āyāt al-ṣifāt, verses regarding Allah’s attributes).
The question I say to you is: why are your seven not part of the آيات متشابهات (āyāt mutashābihāt, ambiguous verses)? Why have you taken those seven out?
Whatever reason you've used to exclude those seven—just remember, I’ll make sure to exclude all the others too.
Also, by the way, I believe the entire Qur’an—there is no متشابه (mutashābih, ambiguity).
There is no متشابه (mutashābih) in the Qur’an.
Again, we're talking about words.
So you don’t believe a single word in the Qur’an is متشابه (mutashābih)?
So what is Allah talking about here?
We know the wisdom for why Allah chose it—to make the Arabs feel unable (to imitate it).
But no one asks about the meaning of letters.
We ask the meaning of words.
So what does Allah mean in this verse? What does A-B-C mean?
Exactly. We don’t read it as alif-lām-mīm, we read it as the letters themselves: الم (alif-lām-mīm).
And the basic knowledge that you take in النحو (al-naḥw, Arabic grammar)—when it speaks about كلمة (kalimah, word) or كلام (kalām, speech)—it mentions وَحَرْفٌ جَاءَ لِمَعْنًى (wa-ḥarfun jā’a li-maʿnā, a particle that came for a meaning).
Basic book of الآجُرُّومِيَّة (al-Ājurrūmiyyah, beginner grammar text) mentions that the حروف (ḥurūf, letters/particles) are of two types:
- حروف المعاني (ḥurūf al-maʿānī, particles of meaning)
- حروف المباني (ḥurūf al-mabānī, structural letters)
So no one asks about the meaning of حروف المباني (ḥurūf al-mabānī).
No one ever says to you: what’s the meaning of mīm or lām?
So the Qur’an—to ask that—is incorrect.
But Allah affirms that there are آيات (āyāt, verses) in the Qur’an that are متشابه (mutashābih, ambiguous).
How can you sit here and say there is no متشابه (mutashābih) in the Qur’an? You’re going against what Allah says directly.
I’m saying to you: there is no word in the Qur’an which is متشابه (mutashābih).
Then you said to me—and I said to you—a word? That’s considered letters.
So what does Allah mean in Ayah number 7 when He says [referring to Āl ʿImrān 3:7]?
Okay, the متشابه (mutashābih) is subjective—each person has متشابه (mutashābih).
There might be a verse in the Qur’an I read and I don’t know what it means, so I take that subjective verse to the verses which are محكم (muḥkam, clear).
It might be متشابه (mutashābih) to me, but not necessarily to somebody else.
So can the مفوض (mufawwiḍ, one who consigns meaning to Allah) say: “It might be متشابه (mutashābih) to us, but to Allah it’s not”?
That means you're making it on everybody—the people.
So you’re saying: within the creation, there is someone—at least always living on this planet—it’s known.
Also, by the way, so the Prophet ﷺ, when he was alive—he knew the meaning of every single word in the Qur’an?
You know everything?
Which one? The Prophet ﷺ?
He was saying: there was no متشابه (mutashābih) for him.
Every word in the Qur’an—not only the Prophet ﷺ. In this Ummah, it’s known: if you want to know, you can know every word in the Qur’an.
So to him, there was no متشابه (mutashābih).
It’s not even just them—even some Muslims. There’s not a word in the Qur’an which is متشابه (mutashābih) to me.
It could be متشابه (mutashābih) to me, a particular verse—because I don’t know it. But I can get out of that ambiguity by just finding out and researching.
So the متشابه (mutashābih) is نسبي (nisbī, relative)—not متشابه مطلق (mutashābih muṭlaq, absolute ambiguity).
I’m negating متشابه مطلق.
But there is a type which is متشابه (mutashābih) which is نسبي (nisbī).
One of the interesting things related to this discussion is the following: just like you accept the Qur’an, Sunnah, and Ijmaʿ (consensus) as being proofs in the religion, the other side also brings Ijmaʿāt—claims of consensus—for their beliefs.
One of them, for example, is from Imām al-Ḥaramayn al-Juwaynī, and he mentions that the Ṣaḥābah (companions)—and he leaves this unrestricted, so he means all of them—when it comes to the ṣifāt (attributes) of Allah, they would leave the meaning to Allah; i.e., they would make tafwīḍ (consigning the meaning to Allah).
What do you have to say about this?
First of all, Abū Maʿālī al-Juwaynī is part of the debate. He’s on the side of the party we are debating against. So you can’t use the kalām (speech) of the khaṣm (opponent) as proof. That’s number one.
It’s like me saying to you, “Muhammad Ibn Taymiyyah said…” Would they accept that? If Ibn Taymiyyah said there was Ijmaʿ, it's like Ibn Taymiyyah saying there's an āyah (verse) in the Qur’an. Would they accept that? Of course, they would accept the āyah. Ijmaʿ is a proof in the religion. But if the Ijmaʿ is transmitted from Ibn Taymiyyah, they won’t accept it.
And if the āyah in the Qur’an is transmitted from Juwaynī, are you not going to accept the āyah? What’s the difference? They’re both proofs.
Ijmaʿ—a lot of people claim Ijmaʿ. You know, people used to claim Ijmaʿ all the time. And Abū ʿUthmān al-Dārimī refuted this in his Risālah where he refuted Bishr al-Mārīsī. Because Aḥmad (Ibn Ḥanbal) said: Anyone who claims Ijmaʿ is a liar.
Why did Aḥmad say that?
Because how do you know that the people didn’t differ on this issue?
Now, I’m not saying that Aḥmad is against the concept of Ijmaʿ—of course he believes in Ijmaʿ, and he affirmed Ijmaʿ for many issues—but he was debunking Bishr al-Mārīsī, who would just come and claim Ijmaʿ without proof.
So what would I say to Abū Maʿālī al-Juwaynī? This is not accepted—from you personally—because you’re on the other side. That’s number one.
And number two: we actually have statements from the Ṣaḥābah and Tābiʿīn (successors) affirming the ṣifāt (attributes) of Allah, and that would just prove him wrong.
As for the Ijmaʿ he mentioned—can’t the Ijmaʿ be broken by one person?
Imagine that person is a prominent and well-known Ṣaḥābī like ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar. He said that Allah created four things with His hand. ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar is saying this! And he even mentioned the four things that Allah created with His hand. He said Allah created these with His hand, and the rest of the creation, Allah said to it: “Be,” and it was.
That’s a powerful refutation! Because if you say the yad (hand) means quwwah (power), then what about all of the other creations of Allah? Why aren’t they also created with Allah’s “hand,” i.e., His power?
But someone might say: isn’t there an āyah that says “Allah created the heavens and the earth with truth”?
Yes, Allah created the heavens and the earth with truth (bi-l-ḥaqq). Everything is created in truth. But Allah didn’t say everything, He just said the heavens and the earth. Does that mean we weren’t created with ḥaqq (truth)? Of course not.
Do you see what I’m saying?
“Yeah, I see your point.”
It’s a good point—a very good point.
But that doesn’t take away from the fact that these four were uniquely attributed to being created with the hand of Allah. That āyah just affirms that Allah created those things with ḥaqq.
And there are other nuṣūṣ (texts) from the Prophet ﷺ in ḥadīth that mention Allah created the heavens with ḥaqq, the earth with ḥaqq, and more.
But you have to distinguish between affirming something for a thing, and restricting something to a thing.
These four are restricted. Allah said He created them with His hand:
- Ādam – restriction.
- ʿArsh (Throne) – restriction.
- The Qalam (Pen) – restriction.
- The Jannah (Paradise) – restriction.
So this is something you have to understand.
So my point here is: ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar, a noble companion, is saying that Allah created these four things with His hand. At that moment, if tafwīḍ was the maslak al-ṣaḥīḥ (correct methodology), it would not have been right for him to just leave it unrestricted like that.
He would have said, “Stop! Wait! What do you guys understand from that?”
He would have said that, but he left it upon its apparent meaning — على ظاهره. That’s what we're saying.
Abu Al-‘Aliyah Al-Riyahi — he died in 93 Hijri. He's a tābiʿī (تابعي), right? He was a student of Ibn ʿAbbās and a student of Ibn ʿUmar.
Abu Al-‘Aliyah was mentioned — Hāfiẓ Al-Dhahabī mentions in his Siyar that Ibn ʿAbbās used to seat him on a raised place while all of Quraysh sat on the floor. Then he would say:
"That is what knowledge does — it raises the honor of a person."
When Abu Al-‘Aliyah came to the āyah (verse), he said...
So where is the claim of Abu Al-‘Aliyah?
This is Abu Al-‘Aliyah.
Mujāhid ibn Jabr — when he came to those two meanings, Bukhārī chose it. Bukhārī chose it.
What about ʿIkrimah, who was a mawlā (freed servant) of Ibn ʿAbbās? He died in 104 Hijri.
ʿIkrimah — he said... he didn’t say qudrah (power), he didn’t say Allah — sorry, I’m going to push it into English a little bit, as much as possible.
So ʿIkrimah, when he came to the āyah, he said:
"It means two hands."
The next one is Rabīʿah ibn Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān — he died in 117 Hijri.
When he was asked about istiwāʾ (الاستواء) — is it one or two? He said:
"This statement — people think only Imām Mālik said this."
But this was Mālik’s teacher. He said:
"I was next to Rabīʿah and a man asked him — the same question that was asked to Mālik — he said to him: كيف استوى؟ (How did Allah rise above the Throne?)"
And Rabīʿah said:
الاستواء غير مجهول، والكيف غير معقول، ومن الله الرسالة، وعلى الرسول البلاغ، وعلينا التصديق "Al-istiwaʾ is not unknown, the how (kayf) is not comprehensible, from Allah is the message, upon the Messenger is to convey, and upon us is to believe."
To what? To believe.
Believing in the words has never been a debate with anyone.
The claim from the other side is that Imām Mālik is saying the word is not unknown to us — the word appears in the Qur’ān.
Do you get what I’m saying? That’s their claim.
But there was never a contention on that issue. I’m just saying — that sounds so pathetic, to be honest. No one ever argued whether Allah said the word or not.
The issue is: Imām Mālik was asked how — kayfa — Allah rose above the throne. The question was “how.”
And here he says:
"The word is not unknown to us. It is known to us."
That’s what he’s saying.
Who preceded him in giving a meaning to it? Mujāhid ibn Jabr.
Do you know what Mujāhid did? He said:
"I presented the Qur’ān to Ibn ʿAbbās three times, from beginning to end, and I stopped him at every verse."
And that’s why Sufyān Al-Thawrī said:
"If the tafsīr (exegesis) of Mujāhid reaches you, then it is sufficient."
Are you with me? Yeah.
Abu Al-‘Aliyah again says the same — he explains the word like that.
Mālik ibn Anas said the same thing. When he was asked about the issue of istiwāʾ, he said — when the man asked him, he replied:
"The word is not unknown to us. It is known to us."
Then he said to him:
"I see you as a misguided innovator (مبتدع). Leave the masjid."
Here I want you to really understand: to believe in it is what? It’s obligatory.
Believing in it is what? Obligatory.
The wording — who negated the wording?
Here’s the meaning: you believe in the meaning.
Asking about it — that is not the meaning. That is asking about the kayf (the how).
That’s what the man was asking — about the kayfiyyah (how-ness).
Asking about the kayf is a farʿ (secondary issue). Kayf comes only after you’ve established the meaning.
Also, Wakīʿ ibn Al-Jarrāḥ — he said:
"We submit to these aḥādīth just as they have come. We do not say: ‘How is this?’ or ‘How is that?’"
Wakīʿ died in the 190s — 197 Hijri.
He was the teacher of who? Imām Al-Shāfiʿī.
He’s the one who said:
"We submit to these aḥādīth as they have come."
We do not say: كيف هذا؟ (How is this?) We do not say: وكيف ذاك؟ (And how is that?)
And then he said — like the ḥadīth of Ibn Masʿūd:
Allah is going to place... Allah is going to place... and all the mountains — Allah is going to place...
Also, the same. He says about the characteristics of Allah — the same way.
He (the narrator) died in 195 Hijri.
Also, Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal — Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Ḥanbal — he died in 241 Hijri.
He was asked about a statement of a group of people who say about Allah's speech that it doesn’t have a sound. And then he said:
Allah speaks with speech. Yes, Allah spoke with a sound.
We narrate these aḥādīth just as they have come.
The same thing has been narrated from Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī in his Kitāb Khalq Afʿāl al-ʿIbād. Muḥammad ibn ʿĪsā al-Tirmidhī — I quote his statement as well.
All of them.
Ibn ʿAbbās (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu) — when he came to the word As-Ṣamad — and As-Ṣamad is not from the seven attributes that the Ashāʿirah affirm, by the way — he gave a meaning to it.
He said the word As-Ṣamad means al-Sayyid (the Master).
ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbbās — when he says this, we have to ask ourselves: Are these not the words of the Prophet ﷺ?
ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbbās — is he not a ṣaḥābī? ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar is not a ṣaḥābī? Even ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd — he came to the word As-Ṣamad — and he said:
It means the Master who has reached the pinnacle of mastery.
And it's not the same as the word al-Sayyid — he’s giving a meaning to it, he’s explaining it.
ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbbās — the same thing.
Ibn ʿAbbās could have said:
“No, I don’t know what these are. These are characteristics; we’re not allowed to explain them.”
But this is a daʿwā (claim).
We looked at it — we went back and found that all of them explained the characteristics of Allah.
Okay — I’m not going to bring the next ijmāʿ (consensus) because that’s Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, and you've already said — and you make a very valid point — I think throughout this whole podcast, I can’t remember you even mentioning Ibn Taymiyyah, for example.
You’re bringing scholars that both sides agree with — like Tirmidhī, Bukhārī, the Companions, etc.
However, we do have an ijmāʿ from Ibn Qudāmah — someone you would accept — where he says:
“Leaving the meaning to Allah is the ʿaqīdah of our Salaf without exception.”
Again — I told you: leaving the meaning — the meaning here that they’re referring to is the meaning of the Jahmiyyah.
When someone says “leaving the meaning” unrestrictedly, that’s a gesture — that’s tafwīḍ — that “I’m leaving the meaning to Allah, I don’t know what the meaning is.”
I told you the statement of the Salaf before — when they say “there’s no meaning to it”, they mean the meaning of the Jahmiyyah.
Ibn Qudāmah — look at that book and see what’s in there. He’s got an ʿaqīdah book — and you can see it. I already brought it last week. I brought the statement of Ibn Qudāmah.
When it comes to the Ashāʿirah, it has nothing to do with them. When they say “there’s no meaning”, they mean the meaning of who? The Jahmiyyah — that’s one interpretation.
There’s another interpretation — which is: they mean the meaning that the Mushabbihah (those who liken Allah to His creation) gave it.
Okay.
There’s another problem you’re going to run into now — where you say that we affirm the apparent meaning of Allah’s characteristics, and we don’t interpret it differently — we just say “this is what it means.”
There’s an āyah in the Qur’ān which talks about Allah forgetting those who forgot Him on the Day of Judgment.
Does that now mean we have to say that Allah forgets? That Allah is forgetful? This would indicate imperfection.
So the response to that is:
Number one: Allah Taʿālā negated forgetfulness from Himself.
He said:
وَمَا كَانَ رَبُّكَ نَسِيًّا “And your Lord is never forgetful.” (Maryam: 64)
Isn’t that a contradiction now?
First of all — Allah negated it from Himself:
Your Lord is not one who forgets.
That’s one response.
So how do we reconcile between it?
It’s easy.
The word nasy (forget) in the Arabic language has two meanings.
The word nasy has two meanings.
The first one is called:
Tarku al-shayʾ wa-huwa ʿālimun bihi — “Leaving something while being aware of it” (i.e., deliberately abandoning it)
And the second one is:
Nisyān — actual forgetfulness.
And the linguists mention that — if you go to Ibn Fāris, in his Muʿjam, he mentions it.
Even Ibn Jarīr — when he came to the āyah in Sūrat al-Tawbah, he says:
They left off obeying Allah, so Allah left them... i.e., Allah left giving them the ability to follow the guidance, the guidance itself, and His mercy.
I mean — he explains it in the āyah.
Then in the Arabic language, it originally means to leave something. Even if I said to you—you said to me, "Did you bring the drink, for example the water?"—and I said to you, "I forgot." "I forgot" here means I left it. It means I… So there's two meanings it can have.
Because the ayah (verse) that you just read right now—it can't be forgetfulness. It can't be that this person left the command of Allah out of forgetfulness or they forgot it. It can't mean that. Allah wouldn't punish us. You see my point?
The reason is because these people deliberately left it. So in the Arabic language, it takes both of those meanings. Because if you say Allah negated it from Himself—Allah—we have to do ta’wīl (figurative interpretation) here. You say ta’wīl is the only way open—or tafwīḍ (consigning the meaning to Allah).
What about the human beings? Are you going to do the same for it as well? No—because human beings are imperfect by nature. So we do forget.
I'm saying, the same ayah—are you going to do tafwīḍ for the human as well, when you say "نسوا الله" (nasū Allah - they forgot Allah)? Because it's an ayah that affirms imperfection. And for human beings, we have no issue with that. We don't have to make tafwīḍ or ta’wīl—we accept it.
You come to the same verse: part of it you're going to leave as it is, and say "نسوا الله" (nasū Allah)—and the next part you're going to do tafwīḍ?
Yeah, because one is for Allah and one is for us. Just like the same when you come to the sūrah (chapter)... So you're choosing when you want to do tafwīḍ?
No—Allah is choosing, because one is pertaining to Allah and one is pertaining to us.
We already proved the concept. By the way, Allah doesn't forget, and it's not befitting of Him, because that's what He negated in the ayah.
When He's negating here—"لا يضل ربي ولا ينسى" (lā yaḍillu rabbī wa-lā yansā – My Lord neither errs nor forgets)—does He negate it for insān (human)? Of course not.
But I'm saying to you, on this verse by itself, why did you choose to negate it?
So Allah negates forgetfulness for Himself there. So we say, "Okay, that can't mean that." But for the human beings—you affirm it for the humans?
Of course, no doubt—we've got no problem. But then you're again in another trouble, because if you affirm it for the human here—in this ayah—you're saying Allah has punished him while he forgot. Do you understand my point?
So I think there's a contradiction here.
The point I'm trying to say to you is: the best way out of all of this is that—this is not called ta’wīl. This is called what? Bringing the word back to its original meaning. That's what it means. It's what it means.
And I mentioned to you: A’immah al-lughah (the imams of the Arabic language) mentioned this—like Ibn al-Jinnī, al-Ṭabarī, Ibn Fāris, Ibn al-Athīr—all of them mentioned it.
You asked me a question earlier—if you say that "yad" (hand) means power instead of hand, then human beings still have power. So you haven’t actually taken away from tashbīh (anthropomorphism). You haven’t taken away from anthropomorphism—you’ve just moved from one word to another.
I think the response to that would be that power is not an imperfect characteristic. It actually indicates perfection. It's a good characteristic to have. So that's why affirming power for Allah is not a problem for us—even though human beings have power as well.
Whereas a hand indicates a part of a body, and we can't say Allah has a body. Do you agree with that?
The term body—to negate it or to affirm it, either one of them needs evidence. I am not going to negate a characteristic I have no evidence for negating, and I'm not going to affirm a characteristic I have no evidence for.
We believe affirmation and negation both need evidence.
So when you said that "yad" is a body, you're falling into what? Tashbīh—you're comparing Allah to the creation.
I'm saying to you: I believe Allah has a yad that befits His majesty. I affirm it for Him in a way that befits His majesty—just like I believe that the clock has a hand that befits the clock. I have a hand that befits me. And Allah جَلَّ جَلَالُهُ (Jalla Jalāluh – Glorified and Exalted be He), the Greatest of the Great, He has a yad that befits His Majesty.
I don't know. I'm between two things: I don't distort the meaning, nor do I give it a kayfiyyah (how/description). So these alfāẓ (terms) that you're bringing—like body and this and that—they are alfāẓ mujmalah (ambiguous terms). They are very ambiguous terms.
They are terms that we don't entertain. We say Allah Subḥānahu wa Taʿālā and His Messenger didn't use this term—lā nafyan wa lā ithbātan (neither to negate nor to affirm).
And by the way, who said to you that the characteristics that we share with the Creator are the same as the Creator’s characteristics?
When we say Allah can hear, it doesn't mean to say Allah’s hearing and our hearing are the same. We're not saying that at all. We're saying that these characteristics that we’re affirming for Allah Subḥānahu wa Taʿālā are characteristics that befit His majesty.
Of course, His hearing was there way before our hearing. His hearing is always going to last. His hearing was never given to Him.
All of those are differences that we can just mention now.
His hearing is so strong that He can hear everything. We are restricted in how far and how much we can hear. His hearing is perfect.
Same with His seeing. Same with His hand. Same with Him being above. Same with Him descending. And you don't compare Allah Subḥānahu wa Taʿālā (Glorified and Exalted is He) to the creation.
I just feel like you're falling—based on this shaky principle—you're going to end up not negating a lot of things that you should be negating.
Is Allah from the ghayb (the unseen)? Yes, He is from the unseen.
Ghayb—majal al-ʿaql (the domain of the intellect) has no place in it. We spoke about that when we spoke about logic.
This is not a majal (domain)—it's not open for the ʿaql (intellect) to wave and swim inside it.
You haven't seen Allah Subḥānahu wa Taʿālā. I haven't seen Him Subḥānahu wa Taʿālā. We haven't spoken to someone who saw Allah Subḥānahu wa Taʿālā.
And thirdly, we don't have anyone to compare Allah to.
So, on those three grounds—nafyān wa ithbātan (negating and affirming)—bring me evidence. That’s it.
If I want to affirm something, I need evidence. If I want to negate something, I need evidence for that too.
The word "body"—I don’t affirm it, nor do I negate it. Because I believe affirmation and negation must come from the Qur'an and the Sunnah.
Okay, since we’re talking about these kinds of logical arguments—you mentioned, obviously, at the start of this episode about the blameworthiness of ʿIlm al-Kalām (speculative theology) and using philosophy.
Don’t you think that the reason you adopt this approach—and why you've sat here for the last couple of hours explaining your approach—is because you don’t fully understand ʿIlm al-Kalām?
Actually, I’ve studied ʿIlm al-Manṭiq (logic), and I’ve studied what the Ashāʿirah (Ash'aris) have said—their own works, their own statements. I’ve looked deeply at it.
And with that being said, I still don’t believe that asmā’ Allāh wa ṣifātihī (Allah’s names and attributes) are affirmed through ʿaql (intellect).
I don’t believe that wujūb maʿrifat asmā’ Allāh wa ṣifātihī (the obligation to know Allah’s names and attributes) is something based on the intellect. It has to be based on nass (text), not logic.
Allah tells us in the Qur’an, "And We do not punish a people until We send a Messenger to them." And we don't punish them until they get to know who Allah is.
Allah also says that the job of the Prophet ﷺ is to convey the message of lā ilāha illa Allāh (there is no god worthy of worship except Allah).
And within lā ilāha illa Allāh, we believe in the three categories of tawḥīd:
- Tawḥīd al-Rubūbiyyah (Oneness of Lordship)
- Tawḥīd al-Ulūhiyyah (Oneness of Worship)
- Tawḥīd al-Asmāʾ wa al-Ṣifāt (Oneness in Names and Attributes)
So, the concept here I want you to understand is: it was the job of the Prophet ﷺ to explain to the people who Allah is. That’s his job.
I’m not going to take my knowledge of Allah from a Greek logician—Aristotle and Plato—and let them tell me about Allah.
They haven’t seen Allah. Their intellect doesn’t know Allah. He’s like me—a human being like me.
So we take it from the nuṣūṣ al-waḥy (texts of revelation).
You know what’s really sad? They say: "We take it from the Greek logicians." And Allah Subḥānahu wa Taʿālā and His Messenger ﷺ—they say "no."
Subḥān Allāh ʿammā yaṣifūn – Glorified is Allah above what they describe Him with.
Allah says: "Peace be upon the Messengers." So the rest of the people—the way they explain Allah, the way they speak about Allah... He said: Peace be upon the way of the Messengers.
Safety is in the way of the Messengers—how they describe Allah Subḥānahu wa Taʿālā.
So I’m saying to you: that’s what we want.
The path that’s safe, that’s upright and correct, is the path of the Messengers and the Prophets.
Okay, there is one thing that they do—it’s a very common argument—and that is the issue of al-ḥādith (something that is originated or created).
Which is basically—and obviously it's going to come back to the principle you just set out—but it's basically the concept that:
Take Allah’s speech, for example. They say: “Allah’s speech is not connected to His will. Allah’s speech is eternal. He’s always speaking.” Because if you say it’s connected to His will—which is what you affirm—then Allah is not always speaking. Therefore, His speech is not eternal. And you’ve just said a part of Allah is not eternal—and that takes away the definition of Allah being eternal Subḥānahu wa Taʿālā.
First of all, that’s again a philosophical argument.
Again—we have the Qur’an clearly telling us about the speech of Allah Subḥānahu wa Taʿālā.
We have: "And when Allah spoke to Mūsā ʿalayhi al-salām..."
The character Allah chose to speak to was Mūsā ʿalayhi al-salām.
The āyah (verse) clearly tells us: "Wa kallamallāhu Mūsā taklīman" – "And Allah spoke to Mūsā with direct speech."
Now the point here is that— This is a long discussion. It needs a long path.
Maybe—I think we should make another episode just for this one by itself. To talk about it, and go into deep detail.
These people originally—as I said before—they were trying to prove Allah’s existence.
That’s where the whole issue came to them.
So, in order to prove Allah Subḥānahu wa Taʿālā exists—they had to prove that Allah always existed. He is Qadīm (eternal).
And that Allah Subḥānahu wa Taʿālā—which we believe He obviously is—Allah always existed. We believe that.
But where we prove it from is the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
And the Qur’an is a proof for us.
These people, they rationally wanted to convince others. They took a path which was very... Are His attributes eternal though? Of course, Allah Ta'ala is eternal. So, how can you say... We say Allah's speech is connected to two things. We believe this. Some of the sifat (attributes) are sifat datiyya (intrinsic attributes), and some are sifat fa'aliyya (attributes of action). And some are sifat datiyyatun fa'aliyya (attributes that are both intrinsic and of action).
Where did you get this categorization from? I thought you're not using it after... No, we're not using that. We're saying that when we looked at... It's called sabr (patience). When we follow the Qur'an and the Sunnah, we define categorization. The Qur'an categorizes the thing, just the same way we found the Arabic speech is kali (noun), ism (verb), and harf (particle). The same way we found the Hadith of the Prophet (Sahih, Hasan, Da'if). The same. Everyone follows it. Even the Ash'ariyyah follow this concept as well. They categorize the Tawhid into three as well. But the problem is that Tawhid al-Uluhiyyah (the oneness of worship) is not part of that categorization.
So, when they scream at us and say, "Why are you guys doing taqseem (division)?" The real problem they have with us is they don't believe in Uluhiyyah. So, they're saying, "Where did you get this categorization from?" But the categorization is there and they all have it. They mention the taqseemat (divisions) of the Tawhid in three as well. It's funny, but I won't go into that. Maybe another time, it would be nice.
So, Allah’s characteristics are of three types:
- Sifat datiyyah (intrinsic attributes), which are always connected to Allah.
- Sifat fa'aliyya (attributes of action), which are connected to Allah's will. He does them when He wants and doesn't do them when He doesn't want.
- Sifat datiyyatun fa'aliyya (attributes that are both intrinsic and of action), like nuzul (descent). This is a characteristic that happens when Allah descends in a way that befits His majesty. So, sifat datiyyatun fa'aliyya is only sifat al-kalam (speech) that goes into those two types. It's connected to both the intrinsic and the willful aspects. When they affirm it, they only affirm it from the angle of sifat al-fi'aliyya (attributes of action). Hence why they believe it’s sifatun qa'imatun bithati Allah (an attribute inherent within Allah). They call it sifatun (an attribute) which is in Allah and doesn’t come out of Him.
Okay, I’m going to move on to some closing questions, and I’m going to give you an opportunity to summarize what we've discussed so far.
Okay, the first question I have, which is a very common claim, is that this issue of affirming the apparent meaning was not known until Ibn Taymiyyah came along. And, like I said, you actually haven’t mentioned his name throughout the podcast, but he was the first one to come up with the aqidah (creed) of affirming the meaning. It was not known before him. What do you say about that?
That’s not true because I’ve mentioned some statements of the Salaf (early generations of Muslims) affirming characteristics for Allah. I’ve mentioned Abu Ali, Mujahid al-Mujabarin, Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, Abdullah ibn Umar, Abdullah ibn Abbas. I’ve mentioned all of them. You see, just because, look, just because there’s a word that two parties share it... I don’t want to use the word entity or party, but there is Allah who has these characteristics, and we have these characteristics. The scholars say sharing the name and the attributes doesn't mean we're the same. It doesn't mean we're the same. Like I mentioned before, in the ayah (verse) He said, "We have the same name," and the description is Allah’s name, we have the name, we share it.
Just the same way in Jannah (Paradise), Allah mentions that in Jannah there's going to be a river of milk. Do you think the milk in Jannah is the same as the milk here?
The khamar (wine) that's in Jannah (Paradise) is not the same as this khamar. It's only the name. The Sahabah (companions) used to consider this not to be exactly the same.
So, we believe that these characteristics are present for Allah. These names, He has them. Even if the name is shared by humans, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're the same.
Okay, the next question again goes back to the issue of logic and using logic, and this is not necessarily restricted—it's a lot of the brothers who tend to use these kinds of terms. Is it permissible for us to say things like "Allah is the Prime Mover" or "Allah is the First Cause"? You see, they use these terms, which are very ambiguous.
One of the blessings of the Salaf (early scholars) when you read their works is that they restrict themselves to what the Qur'an and the Sunnah mention. A lot of these brothers use Kalam (philosophy), which they took from the Ash'ari (a theological school of thought), and because of that, they adopted a very corrupt path when it comes to affirming Allah’s existence. They took the concept of Dalil al-Arad wa Huduth al-Ajshan (Proof of Accidental Attributes and the Creation of Bodies) from the Ash'ari school, Muhammad al-Ghazali and their likes, and they used that to prove Allah's existence. By default, they fell into the issue of negating the characteristics. The way they kept it going, they had to negate Allah’s names and attributes. So, it's a problem, and the reason for that is because they haven’t read the books of the Salaf. Books like that—what was the mawqif (position) of the Salaf regarding these issues? Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, of course, has a very good discussion on these issues. A person should read his works, but some people may not understand his works. He is very good. His works are very, very good. Also good is Ibn al-Qayyim’s kitab (book), which I read before I came here, especially in the issues of ta'weel (interpretation). His kitab is amazing. It’s amazing for a Salafi (a follower of the Salaf) to read. If you read Ibn al-Qayyim's works, even his Nuniya (poetry), you would be gobsmacked at how Ibn al-Qayyim debunks them.
You know the four questions I asked you at the beginning?
- Does Allah not know that He is better than all of us? You said yes.
- Does the Prophet ﷺ not know Allah more than us? You said yes.
- Does the Prophet ﷺ have more eloquence than us? You said yes.
- Is the Prophet ﷺ more concerned about the Ummah (community) than we are? You said yes.
Those three questions, Ibn al-Qayyim asked. It was a question that he put to the people. He put those questions. He said in his poetry, “I said to one Ash'ari (a follower of the Ash'ari school), that brother, may Allah guide him, subhanahu wa ta'ala (Glory be to Him, Exalted is He), I said to him, ‘I’m going to ask you a question.
Why is it allowed for you to do ta'weel (interpretation) of the nasus (texts) of Allah’s characteristics and attributes, but it is not allowed for you to do the ta'weel of Jannah (Paradise) and Nahr (Hellfire)?"
Why can't we do the ta'weel of Jannah and Nahr (and those characteristics), when the Bātiniyyah (those who believe in esoteric interpretations) believe that they are not what they appear to be? They believe these things are mystical. So why have you chosen to say that only the characteristics and attributes of Allah are mutashabih (ambiguous or allegorical)? And even then, only some of them are restricted. Why do you open it up and say that every single thing in the Qur'an is mutashabih, even Jannah and Nahr?
And it's funny because there's a person out there who believes that.
That the Jannah (Paradise) and Nahr (Hellfire) are all mythical. Also, what it leads to is that the person starts thinking badly of Allah. Every time he's saying, "Allah is talking about having wisdom," or "Allah is saying He's above His throne," and then all of that, he’s speaking hypothetically or metaphorically.
So think: the biggest ayah (verse) in the Qur'an. Imagine that someone told you that. Imagine I spoke 80% of what I'm saying to you, and all of it is figurative speech. And you just looked at me and said, "What on earth is he talking about? Is this guy majnoon (crazy)?" That’s what you would say.
And also, you're going to say that the Prophet ﷺ, when he was sent for a mission to clarify the Qur'an, he left us and didn’t clarify it to us? Because you're saying the names and attributes of Allah are not about His essence? And also, this book, we should start doubting it? It's shocking.
Even one time, I don't want to confuse the people, but I think I'll try to narrow it down. I said, "Why do you say Allah's characteristics? Why do you open the majaz (metaphorical speech) for it?" Because this is the majaz in the Qur'an. Majaz means metaphorical or figurative speech.
I said, "What’s the evidence of metaphor in the Qur'an?" He said, "I said, wallahi (by Allah), that’s scary. Because you’re saying Allah wanted to praise Himself in the Qur'an, but He used characteristics that have tashbih (likeness). Allah, instead of praising Himself, He, subhanahu wa ta'ala (Glory be to Him, Exalted is He), belittled Himself by giving Himself these characteristics. Allah is praising Himself, but you're saying that at that moment, Allah was trying to praise Himself, but do you see my point? He used characteristics that show weakness. It’s not befitting for Allah. We can’t affirm it."
Do you see my point? So, you know, you open the door to majaz in the Qur'an. There's another ayah: "Ask the village" or "ask the town."
What is the response to these people who say that you should say everything in the Qur'an should be taken as apparent, as a default? There are things that are clearly apparent. It’s funny because, in the smallest book, al-Waraqat, written by Shaykh Abdul Ali al-Juwaini, he mentions that the asr (origin) is the zahir (apparent). The haqiqah (true meaning) is the asr.
And the only time we go to majaz is when there's a qareena (evidence). That’s what we're saying. I’m saying there is majaz in the Qur'an, but the majaz needs a dalil (evidence). If there's a dalil, that's it. But Allah's names and attributes don’t have majaz. They are zahir. They are upon the apparent. If you go to ta'weel (interpretation), because I’m telling you, Allah will not—You say to me that the Qur'an, the zahir, is not what is intended? And we’re reading the Qur'an, and never did the Prophet ﷺ ever explain it.
If you’re saying that the Prophet ﷺ delayed explaining it, or he never even mentioned it, clarified for the people, the Sahabah (companions) were coming. Bedouins were coming, and they were not all ulama (scholars). The Bedouin Sahabah were coming and sitting in front of him, and he wasn’t ever saying to them, and you're saying the Qur'an is misguiding the people? Allah said about the Qur'an: "We did not send the Qur'an to misguide you."
Allah also said: "Why did Allah tell us to ponder on the Qur'an if the meaning is not understood?" Allah is telling us to ponder on the Qur'an, and the overwhelming majority of verses in the Qur'an have the characteristics and attributes of Allah. It makes no sense where these people are getting all of this from.
I was going to give you a summary, but I feel like you’ve just had it. I have to go through two more questions. So, we just spent, with the last episode and this episode, maybe a collection of four, just over four hours talking about the beliefs of the Ash'ari.
Many people would ask: "Are these people still in existence today? Are there still Ash'aris giving da'wah (call to Islam)? Are there still Ash'aris out and about?" I just feel like they must have heard, someone who might have heard you speak for the last three or four hours, and just thought these beliefs are so crazy and so out there, that they actually exist in the 21st century still. I believe a lot of the young brothers, young innocent brothers, don't believe this stuff which I mentioned about the Ash'ari, because they have no knowledge. Hence why I kept saying: Don't attribute yourself to this group. This is the type of belief they have. Get away from it. Get away from this belief.
Don’t ever, ever let anyone say to you, "Ash'ari." Now that you learn that this is what they really believe, don’t attribute yourself to it. But without a shadow of a doubt, there are people who believed in it or who still believe in it. There are many people who believe and fight for these issues.
Don’t go far away. Mohammed Saeed Ramadan al-Bouti, he believed it, and he wrote in his works. And there’s another one right now, his name is Saeed Foda. And other people like that who are present, like even Al-Azhar (University), what they teach, and all of these people, they teach these things. It’s taught. It’s not like it’s hidden. They teach it. They print these works. Very often it comes out. There are people who fight for it.
Many of whom, Alhamdulillah (Praise be to Allah), were refuted and debunked, like Hassan Al-Saqqaf, who was refuted by Shaykh Al-Albani, Abdul Fattah Abu Ghudda, Mohammed Zahid Al-Kawthari, Mohammed Ramadan al-Bouti, all of these people. Shaykh Nasser, when he was alive, he took on a lot of them. Abdul Fattah Abu Ghudda and Al-Albani used to go back and forth with each other. He had Ash'ari beliefs. He lived in Saudi Arabia, by the way. Shaykh Ibn Abbas used to advise him and tell him to leave off these things, but he wouldn’t listen. He got refuted.
There are ample types. Also, Mohammed Zahid Al-Kawthari al-Halik, who was a teacher of Abdul Fattah Abu Ghudda and got affected by him. Abdul Humayah Al-Muallim, he took time out for him and refuted him.
Who really, as a misguided individual, insulted 300 righteous people—from Ali Ibn Malik, from Imam Malik, and Imam Al-Shafi’i. He slandered these Imams in Islam just so he could stick to his belief. A very fanatic individual. Very fanatic.
Even Al-Ghumari refuted him in the end, like, "Where are you getting all this from?" And now today, we have a group of people, now there’s a lot of movement that’s come out, which is, they don’t call themselves Ash'ari.
Alhamdulillah, they don’t. They’re not going to say, “I’m Ash'ari.” But they are sympathizers of the Ash'ari.
Yeah. And they would justify the way of the Asha'ira. And they would, I mean, they call themselves Asha'ira. They give themselves those names, like Abu Hatim Al-Awni, a movement that he has, and Abdillahi Al-Arfaj. I mean, people like that, they kind of water down. Alhamdulillah, some Shaykhs and some Talabatul Ilm (students of knowledge) have refuted them.
There's a nice refutation by Shaykh Abdur-Rahman Abdullah Haqqatul Kumani on Hatim Al-Awni. I mean, nice responses have been given regarding him.
I mean, Mufoom Al-Ibadah (the concept of worship), what does it mean? Allah's names and attributes. And the Prophet ﷺ (peace be upon him) told us that there will always be, "لَا تَزَالُ طَائِفَةٌ مِّنْ أُمَّتِي ظَاهِرِينَ عَلَى الْحَقِّ..." ("There will always be a group from my Ummah who will be victorious upon the truth...") There's always going to be a group of people who are apparent, defending against the distortion, the mocking, and the playing around, yeah, of people with this deen.
And, obviously, you mentioned the Arab names, in the English-speaking world, without mentioning names. This belief is also prevalent; it's there, yeah. It's there. When you sit with a lot of the learned ones, I mean, I've sat with quite a few of those learned ones, yeah. They believe these things. When you tell them, "Is this what you actually believe?" they'll say yes.
And even the brothers given that, we're using logical, intellectual arguments. This is a path to this, this is a path to this, this is where it ends, this is where it ends. Yeah. And anyone who really sits down and reads the works of the late scholars, I mean, realizes, they're mad, I mean, crazy stuff they believe. Crazy stuff they affirm. I mean, you have to understand, Fakhruddin al-Razi, Ibn al-Dhahabi mentioned, may Allah have mercy on him, when I said about him... I mean, even Ibn al-Hajar saying, you know, may Allah forgive him.
Okay. Final question I have for you. I want to take you back to the Hadith you mentioned right at the start of this podcast, Hadith al-Iftaraq (the Hadith of division), about the 73 sects and 72 of them going into the fire.
The Asha'ira, obviously, you believe, are from those 72. Does that mean that you're making takfir (declaring them disbelievers)? Does that mean they are disbelievers because they're going into the fire?
No, no, no. Not at all.
Not at all. You see, the 72 groups are من أمة محمد (from the Ummah of Muhammad). من أمة محمد (from the Ummah of Muhammad). And the Prophet ﷺ said, "ستفترق أمتي..." ("My Ummah will split...") He means أمة الإجابة (the Ummah of the response). So that automatically means they are Muslims. They're Muslims. They're not going to stay in the Hellfire forever.
So how do you understand that they go to the Hellfire for a period of time? Yeah, just like the major sins. Okay. You know the Hadith when you read that, you know, anyone who does this is going to go to the Hellfire from the major sins. It's like the Kabair (major sins).
Okay, yeah. And I've explained it. That's not the only view. There's actually another view out there, Ahl al-Sunnah (the people of the Sunnah) believe, with the explanation. But we have a course on it in the essentials, where we speak about الفرق والإفتراق (division and splitting), where we spoke about groups, and we gave an introduction, an overview, and we explained this Hadith in great detail.
Great detail. And the whole course is really about this. So there's that one interpretation, which is that كلها في النار إلا واحدة ("All of them are in the fire except for one") is that they are like the Kabair. Okay, yeah. So they end up in the Hellfire but they're going to eventually leave the Hellfire. Like the major sins.
Like the major sins, yeah. They go to the Hellfire for a period of time. But this is, another group of people came and they said, "How is that possible when innovation is greater than..." So there's another discussion as well.
Okay, fine. Okay, I'm done with my questions. Do you want to give it a very quick summary or do you feel comfortable with what you've said so far?
I hope Allah Ta'ala (the Almighty) doesn't hold me accountable for the mistakes I've made and the shortcomings that have come from me. But I do just want to say one thing to the Muslims: يا أخي ("Oh my brother"), this is your religion. يعني ("I mean"), don't let a love you have for a particular Imam or a group of people that you were raised with make you blind. This is Deen (religion), it's not a football team that you champion for one group and then look at that. Just remember this is your Deen, and you're going to be brought يوم القيامة (on the Day of Judgment) فرادا (individually). You're going to be brought يوم القيامة (on the Day of Judgment) by yourself, and you're going to be the one slave, and you're going to be questioned by yourself, and you're going to be interrogated by yourself.
So just remember, look at these arguments, sift through them, and you know, ask Allah Ta'ala to guide you to that which is best. And if the early people of this ideology of the Ash'ariyya (Ash'ari school of theology) felt like they regretted what they did, لقد طفت في تلك المعاهد كلها وسيرت طرفي بين تلك المعالم فلم أرى إلا وضع كفة حيرة على ذقن أو قارع سن نادم ("I traveled all around these lands, and I looked at all of these schools and ideologies, and I saw nothing but a person who placed his hand under his chin out of confusion, or another person who regretted what he did in his life") - 30 years you've been قيل وقال ("talking and quoting"), Fakhruddin said, and at the end he said, "We didn’t benefit from our life’s work except to compile ‘so and so said this.’"
All he compiled, and at the end, he said, "I will affirm الرحمن (the Most Merciful) and الحلال (the Halal), أشهد (I bear witness) to these, and there is nothing but Allah, Wallahi (I swear by Allah), I will affirm all of these things."
So by the way, these issues are not trivial issues, it’s why you were created. Allah created you to know these issues. الله الذي خلق سبع سماوات ومن الأرض مثلهن يتنزل الأمر بينهن لتعلموا ("It is Allah who created seven heavens and the like of them on the earth. His command descends between them that you may know...")
So you can know that أن الله على كل شيء قدير ("Allah is capable of everything") and وأن الله قد أحاط بكل شيء علمه ("and that Allah encompasses everything with His knowledge"). Allah has made the Kaabah, the sacred house, standing for the people, and He has made the sacred months and the sacrificial animals for a reason, so that you may know that Allah knows what is in the heavens and what is on the earth, and that Allah has knowledge of everything.
Also, just by learning Allah’s names and attributes and understanding them, what's going to happen? You're going to go to Jannah (Paradise) because of it. The Hadith in Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Abu Huraira: The Prophet ﷺ said, إِنَّ لِلَّهِ تِسْعَةً وَتِسْعِينَ أَسْمَاءً مِئَةً إِلَّا وَاحِدًا مَنْ أَحْصَاهَا تَخَلَّ جَنَّةً ("Allah has 99 names, whoever masters them will enter Jannah").
Also, it’s a means for you, Insha’Allah (if Allah wills), to be able to implement the Hadith: مَرَّاهُ مِنْكُمْ مُنْكَرًا فَلْيُغَيِّرْهُ بِيَدِهِ فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَبِالْلِّسَانِ فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَبِقَلْبِهِ وَذَٰلِكَ أَضْعَفُ الْإِيمَانِ ("Whoever sees something wrong among you, let him change it with his hand. If he cannot, then with his tongue. If he cannot, then with his heart. And that is the weakest of faith").
To be able to debunk the people who are speaking about Allah’s names and attributes in the wrong way, you'll be able to implement the Hadith by debunking them, by refuting them, by exposing them. Finally, Allah categorically instructed us to know Him by His names and attributes. Allah says: وَعَلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّـهَ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ ("And know that Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing") and also: وَعَلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّـهَ يَعْلَمُ مَا فِي أَنفُسِكُمْ فَحَذَرُوا ("And know that Allah knows what is in your hearts, so beware...")
All of those verses show that it is obligatory for us to know Allah by His names and attributes.
So, we have to understand, تأويل (figurative interpretation) is not something we want. It's a path that we should close. It’s, والله (by Allah), speaking about Allah with no knowledge, إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُجَادِلُونَ فِي آيَاتِ اللَّـهِ بِغَيْرِ سُلْطَانٍ أَتَاهُمْ إِنْ فِي صُدُورِهِمْ إِلَّا كِبْرٌ مَا هُمْ بِبَالِغِهِ فَاسْتَعِيذُوا بِاللَّـهِ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْبَصِيرُ ("Indeed, those who argue concerning the verses of Allah without any authority having come to them, their hearts are filled with pride, and they will never reach their goal. So seek refuge in Allah; indeed, He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing.")
So, I implement that verse, and I seek refuge in Allah from any mistakes or shortcomings that I might have made. سُبْحَانَكَ اللَّهُمَّ وَبِحَمْدِكَ أَشْهَدُ أَنْ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا أَنتَ أَسْتَغْفِرُكَ وَأَتُوبُ إِلَيْهِ ("Glory be to You, O Allah, and praise be to You. I bear witness that there is no deity but You. I seek Your forgiveness and turn to You in repentance.")
