Date:      Mon, 3 Sep 2001 09:58:29 -0700 (PDT)

From:     "Mohammed Yusuf"  

Subject:  [zanzinet] Allah and Throne

To:        zanzinet

CC:       abulqasimali


Assalamun alaikum wananeti 
Extracted from the book “Wahabism and Monotheism” by
Ali Kurani Al-Amili 
Wahabists’ God Enjoying A Human’s Look
Bin Baz’s AI-Fatawi, part 4 page 131:
Interpretation of the divine attributes is deniable. 
It is obligatory to accept the divine attributes as
they are in their extrinsic aspects that are becoming
Allah, the Exalted, apart from any sort of distortion,
circumvention, rearrangement or representation. This
course was adopted by scholars among the Prophet’s
companions and their successors, such as Al-Awzai,
At-Thawri, Malik. Abu Haneefa, Ahmed and lsaaq.
Were Sheik Bin Baz only to name one of the Prophet’s
companions who had rested upon the material extrinsic
aspects of texts respecting the divine attributes.
Were he only to cite a single text of those followers
of the Prophet’s companions or their followers he had
mentioned by name. In the previous chapter, a good
number of those scholars’ texts appertained to the
divine attributes was provided. We could not stroke
any single text supporting question of resting upon
the material extrinsic aspects of texts respecting the
divine attributes. Later on, we will prove falsehood
of their referring and imputing to Malik in the
question involved. Saving those old corporalists, such
as Kabul-Ahbar, Wahab Bin Munebbih, Muqatil and their
partisans, they can depend upon none in this question.
A Muslim harassed Wahabists’ master in Hadithology,
Sheik Nasiruddin AI-Albani, when he addressed the
following question at him:
Fetawil-AI-Bani, page 509:
Q. Are beliefs embraced by the Islamic radicalists, as
same as the Prophet’s companions’? Some argue that
considering this is right, would you provide name of a
single companion who claimed believing in extrinsic
meanings of the divine attributes texts, and
commending the form to Allah?
A. Is there a single companion of the Prophet who
opted for the same interpretations of the late
scholars? Would you provide one or two names?
Explaining God’s saying, (Then He settled on the
Throne. 7:54), Al-Baghawi records:
Al-Kelbi and Muqatil single out that settling implies
stabilizing. Abu Ubeida opted for ascending as the
explanation of Allah’s settling. Mutazilites
interpreted Allah’s settling into His prevalence.
Ahlus-Sunna aver, “Setting on the Throne is One of
Allah’s attributes without asking how. Men are
mandated to believe in so and commend its explication
to Allah.”
Malik Bin Anas was asked about the exegesis of (The
beneficent settled on the Throne. 20:5). He had nodded
his head a while before he addressed at the asker,
“Settling is not unknown. Its way is not realizable.
Believing in it is obligatory. Asking about it is a
heresy. I can obviously notice your aberrance! Take
this man out.”
The previous was the answer of that masterful
Wahabist. He answers that considering the claim there
was no single Sahabi-the Prophet’s companion-who
agrees with Wahabists’ faith of resting upon the
material extrinsic aspects of the divine attributes
texts, there is also no single Sahabi who agrees with
school of interpretation.
On that account, the asker may rule of inaccuracy of
both Wahabists and interpreters, and, thus, commenders
are exclusively the right.
Al-Albani denies the interpretation cited by Aisha,
Ibn Abbas and Ibn Masud in addition to the Prophet’s
household (peace be upon them). Besides, models of
interpretation cited by followers of the Prophet’s
companions have been provided throughout our previous
debate of the first school. We also provided Abu
Sa’eed’s interpreting Allah’s descending into
descending of His mercy, and Malik’s interpreting the
same into descending of His matters.
Except for Muqatil, the Persian the Magus whose
masters were the corporalist Jews, and lbnul-Kelbi,
whose dishonesty was unanimously proved, Al-Albani
could not find any supporter of his Wahabism.
Contemptibleness of this sect, who claim inheriting
and raising slogan of ancestral traditions and
striking the Muslim’s faces with its sword, is
obviously conspicuous. We have just noticed how their
master of Hadithology searched in Hadiths and
reference books and knocked the entire doors of the
Prophet’s companions and their followers, but he was
too short to find out a single individual that may put
up with his faith. Finally, he could find Muqatil and
lbnul-Kelbi and their likes. Are those the entire
Fatawil-Albani, page 516:
Q. Was commending the divine attributes adopted by the
worthy ancestors?
A. lbn Hajar AI-Asqalani, the Asharite, states, “Faith
of the worthy ancestors was perceiving the Verses
according to their aspects, without interpretation or
confusion. If we believe in an existent lord and lack
his total attributes.., only then we disbelieve in the
Lord of servants when we deny the attributes, as the
commenders allege.
It is observable that the previous question about
commendation of the worthy ancestors should be
answered by citing opinion of one of those worthy
ancestors who neglect commendation and rest upon the
extrinsic aspects of the divine attributes texts.
Al-Albani would have not concealed such an opinion if
there had been any. The truth is that there is
actually no single opinion in this field. Instead,
AI-Albani fetched a testimony of one of the tenth or
eleventh generations of the late scholars. lbn Hajar
died in 582; in the late sixth Hijri century.
Furthermore, it is rightful for us to demand Al-Albani
with the text and the reference of lbn Hajar’s
testimony. Without referring to the reference,
AI-Albani confused that testimony with his own words.
Next in this book, lbn Hajar’s opinion and harsh
campaign against the Hanbalite corporalists,
Al-Albani’s forefathers, will be provided. Yet, Ibn
Hajar’s opinion is contradictory to what has been
previously provided by Al-Albani.
Bin Baz’s AI-Fetawi, part 4 page 368 verdict 2331:
Q I. Abu Hureira: The Prophet (peace be upon him)
said, “Allah created Adam on his look; sixty arms
long.” Is this authentic?
A.                The actual text of the Hadith is, “... Allah
created Adam on his look, His length was sixty arms.
He, then, asked him to go and greet that group of
lying angels and listen to their replication. ‘They
will answer you with a statement that should be taken,
by you and your progeny, as the formal greeting,’
added the Lord. Adam went and addressed, ‘Peace be
upon you.’ ‘Peace and God’s mercy be upon you,’ they
replied. Hence, everyone should be of sixty yards long
before they enter the Paradise. From Adam and on,
creatures have been reduced in length.” Ahmed,
Al-Bukhari and Muslim record this Hadith. It is an
authentic Hadith with a familiar context Two meanings
are cited for this Hadith. First, Allah did not create
Adam tiny like babies, and gradually, he attained the
sixty yard length. Adam had his final look, which is
sixty yards long from the first moment of his life.
Second, ‘his’ in ‘his look’ is belonged to Allah. This
fact is evidenced by another authentic Hadith saying,
“Adam was created on the look of the Beneficent God.”
This, however, does not refer to anthropomorphism,
since Allah opted for names and attributes of His
creatures without referring to anthropomorphism. The
same is said about the look involved in the Hadith. In
other words, ascribing the look to Allah does not
necessarily lead to ruling of anthropomorphism, since
union in name and in total meaning does not abide
anthropomorphism of each, for God’s saying (Nothing
like the likeness of Him, and he is the Hearing, the
Bin Baz’s previous verdict leads directly to assuring
that Adam was created on the look of Allah, and Allah
enjoys the same look of Adam. He also claims this is
in no means regarded as anthropomorphism!!
Anyone can benefit this verdict by claiming that one
has the same look of Adam, and Adam has the same look
of one; yet, they do not look like each other!!
Furthermore, a criminal can be saved by the same
verdict It is possible to claim that the picture was
the same of that criminal, but it does not look like
The principal problem of Wahabists is that they have
to contort meanings of Arabic idioms. They are
confined between two matters; either to contort
meanings of Arabic terminology, or to deform their
sect totally. What a miserable sect is that which
shall be deformed if meanings are correct, and shall
be stabilized if meanings are contorted!
Al-Albani’s Al-Fetawi, page 506:
Q.  Do you prove attribute of trotting to Allah, the
A. Like coming and descending, trotting is an
attribute that we lack a base for denying.
Bin Baz’s AI-Fetawi, part S page 374:
In a qudsi Hadith-Sayings of the Lord in other than
the divine Books-, God says, “I advance him an arm
that whomever advances me a span. I advance him a
fathom that whomever advances me an arm. I come
trotting for that whomever comes to me walking.”
Interpreting such Hadiths and evading resting upon the
extrinsic meanings of their aspects, are means of the
heretic Jahmites and Mutazilites.
Bin Baz, therewith, forbids from referring to mental
vicinity as the real meaning of ‘advancing’ mentioned
in the Hadith involved. He decides the material
trotting of Allah, the Exalted.
Bin Baz’s Al-Fetawi, part 4 and 5 page 130 and 71:
Through explaining God’s saying, (On that day, [a leg
shall be revealed] and they shall be called upon to
make obeisance, but they shall not be able. 68:42),
the Prophet (peace be upon him) asserted that when the
Lord shall come on Resurrection Day, He will show his
leg to His believing servants. This is the sign
between Him and them. Hence, as soon as they see His
leg, they will recognize and follow him. This is one
of Allah’s unparalleled attributes fitting His glory
and magnificence. The same is said about the other
divine attributes proved by texts; such as hands,
foot, eye and the like. The other attributes; such as
ire, affection, abhorrence and the like, are involved
in elevation and fitting Allah, the Glorified the
Exalted, provided that they are indicated through the
Glorious Book of Allah and the Prophet’s traditions.
Interpretation and evading resting upon the extrinsic
meanings of aspects of such texts, is the sect of the
heretic Jahmites and Mutazilites and their fellows. It
is a defective sect denied and discharged by Sunnis
who warned against people of such heretic factions.
This scholar hints at forbiddingness of opting for
metaphor and metonymy of the expression ‘leg’, and
insisting on referring to its extrinsic meaning. This
means that Allah has a material leg such as that of
any of Wahabists’ scholars! Exalted be Allah against
what they are imputing.
Baz’s Al-Fetawi, part 5 page 371:
Q. What is the genuine exegesis of God’s saying, (On
that day, [a leg shall be revealed] and they shall be
called upon to make obeisance, but they shall not be
A. The Prophet (peace be upon him) explained that the
Verse alludes to the coming of the Lord on
Resurrection Day, when He shows His leg to His
believing servant so that they shall recognize and
follow him.
Like question of God’s trotting Sheik Bin Baz has
asserted, Al-Albani was cautious whether Allah, the
Exalted, has ears or He is earless; therefore, he
suspended his reply. Opting for cautiousness in
principals of their beliefs is greatly better than it
in these funny details.
AI-Albani’s AI-Fetawi, page 344:
Q. What is Ahlus-Sunna’s attitude from attribute of
the ear ascribed to Allah?
A. They do neither prove nor deny. They prove only
what is asserted by texts, without adaptation.
Followers of the worthy ancestors are freed from such
an adaptation. This means they are freed from
anthropomorphism since they opted for promoting God
against unfitting descriptions. Eye is one of His
attributes that is fitting His magnificence and glory.
Wahabists imposed their course of corporalism on
culture of Saudi Arabia. They broadcast the false and
confused narratives dealing with God’s corporeity.
They went on repeating narratives of God’s descending
and showing His leg at every occasion and
circumstance, till they made people conceive the
material descending and leg. People also were deceived
that God, the Exalted, shall fix His foot in hell till
it screams ‘Qat, Qat. . .etc.” Even books of schools
and educational institutes were filled in with such
fables. Innocent pupils and children of Muslims have
been brought up on such a false faith, thinking of it
as a principal part of Islamic faith. The following
joke was related by a Saudi Arabian:
Teacher: How should we recognize Allah?
Pupil: We recognize Him by His blistered foot, sir!
This is a model of those innocent pupils. He was
taught that on Resurrection Day, the believers will
not recognize their Lord before He shall show them His
leg. He was also taught that hell will not be stuffed
before Allah, the Magnificent the Glorious, shall fix
His foot in. This means that hell shall be certainly
blistering the Lord’s foot Hence, the leg He will show
to the believers shall be blistered!!
In such ways, those people have ruined God’s nature,
of promoting the Lord against materiality, in which
Allah has made sons of Muslims. Instead, they nourish
them with God’s corporeity. This is actually pathetic!
lbn Teimiya’s Majmou’etur-Resa’iI, volume 2 part 4
page 95:
Abu Ruzein Al-Aqili’s Narrative:
“O God’s messenger! Where had our Lord been before He
created His creatures?”, asked Abu Ruzein. “He had
been in gloom and encompassed by air.”, answered the
On this account, Ibn Teimiya and his followers believe
that Allah, the Exalted, is bound from the above, too.
The earth and air is under the Lord, and only air is
over Him. This also indicates that air is existent
either before or with Allah, the Exalted.
Ibn Teimiya wrote a book in which he aimed at proving
that the Throne is flat, since Allah, the Exalted,
shall be globular if His Throne is globular. Providing
the previous, Allah’s corporeality shall be encircling
His creatures from every side, not only from the
lbn Teimiya’s Majmou’etur-Resa’iI, volume 2 part 4
page 112:
Sheikul-Islam Taqiyuddin Ahmed Bin Teimiya was asked
whether the Throne is globular or not. If it is
globular and Allah is encircling-everything-behind it,
what is, then, the use of directing upward exclusively
during supplication and worship?
Three answers are cited for the forecited question:
first, it is not unacceptable to aver that there is no
single reliable intellectual or doctrinal evidence on
the Throne’s being globular and one of the spherical
planets. Pursuant to conjecture, some stated that the
Throne is the ninth planet since they believe in
absolute or naturalistical nothingness of what is
beyond that ninth planet. Some cited the following
Hadith as their evidence on the Throne’s being domal:
Jubeir Bin Mohammed Bin Jubeir Bin Mutim: His father:
His father:
“O Aposde of Allah! Souls have striven, children
starved and wealths lost Seek your Lord’s watering us
with rainfall. We do seek Allah’s intercession to you
and your intercession to Allah,” a Bedouin orated. The
Prophet (peace be upon him) went on uttering ‘praised
be Allah’ severally that the attendants were
bewildered. Then, he added, “Woe is you! Do you
realize Allah? His divine concern is greater than
anyone’s interceding in His affairs. He is aloft. His
heavens on His Throne. A dome covers His Throne…”
Bin Baz’s AI-Fatawi, part 1 page 3 1 7 verdict 7351:
Q3. What should I reply those who ask about the place
of Allah?
A.                You should answer that He is above His Throne. He,
the Exalted, says, (The Beneficent settled on the
It is necessary to clarify that the asker, in the
previous question, asks about the material
circumstance that encloses that material entity.
Accordingly, that material entity should inexorably be
confined in that space exclusively, and origin of that
entity should be related with its existence in that
circumstance. At any rate, the conclusion is that that
material entity had no existence before being confined
in that circumstance.
The juriscounsult should have rejected the form of the
question originally, and informed the asker that it is
impracticable to cite such questions about Allah, the
Exalted. The juriscounsult, however, delineated his
god as a material mass existent on the Throne. This
requires declaring that the Throne, as lbn Teimiya
avers, was existent before Allah, the Exalted, or
enjoyed his same eternity. He maintained that the
Throne is consummatory and mendable!!
Wahabists’ most learned Hadithist, Sheik Nasiruddin
Al-Albani, ruled of authenticity of Ummut-Tufeil’s
narrative. That was in his commentary on lbn Abi
Asim’s narration, numbered 471. In this narrative,
Ummut-Tufeil claims she heard the Prophet (peace be
upon him) declare that he had seen his Lord in dreams.
The Lord looked like a young haired man whose feet are
in a green place, putting two golden sandals, and
there were golden marks on His face.
Master of Wahabism, in the last of his At-Tawhid,
decided authenticity of the narrative that ibexes are
carrying the Throne of Allah, the Exalted. He ascribed
the following fable to the Prophet (peace be upon him
and his family). “How do you surmise the distant from
the heavens to you?”, asked the Prophet “Well, we
cannot guess,” answered the attendants. “The distance
between the heavens and you, either seventy one, two
or three years-walking-. Every next heavens is of the
same distance, till the seventh above which there is
an ocean. The distance between the bottom and the peak
of the ocean is the same previously cieted. Above that
ocean, there are eight, ibex, the distance from their
clovn hooves and knees is the same distance between
each two heavens. The distance between the bottom and
the top of the Throne, which is fixed on backs of
these ibex, is the same between each two heaven.
Allah, the Blessed the Exalted, is above all those.”,
asserted the Prophet.
It seem that suspect of number of the years taken as
measurement, was expounded by the Prophet (peace be
upon him and his family), not the narrator, because
Mohammed Bin Abdil-Wahab did not clarify so. 
In the Margin of lbnul-Jawzi’s Daf’u Shubehit-Tashbih
Bi Ekuffit-Tanzih, page 259, As-Saqqaf commentates:
In an independent well remarkable essay titled ‘Legend
of Ibexes’, AI-Kawthari, in his Al-Ma qalat page 308,
clarifies falsification of that narrative. Abdullah
Bin As-Siddiq AI-Ghemari, in his Fi Sabilit-Tawfiq,
displays nullity of wording of that narrative. He
says, “I have already proved nullity of narrative of
ibexes, by providing evidences on its doubtful
documentation and refutable contents.”
As long as they admit legend of ibexes carrying the
Throne, Wahabists may admit legends of the other
groups of animals adopted from the Jew corporalists
and claimed, by the Muslim corporalists, of bearing
the Throne.
Ad-Dimiri’s Hayatul Hayawanil Kubra, part 2 page 428:
Orwa Bin Az-Zubeir (God pleas him): Bearers of the
Throne are four. One is having the look of a human, a
bull, an eagle and a lion respectively.
AI-Jahiz’s Kitabuf Hayawan, part 6 page 221:
…This is proved by the Prophet’s giving credence to
Umaya Bin Abis-Selt’s verse, “A man and a bull are
under His right foot, and an eagle is under the other,
and a lion is watching.”
In the margin, it is written, “In Al-Isaba Fi
Tamyizis-Sahaba, page 549, lbn Abbas:
The Prophet (peace be upon him), after listening to
the previous verse, commented, “He has said the truth.
These are the descriptions of bearers of the Throne.”
In Al-Aqdul-Farid: lbn Abbas: Before the Prophet
(peace be upon him) I recited Umaya Bin Abis-Selt’s
verses about bearers of the Throne. He smiled,
expressing his believing in so.”
At-Tabari’s Book of Tafseer, part 25 page 6:
... Ka’b answered, “Our Lord is on the handsome
Throne, crossing his legs. The distance between this
earth and the other is five hundred years-walking-.
The same distance is between the earth and the
following. Recite God’s saying, (The heavens may
almost be rent thereat 19.90).’
Ka’b, then, states that the heavens may almost be rent
due to the Lord’s heavy weight, as well as the heavy
weight of the animals bearing His Throne! It is not
extraordinary for that bearer of Jewish culture and
tendency, no matter he declares being Muslim or not,
to cite such fables. The most extraordinary thing is
Wahabists’ adopting such fables while they are
claiming being the only Muslims!!
We can do nothing for stopping them against adopting
their monotheism from Ka’bul-Ahbar, and shunning
monotheism of their Prophet’s household.
Some of them read zealously Ka’b and his fellows’
narratives ascribed to the Prophet (peace be upon him
and his family) or to Talmud and Jew tale-tellers;
therefore, they encounter menacing troubles. On the
other hand, they disgust looking at the Prophet’s
household narratives, even those imputed to their
grandfather, Mohammed (peace be upon him and his
family). In the same time, they decide authenticity of
the Prophet’s will of adhering to the two weighty
things; Allah’s Book and the Prophet’s household. Had
they read traditions of the Prophet’s household, they
would have certainly found answers of their menacing
AI-Kuleini’s Al-Kafi, part I page 93:
Ali Bin lbrahim: His father: Al-Hassan Bin Ali:
Al-Yaqubi: some acquaintances:
Abdul-Ala (Al Sam’s slave): Abu Abdillah (peace be
upon him) related:
“O God’s messenger! I came for asking you about your
Lord. You should answer me truly, otherwise I will
return,” a Jew named Sabhat addressed at the Prophet
(peace be upon him and his family).
The Prophet: Ask whatever you wish.
The Jew: Where is your Lord?
The Prophet: He is in every space, and not in any
specific space.
The Jew: How is He?
The Prophet: How should I refer a condition to my Lord
Who created conditions. It is impracticable to
attribute created things to Allah.
The Jew: Then, how should your prophecy be proved?
Immediately, everything, including rocks, around that
Jew were made to articulate in an eloquent Arabic. “O
Sabhat! This is the Apostle of Allah.” “I have never
seen such a thing!”, said the Jew surprisingly, “I do
declare there is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is the
apostle of Allah.”
Nahjul-Belagha, part 2 page 116 sermon 186:
About Oneness of Allah. This sermon contains
principles of knowledge which no otner sermon
He who assigns to Him (different) conditions does not
believe in His oneness, nor does he who likens Him
grasp His reality. He who illustrates Him does not
signify Him. He who pints at Him and imagines Him does
not mean Him. Everything that is known through itself
has been created, and everything that exists by virtue
of other things is the effect (of a cause). He works
but not with the thinking. He is rich but not by
acquisition. Time does not keep company with Him, and
implements do not help Him. His Being precedes times.
His Existence precedes nonexistence and His eternity
precedes beginning. By His creating the senses it is
known that He has no senses. By the contradictory, and
by similarity between things it is known that there is
nothing similar to Him. He has made light that
contracrtctory of darkness, brightness that of gloom,
dryness that of moisture and heat that of cold. He
produces affection among inimical things. He fuses
together diverse things, nears remote things and
separates things which are joined together. He is not
confined by limits, nor counted by numbers. Material
parts can surround things of their own kind, and
organs can point out to things similar to themselves.
The word ‘munzu’ (since) disproves their eternity, the
word ‘Qad’ (that denotes nearness of time of
occurrence), disproves their being from ever and the
words ‘Lau Ia’ (if it were not), keep them remote from
perfection. Through them the Creator manifests Himself
to inelegance, and through them He is prevented from
the sight of eyes. Stillness and motion do not occur
in Him. And how can that thing occur in Him which He
has Himself made to occur, and how can a thing revert
to Him which He first created and how can a thing
appear in Him which He brought to appearance first. If
it be not so His self would become subject to
diversity, His Being would become divisible (into
parts) and His reality would be prevented from being
deemed Eternal. If there was front for Him there would
be rear also for Him. He would need re couping only if
shortage could befall Him. In that case signs of the
created would appear in Him, and He would become a
sign (leading to other objects) instead of the signs
leading to Him. The fact that he cannot have qualities
of those created necessitates that He should not be
affected by things which affect others. He that who
does not change. The process of setting does not
behoove him. He has not begotten any one lest He be
regarded to have been born. He has not been begotten
otherwise He would be contained within limits. He is
too High to have sons.
He is too purified to contact women. Imagination
cannot reach Him so as to assign Him quantity.
Understanding cannot think of Him so as to give him
shape. Senses do not perceive Him so as to feel Him.
Hands cannot touch Him so as to rub against Him. He
does not change into any condition. He does not pass
from one state to another. Nights and days do not turn
Him old. Light and darkness do not alter Him. It
cannot be said that He has a limit or extremity, nor
end nor termination; nor do things control Him so as
to raise Him or lower Him, nor does anything carry Him
so as to bend Him or keep Him erect He is not inside
the things nor outside them. He conveys news but not
with tongue or vocal. He listens but not with the
holes of the ears or the organs of hearing. He says
but does not utter. He remembers but does not
memorize. He determines but not by exercising His
mind. He loves and approves without any weakness. He
hates and feels angry without any painstaking. When he
intends creating someone He says, “Be” and there he
is, but not through “nice that strikes (ears) call
that is heard. His speech is an act of His creation
His like never existed before this. If it had been
eternal, it would have been the second god. It cannot
be said that He came into being after He has not been
in existence because in that case the attributes of
the created things ‘woould be assigned to Him, and He
would have no distinction over them. Thus,. the
Creator and the created would become equal and the
initiator and the intiated would be on the same level.
He created the (whole) creation without any example
made by someone else and He did not secure the
assistance of any one out of His creation for creating
it. He created the earth and suspended it without
being busy, retained it without support, made it stand
withuot legs, raised it without pillars, protected it
against bends and curves and defended it against
crumbling. He fixed mountains on it like stumps,
solidified its rocks, flowed its streams and opened
wide its valleys. Whatever He made did not suffer from
any flaw, and whatever He strengthened did not show
any weakness. He manifests Himself over the earth with
His authorty and greatness. He is aware of its inside
through His knowledge and understanding. He overways
everything from the earth by virtue of His sublimity
and dignity. Nothing from the earth that He may ask
for, defies Him, nor does it oppose Him so as to
overpower Him. No swift footed creature can run away
from Him so as to surpass Him. He is not needy towards
any propertied person so that he may feed him. All the
things bow to Him and are humble before His Greatness.
They cannot flee away from His authority to someone
else in order to escape His benefit or His harm. There
is no parallel for Him who may match Him and no one
like Him so as to equal Him. He would destroy the
eirth after its existence, till all that exists on it
would become nonexistent. But the extinction of the
world after its creation is not stranger than its
first formation and invention...
*                  Sermons of Nahjul-Belagha are literally quoted from
lmam Ali, Nahjul Balagha, Ansariyan Pubflcations.
Page 116-124
In His Keshfulirtiyab Fl Ittiba Ibni AbdiI-Wahab, page
94, Sayid Al-Amin records:
Quran and the Prophet’s traditions are in Arabic. Like
ordinary Arabic texts, they comprise factuality and
metaphor. Factuality is the actual use of an
expression; such as saying, “I saw a lion in the
jungle.” Lion, here, stands for that strong animal.
Metaphor, on the other hand, is the use of an
expression for exposing a condition between the
expression and the meaning intended. As an example on
this, we cite the sentence, “I saw a lion in the
meeting.” Lion, here, may stand for a brave
individual. The acceptable condition linking the two
is courage.
Like Quranic and prophetic texts, Arabic texts used
metaphor so generally. The following are Quranic
metaphorical texts:
(The hand of Allah is above their hands.)
(And make the ark before Our eyes.)
(That you might be brought up before My eyes.)
(You are surely before Our eyes.)
(And could you see when they are made to stand before
their Lord.)
(Woe is me, for what I have squandered in the side of
(Everything is perishable except His face.)
(Whither you turn, thither is Allah’s face.)
(And there will endure only the face of your Lord.)
(The Beneficent settled on the Throne.)
(They fear their Lord above them.)
(So he was the measure of two bows or closer still.)
(Only whom your Lord will have mercy on.)
(Only whom Allah will have mercy on.)
(And Allah will send His wrath on him.)
(Allah shall pay them back their mockery.)
(And does come your Lord.)
Presumption of metaphor of the previous Quranic,
texts, is impossibility of intending the factual
meanings that result in Gods corporeity, occupying a
definite space, existing in a definite point and being
encountering contingent affairs.
Metaphorical expressions should be having a
presumption. Back to the earlier example, wild animals
do not attend meetings usually. Occasionally, the
presumption is circumstantial, that is indicated
through the circumstance, not expressional, that is
indicated through representation of wording;
therefore, some cannot comprehend it correctly.
Metaphor, sometimes, is used so commonly that it does
not need a presumption. It is also named reported
metaphor when it attains rank of factuality.
Keshfulirtiyab Fl Ittiba Ibni Abdil-Wahab, page 119:
Wahabists claimed their being the only monotheists,
while other Muslims are entirely polytheists. In fact,
lbn Teimiya, Mohammed Bin Abdil-Wahab and their
followers abused, desecrated and raped monotheism.
They ascribed unbecoming affairs to Allah, the
Exalted. Allah be highly exalted and glorified against
sayings of the wrong. They materialized Allah’s having
the physical upper locality, settling on the Throne
which is above the heavens and the earth, descending
to the lowest heavens, coming, going and alike
material matters. Without any interpretation, they
also claimed His having a face, two hands, fingers,
palm and eyes. This is indeed a clear corporalism.
They rested upon the extrinsic meanings of aspect of
the divine attributes and names texts; therefore, they
proved Allah’s affection, mercy, pleasingness, wrath
and the like. They alleged that Allah articulates
physically. Thus, they decided God as a contingent
Ibn Teimiya asserted the Lord’s occupying a locality,
having corporeality, material settling on the Throne
and physical articulation. He was the foremost in this
misbelief. He wrote dependent essays in this regard.
His Al-Aqidetul Hamawiya and Al-Wasitiya and many
other essays are good examples. His two students;
Ibnul-Qeyim Al-Jawziya and Ibn Abdil-Hadi, as well as
their partisans, ensued him. jurisprudents and master
scholars of his time judged him as deviant and atheist
They asked the ruler to kill or detain him. Hence, he
was banished to Egypt where he was argued commonly. He
was sentenced to imprisonment In the prison, he died
after he had breached his word of repentance.
For recognizing the actual value of lbn Teimiya, the
following are sayings of the master scholar regarding
his personality and beliefs.
Ahmed Bin Hajar AI-Heithami AI-Mekki, the Shafiite,
writes in his Al-jawharul Munaddham Fl Ziyaretin
Nabiyyil Mukarram:
lbn Teimiya transgressed the divine presence and
violated fence of the divine excellence when he
provided claims of Allah’s having a locality and a
corporeality before the public.
In His Ad-Durrarul Kamina, lbn Hajar records:
People stated various opinions about lbn Teimiya. Some
assigned claims of corporalism to him. This was
because of his writings in his Al-Aqidetul Hamawiya
and Al-Wasitiya, when he claimed Allah’s having
material hands, feet, leg and face. He also claimed
that He is settling on the Throne physically. As he
was argued that these beliefs lead to corporalism, he
answered, “I do not submit to the matter that having a
locality or divisibility are specifications of
corporealities.” This means that he had indeed claimed
the Lord’s having a definite space.
In Ashraful Wasail ha Fehmi Shemail, the writer
records that Ibnul-Qeyim and his master, lbn Teimiya,
pronounced a funny thing when they claimed that the
reason beyond recommendation of sending edges of the
turban on the shoulders, was the Lord had fixed His
hands between shoulder of the Prophet while he was
looking at him! Therefore, the Prophet honored that
position. “We have not found a single report
supporting this claim.” Al-Iraqi asserted. However,
such claims are listed under misbeliefs and deviation
of these two individuals. They adopted and spared no
efforts in finding evidences on corporalism and
anthropomorphism. In addition, they aimed at debasing
Ahlus-Sunna for their denying this misbelief. Greatly
exalted be Allah against sayings of the wrong and
atheists. Moreover, they over said in this topic such
catastrophic statements that ears cannot bear, and
forgery, belying and fraudulence are easily decided.
Deformed be their sayings and them. Ahmed, master of
Hanbalism, and his reverent acquaintances are freed
from such a hideous stain. For majority, it is decided
as atheism.
In HelluI Ma’aqid, Al-Mawlawi Abdul-Halim Al-Hindi
records, “Taqiyuddin Ibn Teimiya was Hanbalite. But he
transcended limits and attempted at substantiating
matters contradicting the Lord’s glorification and
excellence. Besides many others, he claimed Allah’s
occupying a locality and a corporeality. The judge
sentenced him to imprisonment in 705. In Damascus, it
was publicly declared that properties and souls of
followers of lbn Teimiya’s misbeliefs are lawfully
disregarded. This was recorded in Abu Mohammed
Abdullah AI-Yafii’s Miratul jinan. After he has shown
repentance and declared of being Asharite, lbn Teimiya
was released in 707. Immediately, he breached his
repentance and showed his heretic affairs anew. Thus,
he was detained in more severe circumstances. He could
escape and resettle in Syria. Historical records wrote
down his circumstances, conditions and sayings. Sheik
Ibn Hajar, in the first volume of his Ad-Durarul
Kamina, recorded his manners and events. The same
thing was written by At-Thehbi, in his book of
history, as well as many others. In brief words, Ibn
Teimiya claimed Allah’s being a corporeality and
lacking a space. He relied upon the fact that every
corporeality needs a space. Resting upon God’s saying,
(The Beneficent settled on the Throne.), lbn Teimiya
claimed the Lord’s occupying the Throne. Accordingly,
he had to state anteriority, eternality and ceaseless
renovation. The Lord’s final possibility is eternal,
while the limited are contingent.
Abul-Fida, in his book of history events of 705,
On that year, Taqiyuddin Ahmed Bin Teimiya was
summoned to Egypt where he was publicly argued. Owing
to his belief of corporalism, he was detained. Within
the royal judgment against Ibn Teimiya, the following
statements are mentioned, “During this period, Ibn
Teimiya, the miserable, used his quill and wording for
delving into questions of the Quran and the divine
attributes. He spoke in ill-favored affairs, and
asserted what was denied by masters of Islam.
Unanimity of scholars contracted him, since he
contravened savants and jurisprudents of his time and
province. We have been informed that his people
complied with him after he had betrayed them. We have
been acquainted that they declared their misbeliefs of
the Lord’s having physical articulation and
Mohammed Bin Abdil-Wahab and his group did adhere to
beliefs of lbn Teimiya regarding corporalism,
visitating tombs, intercession to Allah and the like.
Without interpretation, son of Abdul-Wahab exceeded
his master in substantiating that Allah has a definite
locality, which is above, and settles on the Throne
that is above the heavens and the earth, and enjoys
physical corporeality, material mercy, satisfaction,
wrath, right and left hand, fingers and palm.
Partisans of Mohammed Bin Abdil-Wahab claimed Allah’s
occupying an upper locality, settling on the Throne,
having a face, hands and eyes, descending to the lower
heavens, coming, nearness and the like; all with the
material meanings wanting interpretative exegeses.
The following is written down in the fourth chapter of
AI-Hadiyetus Sunnlya, recorded by Mohammed Bin
Abdul-Latif, the grandson of Mohammed Bin Abdil-Wahab.
“Allah, the Exalted, is on His Throne as he said, (The
Beneficent settled on the Throne;), and He has two
hands wanting a certain condition, as he said, (“When
I created with My hands;) and (His hands are open.) He
also has eyes and face wanting a certain condition, as
he said, (And there will endure the face of your
Lord,)...” They give credence to the Prophet’s saying,
“Allah descends to the lowest heavens...” and they
believe that Allah shall come on Resurrection Day, as
he said, (And there come your Lord and the angels.) By
the same token, they believe that Allah comes near to
His creatures as he desires. He said, (We are nearer
to him than his life-vein.)
In the fifth chapter of the previous book, the writer
records, “We do believe that Allah settles on the
Throne and exalts over His creatures. We believe that
His Throne is above the heavens. Allah said, (The
Beneficent settled on the Throne.) We believe in the
expression and substantiate reality of settling,
without suggesting a definite condition or picture. We
adopt the saying of Malik Bin Anas, master of
Darul-Hijra (Al-Madina). When he was asked about
condition of the Lord’s settling, Malik answered,
‘Settling is known and its way is unexplored, and
believing in this is obligatory and questioning about
it is heresy.”’
This saying results in one of two things; either
corporalism or impossibility. Both, however, are
impracticable. Occurring of material settling wanting
a definite condition is impossible, on criteria of
mentality. Occurrence of material settling with a
definite condition results in opting for corporalism.
Hence, it is requisite to opt for finding
interpretative exegesis or resting upon metaphorical
meaning. Presumption, however, should be
intellectuality. This proves that the previous
statement ascribed to Malik is rarely true. The good
reputation of the man makes us suspect authenticity of
assigning this statement to him. Malik’s statement,
‘Settling in known’, if the material meaning of
settling is intended, is impracticable according to
intellectuality, since Allah’s corporeity is
infeasible. It is also impossible to settle materially
without being a corporeality. How is it practicable to
decided asking about it as a heresy while giving
credence to unknown matters is impossible?! If the
meaning intended by Malik is believing in the settling
proposed by the Lord without asking about its detailed
conditions, its impracticability should be ruled for
the same previous intellectual grounds. If he alludes
to the metaphorical meanings only, where is the
actuality of settling, then?!
Moreover, if those faction take Malik’s words as their
guidance and principals, what for did they shun his
statements regarding directing towards the Prophet’s
tomb and seeking his intercession to Allah, then?
Malik did instruct Al-Mansour, the caliph, to turn his
face towards the Prophet’s tomb and seek his
intercession to the Lord.
Abdullah Bin Mohammed Bin Abdil-Wahab, in the second
chapter of Al-Hadiyetus Saniya, states, “Our claiming
of the Lord’s having a locality; which is the above,
does in no means require our being corporalists, since
consequences of a sect are not the sect itself.” If
the previous rule is true, it stands for the idea that
adopting a certain faith does not necessarily require
believing in its consequences. But, when this faith is
false, its consequences shall be false, too. Falsity
of consequences leads to falsity of principals. Lest,
inherence is totally null. If corporeity of Allah is
false, accrediting locality of exaltation to Him shall
be void and null, too. We have previously provided
that Ibn Teimiya, their master and guide, was decided
as atheist, and sentenced to death penalty in absentia
and imprisonment, because he claimed corporeity of the
Lord. Mohammed Bin Abdil-Wahab, founder of their
faction, followed Ibn Teimiya in claiming Allah’s
having right and left hands, fingers and palm. Those
are following these two so accurately and
comprehensively that they would not be acquitted even
if they declare freeing from corporalism.
In As-Sahih FiI Aqidetit Tahawiya, page 165, As-Saqaf,
the current reviser, states:
Singling out metaphor is a course adopted by the
worthy ancestors. No single sane can doubt so. lbn
Teimiya, in his Al-Iman, page 85, records Ahmed’s
considering metaphor as a style used in some
expressions. Al-Hafiz Az-Zerkashi, in Al-Bahrul Muhit
Fl urn! Usoul, part 2 page 182, relates so to Ahmed.
lbn Teimiya and Ibnul-Qeyim failed in their endeavors
to deny metaphor. They contrasted themselves! While he
decides metaphor as a sort of devil deeds,
lbnul-Qeyim, in his AI-Fawaldul Mushawlqa, contrasts
himself as he proves and cites many evidences on
materialization of metaphor. Sheik Al-Albania, the
self-contradictor, opposes Ibn Teimiya in this regard
when he upholds metaphor in the introduction of
Mukhtasarul UIuw, page 23 (the margin). On page 31 of
our AI-Bisharatu WeI-Ithaf, we have referred to this
Because of compulsion and force, the present compiler
of Adwa’uI Bayan was suffering in the country he had
lived in, in his final days, he had to deny
metaphorical expressions of the texts. Compulsion,
however, has its own rulings! At any rate, denial of
this scholar is not that strong evidence to which
students and seekers of the truth via individuals, not
seekers of individuals via the truth, should hold
fast, especially when clear proofs have been provided.
Allah, however, is the guide.
It is quite strange for lbn Teimiya to claim, on page
85 of his AI-Irnan, that neither Ahmed’s followers,
Malik, Ashafii nor did Abu Haneefa maintain that there
are metaphorical expressions in the Quranic texts. He
also claimed that division of factuality and metaphor
had been originated in the fourth Hijri century, and
that it might have emerged in the last of the second
and the first of the third Hijri centuries!
Indeed, this is inconstancy in identifying history. It
is aimed for nothing more than deviating the readers.
Masters of sects, specially Ashafii who used another
term, did refer to metaphor. Muammar Bin AI-Muthenna,
whose birth was in 106, did compile a book named
Mejazul Quran,-Metaphor in the Quran-.
As-Sahih Fil Aqidetit Tahawiya, page 311:
Corporalists provided God’s saying, (The Beneficent
settled on the Throne), as their evidence on God’s
being sitting on His Throne and being materially
utmost Evading stating belief of God’s material
settling and physical exaltation, some say that Allah
is being above in the heavens.
Indisputably, this is a clear blunder. Allah is
gloriously promoted against having a space. In Arabic,
the expression ‘He is in the heavens.’, is used for
glorifying. The following are detailed exposition
about meanings of this Verse and its likes, quoted
from Ibnul-Jawzi’s Dafu Shubehit Tashbih, page 121, in
addition to our comments:
The word, ‘Throne’ mentioned in God’s saying, (He
settled on the Throne), stands for the royal bench. It
is commonly used in Arabic before and after Islam. It
is also used occasionally in the Holy Quran. The item
‘settle’ has various meanings. It may hint at equity,
perfection, direction or prevalence. 
Page 145-151
Mohammed Yusuf 



وَنَجَّيْنَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَكَانُوا يَتَّقُونَ {41:18}

But We delivered those who believed and practised righteousness


  Allah Original Name
  Our Belief in Allah


  Allah and Throne
  Saving Allah's Face


Copyright ©2011
All rights reserved

وَنَجَّيْنَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَكَانُوا يَتَّقُونَ     اللهم صلى على محد و ال محد.... و عجل فرجهم