IslamiCity.org Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Religion - Islam > Interfaith Dialogue
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Tawheed,Divine simplicity& my confusion about it  What is Islam What is Islam  Donate Donate
  FAQ FAQ  Quran Search Quran Search  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Tawheed,Divine simplicity& my confusion about it

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
Johnyman22 View Drop Down
Starter.
Starter.
Avatar
christian
Joined: 12 April 2022
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Johnyman22 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Tawheed,Divine simplicity& my confusion about it
    Posted: 12 April 2022 at 10:32pm
I come from a Christian backround but am considering and wanting to convert to islam.truly understanding classical theistic divine simplicity led me to Tawheed,but I heard that sunni islam rejects divine simplicity so I am confused to what proofs there are in your system for Tawheed?

I heard that in orthodox islam God's attributes are not identical or numerically the same as his essence(Though I heard that in the Maturidi it was but I don't think thats true,yet they deny absolute Divine simplicity),so it seems he can have posterior parts wich make him up.

why then cannot there be one essence and three 'persons' or subsisting relations like the eternalist modalists hold(catholics) or even three essences giving rise to three persons each(like Social trinitarians believe)?

Am I wrong that God has parts in orthodox islamic schools like Maturidi or A'shari?

if god is absolutely simple,or if he is absolutely one it would follow that he is absolutely simple wouldn't it,and then it would follow that there can be no internal subsisting relations(like the FSH modalism of the catholics) in a absolutely simple being wich would be a step towards absolute monotheism.
But orthodox islam has denied this conception if I am correct?

From what angle would the orthodox muslim argue against the Trinity in it's two understandings(Eternal Father-son-spirit modalism of the classical theists and the veiled Tritheism of the Social Trinitarians who reject divine simplicity like Platinga and some modern protestants)is basically what I'm asking?

wouldn't a being who's essence is identical to its existance be absolutely simple?A being who's essence is not identical to it's existance is Created.the definition or synonym of a uncreated unconditioned being is a being that has its essence and existance as one and the same,yet from what I've studied this would lead to absolute Divine simplicity wich only the Imamiyah affirm?

What am I getting wrong here?and from your perspective as a a'shari or maturidi what are the lists of philosophical arguments for Tawheed against multiplicity of entities as subsisting relations in one essence as the catholics hold,and there being three essences and three persons as the social trinitarians hold?
Back to Top
asep garutea View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar
Male Islam
Joined: 18 January 2019
Location: Indonesia
Status: Offline
Points: 281
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote asep garutea Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 May 2022 at 12:12am
Originally posted by Johnyman22 Johnyman22 wrote:

I come from a Christian backround but am considering and wanting to convert to islam.truly understanding classical theistic divine simplicity led me to Tawheed,but I heard that sunni islam rejects divine simplicity so I am confused to what proofs there are in your system for Tawheed?

I heard that in orthodox islam God's attributes are not identical or numerically the same as his essence(Though I heard that in the Maturidi it was but I don't think thats true,yet they deny absolute Divine simplicity),so it seems he can have posterior parts wich make him up.

why then cannot there be one essence and three 'persons' or subsisting relations like the eternalist modalists hold(catholics) or even three essences giving rise to three persons each(like Social trinitarians believe)?

Am I wrong that God has parts in orthodox islamic schools like Maturidi or A'shari?

if god is absolutely simple,or if he is absolutely one it would follow that he is absolutely simple wouldn't it,and then it would follow that there can be no internal subsisting relations(like the FSH modalism of the catholics) in a absolutely simple being wich would be a step towards absolute monotheism.
But orthodox islam has denied this conception if I am correct?

From what angle would the orthodox muslim argue against the Trinity in it's two understandings(Eternal Father-son-spirit modalism of the classical theists and the veiled Tritheism of the Social Trinitarians who reject divine simplicity like Platinga and some modern protestants)is basically what I'm asking?

wouldn't a being who's essence is identical to its existance be absolutely simple?A being who's essence is not identical to it's existance is Created.the definition or synonym of a uncreated unconditioned being is a being that has its essence and existance as one and the same,yet from what I've studied this would lead to absolute Divine simplicity wich only the Imamiyah affirm?

What am I getting wrong here?and from your perspective as a a'shari or maturidi what are the lists of philosophical arguments for Tawheed against multiplicity of entities as subsisting relations in one essence as the catholics hold,and there being three essences and three persons as the social trinitarians hold?

Hi..Johnnyman,
I want to try to explain what confuses you about divine simplicity, and you ask for the proof of Tawheed.
Tawheed comes from Arabic which it can mean God is One.
And the teaching that explain Tawheed (monotheism) is the teaching of Islam, and people who practice Islamic law are called Muslims.
One of the proofs of Tawheed in the Quran is as follows:

The Quran 112: (1)
قُلْ هُوَ ٱللَّهُ �£َحَدٌ
"Say, “He is Allah, [who is] One,
(2)
ٱللَّهُ ٱلصَّمَدُ
Allah, the Eternal Refuge.
(3)
لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ
He neither begets nor is born,
(4)
وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُۥ كُفُوًا �£َحَدٌۢ
Nor is there to Him any equivalent.”

Johnnyman,
If you hear a lot of people say, then you will be confused. May advice is, you'd better read the Quran which has a guarantee of authenticity. Here's the proof;

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا ٱلذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُۥ لَحَـٰفِظُونَ
"Indeed, it is We who sent down the Quran and indeed, We will be its guardian."

Johnnyman,
Sorry, if God's power is divided, then logically it means that God is weak, even though God includes everything that can be seen and what cannot be seen in this universe. Here's the proof;

لَّا تُدْرِكُهُ ٱلْ�£َبْصَـٰرُ وَهُوَ يُدْرِكُ ٱلْ�£َبْصَـٰرَ ۖ وَهُوَ ٱللَّطِيفُ ٱلْخَبِيرُ
"Vision perceives Him not, but He perceives [all] vision; and He is the Subtle, the Acquainted."

Please meditate on the word of Allah Ta'ala below;

وَإِن تُطِعْ �£َكْثَرَ مَن فِى ٱلْ�£َرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَن سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ ۚ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا ٱلظَّنَّ وَإِنْ هُمْ إِلَّا يَخْرُصُونَ
"And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah. They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying."

Back to Top
MIAW View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar
Islam
Joined: 17 January 2018
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 492
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MIAW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 May 2022 at 2:52am
Question:

Are all the attributes of Allah similar to one another or are there several different attributes, each of one is different from another? Similarly, do His names have the same meaning or similar meanings, or does each name have a meaning that is different to others? Is it permissible to say that the attributes of Allah are infinite, and so are His names, or are they finite and limited, and that Allah knows them?.

Answer:

Praise be to Allah.

Firstly: 

There is no doubt that the attributes of Allah are different with regard to their meanings. The attribute of power is not the same as the attribute of might, which is not the same as the attribute of knowledge. No rational person would say that they are similar to one another in terms of meanings. We will explain that further below. 

Secondly: 

The belief of Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah concerning the names of Allah is that they are the same in that they refer to His Essence, may He be glorified and exalted, and are different with regard to their meanings.  

To explain that further, we say: His names al-Qadeer (the Powerful), al-‘Aleem (The All-Knowing), al-‘Azeez (the Almighty), al-Hakeem (the Wise) – for example – all point to one Essence, which is the holy Essence of Allah. So in this regard they are the same and not different. But at the same time, the attributes of power, knowledge, might and wisdom differ from one another. So in this sense they differ from one another. 

So the beautiful names of Allah are synonymous in that they refer to one Essence, but the attributes referred to in those names differ from one another. 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

Allah, may He be glorified, has told us that He is All-Knowing, Powerful, All-Hearing, All-Seeing, Forgiving, Most Merciful, and other names and attributes. We understand the meaning of that, and we can differentiate between knowledge and power, between mercy and hearing and vision; we know that all the names agree in that they refer to the Essence of Allah. Even though they have different meanings, they are in agreement and are the same with regard to His Essence, different with regard to His Attributes. 

Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa, 3/59 

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

The names and attributes of Allah, may He be exalted, are names in that they refer to His Essence and they are attributes with regard to the meanings contained in these words. In the first regard they are the same because they refer to one Essence, namely Allah, may He be exalted and glorified, and in the second regard they are different because each one has a different meaning. 

So al-Hayy (the Ever-Living), al-‘Aleem (the All-Knowing), al-Qadeer (the Powerful), as-Samee‘ (the All-Hearing), al-Baseer (the All-Seeing), ar-Rahmaan (the Most Merciful), ar-Raheem (the Most Compassionate), al-‘Azeez (the Almighty), al-Hakeem (the All Wise) are all names of one named entity, who is Allah, may He be exalted, but the meaning of al-Hayy (the Ever-Living) is different from the meaning of al-‘Aleem (the All-Knowing), and the meaning of al-‘Aleem (the All-Knowing) is different from the meaning of al-Qadeer (the Powerful), and so on. 

Rather we say that they are names and attributes because the Qur’aan refers to that, as Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And He is the Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”

[Yoonus 10: 10]

“And your Lord is Most Forgiving, Owner of Mercy”

[al-Kahf 18:58].

The second verse indicates that the Most Merciful is the One Who has the characteristic of mercy. There is consensus among linguists and the way people understand the language that no one can be called ‘aleem (knowing) except one who has knowledge; no one can be called samee‘ (hearing) except one who has hearing; no one can be called baseer (seeing) except one who has sight. This matter is too clear to need any proof. 

Al-Qawaa’id al-Mathla fi Sifaat Allah wa Asma’ihi al-Husna, p. 8 

The same may be said about the names of the Qur’aan, the names of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and the names of the Last Day. In each case they all refer to one thing – the Qur’aan or the Messenger or the Last Day – but at the same time they differ in that each of these names refers to an attribute that is different from others, so the names carry different meanings.  

Thirdly: 

The belief of Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah concerning the beautiful names of Allah – according to the correct view – is that they are not limited to a specific number and the same may be said concerning His attributes. Allah, may He be exalted, has names that He has kept to Himself in the knowledge of the unseen with Him, and these names refer to attributes. So His names and attributes are not limited to a specific number. 

Among the evidence for this belief is the following: 

-1-

It was narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Mas’ood said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There is no-one who is afflicted by distress and grief, and says: ‘Allaahumma inni ‘abduka ibn ‘abdika ibn amatija naasyati bi yadika, maada fiyya hukmuka, ‘adlun fiyya qadaa’uka. As’aluka bi kulli ismin huwa laka sammayta bihi nafsaka aw anzaltahu fi kitaabika aw ‘allamtahu ahadan min khalqika aw ista’tharta bihi fi ‘ilm il-ghayb ‘indaka an taj’al al-Qur’aana rabee’ qalbi wa noor sadri wa jalaa’ huzni wa dhihaab hammi (O Allaah, I am Your slave, son of Your slave, son of Your maidservant; my forelock is in Your hand, Your command over me is forever executed and Your decree over me is just. I ask You by every name belonging to You which You have named Yourself with, or revealed in Your Book, or You taught to any of Your creation, or You have preserved in the knowledge of the Unseen with You, that You make the Qur’aan the life of my heart and the light of my breast, and a departure for my sorrow and a release for my anxiety),’ but Allaah will take away his distress and grief, and replace it with joy.” He was asked: “O Messenger of Allaah, should we learn this?” He said: “Of course; everyone who hears it should learn it.” 

Narrated by Ahmad, 3704; classed as saheeh by Shaykh al-Albaani in as-Silsilah al-Saheehah, 199.  

Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

The beautiful names of Allah are not limited and are innumerable. Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, has names and attributes that He has kept to Himself in the knowledge of the unseen with Him. They are not known to any Angel who is close to him or any Prophet who was sent, as it says in the saheeh hadeeth: “…. I ask You by every name belonging to You which You have named Yourself with, or revealed in Your Book, or You taught to any of Your creation, or You have preserved in the knowledge of the Unseen with You…” 

So His names may be divided into three types: 

(i) Those by which he called Himself and taught them to whomever He willed of His Angels or others, but He did not reveal them in His Book.

(ii) Those that He revealed in His Book and taught them to His slaves.

(iii) Those that He kept to Himself in the knowledge of the unseen, so none of His creation knows them. Hence the du‘aa’ says: “You have preserved” i.e., only You know them; it does not mean that He is the only one who is called by them, because the names that are proven to be only for Him include names that Allah revealed in His Book.

Badaa’i‘ al-Fawaa’id, 1/174-176 

Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

It should be noted that the beautiful names of Allah are not limited to ninety-nine. 

Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 2/328 

See also Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa by Ibn Taymiyah, 22/482-486 

-2-

It was narrated that ‘Aa’ishah said: I noticed that the Messenger of Allaah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was not in the bed one night, so I looked for him, and my hand fell on the sole of his foot. He was in the mosque, with his feet held upright, and he was saying, “O Allaah, I seek refuge in Your pleasure from Your wrath, in Your forgiveness from Your punishment. I seek refuge in You from You. I cannot praise You enough; You are as You have praised Yourself.” 

Narrated by Muslim, 486 

The attributes – as we have mentioned – are connected to the names. Every name that is proven to be a name of Allah refers to an attribute as befits His Majesty, may He be glorified and exalted. 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

He (the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) stated that praise of Allah cannot be limited; if he knew all His names he would know all His attributes and thus be able to praise Him sufficiently, because His attributes are only expressed through His names. 

Dar’ Ta‘aarud al-‘Aql wa’n-Naql, 3/332, 333 

Some of them thought that the names of Allah, may He be exalted, were limited to a specific number, which is ninety-nine! An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) narrated that the scholars are unanimously agreed that the names of Allah are not limited to this number. In the answer to question no. 41003 we have quoted the evidence to show that they are not limited to this number, as well as quoting the opinions of the scholars in refutation of those who thought that the names of Allah, may He be exalted, were limited to this number. 

To sum up: the names, attributes and actions of Allah, may He be exalted, have no limit. No one will doubt this who studies the evidence of the Qur’aan and Sunnah, examines the belief of Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah, and bases his belief in the names and attributes of Allah on proper rules and guidelines. 

And Allah knows best.

Back to Top
MIAW View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar
Islam
Joined: 17 January 2018
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 492
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MIAW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 May 2022 at 2:59am
Question:

I am a teacher of Arabic language, and based on my literary perceptivity and my study of metaphor, I think that some of the verses which speak of the divine attributes are more metaphorical than literal. For example, when Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning), “The Hand of Allah is over their hands” [al-Fath 48:10], what is meant is might and power; I do not think that it is a hand in the real sense of the word. Similarly, when He, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning), “for verily, you are under Our Eyes” [at-Toor 52:48], what is meant is under Our care and protection. My sense of the language refuses to accept that it is referring to an eye in a real sense. Can you explain this matter to me?

Answer:

Correct belief should be based on what is proven in the Qur’an and Sunnah, as understood by the early generations (salaf) of this ummah, namely the Sahaabah, Taabi‘een and leading scholars. They were unanimously agreed that the divine attributes mentioned in the Qur’an and Sunnah are to be affirmed without discussing how or likening Him to His creation, and without denying any of His attributes or interpreting them in a way different from the apparent meaning. We do not differentiate between any of the divine attributes, no matter what category they come under. Every divine attribute that is mentioned in a saheeh text must be affirmed. 

The Qur’an and Sunnah came to teach people about the attributes of their God, and this can only be done by understanding the words in a real sense; this is the basic principle with regard to statements. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) conveyed the Holy Qur’an in both wording and meaning; not a single letter was narrated from him to suggest that any of the divine attributes should be interpreted in a way different from its apparent meaning, or that its apparent meaning is not intended, or that it means likening Him to His creation, or other phrases used by those who deny the divine attributes or interpret them in a way other than their apparent meaning. This is casting aspersions upon the Qur’an or upon the Messenger who was enjoined to convey and explain it. If anything of what they had mentioned was essential, then the Qur’an and the Prophet would have explained it and not concealed it. How could it be otherwise when it is proven in a number of saheeh hadeeths, the authenticity of which is agreed upon, that these attributes are to be affirmed, and there are other attributes mentioned in other hadeeths, such as His descending, His foot, His smiling, and His rejoicing, without any word to suggest that they should be understood in a way different from the apparent meaning, and without any Sahaabi having found it problematic to take them as they appear to be and according to what may be understood from them. If there was anything in the apparent meaning that could be regarded as not befitting to the divine or as likening the divine to any created being – and it is not possible for there to be any such thing in the Qur’an or Sunnah – then the infallible Prophet would have pointed it out and highlighted it to people, and the people of reason at that time would have questioned it, for they were more eager to attain good and adhere to it. 

When innovations appeared, and people emerged who said that these attributes were to be understood in a metaphorical, rather than a real, sense – as was the view of the Jahamis and Mu‘tazilah and those who agreed with them – the early generations and leading scholars responded by stating that these attributes are to be understood in a real sense, not in a metaphorical sense. Their comments on this matter are abundant and well-known. We will quote some of their comments here: 

-1-

‘Uthmaan ibn Sa‘eed ad-Daarimi (d. 280 – may Allah have mercy on him) said:

, may He be exalted, we know about the concept of metaphors from the language of the Arabs, which you have taken and used to confuse and mislead the ignorant. By means of this concept you denied the reality of the divine attributes, on the basis of the metaphor argument. But we say: It is wrong to judge the most common style in the Arabic language on the basis of its rarest style; rather we should understand the statements of the Arabs on the basis of the most common style, unless you can produce proof that what is meant here is the rarer style (namely metaphor). This is the approach that is most fair, and it is not right to approach the divine attributes that are well known and understood as they appear to be by people of common sense, and twist the meaning on the grounds that these are metaphors. 

End quote from Naqd ad-Raadirmi ‘ala Bishr al-Mireesi, 2/755 

-2-

Imam Abu Ja‘far Muhammad ibn Jareer at-Tabari (d. 310 – may Allah have mercy on him) said:

If someone were to say: What is the proper approach with regard to the meaning of these attributes that you have mentioned, some of which are mentioned in the Book and revelation of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, and some were mentioned by the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)? Our response is: The correct approach in our view is to affirm the meaning in a real sense, without likening Him to His creation, as Allah said of Himself in the Qur’an (interpretation of the meaning): “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer” [ash-Shoora 42:11]. … So we affirm all of the meanings that we said are mentioned in the reports and the Qur’an and the revelation according to their apparent meaning, and we reject any likening of Him to His creation. Hence we say: He, may He be glorified and exalted, hears all sounds, but not through a hole in an ear or through any physical faculty like those of the sons of Adam. Similarly, He sees all people with vision that is not like the vision of the sons of Adam, which is a physical faculty of theirs. He has two hands, a right hand, and fingers, but not in a physical sense; rather His two hands are outstretched, bestowing blessings upon creation, not withholding good. And He has a countenance or face, but it is not like the physical faces of the sons of Adam that are made of flesh and blood. We say that He smiles upon whomever He will of His creation, but we do not say that this is showing teeth (like a human smile); and He descends every night to the lowest heaven.

End quote from Tabseer fi Ma‘aalim ad-Deen, p. 141-145 

-3-

Imam Abu Ahmad Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al-Karji who is known as al-Qassaab (d. 360 AH) said concerning the Qaadari belief in a letter that he wrote for the caliph al-Qaadir bi Amr-Allah in 433 AH, which was signed by the scholars of that time to confirm its content, which was sent to the various regions: 

Allah is not to be described except as He has described Himself or as His Prophet has described Him. Any attribute that He has ascribed to Himself or that His Prophet has ascribed to Him, is an attribute in a real sense, and is not metaphorical. If it was metaphorical, then it would have been necessary to explain it in a manner different from the apparent meaning, so it would have been said: What is meant by vision is such and such, what is meant by hearing is such and such, and so on; it would have been explained in a way different from what one would understand from the apparent meaning. As the approach of the salaf is to affirm the attributes without interpreting them in a way different from the apparent meaning, this proves that they are not to be understood in a metaphorical sense; rather they are plain facts. 

End quote from al-Muntazam by Ibn al-Jawzi, speaking of the events of 433 AH; Siyar A‘laam an-Nubala’, 16/213 

-4-

Imam al-Haafiz Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ishaaq ibn Mandah (d. 395) said, affirming the divine attribute of the two hands: 

Chapter on the verse in which Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “(Allah) said: ‘O Iblees (Satan)! What prevents you from prostrating yourself to one whom I have created with Both My Hands’” [Saad 38:75]. And he quoted words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) that could prove that Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, created Adam (peace be upon him) with His two hands in a real sense. 

And he said, affirming the divine attribute of the countenance or face: 

Chapter on the verse in which Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “Everything will perish save His Face” [al-Qasas 28:88]. And Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “And the Face of your Lord full of Majesty and Honour will abide forever” [ar-Rahmaan 55:27]. And he quoted proven reports from the Prophet which indicate that this is to be understood in a real sense. 

End quote from ar-Radd ‘ala al-Jahamiyyah, p. 68, 94 

-5-

Imam Haafiz al-Maghrib Abu ‘Umar Yoosuf ibn ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abd al-Barr al-Andalusi al-Qurtubi al-Maaliki (d. 463) said: 

In principle, words are to be understood in a real sense, unless the ummah is unanimously agreed that something is not to be understood in a real sense, and is rather a metaphor, because there is no way to follow what has been revealed to us from our Lord except on that basis. Rather we should understand the words of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, on the basis of the most apparent and clearest meaning, unless there is a strong reason to do otherwise. If it were justifiable for anyone to claim that something is a metaphor, then no statement would mean anything. Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, is far above saying anything in the Qur’an except that which is said in a manner that may be understood by the Arabs on the basis of their style of speech. Istiwa’ (rising above (the Throne)) is well known and understood in Arabic; it means rising above something and becoming settled and established. 

He said, narrating that there was consensus among Ahl as-Sunnah concerning this matter: Ahl as-Sunnah are unanimously agreed that all the divine attributes mentioned in the Qur’an and Sunnah are to be affirmed, and we are to believe in them and understand them in a real sense, not as metaphorical. But they do not discuss the nature of any of them. As for the followers of innovation, the Jahamis, all the Mu‘tazilah and the Khaarijis, all of them deny the divine attributes and do not understand them in a true sense; they claimed that the one who affirms them is likening Him to His creation. According to those who do affirm the divine attributes, these people are denying God. The truth is on the side of those who base their understanding on the wording of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messengers, and they are the leaders of al-jamaa‘ah, praise be to Allah.

End quote from at-Tamheed, 7/131, 145 

-6-

Imam al-Haafiz adh-Dhahabi said, after quoting the words of al-Qassaab referred to above: 

As Allah exists in a real sense, not metaphorically, His attributes cannot be taken as metaphorical, because in that case they could not be divine attributes, because the attributes are connected to the one who possesses those attributes. As He exists in a real sense, not in a metaphorical sense, His attributes cannot be metaphorical. As there is nothing equal or similar to Him, there can be nothing like His attributes. 

He said, commenting on the words of Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr mentioned above:

He spoke the truth, by Allah. Whoever interprets all the divine attributes in a manner other than their apparent meaning, and regards the words as metaphorical, that will inevitably lead him to denying the Lord and likening Him to something non-existent. It was narrated from Hammaad ibn Zayd that he said: The likeness of the Jahamis is that of people who said: On our land there is a palm tree. It was said: Does it have leaves? They said: No. It was said: Does it have branches? They said: No. It was said: Does it have bunches of dates? They said: No. It was said: Does it have a trunk? They said: No. It was said: Then you do not have a palm tree on your land!

End quote from al-‘Uluw, p. 239, 250 

There are many similar reports. See: al-Ashaa‘irah fi Mizaan Ahl as-Sunnah by Shaykh Faisal ibn Qazzaaz al-Jaasim, in which there are many more such quotations from the early generations and the leading scholars. 

This is the basic principle with regard to the texts that speak of the divine attributes, including the two verses mentioned (in the question). The leading imams of the earlier and later generations quoted them to affirm the divine attributes of the hand and eye, among other evidence, yet they interpreted the verses in a manner that is appropriate to the context, as we shall see below. 

Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said, explaining this concept: 

The words of Allah (interpretation of the meaning), “The Hand of Allah is over their hands” [al-Fath 48:10], are to be understood according to their apparent meaning. The hand of Allah, may He be exalted, is over the hands of those who are swearing allegiance, because His hand is one of His attributes, yet He is above them, above His Throne. So His hand is above their hands. This is the apparent meaning of the words and is the real meaning, which is to affirm that allegiance to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) is as if it were allegiance to Allah, may He be glorified and exalted. It does not mean that the hand of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, is directly on top of their hands. Do you not see that we say that the sky is above us, even though it is distant from us? So the hand of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, is above the hands of those who swore allegiance to His Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), even though He is far above His creation. 

End quote from al-Qawaa‘id al-Muthla, in Majmoo‘ Fataawa ash-Shaykh, 3/331 

The words of Allah (interpretation of the meaning), “for verily, you are under Our Eyes” [at-Toor 52:48], were interpreted by some of the early generations as meaning “within Our vision or sight”; this is an explanation as dictated by the context, hence this verse confirms two things, the vision and eye of Allah. 

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said in Sharh al-Waasitiyyah: If it is asked: how do you explain the preposition bi in the phrase bi a‘yunina (translated above as “under Our eyes”, lit. “in our eyes”)? Our response is: we explain it as meaning that the eye is with or accompanying them. If you say “you are under my eye” it means my eye is accompanying you or, in other words, I am watching you and my gaze never shifts away from you. Hence what is meant is that Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, is saying to His Prophet: Be patient with the decree of Allah, for you are surrounded with Our care and We are watching you so that no one can harm you. 

It does not refer to location (being “in” or “inside”), because that would imply that the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was inside the eye of Allah! – which is impossible. 

Moreover, this was addressed to the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) when he was on earth, so if you were to say that he was in the eye of Allah, this interpretation of this verse of the Qur’an is not correct. 

Prior to that he said: If it were to be said that among the salaf there were those who interpreted the words of Allah “under Our eyes” as meaning in Our vision; it was interpreted thus by well-known, leading scholars among the early generations, but you say that interpreting it in a manner other than the apparent meaning is haraam, so what is the answer? Our response is that they interpreted it according to the context, whilst still affirming the basic meaning, which is the attribute of the divine eye. Those who distort the meanings say that it means “in Our vision” without affirming the divine eye, whereas Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah say that “under Our eyes” means in Our vision, whilst affirming the divine eye.

End quote from Majmoo‘ Fataawa ash-Shaykh, 8/264 

Shaykh Saalih Aal ash-Shaykh (may Allah preserve him) said: “for verily, you are under Our Eyes” [at-Toor 52:48] means you are in Our vision and sight, and under Our care and protection. 

This interpretation is the interpretation of the salaf for this phrase, because the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was not in the eye of Allah (in the singular) which is His attribute; rather he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was “under the eyes” of Allah (in the plural); that is because Allah has the attribute of two eyes. Hence Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah interpreted this as coming under the heading of what is implied by the verse, and implication is one of the ways in which the phrase may be interpreted. A phrase may be interpreted according to its exact meaning, or according to what it implies, or according to what is indicated by the context. 

Hence they said: What it means is that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was in (or under) the vision and sight of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, and under His care and protection. This is what is implied by the words “under Our Eyes” [at-Toor 52:48]. 

Therefore this does not come under the heading of interpretation in a manner other than the apparent meaning, as was claimed by those who did not understand. Rather it comes under the heading of what is implied, and implication – i.e., understanding the implications of a word – is a clear part of the Arabic language. 

Even though the early generations affirmed the divine attribute of the two eyes, they could interpret something- as in the case of this verse – on the basis of what it implies, or they could interpret it on the basis of what the context indicates, and some may think that this comes under the heading of interpretation in a manner other than the apparent meaning, but that is wrong. 

Implication is one thing and context is something else; these are two ways of understanding the wording of a phrase. 

As for interpreting something in a manner other than the apparent meaning, this is ignoring what the wording indicates. 

End quote from Sharh al-Waasitiyyah 

From the above it is clear that these two verses are to be understood in a real sense, and that in them is an affirmation of the divine attributes of the hand and eye, and there is nothing wrong with interpreting the verse as dictated by its context or what it implies, without denying the divine attributes mentioned in it. Perhaps this is what you sensed by your linguistic perceptivity, i.e., the general meaning that is implied or dictated by the context, but it is wrong to think that this comes under the heading of metaphor, which would lead to denying one of the divine attributes or to denying the apparent meaning of the text. 

And Allah knows best.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.