Chp 6 the God of the Wahabists

( 77 )

Bin Baz's Al-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 Isaaq.

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 Al-Albani when he addressed the following question at him:

Fetawil-Al-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 tow names?

( 78 )

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. AhlusSunna aver "Settling 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 IbnulKelbi 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 IbnulKelbi and their likes. Are those the entire ancestors?!

Fatawil-Al-bani page 516:

Q. Was commending the divine attributes adopted by the worthy ancestors?

A. Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani the Asharite states "Faith of the worthy ancestors was perceiving the Verses according to their aspects without interpretation or

( 79 )

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 Al-Albani fetched a testimony of one of the tenth or eleventh generations of the late scholars. Ibn 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 Ibn Hajar's testimony. Without referring to the reference Al-Albani confused that testimony with his own words. Next in this book Ibn 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.

Early in this chapter we have provided opinions of the most supreme scholars of Wahabism in current time. More texts regarding corporalism of their sect will be cited.

I personally have not delved into a deep study concerning monotheism and the divine attributes written by originator of Wahabism Mohammed Bin Abdil-Wahab. It seems that he compiled his AtTawhid abruptly. He records hadiths of miscellaneous subjects regarding a variety of subjects related to monotheism. After each hadith he fixes a brief index of ideas and notions he could attain. He listed these indices under 'questions'. Saving the following two items the entire book is empty from questions regarding the divine attributes. These two items however are acceptably sufficient to prove materiality of his god. Allah protect us against so!!

The first item. Page 130:

Title: Denying any amount of the divine names and attributes and God's saying (And they deny the Beneficent God. 13:30).

Al-Bukhari: Ali's authentic narrative: "Communicate people only in the ways they realize. Do you want Allah and His Apostle to be belied?"

Abdurrezaq: Muammar: Ibn Tawus: his father:

Ibn Abbas saw a man shake his clothes as a sign of his sweeping objection against a prophetic text regarding the divine attributes he had just listened to. He commented "Nay! These people have been fearless. They inspect kindness at the decisive Verses and perish at the allegorical ones."

( 80 )

When people of Quraish heard the Prophet (peace be upon him) mention the Beneficent they denied. Hence the Verse (They deny the Beneficent God.) was revealed.

The following questions are deduced from the previous:

  1. Disbelieving in denying any of the divine names and attributes.

  2. Exegesis of sura of Rad.

  3. Avoiding relating what the receivers ignore.

  4. Mentioning the reason beyond avoiding relating what the receivers ignore; which is that such matters may lead to belying Allah and His Apostle even if the ignorant receiver does not intend so.

  5. Ibn Abbas's words addressed at that who denied any part of the divine names and attributes who asserted perishing of such deniers.

A primary look at the previous content shows that quoting narratives of Ali (peace be upon him) and Ibn Abbas is an ordinary matter. For learners about beliefs and argumentation the pure corporeality of Ummut-Tufeil's report is accurately intended here. At any rate falsity of this report was proved by numerous Sunni scholars. Those who ruled of its authenticity either interpreted or commended it. Corporalists ruled of its authenticity and reckoned it with the knowledge that should be concealed from the public and kept with the private ones.

Siyeru A'lamin-Nubela part 10 page 602:

Ummut-Tufeil's report was related by Mohammed Bin Ismail At-Tirmithi and others.

Nueim: Ibn Wahab: Amr Bin Al-Harith: Sa'eed Bin Abi Hilal: Marwan Bin Othman: Imara Bin Amir: Ummut-Tufeil (Ubey Bin Ka'b's wife):

I heard the Prophet mention that he had seen his Lord in a definite appearance.

This report is absolutely deniable. An-Nisai provided considerable criticism when he said "Marwan Bin Othman is too belittled to be given credence in the face of Allah's words."

In addition to Nueim the report is related by Ahmed Bin Salih Al-Misri Ahmed Bin Isa At-Tusturi and Ahmed Bin Abdirrahman Bin Wahab. They relate it to Ibn Wahab. Abu Zura AnNasri ruled of familiarity of the report narrators.

Indisputably Ibn Wahab and his master and Ibn Abi Hilal were familiar trustful narrators. But Marwan!! He is the grandson of Abu Sa'eed Bin Al-Mualla Al-Ansari and the student of Amara Bin Amir Bin Amr Bin Hazm Al-Ansari. Even though the Prophet is more knowledgeable of what he had intended. The Prophet did not refer to the interpretation of his dream. We as well are too

( 81 )

short to interpret it accurately. We seek God's protection against wading into resting upon the extrinsic material meaning of its aspect. Some virtuous scholars decided that the report was erroneously written. Ali (God please him) said "Communicate people only in the ways they realize. Neglect what they ignore." Abu Hureira concealed a good number of hadiths regarding unneeded questions. He used to say "Had I announced these hadiths this throat would have been amputated."

As a matter of fact this is not reckoned with concealment of knowledge. It is quite believable that it is obligatory for hadithists to publicize and promote hadiths of required knowledge. In the same manner people are mandated to learn such knowledge. Authentic hadiths of ethics should be also promulgated and communicated and people should distribute. Hadiths of banned knowledge are not necessarily publicized. Saving private scholars such hadiths should not be put in everybody's hands.

At-Thehbi's previous words are accurately intended by originator of Wahabism. Using the title 'Denying any amount of the divine names and attributes' indicates issuing obligation of accepting the entire divine attributes. He also reckons denying any of them with atheism. Because a number of these divine attributes according to their opinions supports corporalism he proceeds to discuss the obligation of concealing that knowledge from people except followers of his sect. He cited two narratives of Ali and Ibn Abbas as evidences of permissibility of concealing such knowledge.

In addition he adopts At-Thehbi's thesis about 'banned knowledge' and obligation of dedicating such knowledge to private scholars. "Hadiths of banned knowledge are not necessarily publicized. Saving private scholars such hadiths should not be put in everybody's hands." just like knowledge of Jewism and Christianity dedicated to heads of rabbis and popes.

The real purpose beyond stressing on concealment of such hadiths is proving that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) Ali (peace be upon him) Ibn Abbas and Abu Hureira were corporalists like the Wahabists and they were concealing and ordering of concealing texts regarding the divine attributes.

It is obviously evidential for learners of hadith and history that the three hadiths cited by originator of Wahabism and At-Thehbi as examples are not becoming enough to be provided as proof.

In the margins of Siyeru A'lamin-Nubela the publisher records the following about Abu Hureira's saying:

Al-Bukhari's 1:1912 (part 1 page 8) records the hadith under the title: Retaining knowledge:

( 82 )

Ismail Bin Abi Uweis: his brother: Ibn Abi Thib: Sa'eed Al-Miqbari:

Abu Hureira said "From the Prophet (peace be upon him) I could retain two vessels. I publicized the first. Had I announced the second this throat would have been amputated."

Scholars aver that the second concealed vessel contained texts respecting manners and reigns of the tyrant rulers. Abu Hureira could refer to some using metonymy since he anticipated harm of those tyrant rulers. Referring to Yazeed Bin Muawiya's reign which began in 60 A.H he said "I seek God's guardian against head of the sixty and princeship of the boyish." Abu Hureira's supplication was responded. He died a year before that.

By testimony of Ibn Hajar and other texts and evidences of the same purport Abu Hureira intended that he had concealed some of the Prophet's saying regarding people's deflection from the divine course just after his decease because he had been terrified by the ruling authorities.

This is ultimately remote from concealing the material attributes of Allah from ordinary people and dedicating them to private scholars!!

The following commentation on Ali's saying is recorded in the margins of Siyeru A'lamin-Nubela:

Al-Bukhari 1:199 (part 1 page 41) records the saying under the title; Retaining knowledge:

Dedicating knowledge to certain people that can perceive:

Ubeidullah Bin Musa: Maruf Bin Khurbuth: AbutTufeil:

Ali said:

The same saying is recorded in Kenzul-Ummal part 10 page 247 301 and 304.

Ali (peace be upon him) constitutes a general rule; teaching and speech should be fitting levels of the addressee. As a matter of fact the saying shows no single motion or indication to having do anything with the divine attributes and other subjects. Besides as much as I can perceive there is a rather nearness of aims of this saying and those of the previous.

How do they rule depending on this saying that Ali (peace be upon him) aimed at concealing the divine attributes. And how have they conceived that Ali was a Wahabist believing in corporalism and concealing essentials of his sect from Muslims?!

Ibn Abbas's saying is restrictively recorded by Abdurezaq in his Al-Musannef part 11 page 422. I could not find it in any other reference. He records it directly after Abu Hureira's report of dispute of the Paradise and the Hell.

( 83 )

Muammar: Hemmam Bin Munabbih: Abu Hureira:

The Prophet (peace be upon him) stated:

The Paradise and Hell disputed. "Exclusively I am given the arrogant and the oppressors " Hell took pride. "Well how poor I am! I am entered only by the feeble the humiliated and the lowest " complained the Paradise. Immediately Allah said "You the Paradise are My mercy. By you I have mercy upon whom I opt from among My servants. You Hell are My torture. By you I torment whomever I opt from among My servants. Each of you should reach its profusion. While they shall be thrown in Hell it will be asking for more. It shall not be fully occupied unless I fix My feet in it. Only then it shall be filled and crowded. Allah does never wrong any of His creatures. Allah provides the Paradise with what He wills."

Abdurrezaq: Muammar: Ibn Tawus: his father:

Ibn Abbas saw a man stand up and shake his clothes as a sign of his sweeping objection against Abu Hureira's report. He commented "Nay! These people have been some fearless. They inspect at the decisive Verses and perish at the allegorical ones."

During communicating the report originator of Wahabism states "Ibn Abbas saw a man shake his clothes as a sign of his sweeping objection against the hadith regarding the divine attributes he had just listened to."

Mentioning the divine attributes here means that the receiver was reproached by Ibn Abbas because he had disbelieved and denied that Allah has a foot to be fixed in Hell. How could that conclude so? Probably that man was on the Prophet's reverent companions who denied corporalism referred to in the previous report. Hence he left that session as a sign of objection. Ibn Abbas's saying however is general. It does in no means show that the man who shaked his clothes to reveal his sweeping objection was the addressee in Ibn Abbas's words. Presumably he addressed his words at some narrators. It is impracticable that a Sahabi or a Sahabi's follower deserves perishing and atheism just because he stood up and shaked his clothes for nothing more than evading being responsible for a hadith he sees as false or doubtful.

The words 'some' and 'kindness' are added and subtracted respectively from Ibn Abbas's words related by Abdurrezaq. Considering origin of the statement is 'inspect kindness at the decisive Verses' as originator of Wahabism recorded the meaning will be unbecoming since its equivalent is 'perish at the allegorical' not 'inspect perishing at the allegorical.' Besides 'some' added to the wording is meaningless. Certainly Ibn Abbas's words were distorted or erroneously recorded.

( 84 )

However we should confess that originator of Wahabism has been keener than At-Thehbi in this regard because Ibn Abbas's report although lacking any indication is nearer to his goal.

The second item. Originator of Wahabism adopted a number of texts of corporalism; especially report of that rabbin whom as some Sunni reference book assert had been considered as true by the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). In the last of his AtTawhid this report is recorded under a special title:

Ibn Masud: Before the Prophet (peace be upon him) a rabbi spoke "O Mohammed! We received that Allah fixes heavens on a single finger trees on another water on a third dust on a fourth and other creatures of a fifth and shouts. 'I am the king'." The Prophet (peace be upon him) laughed to excess as a sign of giving credence to the previous saying of the rabbi. He recited (And they have not honored Allah with the honor that is due to Him; and the whole earth shall be in His grasp on Day of Resurrection and the heavens rolled up in His right hand; glory be to Him and may He be exalted above what they associate with Him. 39:67).

Muslim relates the same with the following difference; "mountains and trees on another then He shakes them and shouts I am the king I am Allah."

The following form is adopted by another relation of Al-Bukhari; "fixes heavens on a finger water and dust on another and other creatures on a third."

In volume 2 of Al-Aqaidul-Islamiya narrations of this misalleged fable that claims of our Prophet's having been tutored by one of the rabbis are discussed in detail.

Originator of Wahabism adopted and exerted great efforts for sake of scrutinizing meanings and aims of these texts. He could infer nineteen doctrinal questions that he provided before Muslims to be the base of their monotheism.

  1. Exegesis of God's saying (And the whole earth shall be in His grasp on the day of resurrection.)

  2. These categories of knowledge and their likes were kept by the Jews who coincided in time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) neither denied nor interpreted.

  3. The Prophet (peace be upon him) gave credence to the rabbi's saying and the Quran supported so.

  4. The Prophet's excessive laughter when the rabbi referred to that remarkable knowledge.

( 85 )

  1. Identifying the Lord's two hands avowedly; heavens on the right and earths on the left.

  2. Avowed identification of the left hand.

  3. Describing the despots and tyrants.

  4. The saying "Like a grain of a mustardseed in the palm."

  5. Immensity of the Chair in proportion to the heavens.

  6. Immensity of the Throne in proportion to the Chair.

  7. The Throne is different from the Chair and the water.

  8. Distance between the heavens.

  9. Distance between he seventh heavens and the Chair.

  10. Distance between the Chair and the water.

  11. The Throne is over the water.

  12. Allah is over the Throne.

  13. Distance between the heavens and earth.

  14. Density of each heavens is five hundred year.

  15. Distance between the bottom and the top of the ocean existent over the heavens is five hundred year march.

Thusly originator of Wahabism issues the verdict that the Jews' knowledge respecting Allah's corporeity have not been distorted. The Prophet (peace be upon him) laughed to excess for this highly remarkable knowledge and Allah the Exalted revealed a Quranic text for supporting so. Probably like His prophet the Lord might laughed as a sign of giving credence to that rabbi heir and conveyor of that highly remarkable knowledge to the seal of prophets.

The conclusion is that Allah the Exalted enjoys two physical hands and fingers and the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) declared this materialistic meaning of Allah's hands and fingers without any attempt to interpret. And that the Lord the Elevated is existent in a certain zone over the world on His Throne. And the distance between Him and us is identified by walking measure. Furthermore depending upon Mohammed Bin AbdilWahab's words it is possible to measure the distance to Allah's Throne in modern measures; like kilometer and send a spaceship there! Only then we may transmit verdicts totally to Sheik Bin Baz juriscounsult of Wahabism!

In addition to many others these two texts show that Wahabists follow the same corporalism adopted by the Jews the Hanbalites Ibn Teimiya and At-Thehbi.

( 86 )

  1. They refute interpretation since they claim Quran and the Prophet's traditions are empty of metaphor. Material linguistic meanings of the entire expressions should be exclusively rested upon. Quranic texts should not be taken as metaphoric interpreted or 'confused'. When the Quran pronounces 'hand of Allah' 'eye of Allah' 'face of Allah' and the like this implies for them that Allah has an actual hand eye face or the like. The statement (Everything is perishable but his face. 28:88) shows that saving His face Allah is perishable.

Bin Baz's Al-Fetawi part 4 page 382:

The most authentic matter upon which researchists agree is that the Quran does not comprise metaphor realized by rhetoricians. Whatsoever is in the Quran is but a reality in its position.

It is incredibly surprising how a scholar proceeds to deny metaphor in the Quran while the Arabic is the tongue in which the Quran was revealed. Imputing such a misallegation to researchists is also a surprising matter. However we ask if that scholar has the capability of mentioning only one of these researchists. It is quite impossible to associate with society and family without reckoning their words with metaphoric expressions.

Ibn Teimiya's previous wording is accounted as the utmost point reached by Wahabists in field of dialectic styles of evidencing denial of metaphor in the Quran. He says "Nullity of the extrinsic aspects of Quranic texts is ruled if its meanings are unintended. It is unacceptable to decide nullity of aspects of the Quranic texts. Then it is conclusive that meanings of these aspects are intended."

This is really a cubic quibble in meanings of aspect nullity and applicability in Quran. If we claim 'extrinsic meaning of the Verse is unintended ' this will indicate that we have negated that meaning from the Quran. Accordingly how should a negated meaning be practical in the Quran? Nullity stands for our wrong conception of the meaning of a Verse. It is not a thing clearcut in the Quran. Extrinsic meanings if negated by an expressional or intellectual presumption are no longer extrinsic. It is expended into illusion. The factual extrinsic meanings of speech are only the permanent and perceivable. The extrinsic meanings that are called off by presumptions are as same as the false dawn that removes and brings darkness back just before emergence of the true dawn. Expressional and intellectual presumptions play the starring role in identifying the permanent aspect. This point is very outstanding in recognizing their errors in discerning extrinsic meanings of a text and resting upon such meanings.

Adorers to physical aspects and material comprehension spare no efforts for proving their claims even by using sixdimensional dispute not only cubic as it is done in Pakistan.

( 87 )

  1. They deem forbidden any sort of dispensing with finding interpretations for the divine attributes and commending them to Allah the Exalted. They allege that dispensing with finding interpretations and commending the divine attributes to Allah exclusively lead to desertion of the religion and atheism. Ibn Teimiya asserts "It became manifest that sayings of commenders who maintain their following the Prophet's traditions and the worthy ancestors' practices are the worst among sayings of the heretic and atheists."

This shows that Wahabists deem forbidden any interpretation or exegesis of the divine attributes texts. They also deem forbidden commending these Verses to Allah. They deem obligatory upon Muslims to rest upon the material meanings of these Verses.

This odd insistence lays two obstacles in the Wahabists' door:

First. Verses and hadiths opposing their sect:

They commit themselves to the obligation of resting upon extrinsic exegesis and forbiddingness of interpretation. As an exegesis of God's saying (Some faces on that day shall be bright. Looking at their Lord.) they state that Allah is a visible being viewing and viewed with eyes. On that account we should ask them what exegesis they would cite for God's sayings (Visions comprehend Him not) (You cannot see me.) and (Nothing likes his likeness;). They answer they would easily shift into interpretation but in such a crooked way that any testimony against them would not be given an opportunity to spring. They would be able to interpret whatever opposes their sect without resting upon extrinsic meanings. Meanwhile they deem forbidden interpretation resting upon extrinsic meanings. They allege that visions cannot comprise the Lord may be for their diminution or His immensity. They claim a part of Him can be seen only. They may also claim the negated part is the Lord's likeness not resemblant. They deny existence of the Lord's like peer and equivalent but they should not intellectually or communicably deny existence of the Lord's resemblant as Ibn Teimiya expresses.

The following question may be cited at them. Considering your claim Allah the Exalted is existent on the Throne depending upon His saying (He settled on the Throne) what should you say about His saying (And He is with you wherever you are. 57:4)? This Verse repeal your claim The Lord's being existent in a certain point in the cosmos. It reveals that He the Elevated enjoys another category of existence different from the cosmic. Imam Ali says "He is with everything with no contact and different from everything with no comparison."

They would answer with the following:

( 88 )

This is not problematic. We would abscond from recognizing and translating 'with' into a case of coexistence. We also would accuse those who betake this Verse as their argumentation of denying Exaltation of the Lord on His Throne and attempting at proving His degrading

This was the very thing adopted by their master Bin Baz.

Bin Baz's Al-Fetawi part 2 page 89:

AhlusSunna admit that coexistence is attributed to Allah the Praised the Exalted in such a way that becoming His Honor. In the same time they prove His settling on the Throne and His exaltation on His entire creatures and promote Him greatly against associating creatures. Jahmites(19) and Mutazilites single out the Lord's coexistence as their argument for denying His exaltation and claimed of His being everywhere. The worthy ancestors denied so and asserted that that coexistence requires His supervision and full acquaintance of His servants' manners while He is on the Throne.

At-Thehbi and Ibn Teimiya were masters of Bin Baz in maneuvering. He described coexistence as acquaintance and hanged it in the neck of the worthy ancestors so that none would record his name in list of interpreters. He then substantiated their committing the forbidden interpretation. He alleged that this interpretation was (perpetrated) for the purpose of contradicting those who denied Allah's exaltation and aimed at proving His degrading!!

Successfully he could detect an Indian scholar named 'At-Talamneki' and charge him of the responsibility of interpreting the Verse that opposed their sect. Bin Baz adhered to that Indian and revered him for attiring him the interpretation of the Verse.

Al-Fetawi part 1 page 148:

After all any sort of the Lord's extrinsic or real mixing or association with creatures should be understood from His saying (He is with you ) and its likes. The word 'with' does not reveal so in any means. To the furthest extent the Verse indicates the Lord's association coexistence and comparison in a certain affair. This coexistence is variant according to its circumstances.

Abu Amr At-Talamneki (May God rest him) says "Unanimously Sunni Muslims opted for God's acquaintance as the only clarification of His saying (He is with you ) and its likes. Allah however is above the heavens in His Essence settling on His Throne. His divine book utters this truth."

  1. Jahmism is an Islamic theologian faction.

( 89 )

Therewith Bin Baz solved the problem without touching interpretation by any organ. He could find an individual taking the mission of satisfactory interpretation. That individual was At-Talamneki.

Soon after that Bin Baz supported his verdict by unanimity reported by that At-Talamneki. He supposes the entire Sunni Muslims concluded that Allah the Exalted is a material being sitting on His Throne. Quite absolutely this principle is as same as the Jews'. Everybody is mandated to accept and close their eyes before opinions of the whole scholars and thousands of references if At-Talamneki speaks out.

The second item is more calamitous than the previous. It regards corporalism.

By claiming that Allah the Exalted has a physic hand eye and face and occupying His Throne they would certainly anthropomorphize him. Hence they are worshipping a corporeality.

They answer: No we are not anthropomorphists. We do not liken Allah the Exalted to His creatures. The Lord will be certainly an entity of corporiety if he is anthropomorphized. Corporalists are atheists indeed.

As long as they rejected interpretation commendation and metaphor and deemed obligatory resting upon the extrinsic literal meanings of the texts they would certainly be trapped in anthropomorphism and corporalism voluntarily or compulsorily!

They answer: No we insist on explaining the divine attributes texts according to the material extrinsic meanings of their aspects but we in the same time refute anthropomorphism you claim of its coincidence to this sort of explanation since (Nothing is like a likeness of Him.)

The following question is addressed at them: How is it for you to believe in a god sitting on a chair having a hand foot face and eye descending to the lowest heavens by his person practicing happiness laughter and rage having the same look of Adam etc. all these attributes are believed by resting upon the extrinsic meanings of texts meanwhile that god is not resemblant to physical and material beings that are identified by certain space and time?

They answer: The question is not that difficult. We can add 'as it fits His glory' after mentioning each attribute. For instance we say He has a material eye but not like those had by his creatures. He has an eye as it fits His glory. By the same token He has a hand foot and face in the extrinsic meaning of aspects but not like our hands feet or faces. He has such organs as they fit His glory.

( 90 )

Wahabists imagine that solutions of philosophic and objective problems can be attained by a magic touch which is their saying 'as it fits His glory' in the same way they adopted for solving the problem of interpretation when they stuck it to At-Talamneki.

Glory they intend was totally evaporated after they had ascribed physical limbs and certain point and time to their god! Moreover they ruled of his total termination except his face! Allah be exaltedly praised and glorified against what they impute.

On that account It is meritoriously adequate to describe Wahabism as a sect grounded upon brittle substructure and clear quibble. In logic such a quibble is identified as 'Admitting premises and rejecting conclusions'. In theology it is identified as 'Nonrecognizance of the faith's essentials'. It is also identified as 'Adopting anthropomorphism and corporalism and shunning the names'.


Wahabists rest upon principal of circumspection against Muslims. They conceal attributes of their god. Meanwhile they reproach Shias distinctly for resting upon principal of circumspection against ruling authorities in questions appertained to Imamate and decency of the Prophet's companions.

Any research on Wahabism leads to one of two matters; either scholars of Wahabism are languid or they are resting upon principal of circumspection against introducing their god under lights. It is seeming that Mohammed Bin AbdilWahab and some of his contemporary students; Bin Baz and Al-Albani and their ancestors; At-Thehbi and Ibn Teimiya and the Hanbalite corporalists; all those precisely conceive resting upon extrinsic meanings which necessarily leads to anthropomorphism. In the same time they defend themselves against Muslims by denying such necessary result. Their words and private lessons introduces anthropomorphism so evidently. Ibn Teimiya expresses this meaning by saying "Items interpretation of which should be concealed." He also claim negation of Allah's peer like and equivalent was exclusively stated by the Quran and the Prophet's traditions. Allah's having a resemblant was not negated or denied; therefore it is neither rationally nor legally unacceptable to claim such a matter. Occasionally Wahabists' faith regarding their god came forth so clearly through slips of tongues and certain deeds. On the pulpit of Damascus Ibn Teimiya once committed such a slip.

The following forecited sayings of At-Thehbi are evidentiary enough to introduce Wahabists' factual faith. "Hadiths of banned knowledge are not necessarily publicized. Saving private scholars such texts should not be put in everybody's hands." "It is obligatory to believe in descending of Allah and it is favorable to neglect discussing its

( 91 )

essentials." This 'it is favorable' is a jurisprudential terminological term stands for permissibility of doing and favorableness of neglecting. This indicates that At-Thehbi is responsive and adherent to essentials of anthropomorphism his sect but he prefers no to discus so evading citing an evidentiary factfinding for the adopters of Allah's absolute promotion against being resembled or anthropomorphized. Ordinary Wahabists are too simple to realize meanings of interpretation commendation actuality and metaphor. They know nothing more than praising their sect and considering it sect of monotheism and the worthy ancestors of Islamic nation.

Scholarly and educated Wahabists assume that resting upon the extrinsic material meanings of aspects of the divine attributes texts has been the only sect adopted by the public and the worthy ancestors of the Islamic nation. This is a natural consequence of the condensed instructions they have been receiving during their study and through the variant mass media. Nearly none of them realizes the real meaning and the essentials of resting upon extrinsic meanings of aspects of texts.

Wahabists masters claim Allah's sitting on His Throne and descending to the earth in the very same way Ibn Teimiya had done when he descended a single scale from the pulpit in Syria. This makes Allah the Exalted be identified by certain space and time and as a sequence enjoying spacetime continuum. When the previous discussion is introduced before an educated Wahabist he answers " No! This does not necessarily refer to anthropomorphism and corporalism. The Lord sits as it fits His glory and descends as it fits his glory." Such a poor student think that as soon as he moves his tongue with 'as it fits His glory' that objective problem shall be totally solved or that he hit the very target! Example of such individuals is that who eats and drinks in the daylight and insists on being fasting ritual abstinence from drinking and eating because he fasts as it fits his fasting and eats as it fits his personality. Yet nothing fitting his personality has been left! Another example is that who answers when he is informed of his master's consuming intoxicants "No! Cups of wine are automatically changed into a purified drink as soon as my master touches them." He also answers when he is told that his master was seen at a prostitute's house "No that prostitute is automatically changed into a celestial virgin dame as soon as my master touches her."

Facts however cannot be changed by a master's touch or Wahabists' sayings or interpretations introduced by an At-Talamneki!!

The following text of AsSibki shows that principal of circumspection was familiarly known at ancestors of Wahabists and that some Sunni scholars of promotionism promoting and exalting Allah against sayings of anthropomorphism and corporalism cited the reasons beyond adopting such a principal.

( 92 )

TabaqatusShafiiya part 8 page 222:

Sheik AbdusSelam states:

Anthropomorphist Hashawites are of two categories. A category deliberate no harm from introducing their faiths so evidently. (And they think that they have something. 58:18).


One of distinctive phenomena of the Quran is blocking the way in the face of ideological and doctrinal deflection. In the Quran there is a single Verse sufficient enough to reveal falsity of their faith of resting upon the extrinsic meanings of aspects of texts regarding the divine attributes. It is God's saying (Everything is perishable saving His face. 28:88). What should Wahabists and anthropomorphists their forefathers argue about this Verse? Should they pursue majority of Muslims who stress that 'His face' is metaphoric which stands for 'his essence' or 'his prophets and their disciples'? Or should they importunately insist on claiming the statement's proposing physical face and claiming that Allah the Exalted will be terminated totally except His face?! Glory and exaltation be to Allah against their imputation.

On this very point ship of Wahabists and anthropomorphists break down and all its engines stand still. Although they are stormed and drowned to the chins they keep up their insistence on their controversy challenging the result whatever it shall be. We seek God's guardian against their sayings.

They said "Termination will affect Allah the Exalted totally except His face. For solving this problem they repeated the same "He terminates in a form fitting His glory and perishes in a form fitting his glory."

Keeping on path of transgression they denied that any of the worthy ancestors had interpreted 'His face' into 'His essence' or 'His prophets.' They denied reports registered in Al-Bukhari's book so that falsity of their faith should not be emerged and aberrance and atheism of Al-Bukhari should not be proved for them.

The story is herewith introduced totally:

AlAlbani's AlFetawi page 522:

Q. Before I introduce my variant questions I would like to provide this question which I could not attach with the other. Yesterday I mentioned that Al-Bukhari in his book of hadith records that 'His face' in the Verse (Everything is perishable except His face.) was interpreted into 'His property'. As a matter of fact I quoted this claim from a book written by Ahmed Isam and named Dirasetun Tahliliyatun Li EqidetibniHajar. I still claim this man communicates this relation authentically. However I would like to introduce before

you the following implication mentioned in the forecited book

( 93 )

"Al-Bukhari interpreted 'face' mentioned in God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face) of sura of Qassas into 'His property' or 'What is only offered for the sake of Allah'. Regarding the earlier interpretation it was cited by Al-Hafiz in a narrative related by AnNesfi. Muemmar Abu Ubeida Bin Al-Muthenna in his MejazulQuran states that 'His face' stands for 'His Person'."

Today I myself referred to Fetihul-Bari Fi Sharhi Sahihil-Bukhari and other books explaining Al-Bukhari's reference book of hadith. Surprisingly I could not perceive any signal of that text ascribed to Al-Bukahri. It seems that Ahmed Isam intends to state that the matter involved in situated in AnNesfi's narrative communicated by Al-Bukhari. Would you please provide us with your reply on this question?

A. Our reply has been previously cited.

Q. I only intend to explicate so in order that I should not impute such words to Al-Bukhari.

A. Well may God reward you worthily.

Q. You have heard me raise doubt to the matter that Al-Bukhari might say such statement that the meaning of 'face' in God's saying (And there will endure for ever the [face] of your Lord the Lord of glory and honor.) is property.

A. O brother! A believer Muslim should never state such words!

Q. I also said that this statement is available in certain versions of books commentating on Al-Bukhari's reference book of hadith.

A. Then the answer is already provided. May God reward you worthily for your wording about emphasis that Al-Bukhari's reference book is barren from such an interpretation which is core of Tatilism denuding the Lord from His entire divine attributes for ruling of nonexistence.

Q. It seems there is a part of such a statement in FetihulBari Fi Sharhi SahihilBukhari. As much as I retain I could find such an evidentiary argumentation in a certain point in the book to which a friend of mine lead me. This asserts that some versions of the book comprise this statement. I argued that existing things are only Allah the Exalted and His creatures. Considering 'face' stands for 'property' what shall be perishing then?

A. O brother! Invalidity of this matter needs an evidentiary argument. The most important thing however is saving Al-Bukhari from claims of interpreting the Verse. Al-Bukhari is a head master in hadithology and theology. Thanks to God his faith is following the worthy ancestors.

( 94 )

These were words of Al-Albani the most leading Wahabist in hadithology.

It is noticeable that it is not problematic for Sheik Al-Albani to rest upon the extrinsic physical meaning of 'face' mentioned in God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face). He undertakes that everything including his god's hand foot side and every organ is perishable except the face.

For Al-Albani this horrible saying and disastrous calamity which is refuted even by the Jew and Christian corporalists a part of whom is still kept by Al-Albani in Syria is not the problem. He states that the real problem is saving Al-Bukhari his acquaintance from claim of interpreting the divine attributes since as Ibn Teimiya expresses this deed is deemed unlawful and reckoned as the most dangerous ill sayings of the heretic and atheists. Al-Albani describes it as 'core of Tatilism and aberrance' and 'a believer Muslim should never state such words!' Al-Bukhari however is a believer Muslim.

I doubted Al-Albani's words about Al-Bukhari. While I was taking a review on Al-Bukhari's reference book of hadith I found what that 'connoisseur hadithist the retainer and tutor of Al-Bukhari's reference book of hadith' had just negated and raised Al-Bukhari against was recorded on page 17 part 6 of that reference book. Instead of a single interpretation of the Verse there are various sorts of interpretation written there.

Al-Bukhari's book of hadith part 6 page 17:

'His face' mentioned in God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face.) stands of His property. Some interpreted into 'what is intended for the sake of Allah.'

Ibn Hajar's FetihulBari Fi Sharhi SahihilBukhari part 9 page 410:

'Face' mentioned in God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face.) in sura of Qassas is interpreted into 'His property' or 'What is offered only for the sake of Allah'. Regarding the earlier interpretation it was cited by Al-Hafiz in a narrative related by AnNesfi. Muemmar Abu Ubeida Bin Al-Muthenna in his MejazulQuran states that 'His face' stands for 'His Person'.

AtTabari relates these very meanings to some linguists. Al-Ferra records the same.

IbnutTin: Abu Ubeida states: 'Face' stands for God's glory. Some mention God's Person. The Arabic saying 'God may honor your face' means 'God honor you.'.

AtTabari relates the interpretation of 'face' into 'what is offered only for the sake of God' to some linguists. The same is related by Ibn Abi Hatem to Khassif to Mujahid and Sufian AtThawri. Both said "God's face implies what is intended only for the sake of Allah; like virtuous deeds and the like."

( 95 )

Different opinions depending upon the sect were introduced for these questions. Some permitted accrediting the expression 'thing' to Allah. They assert that the exception in the Verse involved is connected to the previous sentence. Hence 'face' stands for 'person'. The Arab however used to use the most dignified part for expressing the whole substance. Others impermitted ascribing the expression 'thing' to Allah. They claim exception in the Verse is separated. This makes meaning of the Verse be the following "But Allah is not perishable." Others claim 'face' stands for 'what is done only for the sake of Allah'.

The statement then is recorded in Al-Bukhari's reference book. Revisers of that book asserted this fact. It is originally refutable to ascribe the statement to Muemmar. Al-Bukhari himself emphasized that Muemmar said that 'His face' stands for 'His Person'.

From this cause we do suggest to Al-Albani Bin Baz and the somewhat fair Wahabists to opt for interpretation so that they would not be having to decided termination of their god to the neck saving the face and aberrance or atheism of Al-Bukhari for committing the offense of interpreting the divine attributes. Will they accept our suggestion?!


As a matter of fact corporalists faced problem of this Verse many epochs before. When they rested upon the material meaning of 'face' mentioned in God's saying (Everything is perishable except his face.) they received a striking slap as they lacked convinced exegeses. As much as it is seemed that problem remained unsolved because of their insistence on rejecting interpretation. The same thing has been done by Al-Albani. Hence they acted cussedly and claimed their god's total termination except the face. We seek Allah's guardian against such claims!!

AsSuheili's ArRawdhulEnif part 2 page 179:

Al-Ashari states: 'Face' mentioned in God's saying (There shall remain only the face of your Lord.) is treated as same as the eye and hand that are exclusive attributes of Allah the Exalted and are neither realized by intellects nor by reported tenet.

AsShatibi's Alitisam part 2 page 330:

Corporalists claimed that including the essence of the Creator every thing is perishable saving His face. They cited God's saying (Everything is perishable except his face.) as their evidence.

( 96 )

One of the disadvantages of their ill exegesis of the Verse is that Hanbalite jurisprudents has not discussed swearing by Allah's face. I reviewed a considerable number of references of Hanbalite jurisprudence but I could not grasp a single item concerning this topic. For Hanbalite corporalists swearing by a part of Allah is not given the formal appearance of ritual swearing. Hanafites on the other hand discuss this topic and rule of legality of swearing by God's face since it is a metaphorical expression of His Person. "Oath would be invalid if its speaker was a corporalist " they add.

Al-Kashani's BedaiusSenaii part 3 page 6:

Swearing by face of Allah is decided as legal oath. Ibn Suma'a relates this to Abu Yousuf who relates it to Abu Haneefa. 'Face' attached to Allah is an expression intending His Person. The Glorified the Exalted says (Everything is perishable except His face). 'Face' stands for 'person'. Allah also says (And there will endure for ever the [face] of your Lord the Lord of glory and honor). Similarly 'face' stands for 'person'. Al-Hassan Bin Ziyad: Abu Haneefa: "Swearing by Allah's face is not reckoned with oaths." Ibn Shuja: "This form is not within people's oaths. It is the vile's."

Abu Haneefa's verdict of excluding swearing by Allah's face from circle of oaths is nearer to his ideology. He turned to antagonizing the Prophet's household and tending to corporalism after he had been a Zaidite a follower of Zaid Bin Ali Bin Al-Hussein. He however declared his repentance before the Abbasid ruler who admitted and designated him as the supervisor of the large new built mosque of Baghdad. Proximately antagonizing the Prophet' household and welcoming corporalism are concurrent matters. At any rate it is unacceptable to overlook the earlier narrative of Abu Haneefa's students.

Al-Kashani's BedaiusSenaii part 3 page 143:

'Face' stands for the person. 'Face' mentioned in God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face) stands for His Person. Saying "I guarantee soandso's face " indicates guaranteeing that person. It is provable that such organs represent the whole body. By the same token saying "Your face is divorced " is decided as a form of legal divorcement.

AsSerkhasi's Al-Mabsout part 8 page 133:

Swearing By The Face Of Allah:

Abu Yousuf and Mohammed decided this expression as a legal oath since 'face' stands for the person. God the Exalted says (And there endure the face of your Lord;). Al-Hassan decides that 'face' mentioned in the previous Verse stands for God's Person. Abu Shuja relates that Abu Haneefa reckons such an oath to the vile; the ignorant who intend ordinary faces. This proves disregarding that expression as a legal oath.

( 97 )

Abu Shuja's describing the swearers by God's face as ignorant testifies that corporalism was widespread during Abu Haneefa's time; early the second Hijri century. Numerous narratives of the Prophet's household (peace be upon them) show that corporalism was widespread in the first century as well. Imam Mohammed Al-Baqir refuted their dissidents' exegesis of the Verse.

Ibn Babawayih's Al-Imametu WetTabsira page 92:

Abu Hamza: Abu Ja'far (peace be upon him):

God says (Everything is perishable except His face). How is it rectified that everything perishes but the face exclusively endures? Allah is more majestic than being described.

Al-Kuleini's Al-Kafi part 1 page 143:

Al-Harith Bin Al-Mughira AnNasri:

Abu Abdillah Imam Ja'far AsSadiq was asked about God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face). He was told that dissenters claim that except for God's face everything shall be perished. He commented "Praised be Allah. They have said a critical thing. By 'face' God intends the characters through whom people should be advancing towards God."

Some attempt at escaping that perplexity by claiming that 'perishable' mentioned in the Verse does not stand for termination. In his Al-Mufredat page 544 ArRaghib explains 'perishable' as terminated. He records "This is called termination. It is intended in God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face)."


Muqatil Bin Suleiman one of masters of corporalists aimed at solving the Verse perplexity by restricting the broad generality of the Verse; 'Everything'. However this was useless for Wahabists.

AmMizi's TahdibulKemal part 28 page 437:

Mekki Bin Ibrahim: Yahya Bin Shibl: "What for do you ignore Muqatil?" Ebbad Bin Kutheir asked. "My people hated him " I answered. "Do not hate him. None more knowledgeable than him in field of Quranic and prophetic texts is enduring " asserted Ebbad.

Yahya Bin Shibl: A young man cited the following question before Muqatil Bin Suleiman: "What is your opinion regarding God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face)?" "This is Jahmite!" spoke Muqatil. "What is Jahmite?" asked the young and added "If you have an information about this you should say it otherwise you may confess of your unfamiliarity." "Woe is you!" Muqatil said "Jahm had neither pilgrimaged to this House nor had he attended at the scholars' sessions. He was only given an eloquent tongue.

( 98 )

Regarding your question God intends only the souled substances. About Queen of Sheba He says (And she has been given everything. 27:23) while she was given nothing more than royalty of her kingdom. The same thing is cited about God's saying (And granted him means of access to everything. 18:84). That man was given nothing more than restricted royalty. God has showed in detail what is described by 'everything'."

Unfortunately this exegesis is useless for Wahabists since it is reckoned with interpretation which is deemed forbidden according to Wahabism. They should adopt for the extrinsic general meaning of 'everything'. This means that they should refer to the whole beings including Allah the Exalted. We seek Allah's protecting us against such matters! They would be conceding the base upon which they founded their Wahabism if they take in Muqatil's exegesis. Nevertheless Muqatil himself conceded the base upon which he founded his trend when he was encircled by the impending questions of that asker.

Secondly Muqatil's exegesis is not accurate. The Quranic expression 'everything' regarding beings is usually used for expressing perfect enduring general meaning or relative general meaning. For instance the following 'everything' mentioned in God's saying (Nay! It is what you sought to hasten on a blast of wind in which is a painful punishment destroying everything by the command of its Lord; so they became such that naught could be seen except their dwellings. 46:245) cannot be explained by the perfect enduring generalization since it is quite manifest that their dwellings were not destroyed by that wind. The meaning of God's saying (Do you not know that Allah has power over everything? 2:106) and many similar ones cannot be explained by the relative general meaning. It is unacceptable to exclude some things from God's absolute power or knowledge. In the same time we may explain the forecited Verse by the relative general meaning; by saying that 'everything' includes only what is enjoying existence and potentiality.

Back to the Verse engaged. It is unacceptable to explain God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face) by the relative general meaning intended by Muqatil since if perishability is dedicated to souled beings only it will comprise Allah the Elevated for His being a divinely souled Being. Then why is it only His face not other organs and limbs that is excluded. In addition Muqatil and his pupils opted for the relative general meaning of 'everything' for finding a solution for that perplexity they were facing. They should have interpreted 'His face' of the same Verse into 'His Person' so that the total perplexity should be null! The factual general meaning is extrinsic and as they claim the material meaning is also extrinsic. Why was it lawful to interpret one of them while it is unlawful to do the same thing with the other?

The Verse is dealing with termination of this world before Resurrection Day. Occasion or discernment and subject of the Verse imposes the factual general

( 99 )

meaning and in turns leads to nullity of excluding anything other than that excluded by Allah the Exalted. It also imposes that Allah the Exalted is out of the Verse subject since it deals with termination of creatures not the Creator. This conclusion allows to interpret 'His face' into 'certain creatures' or 'His Person' since the exception of the Verse is interrupted the excluded substance is of the same species of the general matter from which it was excluded.

Muqatil the inheritor of the Jew corporalists proved his lack to harmonize between his dialect and the Verse. He failed to seize out the enduring general meaning of 'everything' and restricting its meaning to the souled creatures.


Unlike the corporalists who opted for the physical face Sunni scholars interpreted 'His face' mentioned in the Verse involved into 'His Person'. Some Shiite scholars agreed upon this interpretation.

Ashatibi's Alitisam part 2 page 303:

This proves that there are definite linguistic idioms unknown by some Arab individuals. Hence it is obligatory to ask about such items The closest opinion to the fact is that the meaning is 'bearer of the face'. The Arab say "I did so for soandso's face." This means "I did it for him." Therefore the meaning of the Verse is 'Everything is perishable except Him.'

Al-Fakhr ArRazi's Book of Tafseer volume 3 part 6 page 437:

(Except His face) proposes 'except Him'. The word 'face' is usually used for expressing the person.

Al-Fakhr Ar-Razi's Book of Tafseer volume 13 part 26 page 22:

Various opinions were cited as the exegesis of God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face). Some interpreted 'perishability' into termination. Thus the meaning should be that Allah the Exalted will terminate everything but Him. Others interpreted 'perishability' into eradicating benefits by means of death or keeping parts cut apart. This meaning is usually used by the Arab. A third party cited possibility of individual perishing as the meaning of 'perishability'. They claim that saving Him everything is possibly existent and what is possibly existent is perishable.

It seems that ArRazi prefers the latter exegesis.

Al-Fakhr Ar-Razi's Book of Tafseer volume 13 part 26 page 24:

Corporalists brought this Verse as an evidence on their faith from two sides. First they claim that the Verse is evidently expressive in proving Allah's face. This results in corporalism. Second the word 'to' in (And to Him you shall be brought back) is used for conclusion of purposes. This befalls to corporals only.

( 100 )

As an answer of this claim we cite the following: Had this claim been correct the entire organs of the Lord should have been terminated except His face. Some of the Rafidite anthropomorphists like Bayan Bin Saman commit themselves to this saying. At any rate no single sane admits so.

Although it is categorically recorded in dependable references that the Hanbalite and Asharite corporalists committed to the previous saying ArRazi evaded recording so and rested on Bayan Bin Saman. I noticed that the modern corporalists like Al-Albani Bin Baz and their followers adopt this ill exegesis.

In reference books of Shias Bayan Bin Saman ArRazi imputes to Shias is incarnationist atheist and accursed. His father and he claimed godhood.

Taraiful-Meqal part 2 page 231:

Bayan Bin Saman At-Tamimi An-Nehdi claims Allah's having the appearance of an animal and that everything is perishable except His face and that Allah's soul was incarnated in Ali (peace be upon him) Mohammed Bin Al-Hanafiya Abu Hashim and Bayan respectively. Cursed be Bayan Bin Saman.

AnNubekhti's Al-Farqu Beinel-Furaq page 216:

The immoderate Bayanites:

They claim that Imamate was Mohammed Bin Al-Hanafiya's Abu Hashim Abdullah Bin Mohammed's and Bayan Bin Saman's respectively. They had various opinions about their head Bayan. Some claimed his prophesy and repealing Mohammed's religion. Some claimed his godhood. This sect is apostate and excluded from all the other Islamic sects since they claimed godhood of Bayan their head.

ArRazi however is not blamed for clinging Bayan Bin Saman to Shias. Tens of atheists and accursed individuals were imposed on our sect. Furthermore they have been encumbering us with flaws and blunders of such persons. Meanwhile our reference books besides cursing such individuals are crying with innocence.

Sunni scholars interpreted 'his face' into deeds intended for Allah's face. Some Shiite scholars agreed to this exegesis.

ArRaghib's Al-Mufredat page 513:

Exegesis of (And there will endure the face of your Lord;).

Some interpreted 'the face' into God's Person. Others interpreted it into pursuing the course of Allah by offering good deeds'. Regarding God's sayings (Whither you turn thither is Allah's [face]. 2:115) (Everything is perishable except his [face]) (Who desire Allah's [face]. 30:38) and (We only feed you for the [face] of Allah. 76:9) 'face' mentioned is stood for God's Person. On that

( 101 )

account meanings of the Verses should be 'everything is perishable except His Person' and so on.

As this interpretation was provided before Abu Abdillah son of ArRida he said "Praised be Allah. They have said a critical thing. By 'face' God intends the characters through whom people should be advancing towards God." The meaning of the Verse should be 'everything from the servants' deeds is perishable and void except what is intended for the sake of Allah

In fact Abu Abdillah previously mentioned is Abu Abdillah Ja'far Bin Mohammed As-Sadiq (peace be upon him). He is not son of ArRida. It seems that ArRaghib was attracted by the forecited narrative recorded in Al-Kafi. Allah's being out of the Verse subject and correlation of exclusion the excluded substance of the same species of the general matter involved cited in the Verse were the two matters that incited ArRaghib on preferring this interpretation.


Sharif Al-Murteda's Al-Amali part 3 page 46:

For citing exegeses of God's saying (Everything is perishable Except His [face]) (We only feed you for Allah's [face]) (There will only endure the [face] of your lord) and the other Verses in which 'face' is mentioned we provide the following:

In Arabic the word 'face' stands for variant meanings:

Face is that physical appearance of every animal.

Face is the headmost of everything. God says (And a party of the followers of the Book say: Avow belief in that which has been revealed to those who believe in the [face] first part of the day. 3:72)

Face is the intention of a deed. God says (And who has a better religion than he who submit [his face] himself to Allah. 4:125) and says (Then set your face upright to the religion. 10:105).

Face is the solution.

Face is the direction and the side.

Face is the standing and reputation.

Face is the chief of people.

Face is the self and the person. God says (Some faces on that day shall be bright. Looking to their Lord. And other faces on that day shall be gloomy. Knowing that there will be made to befall them some great calamity). God also says (Other faces on that day shall be happy. Wellpleased because of their striving. 8:88). It is inappropriate to attach brightness gloominess knowledge

( 102 )

happiness and pleasingness to faces actually. These adjectives were added extraneously to faces. They are actually added to the sentence as a whole. Consequently 'His face' mentioned in God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face) stands for His Person. The same thing is said about the word in God's saying (And there will endure for ever the [face] of your Lord Lord of glory and honor). As long as 'face' is intended to express the Lord's Person the attachment of (the Lord of glory and honor) is syntactically ascribed to 'face' not 'Lord' while in God's saying (Blessed be the name of your Lord the Lord of glory and honor. 55:78) the attachment of (the Lord of glory and honor) is syntactically ascribed to 'Lord' not 'name' since the two are of different references. (*)

There is another probable exegesis for the Verse involved. This exegesis is related to some earlier scholars. It is that 'face' stands for deeds intended and offered to Allah the Exalted exclusively. On this account meaning of the Verse should be 'Regard not any associate to Allah and call not upon any god other than Him. Every act intended and offered to other than Him is perishable and void.'

How is it acceptable for corporalists to rest upon the extrinsic meaning of this Verse and its likes? This will certainly be leading to Allah's full termination excepting His face. This faith is showing atheism and naivet of its bearer. God's sayings (We only feed you for Allah's [face]) (The [face] of His Highest Lord. 92:20) and (who desire the [face] of Allah) are interpreted that these deeds are done for the sake of Allah intending His rewards contiguity and standing. God's saying (thither is Allah's [face]) is probably intending Allah's Person on meanings of awareness and knowledgeability not on incarnate meaning. It is also probable that 'face' stands for God's satisfaction reward and contiguity. Furthermore it is probable that 'face' implies localities. Hence the attachment shall be referring to God's royalty creation origination and making. The first attachment is Allah's saying (Allah's is the east and the west Whither you turn thither is Allah's [face]) refers to the fact that the entire directions are totally controlled and possessed by Allah the Exalted. Thanks to God this is clear and evident.

Margin of BiharulAnwar part 4 page 6:

* Pursuant to Arabic syntax, 'Thu' in the earlier Verse should be 'Thi' if it is attached to 'Lord', while in the latter, it is 'Thi' since it is attached to 'Lord'. Depending on this syntactic evidence, Al-Murteda intends to say that 'face' and 'Lord', mentioned in the earlier Verse are two different words of the same reference, while 'name' and 'Lord', mentioned in the latter, are two words or two different references.

( 103 )

There is a metaphorical expression in God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face). 'Face' expresses person and self. The same thing is said about God's saying (And there will endure the [face] of your Lord). Syntactically the subjunctive case used in the current Quranic text is a clear evidence on opting for 'person' as the interpretation of 'face'. The prepositional case would be used if the extrinsic material meaning of the Verse was intended

Another exegesis is cited. Some interpret 'face' into 'virtuous deeds intended for the sake of Allah and for seeking His contiguity and favors. Hence the Lord informs us that everything shall be terminated saving His religion which is the only way to Him and the only way by which His favors and satisfaction are obtained.

Concisely Sharif Al-Murteda agrees with the Sunni noncorporalists on the exegesis that 'face' stands for the person. He also cites that the word intended should probably stand for the virtuous deeds intended to Allah exclusively.

Various narratives regarding dedicating signification of 'face' mentioned in the Verse involved as well as looking at the Lord's face in the Hereafter to the prophets and their disciples (peace be upon them all) since they are bearers of the Lord's divine knowledge and doctrines. Thus they are indeed the face from whom Allah is proceeded.

AtTebirsi's Al-ihtijaj part 2 page 190:

"O son of the Prophet! What is the purport of the hadith (The reward of 'There is no god but Allah' is viewing at Allah's face.)?" I asked Imam ArRida. "O AbusSelt! He is apostatizing that whoever ascribes a material face to Allah." answered Imam ArRida and went on "Allah's face is His prophets apostles and disciples (peace be upon them) by whom God His religion and knowledge is sought. Allah the Almighty the Exalted says (Everyone [Everything] on it must pass away and there will endure for ever the [face] person of your Lord the Lord of glory and honor.) and (Everything is perishable except His [face]). Thus viewing at Allah's prophets apostles and disciples in their standings is a great reward for the believers. The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) stated 'He whoever bears malice against my household and progeny shall never see me and I shall never see him on Resurrection Day.' He also stated 'Among you there are persons who shall never see me again after my mundane departure.' O AbusSelt! A space cannot be attributed to Allah the Praised the Exalted. Views and illusions cannot comprehend Him."

Imam AsSadiq's narrative quoted from Al-Kuleini's Al-Kafi part 1 page 143 regarding the same subject has been forecited.

In his Book of hadith part 8 page 174 Al-Bukhari records that 'face' mentioned in the Verse involved hints at God's Person:

( 104 )

God's Saying (Say: What Thing Is The Weightiest In Testimony?)

Allah the Exalted calls 'thing' on Himself. He says (Say: What thing is the weightiest in testimony? Say: Allah). Likewise the Prophet (peace be upon him) called 'thing' on the Quran. It is one of the divine attributes. Allah says (Everything is perishable except His face).

Al-Bukhari proposes that 'thing' mentioned in the Verse comprises Allah the Exalted and the expression of exclusion hints at a correlation between the whole sentence and the excluded thing. This means that 'face' stands for His Person.

A more curious matter is that Al-Bukhari in his book of hadith part 6 page 17 records a statement near to the Prophet's household's exegesis of the Verse:

'Face' included in the Verse (Everything is perishable except His face) alludes to God's possession. Some cited deeds intended for God's sake as the exegesis of 'face' involved. Mujahid says: God's face is the argumentative news.

Probably a manuscript error has occurred to Al-Bukhari's previous words. Yet the entire versions of Al-Bukhari's book of hadith record the same 'argumentative news' which is very close to 'prophets and disciples' in writing. It seems that the origin is 'prophets and disciples' since this is the very exegesis pointed out by the Prophet's household.

A likelihood has been cited because Al-Bukhari presents Mujahid's exegesis under the title of exegesis of God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face) which is Verse 88 of sura of Qassas while he might intend to refer to Verse 66 of the same since the latter comprises the word 'news' which is confused with 'prophets'. Regarding so Mujahid would be recording a matter out of our debate.

Owing to this likelihood we have to undertake Al-Bukhari's confused statement and regard that he records the exegesis of an earlier Verse under the title of a latter one.

Finally it is acceptable to expose that the Verse concerned deals with the various generations of this earth before Resurrection Day. Hence the meaning should be that everything shall be perishing in this world before Resurrection Day except Allah's disciples who will endure till the last moments of this earth when he the Exalted shall raise His argumentative disciple from the earth and the 'divine scream' shall be befalling. From this cause the Verse pertains all what is perishable and what is consistent in social lives and origination of generations. This will cite a difference between perishability mentioned here and termination intended in God's saying (Everyone [everything] on it must pass away).

( 105 )

The earlier narratives recorded in Al-Imametu Wet-Tabsira page 92 and Al-Kafi part 1 page 143 are clear proofs of actuality of this exegesis.

As-Saduq's Kemaluddin page 231:

Abu Hamza: Regarding God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face) Imam Abu Ja'far stated "Is it acceptable that everything shall be perishing and God's face shall be the only enduring thing? Allah is more glorified than being described. The real meaning of the Verse is that everything shall be perishing except God's religion. We are the direction from whom Allah is approached. As long as Allah has a matter to do with His servants His argumentative disciples are endured. Otherwise God will raise us and do whatever he wills.

Personally this is the only reasonable exegesis of the Verse. It is absolutely impossible that God's Essence is included in perishability that it needs an exclusion to express. Depending on so we have to dedicate created things to 'everything' mentioned in the Verse. On that account the excluded should be God's prophets and argumentative disciples (peace be upon them).

In many other narratives; such as the previous it is emphasized that prophets and Imams (peace be upon them) are intended in 'Allah's face' frequently recorded in the holy Quran. It is also recorded that looking at those individuals is the accurate interpretation of looking at the Lord's face mentioned in various prophetic texts.. Finally this meaning does in no means oppose the previous meaning of the prophets and argumentative disciples' being the Lord's face.


Ibn Baz's Al-Fetawi part 2 page 94:

Praised be Allah. Blessings and peace be upon Allah's apostle and his household and companions. Lately I inspected reply of Sheik Ahmed Mahmud Duhloub issued in Al-Belagh Magazine No. 637 regarding a question about the exegesis of God's saying (He settled on the Throne). Within his reply Sheik Duhloub referred pointing out that 'settle' implies 'seize and have in possession' to the worthy ancestors.

Since this reference is a candid mistake I just intend to attract attentions to this point so that readers shall not reckon that sentence with the master scholars' sayings. As a matter of fact the right thing is that exegesis is ascribed to the Jahmites and Mutazilites and their fellows who denied the divine attributes and denuded the Praised and Exalted Creator from attributes of perfection He used for Himself.

Scholars of the worthy ancestors denied such an interpretation and asserted that Allah's settling is treated as same as the other attributes that are confirmed for the Lord as they fit His glory passing over distortion denudation modification or representation. Malik stated "Settling is known and

( 106 )

its way is unexplored and believing in this is obligatory and questioning about it is heresy." Sunni descendants were brought up on this belief. In his ArRisaletul Hamawiya Ibn Teimiya writes down "This is the Book of Allah from beginning to end and this is the Prophet's traditions from beginning to end and these are words of the Prophet's companions and their followers and these are words of the other masters. All these are filled in either by text or extrinsic meaning with the fact that Allah the Praised and Exalted is the High and the Supreme Who is over and exalted on everything and over the Throne and over the heavens. This is proved by His saying (To Him do ascends the good words; and the good deeds lift them up. 35:10) and the innumerable authentic and qualified hadiths; such as the Prophet's ascending to his Lord and the angels' descending from and ascending to the Lord and the like."

Depending on our current debate it is now quite clear for readers that what is falsely imputed to the worthy ancestors by Ahmed Mahmud Duhloub has been such a calamitous mistake and indubitable prevarication that it is impermissible to regard. The worthy ancestors' words respecting this topic is positively familiar and continuously reported. This meaning is clarified by Sheikul-Islam Ibn Teimiya by contending that Allah's settling is highness on the Throne and believing in so is obligatory and the way of that elevation is exclusively known by Allah the Praised. This meaning is related to Ummu Salama Ummul-Muminin and Rabia Bin Abi Abdirrahman Malik's master. It is really the indisputable right. Unquestionably AhlusSunna adopted this opinion. The same thing is said about the other divine attributes; hearing viewing satisfaction ire hand foot fingers uttering will and the like. It is averred that such attributes are linguistically known; therefore it is obligatory to believe in even the way is unfamiliar for us and quite familiar by Allah the Praised exclusively. It is also imperative to believe in perfection of the divine attributes in such a way that He is not like any of His creatures. Hence Allah's hand fingers satisfaction are different from ours. He the Praised says (Nothing like the likeness of Him and He is the Hearing the Seeing). Believers however are required to adhere to what was told by Allah and His Prophet and what was pursued by the worthy ancestors; the Prophet's companions and their virtuous followers. They are also advised to beware themes of the heretic who shunned the divine Book and the Prophet's traditions and rested upon their ideas and intellectuals fanatically; therefore they deviated and led to deviation.

Ibn Baz's Al-Fetawi part 2 page 98:

In an article titled (For being the strongest nation) issued in No. 3383 3/4/1408 of Al-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper Muhyiddin AsSafi referring to discrepancy between the worthy ancestors and their descendants about the divine attributes writes down "In the Holy Quran there are some Verses accrediting material descriptions to Allah the Exalted. God's sayings (The hand

( 107 )

of Allah is above their hands) (Everything is perishable except His face) and (The Beneficent settled on the Throne) are good examples of the forecited fact. Scholars follow one of the following two courses in comprehending such Verses. First course of the worthy ancestors which is proving what Allah has proved for Himself passing over denudation modification or representation and observing evading depriving the Divine Essence of attributes. They also averred that the extrinsic meanings of aspects of such Verses are unintended. For God's saying (Nothing is like the likeness of Him and He is the Hearing the Seeing) promoting Allah the Exalted against whatsoever may be a means of comparison to the creatures was the base on which they depend in their faith. Second course of the worthy descendants which is interpreting such words and resting upon metaphoric meanings. Hence for them 'hand' 'face' and 'settling' suggest aptitude person and predominance and seizure respectively. Convictional proofs on Allah's being not a corporeality were provided. Besides God says (Nothing like the likeness of Him and He is the Hearing the Seeing) proves so. As a matter of fact both courses are accurate and authentically related and recorded in reference books of master scholars."

May God pardon him and us the writer of the previous article has made a mistake when he says "They also averred that the extrinsic meanings of aspects of such Verses are unintended." The worthy ancestors and their ever followers prove and believe in veracity of attributes of perfection that Allah and His Prophet (peace be upon him) proved for Himself as they fit His glory passing over distortion denudation modification representation interpretation or commendation.

In his Ar-Risaletul Hamawiya Sheikul-Islam Ibn Teimiya records "In His Al-Asma'u We-sSifat Abu Bakr Al-Beihaqi relates the following to Al-Awzai with an authentic documentation:

'The Prophet's companions' followers and we were wont to maintain that Allah the Exalted is atop His Throne. We also believed in the divine attributes related to the Prophet's traditions.'

Al-Awzai one of the four most remarkable scholars of the followers of the Prophet's companions' followers age relates commonness of maintaining that Allah the Exalted is atop His Throne and that He has audible attributes. This saying was declared after emergence of Jahm the denier of Allah's being atop His Throne and having attributes so that people could realize that the worthy ancestors' sect opposed such ideas.

The writer mentions that "course of the worthy descendants is interpreting such words and resting upon metaphoric meanings. Hence for them 'hand' 'face' and 'settling' suggest aptitude person and predominance and seizure respectively. Convictional proofs on Allah's being not a corporal were provided. Besides God says (Nothing is like the likeness of Him and He is the

( 108 )

Hearing the Seeing) proves so. As a matter of fact both courses are accurate and authentically related and recorded in reference books of master scholars." I say that these statements are not quite true. Not both courses are accurate. Course of the worthy ancestors is the only accurate and the obligatorily pursued since it represents ensuing the divine Book and the Prophet's traditions and acceding to attitudes of the Prophet's companions their followers and their followers. By proving attributes of perfection this course promotes Allah the Praised the Exalted against attributes of imperfection and nonorganic incomplete and privative substances. This is the truth indeed. The interpretation on the other hand is adopted by the worthy descendant theologists. It is opposite to the right since it is arbitration of the imperfect intellects and capricious representation of Allah's words. By adopting this depriving Allah the Glorified the Elevated of attributes of perfection is engaged. Thus interpreters escaped from anthropomorphism to fall in denudation.

Concisely course of the worthy ancestors is the only right that is bindingly followed and ensued. The other sect of interpreting attributes of Allah the Glorified the Elevated is wrong and contradictory to Allah's Book and the Prophet's traditions and the worthy ancestors of the nation.

The writer's claim Allah's being not a corporeality is unproved since neither the divine Book nor did the Prophet's traditions assert nor deny this matter. In this case the most apropos procedure is suspending such matters. Intellects are out of process of specifying the divine attributes. This process is consecratory. It is suspended on Quranic and prophetic texts.

Bin Baz's Al-Fetawi part 2 page 105:

From: AbdulAzeez Bin Abdillah Bin Baz.

To: Mohammed Bin Ahmed Sindi the esquire.

Having received your prolonged missive I noted the following points included:

1. The claim Allah is greatly promoted against occupying a space or being encompassed by a definite space.

  1. Your saying "While I was reviewing Sa'd Sadiq's Sira'un Beinel Haqqi WelBatil these Verses and hadiths were the argumentative evidences on God's material Exaltation. If I were able to realize what the author and his likes should gain from publicizing such beliefs that in most cases call forth seditious matters disorder and disunity Ordinary people would heed this book and believe that Allah is existent in the heavens Manifestly I have quoted words of Ar-Razi Al-Qurtubi and As-Sawi."

From your words it is clear that you lack knowledge in belief of the divine names and attributes. You also crave to a special critique and such a

( 109 )

confidential care that shows you the accurate belief. You God may bless you should understand that Sunnis including the Prophet's companions and their followers have been unanimously supporting the fact that Allah is in the heavens atop the Throne and that hands are raised towards Him. These facts are proved through Quranic and authentic prophetic texts. They also have unanimously proved that Allah the Praised is too selfsufficient to be in need for a throne or alike matters. AhlusSunna asserted similar things about other divine attributes. Malik for instance says "Meanings are realized according to requirements of the Arabic in which Allah addressed at His servants. The way is unknown."

These perfect and invariable meanings were used for exhibiting attributes of the Lord whose resemblant is nonexistent. Discussion of this mater needs further debate. God willing we intend to do so soon after arrival in Al-Madina. Besides we intend to show you erroneous points in your book. At any rate we advise you of reflecting upon the Holy Quran and believing that whatsoever indicated by the Quran with regard to the divine attributes as well as the other subjects is accurate and fitting Allah the Praised. It is illicit to interpret discount and commend the divine attributes. All these are acts of the heretic. AhlusSunna do neither interpret discount nor do they commend the Verses and hadiths appertained to the divine attributes. They believe that all whatsoever indicated by meanings is a consistent right fitting Allah the Praised in a form quite different from any of His creatures. Allah the Praised says (Say: He Allah is One. Allah is He on Whom all depend. He begets not nor is He begotten. And none is like Him. 112) (Nothing like His likeness; and He is the Hearing the Seeing.) Hereby God denied being like His creatures and confirmed hearing and sight to Himself in a fitting way. The same is said about the rest of the divine attributes.

We also advise you of reviewing the two replications of SheikhulIslam Ibn Teimiya to people of Hemah and Tadmur. These two answers Al-Hamawiya particularly carry a remarkable virtue and a detail rendition regarding the Sunnis' opinions and presentation of their words. In the reply involved there is sufficient replication on wording of the heretic. You are advised to see IbnulQeyim's Al-Eqidetun Nuniya and Mukhtassarus Sawaiq. Besides careful revision and demonstration of evidences inferred from the Quran hadith and opinions of the worthy ancestors exposition and clarification found in these two books may be not noticed in others.

Nothing new can be beheld in Bin Baz's previous words which were as same as Ibn Teimiya's. Truly one matter could be conceived from the above. Both the supreme juriscounsult master and his industrious disciple rested upon God's having a material face as they passed by God's saying (Everything is perishable except His face.)

( 110 )

Only had there been enough space to show models of IbnulQeyim's Al-Eqidetun Nuniya of which that respectful juriscounsult advises for taking in monotheism. In that poor so called poem IbnulQeyim composes six thousand lines of the worst wording ever used in Arabic poetry. He confused monotheism so complicatedly that he disciplined the Muslim scholars' objective cogency to death.


Wahabists ensued their master Ibn Teimiya in citing Malik's statement about the exegesis of God's saying (The Beneficent settled on the Throne) as their evidence on decorum of their faith. Bin Baz and Al-Albani have been used to using this statement.

Bin Baz's Al-Fetawi part 2 page 171:

He the Praised is over His creatures and settling on His Throne in such a way fitting His glory and magnificence. On the contrary of claims of the heretic Jahmites and their likes who cited 'seize' as the interpretation of 'settle' the flawless meaning is that adopted by the worthy ancestors which is that Allah arose on His Throne. This is evidenced by Malik's answering the question about way of God's settling remarked in God's saying (The Beneficent settled on the Throne). Malik said "Settling is known and its way is unexplored and believing in this is obligatory and questioning about it is heresy."

Bin Baz's Al-Fetawi part 2 page 518:

"O Malik! (The Beneficent settled on the Throne) how His settling was?" a man asked. "Settling is familiar. Inversely to the commended meaning the known settling is the elevation. It way is unexplored Take this man out. He is heretic " ordered Malik.

Considering Malik's verdict has been operative what should the ruling of Omar's demonstrating that Allah the Exalted reposes on the Throne which cracks and creaks squeaks or grate owing to the Lord's heavy weight be?

Second as Ahmed or another said "Pass these texts as they are." was Malik (God please him) adopting this belief when he provided that answer and decided heresy of that asker?

The asker however was not heretic when he asked about meaning of God's saying. He became heretic just after he had asked about the way of God's settling. The forecited saying of Malik represents completely course of the worthy ancestors and their ever followers. Malik stated that linguistic meanings of such texts are known while methods and ways are thoroughly not. None other than the Owner can recognize the way of the Essence and the attributes. Meanwhile settling hearing and sight are realizable matters.

( 111 )

As much as I think Ahmed indicated miscomprehending the Verses and commending them to Allah exclusively. This trend is followed by the descendants. This is indeed the very denudation that leads to denying the Praised and Exalted Creator. I am highly touchy to Sheikul-Islam Ibn Teimiya's saying "Anthropomorphists worship a pagan while Tatilites worship nothingness." The deviant heretics especially in this country claim that Allah is neither over beneath to the right to the left in nor out of this world. These are descriptions of nonexistent things. What should be the answer of any ordinary man if he is asked to provide a definition for nonexistence? Certainly he will answer: Nonexistence is nothingness. If he is also asked whether this nothingness is in or out this cosmos the answer will be: This is incorrect nothingness is neither in nor out of the cosmos. From this cause Ibn Teimiya said that Tatilites worship nonexistence.

We hereby concise the forecited prolonged essay of Bin Baz by citing the following instructions and commentaries: Allah the Exalted is a corporeality. Corporealities are the only things existing in or beyond nature. Allah's settling on the Throne is a material matter. It is not valid to ask how; otherwise you shall be decided as atheist whom should be dismissed or killed. Besides such procedures should not be regarded as intellectual terrorism since Malik had followed them. We however should refer to him in interpreting the divine attributes and religious terrorism. As a matter of face we disagree to his heretic verdict of permissibility of visitating the Prophet's tomb!! Say not that Omar the caliph had represented God's reposal on His Throne as a man's sitting on a new made chair which cracks creaks squeaks or grates due to heavy weight!! This interpretation is legal for Omar but illegal for others!!

Anyhow the commenders committed a single intellectual terrorism while Wahabists have been committing three ill deeds; two are reckoned with the intellectual terrorism and one to commendation. Commenders confessed of ignoring the Lord's way of settling on the Throne and deemed forbidden asking about so. Wahabists confined people between two options; either to rest upon the extrinsic material settling as the very meaning involved or to be lined up with Jahmites Tatilites deviants and atheists. After responding to the easier option; the previous they will rule of your dissidence for your exposing Allah's corporeality concealment of which He has ordered if you disregard commending that meaning to Allah. See how the forbidden commendation became obligatory after forcing on resting upon the material exegesis! Wahabists have been committing intellectual terrorism by forcing on resting upon the material exegesis and another one by forcing on commending the physical settling and forcing on abstaining from asking about the way!!

A commender says: Do not open the door to questions and evade entering this place.

( 112 )

A Wahabist says: Jump from that high place but evade falling to the ground!!

It was not proved that Malik had adopted the notion Wahabists held fast on.

1. At-Thehbi's Siyeru A'lamin-Nubela part 8 page 100:

Jafar Bin Abdillah: A man asked Malik "O Abu Abdillah! How was the Lord's settling mentioned in His saying (The beneficent settled on the Throne)?" Malik had never been in such embarrassing moments. He nodded the head down and stroke the cane in his hand to the ground and became sweaty. After a while he raised the head threw the cane and stated "It is impracticable to ask 'how' about Allah. His settling is not inconceivable. Believing in so is obligatory. Asking about so is a heresy. I think you are a heretic. Take this man out." Hence he dismissed the asker.

According to Salama Bin Shabib's narration Malik stated "I am afraid you are an aberrant."

2. AburRabi ArRashidini:

Ibn Wahab: We were attending at Malik when a man asked "O Abu Abdillah! (The Beneficent settled on the Throne) how was that settling?" Malik nodded the dead down and became sweaty. After a while he raised his head and said "The Beneficent settled on the Throne as he describes Himself. It is impracticable to ask 'how' about Him. 'How' is invalidated for Him. You are an ill heretic. Take him out."

3. Mohammed Bin Amr Qamshard AnNisapuri:

Yahya Bin Yahya: We were attending at Malik when a man asked The same previous narrative with the following addition "Settling is not inconceivable."

4 5. At-Thehbi's Siyeru A'lamin-Nubela part 8 page 105:

Ibn Edi: Mohammed Bin Harun Bin Hassan: Salih Bin Yaqub: Habib Bin Abi Habib:

Malik stated "Affairs of our Lord the Blessed the Exalted are descended. He is everlasting and unchanging." Yahya Bin Bukeir commented "This is a qualified saying but I did not hear it from Malik directly."

Salih is unknown for me. Habib is so familiar. The most well known narrative related to Malik is that of Al-Walid Bin Muslim who asked about texts of the divine attributes. Malik answered "Pass them as they are without exegesis." Subject to authenticity of Habib's narrative Malik had two sayings in the question concerned.

6. Eyad the judge:

Abu Talib Al-Mekki: Malik (God please him) was the most distant from theologists. He was also opposite of the Iraqis.

( 113 )

Sufian Bin Uyeina: A man asked Malik "O Abu Abdillah! (The Beneficent settled on the Throne) how was that settling?" Malik could say nothing and became sweaty. After a while he said "His settling is familiar. It is impracticable to ask 'How' about Him. Asking about this is heresy. Believing in it is obligatory. I see you but a deviant. Take him out."

It is noticeable that there is no single narrative support Wahabists' claim of Malik's adopting for resting upon the extrinsic meanings of texts. Actually these narrations refer to the opposite. In the first narration Malik denied the general 'how' ascribed to Allah the Exalted. He did not negate the way of God's settling. He says "'It is impracticable to ask 'How' about Allah. His settling is not inconceivable." This means that settling for the Lord is originally out of a method or a way. It is not a material settling the way of which is not known as Wahabists claim. Malik's 'not inconceivable' means that it is decisively provable to Allah the Exalted by Quranic texts. Where is then the evidence on their claims of material settling?

The second and third narrations support the first. Malik said "The Beneficent settled on the Throne as he describes Himself. It is impracticable to ask 'how' about Him. 'How' is invalidated for Him." As a matter of face the expression "It is impracticable to ask 'how' about Him" is usually used in reports of AhlulBeit for negating materiality misalleged to Allah the Elevated. The expression is also used for promoting God against such unfitting matters.

In the fourth narrative Malik interpreted the Lord's descending into descending of His affairs. He says "Affairs of our Lord the Blessed the Exalted are descended. He is everlasting and unchanging." For Wahabists interpretation is a heresy denudation deviation and atheism. Therefore pursuant to rulings of their sect they should rule of heresy denudation deviation and atheism of Malik so that he may be free from being their ceiling!

The fifth narrative is pure commendation that does not stand for any sort of resting upon extrinsic or intrinsic meanings. At-Thehbi himself declares so "asked about texts of the divine attributes. Malik answered "Pass them as they are without exegesis."

Malik's expression in the sixth narration "His settling is familiar. It is impracticable to ask 'How' about Him" shows denial of inquiring the way of settling. This means that he denies the Lord's material settling adopted by Wahabists. The word 'for him' shows that he denies ways of the Lord's settling or the absolute 'how' accredited to Him. Malik's saying 'familiar' insinuates that this matter is provable by Quranic texts.

How is it then adequate for them to claim Malik's acceding to their sect? What for are they taking Malik as their ceiling? What for do they delude Muslims that Malik is one of them and with them and they nearly would be about to issue his membership to their club!!

( 114 )

Al-Mudawwanatul-Kubra part 6 page 465:

Malik nodded the head down sweated and thought for a considerable time when he was asked about God's settling in His saying (The Beneficent settled on the Throne). After a while he answered "It is impracticable to ask 'how' about Him. His settling is not unfamiliar. Believing in so is obligatory and asking about it is a heresy. I see you a heretic. Take him out." Hence the asker was dismissed.

The same is recorded in Asharani's AtTabaqat.

Like the earliest Malik's answer in this narration commences with denial of the Lord's material settling they believe in. How was it then possible for them to claim that by saying "Settling is not unfamiliar" Malik intended at the Lord's material settling on the Throne. Exalted be Allah against so!

Our claim is also supported by Ashafii's words recorded in AsSibki's TabaqatusShafiiya part 9 page 40:

Ashafii: As I asked him about monotheism Malik answered "It is absolutely inapplicable to think that the Prophet (peace be upon him) who trained his nation how to cleanse after defecation had not taught them monotheism. Once he (peace be upon him) said 'I have been ordered of fighting people till they say there is no god but Allah.' He did not say that believing in Allah's occupying an elevated space is within monotheism."


Siyeru A'lamin-Nubela part 8 page 103:

Abu Ahmed Bin Edi: Ahmed Bin Ali Al-Medaini: Isaaq Bin Ibrahim Bin Jabir: Abu Zeid Bin AbilGhamr: Abul-Qasim:

Before Malik I provided these narratives respecting God's creating Adam on His look showing His leg taking His hand in hell for picking up whomever He desires and the like. Malik denied so sharply and warned us against communicating such narratives. The attendants asserted that some scholars had been publicizing such narratives. "Who were they?" asked Malik. "They are Ibn Ajlan and Abuz-Zinad his master." they answered. "Ibn Ajlan has been neither acquainted of such affairs nor has he been a scholar. Abuz-Zinad has been uninterruptedly working for those!" declared Malik.

This is an abundant text comprising remarkable information. Malik intended to say that Abuz-Zinad the principal originator of such narratives had been doubtful since he was a governmental official for the Umayids about whom Malik said 'those' whose mission has been publicizing narratives of corporeality falsely cited by Ka'bul-Ahbar and other Jews for broadcasting in the Islamic nation. It is also an adequate evidence on the fact that since the first Hijri

( 115 )

century the Umayid rulers adopted the Israelite fables and intrigued them in the Prophet's traditions and designated officials whether scholastic or not for this mission. Furthermore Malik's previous narrative is acceptably sufficient for Malikites as well as every decent researchist to cease regarding all those Jewish and Umayid false narratives of anthropomorphism and corporeity.

All the above and those whom were hearted with anthropomorphism and corporalism such as At-Thehbi attempted at forging Malik's decisive and clearcut attitude for their good and aimed at humiliating him by ruling of his ignorance for his shortcoming of viewing those 'numerous authentic hadiths' opposing his situation!!

As a commentary on Malik's previous attitude At-Thehbi says:

Malik is freed from blame for his denying such affairs. However these texts were not provable for him. The two compilers of books of hadith are also pardoned for recording the two first texts the documentation of which have been provably authentic. The third I know nothing about!

For At-Thehbi it is Malik's duty to correspond Al-Bukhari. While Malik was the official general juriscounsult of the whole Islamic state Al-Bukhari was still in the flank of his tritavus or tritavipater. Is it then forbidden for Malik to deny and defy Al-Bukhari in matter of regarding authenticity or falsity of prophetic texts? In fact Al-Bukhari should have neglected hadiths Malik had charged of falsity and Umayidmade!

Moreover Malik's next text proclaims that four outstanding opinions were adopted by Malik all over his lifetime. First nullity of increase and decrease of believing. Second claiming the Quran's being created. Third denial of Allah's seeableness even in the Hereafter. Four indecency of some of the Prophet's famous companions. Thereupon they alleged that he retracted just before his decease!

At-Thehbi's Tarikhul-Islam part 32 page 62:

In his final disease Malik ordered him of the following: Regard increase and decrease of faithfulness. Regard the Quran's being not created. Regard God's seeableness in the Hereafter. Regard decency of the Prophet's companions.

In addition to many others this narrative asserts that these four opinions were not regarded by Malik. It is rightful for researchists to doubt the claim of his retracting at his final disease.

( 116 )


Bin Baz's Al-Fetawi part 4 page 368 verdict 2331:

Q1. 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 Seeing.)

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 him!!

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!

( 117 )


Al-Albani's Al-Fetawi page 506:

Q. Do you prove attribute of trotting to Allah the Exalted?

A. Like coming and descending trotting is an attribute that we lack a base for denying.

Bin Baz's Al-Fetawi part 5 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.

Bin Baz's Al-Fetawi part 5 page 371:

( 118 )

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 able.)?

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.

Al-Albani's Al-Fetawi page 344:

Q. What is AhlusSunna'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 Qatetc." 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!!

( 119 )

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!


Ibn Teimiya's Majmou'eturResa'il 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 Prophet.

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 above.

Ibn Teimiya's Majmou'eturResa'il 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 Apostle 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

( 120 )

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 Al-Fatawi part 1 page 317 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 Throne.)

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 Ibn 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 Ibn 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

( 121 )

of that ocean is the same previously cited. Above that ocean there are eight ibex the distance from their cloven 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 heavens. Allah the Blessed the Exalted is above all those." asserted the Prophet.

It seems that suspect of number of the years taken as a measurement was expounded by the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) not the narrator because Mohammed Bin AbdilWahab did not clarify so.

In the Margin of IbnulJawzi's Daf'u ShubehitTashbih Bi EkuffitTanzih page 259 AsSaqqaf commentates:

In an independent well remarkable essay titled 'Legend of Ibexes' Al-Kawthari in his Al-Maqalat page 308 clarifies falsification of that narrative. Abdullah Bin AsSiddiq Al-Ghemari in his Fi SabilitTawfiq 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.

AdDimiri's Hayatul Hayawanil Kubra part 2 page 428:

Orwa Bin AzZubeir (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.

Al-Jahiz's Kitabul Hayawan part 6 page 221:

This is proved by the Prophet's giving credence to Umaya Bin AbisSelt'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 Ibn 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: Ibn Abbas: Before the Prophet (peace be upon him) I recited Umaya Bin AbisSelt's verses about bearers of the Throne. He smiled expressing his believing in so."

AtTabari'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.

( 122 )

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 taletellers; 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 troubles.

Al-Kuleini's Al-Kafi part 1 page 93:

Ali Bin Ibrahim: 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."

( 123 )

NahjulBelagha part 2 page 116 sermon 186:


About Oneness of Allah. This sermon contains principles of knowledge which no other sermon contains.

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 contradictory 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 la' (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.

* Sermons of Nahjul-Belagha are literally quoted from Imam Ali, Nahjul Balagha, Ansariyan Publications.

( 124 )

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 voice 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 would 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 initiated 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 without 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 authority 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 earth 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