THE
OVERWHELMING
TRUTH
 A Discussion of Some Key Concepts
in Islamic Theology
by
His Eminence
. Shaykh Ahmad b. Hamad al-Khalili
Grand Mufti
of the Sultanate of Oman
THE OVERWHELMINGTRUTH:
A Discussion of Some Key Concepts
in Islamic Theology
by
His Eminence
Shaykh Ahmad b. Hamad al-Khalili
Grand Mufti
of the Sultanate of Oman
The Overwhelming Truth
First Edition 2002
Copyright © Ministry of Awgaf and Religious Affairs,
P.O. Box : 3232, Postal Code : 112, Ruwi, Sultanate of Oman
All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or any part
thereof, may not be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the Ministry of
Awgaf and Religious ffairs.
ISBN 9948-03-035-4
Contents
Preface5
THE FIRST DISCUSSION:
ON SEEING ALLAH 21
Introduction 22
Chapter 1
Differences among the wmah
on the possibility of seeing Allah and its actually happening23
Chapter 2
On the evidence of those who affirm the seeing 29
Evidence for the possibility of seeing Allah 29
Evidence from the Book 30
Evidence from the Sunnah 34
Evidence for its actually happening 37
Evidence from the Book 37
Evidence from the Sunnah 49
Chapter 3
On the evidence of those who deny seeing 58
Proofs and evidence from the Book 59
Evidence from the Sunnah 78
Conclusion: The outcome of the Discussion 82
THE SECOND DISCUSSION:
ON THE QUR’AN’S BEING CREATED85
Introduction86
Chapter 1
On the differences among the #mah on the revealed Word being eternal or
created 91
Chapter 2
On the clash of opinions of those
who believe in the Quran’s being eternal (not-created) 107
Chapter 3
On the evidence of those who deny the creation of the Quran 129
Chapter 4
On the evidence of those who believe in the Qur4an’s being created 137
Rational evidence 137
Evidence from the Quran139
Evidence from the Sunnah150
Conclusion 152
THE THIRD DISCUSSION:
ON THE PERMANENT STAYING IN THE FIRE
OF THOSE WHO COMMIT MAJOR SINS 155
Introduction 156
Chapter 1
On the dispute about permanency of the Garden and the Fire 158
Chapter 2
On the arguments of those who believe in the end of the punishment161
1The verses from the Quran162
2 <A narration from the Prophet 166
3 The philosophical ideas 167
Chapter 3
On the evidence of those who believe in the permanent dwelling in the Fire
of those who commit the major sins _ 170
Evidence from the Book 170
Evidence from the Sunnah 188
Conclusion of the Discussion 191
CONCLUSIONOF THE BOOK193
THANKSAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT195
Preface
Preface
Praise belongs to Allah who chose for His servants the religion by which He
unified the groups of the believers, and by whose orders He brought the
hearts of the sincere into one accord. Glorified is He. He is One in His Es-
sence, Glorified in His attributes, Exalted in His Majesty, the Creator of what
is in His earth and in His heavens. ‘Nothing is like to Him, He is All-Hearing
and All-Seeing’ (a/-Shira, 42.11); “The (faculties of) seeing cannot grasp Him,
and He grasps all seeing, He is the All-Subtle and All-Aware’ (a-An‘am,
6.103), the True in promise and warning. He does what He wills and He de-
cides what He wants. None can change His decision; there is no changing
His words, and no unfulfilling of His promise. I praise Him as one who be-
lieves in His Majesty, and acknowledges His Perfection. And I testify that
there is no god but Allah, He is alone, He has no partner. “To Him belongs
the praise in the first and in the last, and unto Him is the judgement and to
Him you will be returned” (a/-Qasas, 28.88). And I testify that our master, our
Prophet Muhammad is His servant, His Messenger, and His chosen one
among His creatures, and His chosen one among His Messengers. He sent
him with the most true, clear and manifest signs, and the most dazzling
miracles. He perfected by him the religion, and completed by him the favour
upon His believing servants. Peace be upon him, his descendants, all his
Companions, and their sincere followers until the Day of Judgment.
Difference in the conditions of people is a well-known characteristic of
mankind. That is why you find them differing in understanding, in tastes and
sentiments. That is the cause of the multiplicity of their doctrines on the
same matter, and their differences in thinking on the same issue. ‘But they
will not cease to differ, except those on whom your Lord has bestowed His
Mercy, and for this did He create them’ (Hid, 11.118—19). Often prejudice
takes root within them, growing over time into a strong conviction in
thought and feeling, which cannot then be shifted or altered.
That is why the preaching of the Messengers, upon them be peace, cost
them so much effort over such a long time. Even then, the thoughts of most
people remained in error, drowned in blindness, not listening to the manifest
proofs, and not opening up to clear miracles. Rather, wheneverthe proof
was clearer and the miracle brighter they would grow more deaf and more
blind, and more deeply enmeshed in opposition and dispute.
Every wumah has suffered from schism among its members. The wwmah
of Muhammad, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah, was kept safe
from that. It was particularized by the sending of the greatest Messenger to
5
Preface
it, and the revelation to it of the greatest Book, and it was very clearly warned
against schism and its causes, and the evil consequence of it was explained in
 strong verses of the Book. He says, Exalted is He: ‘and hold fast all together,
by the rope of Allah, and be not divided among yourselves’ (A/ Umran,
 3.103). And He says, Glorified is He: “Be not like those who are divided
 among themselves, and fall into disputations after receiving clear signs; for
 them is a dreadful chastisement’ (A/ Umran, 3.105). And He says: ‘And fall
 not into disputes, lest you lose heart and your power depart’ (a/-Anfal, 8.46).
 And He says to His Messenger, upon him be peace and the blessings of Al-
 lah: ‘As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects, you have
 no part in them’ (a/-An‘am, 6.159). In spite of all that, this w#mvah did not re-
 main safe from this serious disease which affected other wmmahs. But Allah
 particularized this “ah by preserving the Book revealed to it from defor-
 mations of its letters by mockers and alterations by its enemies, by way of
 fulfillment of His promise: ‘We have, without doubt, sent down the Message,
 and We will assuredly guard it’ (a/+Hyr, 15.9). And Allah enabled this smah
 to know the authentic Sunnah of His Messenger, upon him be peace and the
 blessings of Allah, and made for the believers a way out of disputation and
 schism by referring to Allah and His Messenger, where He says: ‘If you differ
 in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger if you do
 believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is best and most suitable for final de-
 termination’ (a/-Nisa?, 4.59).
‘Referring to Allah’ cannot be but by referring to His Book, from which
 the truth should be derived and the reality known. Similarly, ‘referring to His
Messenger’, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah, does not mean
other than referring to his affirmed and authentic Sunnah.
Regardless of the availability of this way in which we have been com-
manded to take refuge from the calamities of dispute, differences have con-
tinued, and schism has not ceased. The Book is interpreted in different ways
reliant on fancies and inspired by desires; so too, the people adopt diverse
positions in determining the authentic Sunnah, and in determining the goals
of that of the Sunnah which is approved by all. Thence has arisen, among the
nummah, dispute in both the roots (#si#/) and branches (/ur#5) of the religion.
The most harmful, dangerous, consequential, and worst in outcome, was
the dispute in the fundamentals of the religion. For these fundamentals are
the foundations of the religion; on them stand its pillars, on them is estab-
lished its building; the strength of the religion itself is according to the
strength of these foundations. That is why the ##mab has often tolerated the
differences that arise among its groups in the fur‘ of the Shari‘ah. But the
difference among the #mah hardens and deepens when it concerns a matter
that is fundamental. According to the closeness or distance between one
6
Preface
group and another in respect of the fundamentals, they come together or
separate from one another. The source of accusation and defamation among
the different groups of the wmah is not other than their differences on the
fundamentals of the religion, and difference too in the sources from which
belief is derived, varying between excess and insufficiency in reliance upon
tradition or reason.
Dispute over the fundamentals of the religion, irrespective of the unity
of the source to which the disputing minds refer, is nothing but a result of
difference among the leaders of the groups in understanding and concepts.
Then, the prejudice of the masses in favour of the opinions of their leaders
causes each group to regard the opinion of its leader as a fundamental—to
the extent that the proofs that go against him are, by every possible means of
interpretation, made into proofs in his favour. Thereby the wah is divided
into sects and parties. ‘Each party is pleased with what they have’ (a/
MiPminin, 23.53).|
I do not exaggerate when I say of the Ibadis—the people of truth and ss-
tiqamah (steadfastness on the straight path)—that their belief is distinguished,
and their method of understanding the fundamentals of the religion is char-
acterized, by three things:
1Purity of derivation: in their argumentation for the authenticity of their
beliefs they have reconciled sound narration and clear reasoning.
The Ibadis did not reject sound texts because of their apparent contra-
diction with the demands of reason—which is the state of the rationalist
school who held reason to be higher, purer and more authentic than what
the Prophets, upon them be peace, brought from Allah, Exalted is He, and
who relied upon reason to decide between beauty and ugliness, to give ex-
planation and pass judgement. Equally, the Ibadis did not extinguish the
torch of reason either—so as, for example, to become imprisoned by the
outward meaning of words without seeking guidance therein afd (through
reasoning) unveiling the deeper, inward meaning and going deeper into the
intent and purport of those words. That is the state of the worshippers of the
word who do not take from the text but the outer shell, do not go beyond its °
form to its reality, beyond its surface meaning to its content and purport. By
contrast, the Ibadis have attached themselves firmly to the strong hooks of
the text while using wholesome reasoning as an argument by which to under-
standthe aimsof the text, and they haveused the conventionsof the lan-
guage as devices by which to track down fugitive meanings. No surprise in
this, for the Ibadis walk in this matter by the guidanceof the Quranitself.
How often you will find in the Quran (expressions like these): ‘signs for
people who understand’ and ‘for people who think’ and ‘for people who
know’ and ‘for the people of intellects’; as you will find in it (the verse): ‘In-
7
Preface
 deed, Wehave sent it downan Arabic Quran,that you may understand’
() visnf, 12.2). The Quran, though it far exceeds the eloquence of the most
cloguent among Arabs and non-Arabs, does not pass the bounds of being
Arabic in language and in style. And Allah has made it easy for memorization
by the comprehensibility of its verses, the intelligibility of its intentions, and
the guidance that can be derived from it.
2Absence of such prejudice in favour of their imams that they become
deaf to sound texts, and blind to clear minds, as we find with many ju-
rists and theologians.
An example of the worst of what we have come across is the statement
of SAllamah Sawi in his marginal notes on the /afsir of al-Jalalayn: ‘It is not
allowed to follow other than the four schools, even if doing so agrees with
the opinion of the Companions, the sound hadith and the verses of the
Quran. One who goes out of the four schools is misled and misleading—
maybe it leads him to unbelief, because taking the external meanings of the
Book and Sunnah is among the fundamentals of unbelief.”!
Ibadis have left this narrow path in the law and belief for the vast field
of vision of the wah. They have not permitted themselves to raise the
statement of any of their imams to the status of the word of Allah or the say-
ing of His Messenger, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah, what-
ever height he may have attained in knowledge and piety. This is what Imam
Nur al-Din al-Salimi, may Allah have mercy on him, says on the fundamen-
tals of the religion, in his book Jamhar al-nizanr. ‘They are the matters on
which is built the authenticity of our religion, so turn to them. There is no
religion for a man if he does not know what is compulsory from it, so you
should learn. And rely on that on the basis of evidence for matters definite
and indefinite.’ Until he says: ‘Do not compare with the Book of Allah, nor
 with the saying of the Chosen one, the tender-hearted (Messenger).’ The
meaning of which is: do not make anyone an equal to Quran and Sunnah,
even if he 1s an expert scholar.?
He also says: ‘We give preference to /adith wherever it comes over our
 analogy (qijyas), and there is no doubt about that. After that, we turn, in ex-
 planation of a judgement, to the consensus of the scholars.’3
You will find, respected reader, in what I will present to you and what is
 presented by other Ibadis, what will clearly demonstrate to you the sound-
 ness of what I have here said, that the people of istigamah (and praise belongs
 to Allah) are innocent of this fundamental that al-Sawi has chosen as the
 IHashiyat al-Sani ‘ala tafsir al-Jalalayn (Beirut: Dar thy? al-Turath al-SArabi), 3:10.
Jawhar al-nizam (A VU" edition), 1:6.
3Ibid, 22.
Preface
foundation of the palace of Islam. And you will find, susha@? -1//ah, that al-
Sawi is not alone in this field. There are those who walked on the same path,
as their method in discussion will show, as you will discover, isha? +\Mah,
during your reading of this study that I am presenting to you. That does not
mean that all followers of the four schools are involved in what al-Sawi and
others are involved in, the mire of hated imitation, and raising the opinions
of the imams to a level higher than the level of the Word of Allah, the saying
of the Messenger of Allah, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah,
and the opinions of the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them. By no
means—for many of them have freed themselves from the yoke of such
blind imitation, and are fair-minded with their opponents in judgement, as
you will also find in this study, sasha? Allah. (Justice demands that mention be
made of the refutation of al-Sawi’s statement by the great scholar Shaykh
Ahmad b. Hajar al-Butami, the first judge in the Shari‘ah court of the state of
Qatar. He has presented this in a point by point refutation in a book entitled
Tanzth al-Sunnah wa l-Ouran San Rawni-hima masdar al-dalal wa l-Rufran.)
3Flexibility and tolerance in dealing with other groups of the wwmah
though the difference among them has reached as far as it has.
The Ibadis have never dared to exclude anyone from the m/lah (com-
munity of Muslims) nor severed his relation with the wwmah as long as he
continues to acknowledge the two testimonies, and does not deny anything
that is known without /a°wi/ (interpretation) as necessary in the religion. As
for the one who resorts to /a?wil, his fa?°wil is—though it be weaker than a
spider’s thread—in the Ibadis’ view, sufficient to protect him from the
judgement that he has transgressed the boundaries of the wwmah. On this
point came that fair declaration—which has defined the Ibadis’ principle in
the way they see the w#mab—from the most famous Ibadi leader, Abu
Hamzah al-Mukhtar b. SAwf Sulaymi, in a speech that he delivered on the
minbar (pulpit) of the Messenger of Allah, upon him be peace and the bless-
ings of Allah. Time has listened to this speech, the epoch recorded it and his-
tory has eternalized it. He, may Allah have mercy on him, said in that speech:
‘The people are from us and we are from the people, except three: an asso-
ciator or idol worshipper (washrik. bi-/-lah), an unbeliever from the People of
the Book, or an unjust imam.”4
Ibadis have walked on this safe path, and held this straight principle in
their dealing with the rest of the groups of the wah, as history bears wit-
ness. And we find this fair tone in the voices of the leaders of thought
among them in the later generations as it was in the early generation. This ts
4Abo I-Faraj al-Isbahant, a@/-.-lgban7 (Bulag), 2:104.
9
Preface
Imam Nur al-Din al-Salimi, may Allah have mercy on him, stating for us
anew the position of Ibadis towards the rest of the wah in his words:5
 And we do not require of the servant of Allah any belief beyond the two testimo-
 nies. Whoever utter both sentences, we will say they are our brothers and we will
 take care of their rights. Except if they breach the form of the statement [of testi-
mony], and believe in error in their religion. Then we will stand up to explain the
truth to them, and we will regard that as their right. Whatever you see in the books
of sarbid—i.e. refutation of certain topics and solution of the problems brought by
one who is misguided—we will stand to refute them and strive to express the truth
so he cannot mislead the people. If they are silent in respect of us, we will remain
silent in respect of them, and we will be content with them that they accept Islam.
On this foundation, Ibadis have based their judgement about the groups
of the wmah which turned away in their beliefs from the truth and deviated
from the reality. The Ibadis have been rather cautious in excluding any of
them from the religion for the sake of his belief, as long as that was based on
some interpretation of a legal text, even though that person’s interpretation
might have no foundation of correctness. Hence the criticism of the great
Ibadi imam, Mahbubb. Rahil, may Allah have mercyon him—hardened
against Harun al-Yamani who passed on the mushabbihah (anthropomor-
phists) the judgement of shirk and consequent exclusion from the mi/lah.
Mahbub wrote two comprehensive letters on this issue; in them are con-
tained his arguments invalidating the opinion of Haran. He sent one of them
to the Ibadis of Oman, and the second to the Ibadis of Hadramawt.¢ Ibadi
opinion has agreed in its support of him, and in its criticism of Harun for er-
ror.
Al-Muhagqgqigq al-Khalili, may Allah be pleased with him, was asked about
the verdict on the wushabbihah: Are they mushrik? His answer to the ques-
 tioner was:
 Be cautious! Be cautious in hastening to pass a judgement of shirk on the people of
 the giblah before knowing the fundamentals [of the matter], because it is a subject of
 perishing and destruction.’
By contrast, you will find the followers of the four imams—whom al-
 Sawi has made a criterion to distinguish between truth and falsehood rather
5Kashf al-hagiqah maa amvar al-“ugiil (Oman: al-Matabi‘ al-‘Alamiyyah), 25.
6 = Both letters are in the third volume of Kitab siyar al-Mursalin. We hope that this volume
will be published soon insha? Allah under the care of Wizarat al-Turath al-Qawmi wa l-
Thaqifah which issued the first part of it. Mahbaib was one of the great imams of
knowledge at the end of the second century because he was the intermediary between
the eastern and western Ibadis.
7Kitab Tambid gawaGd al-iman (Oman: Wizarat al-Turath al-Qawmi wa 1-Thagffah),
1:224.
10
Preface
than the Book and Sunnah—accusing each other of disbelief on this issue. It
will suffice you to read what is in a/-Sayf al-saqil fi |-radd ala Ibn al-Zaffil of
‘Allamah Subki Shafi, and Tabdid al-zalam al-mukbayyim min Niniyyat Ibn al-
Qayim of SAllamah Kawthari Hanafi, and a/-Barabin al-sati‘ah fi radd ba“d al-
bida® al-sha?i‘ah of SAllamah QudaW Shafi, and others like them, on the
judgement of excluding these wushabbihah from the boundaries of Islam. And
the verdicts of the wushabbihah about others are no less harsh. Let what
‘Allamah Ibn al-Qayyim says in his Ninijyah suffice: ‘Surely the mu‘“attil (one
who denies all attributes of God) has declared enmity; the mushrik is lighter
in disbelief.’
His intention with regard to fa‘¢/ (denial of the attributes of God) is not
otherwise than to refer indefinite texts in Quran and hadith to those that are
definite, in the desire to purify understanding and interpret the Word of Al-
lah and His Messenger by the styles of eloquence in the language of the Ar-
abs and to remove any hint of contradiction and difference.
The matter did not stop there. Rather, you will find jurists of the same
imam out of the four imams accusing each other of shirk on this and other
issues. Here is Fakhr al-Din al-Razi whocalls the book of Muhammadb.
Ishaq b. Khuzaymah—which he himself called Kitab al-Tawhid—Kitab al-
Shirk’, whereas both of them are Shafi in figh. You will find énsha? Allah in
the Second Discussion of this book literal quotations from the writings of
Ibn Taymiyyah about the difference among Hanbalis on the words, letters
and sounds of the Quran, with mutual accusations of unbelief. I do not
want to detail the examples or enumerate instances in this matter. I did not
intend by what I have said to ‘name names’. Rather, it is something necessi-
tated by the contrast between the caution and deliberate self-control of
Ibadis in passing judgement and the haste of some scholars of the w##mah in
issuing such verdicts that do not but reduce to tearing down the wall of the
ummah and breaching its unity. It is a matter of grief and sorrow for the wise.
How can this “mah descend to the field of disputatiousness and schism, ig-
noring the unity, harmony, friendship and love that Allah has made compul-
sory upon it? Did not Allah command this “mah to remain united by saying
in His Book: ‘And hold fast all together by the rope of Allah, and be not di-
vided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah’s favour on you;
for you were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His grace
you became brothers, and you were on the brink of the Pit of the Fire, and
He saved you from it’ (A/ ‘Imran, 3.103)? Did He not warn the wwmab against
the result of division by saying: ‘And fall not into disputes lest you lose heart
and your power depart’ (a/-Av/fal, 8.46)? Did He not send to them a noble
Prophet, a trustworthy Messenger, inviting to unity just as he invited to
tambid? He established the best example of that by dissolving the dispute and
11
Preface
difference of his people in the crucible of faith. Through the faith he made a
unity among fighting groups, and through Islam he made a close family of
once averted hearts. And he explained that this unity is the unity of belief
and action, principle and end, in hope and hardship. He depicted it in the
most wonderful way when he said: “The believer for the believer is like a
building, one part of which strengthens the other part.’ And he said: “The
likeness of the believers in their friendship, tenderness and care for each
other 1s like the body: when a part of the body suffers, the rest of the body
 shares with it in the fever and sleeplessness.’
Is not this unity of the faith what was called for by the Messenger of Al-
 lah, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah, and he raised the flag of
 this unity among his Companions, may Allah be pleased with them? Is it not
 this unity that uplifted the state of this wah, then Allah replaced its hu-
 miliation with honour, its weakness with power, its lowliness by high status
 so that it became able to conquer the world despite its lack in numbers and
 equipment and the greatness in number and equipment of its opponents?
Is not the schism that the wmah is suffering from reflected in what it is
 experiencing of the negative effects in its states? It is divided after unity, hu-
 miliated after honour, weakened after power. Those eyes are despising it
 which used to respect it. Those nations are greedy to possess it which, be-
 fore, did not want to challenge it. I wish I knew if there is recovery after this
 intoxication, and a wakening after this sleep, in which are drowned the intel-
 lects of this wwmah, and in the forefront are its scholars to whomAllah has
 entrusted His religion, and He has taken covenant from them to take the
hands of their wmab to the path of guidance.
 O leaders of the religion! Why are you sleepless, when you are numerous and well-
equipped?
You differ in opinion amongst yourselves, and the [people’s] condition is failure and
breaking of covenants!
Behind you are those who exploit your divisions, your words bouncing off their ears
and hearts [scarcely heard or understood]:
They think of you as goats in the field who respond, when called, as goats do miss-
ing their little ones.
Come to true resolutions, for those are the armour of every society and every indi-
vidual.
What error we are in! To miss our way like the council of the Quraysh leaders and
the ‘Shaykh of Najd’ [Satan].
Amid loss of hope we graze about, content with the lower rather than the higher
pastures.|
To be surewefeel pain in our souls, but each in himself feels his own pain[not an-
other’s].
Before our enemies we keep our swords sheathed, drawing them out for our kins-
folk.
12
Preface
What a state we are in! It has snatched away my courage. 1am cast among those I
should have been with only after death.
© Master of me! A servant has missed his way in his aim. And You are the Master
of the servant.|
Then help him. And a society fallen into disputes, its [protecting] dams all breached.
We beseech from Your grace wealth and honour, help and every good fortune.
So gather up our divisions and improve our state, and judge for us against the unjust
wrong-doer.8
Perhaps it surprises many readers to learn for the first time of the anxi-
ety of leading thinkers among Ibadis to unite this wmah, and gather it to-
gether, after the disputes about opinions that have drained its blood, and the
sentiments of prejudice that have torn it apart. How intenscly they have
wished that the great figures of the “mah should feel as they feel, and share
withthemin these anxieties whichtheir hearts endure, and whichstartle
their nights and rob them of sleep. How intensely they have wished that
there had been from them efforts to step forward in this way, and make
preparation for this campaign with material expenses from their pockets and
the pockets of the sincere people from the whole wwmah. The reader will find
a most true example of that in the question that was put forward by a
thinker, scholar and experienced leader, Shaykh Sulayman b. ‘Abdullah b.
Yahya al-Baruni, member of the council of al-Mab‘uthan in the Ottoman
Empire, and known as Sulayman Pasha al-Baruni. He was one of the Ibadis
of the mountain of Nafusah in the Libyan quarter. He directed his question
to the scholars of the Ibadis in the east and their referee in religious affairs,
Imam ‘Abdullah b. Humayd Salim. The text of the question is:
Do you agree that from among the strongest reasons of difference among Muslims
is the multiplicity and divisions of the schools [doctrines]? On the assumption of
non-agreement on that, what then is the reason for the divisions [among the w-
mah\? On the assumption of agreement, Is it possible to unite the Muslims by recon-
ciling their divided opinions, and abolishing the multiplicity [of doctrines], at this
time when we are more needy of unity than anything clse? On the assumption of
impossibility of [achieving] unity, what in your view is the strong matter preventing
this unity? Is there any way to remove it? On the assumption of the possibility of
 [achieving] unity, then what is the way that can facilitate the attainment of the de-
sired result? And which city will be appropriate to present this matter in? How many
vears will it take to produce? And how much wealth is needed for it? How will ac-
tion for it be organized? In any case, what is the legal and political ruling for one
who is making this cffort? Is he a reformer or a mischicf-maker? ...
This question was put in the year 1326 AH. The answer of that imam to
the question was:
8From a gasidah of the great Omani poet, Shaykh ‘Abdullah b. “Ali al-Nhalili.
13
Preface
Yes, we ayree that the reason for schism is the difference in schools and opinions. It
is the biggest reason for the disunity of the wah according to what your broad vi-
sion has led you to see.
And for the disunity, there are other reasons. Among these are envy, hatred for one
other, and greed for the pleasures of this world. And among them is greed for lead-
ership.
Unifying the wvmab on the primordial Islamic nature (f//rah) after the branching
growth of differences is possible to conceive, but impossible [to realize] in the nor-
mal course of things. When Allah wills it, then it happens. ‘If you had spent all that
is in the earth, you could not have produced that affection, but Allah has done it,
for He ts Exalted in Power, All-Wise’ (a/-Anfal, 8.63).
The one who makes effort to bring [Muslims] together is a reformer. No doubt.
The closest way for it is to urge people to give up the titles of the schools, and invite
them to name [their groups] after Islam: ‘Surely, the religion with Allah is Islam’ (A1/
“Imran, 3.19). If the people respond to this great reality, then the prejudice for [their]
school will depart from them, though after some passage of time. Then each person
will be left seeking the truth for himself. The truth will first be with the individuals,
then will spread gradually until it [the ethos] comes back to the true norm (/i/rah).
It is the call of Islam, that the Prophet Muhammad,upon him be peace and the
blessings of Allah, was sent with. And the innovations will fade away gradually, then
the people will become brothers. ‘Whoever goes astray, he does so against himself
() ainus, 10.108; a/-Isra?, 17.15; al/-Zumar, 39.41). If the kings and rulers respondto
that, then the people will hasten to accept it and you will be spared suffering. If this
proves difficult [to realize] among the kings then the matter is difficult and suffering
increases.
The most convenient place for this call is the place of the Revelation, the place of
the angels’ frequent visitation, then the place [i.e. Makkah] which is attended by the
clite and the mass of people, the safe sanctuary of Allah, because it is the place of
resort for everyone.
We do not have any school but Islam. That is why you will find us accepting the
truth from whoever brings it even if he is a hated one. We refuse the false from
whoever brings it, even if he is a beloved. We recognize people by the truth. The
 great to us are those who agree with the truth. The lesser to us are those who differ
from it. Ibn Ibbad did not invent a school for us. Rather, we were linked to him in
order to be recognizable when other groups each took a different path.?
This is a statement in no need of any comment. If it is not a just testi-
 mony, and a clear sign of the nobility of intention of both questioner and re-
 plier, the high status of their thinking, and the beauty of what they desire,
 then nothing can seem correct to any mind.
9al-Ugd al-thamin min ajwibah mir al-din (1st edition), 1:126-27.
14
Preface
If literature is a mirror reflecting the inner feelings of its writers, then
Ibadi literature, both old and new, is full of distillations of feelings of the
pain that they suffer because of the divisions of the “mah. If you, O reader,
sensed an image of that in the words of a contemporary literary man that I
quoted earlier, then I present to you another image which reflects the senti-
ments of an expert literary man and a universal scholar from among the past
men of letters and scholars of this group. He is the great scholar, the poet of
Islam and Muslims, AbaMuslimNasir b. Salim al-Bahlani al-Rawahi, who
had long been writing with his gifted pen to depict for us, through his
phrases of faith, his anxieties and feelings for his w#mah and religion. This is
an extract from a poem of his entitled ‘Wake up, O Children of the Quran’:
O Children of the Quran, where are your reasoning faculties while these harsh gales
are blowing?
Have those faculties been snatched from our bodies, or have our sight and hearing
been lost?|
I wish the virtues of the Children of Islam had been morc rooted, then harsh gales
would not have shifted them.
I wish they had been governing their kingdoms by the light of Muhammad, when
snails took them unawares.
I wish they had not slit their throats with their weapons when the idea of severing
relations jumped into their hearts.
Our delusions have empowered our enemies over us. In the desert a shimmering
mirage has appeared.
And there is attacking of one another, a campaign of Zayd against ‘Amr, and none
to impede their strife.
And tearing apart of the religion. And everyone has his opinion and backers for it
supporting him in what he claims.
The religion is not but one. What we see is only errors of the followers of their fan-
cies clashing with one another.
The chosen one did not leave a thousand religions; nor is this dispute to be found in
the Quran.
I wish the people of the religion had not divided. And I wish the order of the relig-
ion had been inclusive for all.
Islam is not put to the slaughter except by our own swords wiclded by ourselves
against ourselves.
Had the sword been drawn by the right hand of brotherhood, it would have cut
down the mountains of aggression.
The tearing apart of Islam by its enemies is not greater than what is happening by
the hand of the peoples of Islam themselves.
How many rebellious swords have cut the veins of their religion more severely than
the sword of an unbelieving wushrik!
Falling for this earthly world, and infatuation of desire—in truth that is a lethal poi-
son.
15
Pretace
 The appearance of hatred in the heart of Muslim against Muslim is not but a herald
 of death,
 If both hearts had been clean they would not have hated; no leader would have
 been an oppressor, nor any follower oppressed.
 This earthly world is not of such worth to afford the wasting of a beneficent treas-
 ure from Allah.
 The hoarders and the greedy of this world have not accomplished but its sins and
 pollutions.
If its leaning toward piety had been deep in the soul, the soul would not have been
 so inclined to dispute.
 Our selling off the good and the pleasure of our Lord is a sale from which the seller
 can never hope to gain.
 To what end [then] are some of us killing others of us, and avarice inflaming the ha-
tred of the soul?
Had the souls been caused to drink inward sight, evil would not have owned over
 them any control.
 But they have been caused to drink of a sickness, the like of snakes hiding in their
 holes.@
An instance of good news that has come for the w#mah, within the light
 of the contemporary Islamic revival, is the good news of the friendship, love
 and mercy that, in the beginning, prevailed among the Muslim youth on
 whom the lights of this revival shone. In the beginning of their awakening,
they did not, except for a very few of them, pay attention to the differences
 of the schools, nor care for group slogans. The odd few people were those
 whose hearts were not cleansed by the effects of this revival. They were un-
 known among that majority whose care mixed into the wide ocean of Islam
 which gathers and does not disperse, which unifies and does not cause
 schism. The disputed issues were on the point of being thrown into the cor-
 ners of neglect to become forgotten until, just when this friendship had
 bloomed and was about to bear fruit, it was struck by the blind gales of
 prejudice. Thereafter, the revival was moved by the hatreds inside some
 hearts which did not care for the unity of the w#mah and finished off its radi-
 ance: then what had been friendship became hatred, closeness became far
 separation, relations were cut off, and mercy became punishment.
The first casualty of this hated conspiracy was Islam itself, then those
Muslim youths who were about to change the trend of history, and bring
back to the present of this wmah its pristine past, by presenting the best ex-
amples in Islamic unity and religious inter-relation. These youths were taken
away from the bounds of Islamic unity and pushed into the wilderness of
dispute and schism—something that could have been avoided.
10Diwan Aba Muslin (Oman: Wizirat al-Turath al-Qawmi wa l-Thagafah), 262-63.
16
Preface
I wish that it had stopped there, with argument and debates, and not
reached to accusation of unbelief, the issuing of unjust verdicts against many
Muslims, pronouncing them out of the m///ah, and removing from them the
covering of Islam and leaving them naked.
Ibadis were forced with others to the narrow paths of this /va (strife,
trial), in spite of their aversion to it. They were in the forefront of those
pleased with the tidings of unity of faith among the wah, pleased with the
spirit of brotherhood which governed the Muslim youths regardless of the
difference of their groups. Soon they realized that the fuel of this /y/va was
poured over their heads, and its fires lit over them, by the verdicts issued
against them, accusing them of misguidance, heresy and disbelief, and pre-
senting them as a serious disease in the body of the “mah which should be
cut out: ‘And they mistreated them for no other reason than that they be-
lieved in Allah, Exalted in Power, Worthy of All Praise’ (a/Bwrij, 85.8). For
they did not mistreat the Ibadis except for their purification of the Creator,
Exalted is He, and their attesting to the truth of what He has sent in His no-
ble Book, and what is affirmed in the Sunnah of His Prophet, upon him be
peace and the blessings of Allah.
Many times Ibadi students in the cities of Islam and elsewhere have
faced different kinds of distress from their brothers and colleagues—while
noting the sincerity and goodness that they have for them—so far so that
some stupid people called the Ibadi students to declare the testimonies in or-
der to be counted among Muslims—as if they, in the eyes of those people,
had been from among atheists or associators!
It is a matter of grief for every wise person, and sorrow for every one
who has a heart. How should Ibadis, the people of truth and ¢stiqamah, be
brought down to this status, when their feet are so firm in s/awhid, their
source of belief so pure, and they are known among all people, high and low,
for their piety in religion and their fear of the power of Allah? What have the
Ibadis done that this judgement has been stuck on them like a label, and they
are dealt with in this way?
Those who have issued these terrible judgements about the Ibadis, and
dealt with them in this evil way, have exploited three issues, on which Ibadis
hold a position that suited the desires of those malevolent people. They re-
garded each of these issues as a justification to pass upon the Ibadis the ver-
dict of disbelief and non-relation with the rest of the wwmah, whereasthe
Ibadis are not alone in holding that position. There are many others who
have the same opinion on these issues as the Ibadis, and they supported their
position, as will become abundantly clear through this study, susha? Allah.
Moreover, the Ibadis have taken on each issue the proofs of the Quranic
texts and the Sunnah affirmed from the Messenger. The three issues are:
17
Preface
Atheir denial of seeing Allah;
 Btheir opinion of the creation of the Quran;
 Ctheir belief in the permanent staying in the Fire of those who have com-
mitted the major sins (i.e. without repentance).
I was inundated with questions from students from here and there
 about the position of our people on these three issues, and the evidence that
they rely upon, and their view of the evidence of those who hold a contrary
opinion. Our students had had no concern with these disputed issues and
their investigation, except those specialized in such study. The only thing that
urged them to this insistence on seeking to uncover the face of the truth, is
the severity that they encountered from people who are only concerned with
awakening a sleeping hatred and rousing a fitua that had died down. That
prompted me to write this book in which the reader will find, insha? Allah, a
complete study of each of these issues, with summaries of research into the
evidence of each group in the light of the sayings of Allah, Exalted is He, and
the sayings of His Messenger, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah,
together with deriving some understanding of the purport of both by refer-
ring to the rules of the clear Arabic language which Allah has honoured by
making it a vessel for the noble Qur'an, and the language into which the Last
Messenger was born. Isha? Allah, you will find, respected reader, through
reading what I am presenting to you, that the Ibadis have not derived their
belief from the philosophy of Greece or any other fictions of the earlier na-
tions, as would fit with what those claim who are ignorant of the matter.
 Rather, Ibadis have derived their belief from the purest source of the truth
 and the brightest rays of the reality. They have referred to the mighty Book
 and the authenticated Sunnah, acting upon the saying of Allah, Exalted is He:
 ‘If you differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Mes-
 senger, if you do believe in Allah and in the Last Day. That is best and most
 suitable for final determination’ (a/-Nisa?, 3.59). A poet says:
 So long as I am hidden from the foolish,
 I do not mind that the eyes of the blind do not see me.
Before this, I had been striving not to become involved in these mar-
ginal issues and not to take any position on these abuses except silence. For
 the truth is too pure and clear to become polluted by doubts on its being
covered. A poet says:
In an act of failure is he engaged who, envying the sun’s light, seeks to bring a paral-
lel to it.
An evil saying harms only its speaker, not the one about whom it is said.
What harm was done to the Messengers and their followers by the slanders
invented about them, and the accusing labels hung upon them? This is the
sunnab of Allah in His creation: ‘Those in sin used to laugh at those who be-
18
Preface
lieved. And whenever they passed by them, used to wink at each other in
mockery; and when they returned to their own people, they would return
jesting; and whenever they saw them, they would say: “Behold! these are the
people truly astray.” But they had not been sent as keepers over them’ (a/
Mutaffifin, 83.29—34). A poet says:
We and whatever defamation is said about us are like the ocean:
whatever is thrown in the ocean ts drowned in it.
But I preferred the side of refutation over silence in order to explain the
truth and defend the reality, and to stand up to those who inflame the fas
and hatreds by these efforts to destroy the unity of the a#mah. For no one
other than Allah knows the end of this fina once its fire is kindled. I seek ref-
uge with Allah.
By Allah, the trials, tests, breakdowns and losses that this a#wmah suffers
from today make it deserving of pity from its worst enemy, then how should
we allow its suffering to be doubled and its wounds to be inflicted over again
by these abuses, without pursuing it with refutation by convincing proof and
evidence. That is why I have stood forward, in spite of many other preoccu-
pations, to write this book in order to explain the overwhelming proof of the
truth, and to put an end to the suspicion of falsehood. Allah is Who makes
truth as truth and declares the falsehood of the false. ‘No, but We hurl the
Truth against falsehood, and It breaks its head, and behold falsehood van-
ishes’ (a/-Anbiya?, 21.18). I have gathered this refutation into three separate
Discussions.
19
THE FIRST DISCUSSION:
ON THE SEEING OF ALLAH
This discussion contains an Introduction, three Chapters and a Conclusion.
The First Discussion
Introduction
On the dictionary meaning of nyaby
Al-Oamiis and its commentary by Zabidi says:
al-riPyah with damma. perception of the perceptible. And that is of several kinds de-
pending on the faculty of the one perceiving: (1) The first kind is seeing with the
eve, the organ of sight, or whatever serves that function. An example of the latter is
Allah’s saying (a/-Tau'bah, 9.105): ‘And say: Do deeds, for Allah will see your deeds,
and His Messenger.’ Here ‘see’ has been used in the sense of seeing with the eye, for
direct use of the organ of sight is not correct for Allah. Similarly (@/-A ‘raf, 7.27):
‘Surely he [Satan] and his tribe see you from a position where you cannot see them.’
(2) The second kind is conjecture, as in: ‘I think [ara, lit. see] that Zayd will go.’ (3)
The third kind ts seeing in the mind, as in [the Quranic verse, 8.48]: ‘Surely I see
what you do not see.’ (4) The fourth kind is seeing with the heart, i-e. the spiritual
intellect, as where Allah says (a/-Najm, 53.11): “The heart did not lie in what it saw.’
And again in another verse (53.13): ‘And he did see him descending another time.”
Ibn Sidah says: ‘a/-rv?yah means looking with the eye and the heart.’
This interpretation gives the more specific word (nyah) the more general
meaning (of nazar), for sometimes there is looking (directing the eye or mind)
without actual seeing. An example of that is: ‘I looked for the crescent but I
did not see it.’ Here, looking is an effort to see but not seeing itself.
In sum, nyah is of two types: sensible and non-sensible. The sensible is
in the ordinary meaning of perception, and that perception is sight for those
entities that have eyes. Imam Salimi has explained it in this way: ‘R°yah is the
contact of a ray of vision with the seen object, or the reflection of the form
of the seen object in the pupil.’8. That is the meaning adopted by most of
those who hold that there is seeing of Allah. There is no difference between
those who, on the one hand, affirm both the seeing of Him in this world and
in the next world and, on the other, those who affirm it of the next world but
not of this world. As al-Shaybant said:
Whoever says that he will see Him with his eye in this world
is a herctic, rebellious and disobedient.
Rather, His [true] servants will see Him in Gardens of Paradise
as in the traditions we report by unbroken chains from the Prophet.
 11Taj al-Sariis (Beirut: Dar Maktabat al-Hayah), 1:139.
 12,Lssan al-“urab (Cairo: Buliq), 19:2.
300\fasharig al-anwar (2 edition), 186.
22
On the seeing of Allah
Another said:
For Allah there are eyes which will see Him plainly;
No darkness can cover those eyes, nor can they ever weary.
Chapter 1
Differences among the wwmah on
the possibility of seeing Allah
and its actually happening
The dispute among the different groups of the “mah about the possibility of
seeing Allah, Exalted is He, and its actually happening, has become bitter. Of
the groups which are related to the Sunnah, some, from among Salafis,
Ash‘aris, Maturidis, Zahiris and others, hold the opinion that the seeing is
possible in this world and in the hereafter, but the majority of them affirm its
happening in the hereafter, not in this world.
However, though one group says that the seeing happens in this world
as well as in the hereafter, they nevertheless differ among themselves on
whether it is restricted in this world to the Messenger, upon him be peace
and the blessings of Allah, or it is common for him and for the believers.
Most of them hold that it is restricted to him, and that is the opinion of
Ash‘ari and most of his followers according to Hafiz Ibn Hajar." And that,
too, is the opinion of Nawawi. No one has claimed its happening in this
world for anyone other than the Messenger, upon him be peace and the
blessings of Allah, except extremist Sufis. The apparent meaning of Alusi’s
text suggests that he is inclined to that view, but in fact he has gone to the
extreme of permitting explanatory similitudes for Allah, Exalted is He above
any such. The actual text he wrote ts:
Al-Munawihasreportedthat al-Kamalb. al-Humam was askedaboutwhatal-
Darqutni and others have narrated from Anas of the Messenger’s saying, upon him
be peace and the blessings of Allah—I saw my Lord in the best form—and under-
stood this secing as seeing in wakefulness. Ibn al-Humam answered that it is the veil
of the form.
Alisi goes on to say that ‘the best form’ is the visible manifestation
common to Sufis. And it is as the same sort of visible phenomenon that they
140Part of a gasidah quoted by Ibn al-Qayyim in Hdd? a/-anrab (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-
‘Wmiyyah), 13, 15.
15Fath al-bari (al-Matba‘ah al-Salafiyyah), 8:608.
23
The First Discussion
understand the manifestation of Allah, Exalted is He, in the tree for Musa,
upon him be peace, and His manifestation for His creatures on the Day
when ‘the shins shall be disclosed’ (a/-Qalam, 68.42). However, though the
Exalted manifests Himself in visible form, He is not confined to that form:
‘And Allah encompasses them from what is beyond them’ (a/-Burij, 85.20)
The seeing that Musa, upon him be peace, had asked for is not this see-
ing. Alusi says:
Some people have said that Musa, upon him be peace, used to see Allah, Exalted is
He, but that he did not know that what he was seeing was He. Likewise will be in-
terpreted what has come in some disputed narrations—I have seen my Lord in the
form of a youth’—and in some narrations it is added—‘wearing sandals of gold’.
Some people have taken the sceing in the narration of al-Darqutni as seeing during
sleep. And the literal sense of al-Suyiit’s writing is that there is no harm in explana-
tory similitudes. That is what I have heard from my teachers, may Allah purify their
hearts. In any case, the issue is a controversial one.
Alusi goes on:
If what my teachers have said and what the writing of Suydti has explained is cor-
rect, then, praise belongs to Allah the Exalted, I have seen my Lord in vision three
times. The third time was in the year 1246 AH. I saw Him having of the light what
He had, facing towards the east, then He addressed to me certain words which I was
made to forget when I awoke. And I saw Him once in a long vision: I was in Para-
dise before Allah, and between me and Him was a strongly woven curtain of pearl
of different colours. Then He commanded that I should be taken to the station of
‘Isa, upon him be peace, then to the station of Muhammmad, upon him be peace
and the blessings of Allah. Then I was taken thereto, where I saw what I saw, and
Allah’s is the favour and bounty.!6
That is a statement such that the skin shudders at it, and the mountains
are sundered by it. There is in it an effrontery in respect of Allah, Exalted is
He, that is beyond all bounds. How could it be so, whereas the Children of
Israel were immediately seized by the thunderclap (sa‘%igah) merely upon ask-
ing for the seeing? And Misa received what he did of unconsciousness for
no other thing than that he asked for the seeing in order to prevent his peo-
ple—by the severe response to his asking—from overstepping the bounds,
and so cut the root of their excessive desire. And as soon as he recovered his
senses he said: ‘Glory be to You, I turn to You in repentance and I am the
first of the believers’ (a/-A ‘raf, 7:143). Had I not intended, O reader, to con-
 vey to you the strange confusion that these people’s belief in the possibility
 of seeing has encouraged, I would not have cited even a single letter of what
 Alusi has written.
16Rath al-ma‘ani (Dar Uhy® al-Turath al-SArabi), 9:52.
24
On the seeing of Allah
But Alust went beyond even that: he began to allude to the sayings of
major Sufis for what very explicitly rejects the answer of Allah to Musa: ‘You
shall never see Me’ (a/-A ‘raf, 7.143), and to prefer these sayings over the clear
Quranic text. Here is a fragment of what he presents; he writes:
Shaykh al-Akbar has said that Musa saw Him after he fell senseless, and he has also
stated that he asked Musa about this and he confirmed what has been said. But in
my opinion the verse does not explicitly support that. Seeing after being thunder-
struck is also the opinion of Qutb al-Razi in his explanation of a statement of al-
Zamakhshari’s. But such secing is only possible in the sense of, and after, full un-
veiling, a state that cannot be attained unless the self has perished, cut off looking to
its own existence Iet alone the existence of others.’
Alusi goes on until he says: ‘Shaykh Ibrahim Karani held the opinion that
Musa, upon him be peace, saw his Lord, Exalted is He, in reality, before fal-
ling senseless, that is the reason why he was stricken, as the mountain had
been....’ Alusi’s self-contradictory statement is such that I have preferred to
leave it, because there is little point in pursuing it and much trouble.
Those who believe in seeing Him in the next world differ also—as to
who will see Him and when. The majority of them say that the secing is re-
stricted to believers, because it is a favour that Allah will bestow upon them,
after which the bounty of Paradise will become lighter by comparison. But at
the same time we find them rushing to refer for evidence to the hadith, ‘Soon
you will see your Lord’. However, the context of that hadith requires that this
seeing will take place in the Station where all are gathered before the Judge-
ment, and that it will then not be restricted to believers; rather, the hypocrites
also will share in it, because the hadith adds: ‘and this awmah will remain with
its hypocrites, then Allah will come to them in a form other than what they
knew.’ Even stranger is what Ibn Kathir has stated in his commentary on His
saying ‘Nay, surely they will be veiled from seeing their Lord that Day’ (a/
Mutaffifin, 83.15): ‘the veil will be lifted, the believers and unbelievers will
look at Him. After that, the unbelievers will be veiled from Him, and the be-
lievers will look at Him every day, morning and evening.’ Ibn Kathir referred
to Ibn Jarir that he narrated this from Hasan. I did not find it in the safsir
(Quranic commentary) of Ibn Jarir. I found it only in a narration from
Hasan that he said: “The veil will be taken away, so the believers can look at
Him morning and evening’, or something to that effect. Hafiz has narrated
the opinion that the believers and the unbelievers will share in looking at
Him on the Day of Resurrection from a group of theological scholars, like
Salimiyya from among the Basrans.
When we compare this with what Ibn al-Qayyim has stated in Had? al-
arnab—from the narration of Ibn Abi Hatim from Awza‘% that he said: ‘I
hope that Allah will keep away Jahmand his followers from His best reward
25
The First Discussion
 that He has promised to His friends’—we find grave contradiction in the
 claims of these people. I listened to a cassette recording of the Abuthah (Fri-
 day sermon) of a famous &dafib in one of the Gulf countries, in which he
 sought proof of the seeing in Allah’s saying, ‘Nay, surely they will be veiled
 from seeing their Lord that Day’, adding: ‘Indeed the Ibadis are those who
 will be veiled from their Lord, so they will not see Him, while the believers
 will see Him. Rather, the Ibadis will see Malik, the Guardian of the Fire, be-
 cause of their denial of seeing.’ (I seek refuge in Allah from the insinuations
 of ignorant people and the errors of those who follow their caprices.)
Ibn al-Qayyim has said that sound hadiths indicate that the hypocrites
 will see Him, Exalted is He, on the Day of Resurrection, and even unbeliev-
ers, as that is in the Sadith of manifestation, on the Day of Resurrection. After
that he said:
 There are three opinions of the Ahl al-Sunnah concerning this matter:
 The first is that only believers will see Him.
 The second is that all the people of the Station, believers and unbelievers, will see
Him, then the unbelievers will be veiled from Him and they cannot see Him after
that.
 The third is that the hypocrites will see Him, but not the unbelievers.
 All three of these opinions are recognized in the wadbhbab of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and
 each has its followers.
Thus you see, O respected reader, the conflict of opinion among those
 who confirm seeing in this matter, to the extent that they even attribute con-
 tradicting opinions to one and the same imam and different judgements.
 That is enough to prove the weakness of the foundation on which they have
 established their belief. By contrast, the truth cannot bear such conflict, be-
 cause its argument is clear, and its path is straight. Allah has spoken the truth:
 ‘And (He commands you) this is My straight path, so follow it, and follow
 not other paths, for they will separate you away from His Path’ (a4/-An‘am,
 6.154).
I wish I could understand how it can be that if the seeing is the greatest
 reward that Allah has prepared for believers, and unbelievers and hypocrites
 share in it with them, then what is left of the believers’ distinction? And how
can the unbelievers and hypocrites not share with them in the bounty of
Paradise, when Paradise is, as these people hold, as nothing compared to the
great reward of secing Allah? They have attributed to one of the imams that
if he had not been sure that he would see his Lord on the Day of Resurrec-
tion he would have not worshipped Him. It means that the author of this
saying thinks that Allah, Glorified is He, does not deserve worship from His
creatures—if the seeing that they expect is not there—neither for His great-
ness, nor for His favour, nor for His reward and punishment. By [Allah],
how dangerous this saying is! And to attribute it to a Muslim scholar! How
26
On the seeing of Allah
like it is to what the Children of Israel said: “We shall never believe in you till
we see Allah plainly’ @/-Bagarah, 2.55).
On the other hand, some Hanbalis have declared that affirming the see-
ing of Allah for unbelievers on the Day of Resurrection is a false opinion
contrary to the consensus (#a‘) of this wwmah. Ibn Taymiyyah has narrated
from Qadi Aba Ya‘la and other Hanbalis that both, those who confirm see-
ing Allah in the hereafter and those who deny it, agree that unbelievers will
not see Him. They affirm that the consensus of the s#mah—for those who
approve seeing and those who deny it—is the impossibility of yah for un-
believers. And any opinion presented in opposition to the settled consensus
is invalid and rejected.
Ibn Taymiyyah has also narrated from Abi Yaa and other Hanbalis to
the effect that: those narrations which have come about seeing of Allah by
believers are as good tidings. If the unbelievers share with them in this matter
then the tidings become void. And there is no dispute among those who con-
 firm seeing that seeing Him is among the greatest honours of the people of
Paradise.
Then he says that ‘Abu Ya‘la has said: The opinion of those who say
that He will show Himself to them as a punishment for them and as cause of
regret to them for missing the permanent seeing—after their knowledge of
the honour and pleasure that is in it—implies logically that He should enter
unbelievers into Paradise and show them the houris and youths therein, and
feed them its fruits and offer them its drinks, then prevent them therefrom,
so to let them know the value of what they have been deprived. So their re-
egret will increase after their knowledge of its importance.
Then Ibn Taymiyyah said:
The foundation of their argument in this matter is the saying of Allah, Glorified is
He: ‘Nay, surely they will be veiled from seeing their Lord that Day.’ So the veiling
them from their Lord will continue all the day, and that day is ‘the Day when all
mankind will stand before the Lord of the worlds’, the Day of Resurrection. If it is
said that He will keep them away in one state but not the other, then it will be nar-
rowing the sense of the word (wabjibin) without reason, and it will mean parity be-
tween believers and unbelievers since the nyah will not be for believers all the time.
This verse has come to explain their punishment by veiling and their reward by veil-
ing, and it is impermissible that believers should be equal to unbclievers in the pun-
ishment.””
Our people—the Ibadis—hold the opinion that secing is impossible in
this world and the hereafter. That is the opinion of the Muttazilis, the Jahmis,
and of the Zaydis and Imamis from among the Shi‘a. And that is the opinion
of a group of theological scholars who are independent of /ag/d (imitation
17Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah, 6:300-01.
27
The First Discussion
 and consolidation of the thought of predecessors) like Imam Jassas in Abkam
 al-Ouran, And Imam al-Ghazalt has inclined towards this position in some of
 his works, and made it explicit in other of his writings. And this opinion is
 affirmed to us from the sa/af (the earliest generations) of this awmah. Imam
 Rabi‘ has narrated it from Aflah b. Muhammmad,from Abt Ma‘mar Sa‘di,
from ‘Ali b. Abi Talib; he has also narrated it from Jubayr, from Dahhak,
from Ibn ‘Abbas; as also, by way of Abu Nuaym, from ‘Abbas Abi Ishaq,
from Sa‘d b. Jubayr, from Nafi b. Azraq, from Ibn ‘Abbas. Again, he has
narrated it from ‘?ishah, Mujahid, Ibrahim Nakh@, Makhal Dimashqj, ‘Ata?
b. Yasar, Sa‘id b. Musayyab, Sa‘id b. Jubayr, Dahhak b. Muzahim, Abd Salih,
the author of the Quran commentary, ‘SIkrimah, Muhammmad b. Ka‘b, Ibn
Shihab Zuhri and Muhammmad b. Munkadir. The same opinion is implied in
what Ibn Jarir has narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas that he explained Musa’s saying,
upon him be peace, ‘nd I am the first of the believers’ as meaning ‘I am the
first of the belicvers in the fact that no one can see You’. And in what Ibn
 Jarir has narrated from Suddi that he said about the words of Allah, Exalted
is He, “The (faculties of) seeing cannot grasp Him’ (a/-An‘am, 6.103), that
they mean nothing can see Him whereas He sees all creatures. And soon will
come to you, /sha? Allah, the narration of “Abd b. Humayd and Ibn Jarir
from Mujahid, and the narration of Ibn Mardawayh from Ibn “Umar and ‘Ik-
 rimah, and the narration of Ibn Jarir and ‘Abd b. Humayd from Aba Salih.
 Ibn Hazm has also attributed it to Mujahid, and made this excuse for
 Mujahid that the report did not reach him. Ibn Hazm has also related it from
 Hasan Basri and ‘Ikrimah and then said: it has been narrated from “Ikrimah
 and Hasan that the seeing of Him, Exalted is He, is certain.'8
And, as we shall explain, évsha? Allah, what Ibn Hazm has narrated from
 Hasan and ‘Ikrimah of what they think as confirming the seeing of Allah,
 Exalted is He, does not contradict what has been understood and accepted as
 denying it when their intentions are kept in mind.
8al-Lisal ft -milal wa -uthal, 3:2.
28
On the seeing of Allah
Chapter 2
On the evidence of those
who affirm the seeing
The evidence they offer is of two sorts: (1) evidence that argues the possibil-
ity of seeing Allah and (2) evidence of its actually happening.
Evidence for the possibility of seeing Allah
Their evidence is divided into two kinds: rational and traditional.
The rational evidence may be summarized as equivalent to measuring
the being of God with the being of creation. That is why they have claimed
that all existents share the property of being perceptible. Since Allah is exist-
ing, seeing Him must also be possible.
The answer to that may be summarized in this way: if their existence is
the cause of perceived beings being perccived, then there is no hindrance to
regarding their existence as a cause in their creation. What then follows is
that Allah, Glorified is He, possibly will share with them in creation just as
He shares with them in existence. But if we regard hadith (being originated
from nothing) as the cause of their creation, then it becomes compulsory for
us to regard it as the cause of the possibility of seeing them, and to purify the
Creator from likening Him to them in being perceptible, just as we purify
Him from likening Him to them in creation. In any case, the claim—that the
seeing of every existent is possible—is demolished by so many invisible exis-
tents like the soul, the intellect, the sense, and perception. The same is true of
sounds, atmospheres, ether and electricity. The opening of the door of com-
parison between the Creator and the creation will lead to describing Him,
Glorified is He, with many of those things that are—the divine Messages and
the scholars are alike unanimous on this—impossible about Him, Exalted is
He. For the existence of creatures cannot be perceived except with the exis-
tence of time and space, whereasthe Creator was whenthere was neither
time nor space. And He is now as He was before. He is not characterized
with transient attributes, neither is He perccived with the senses, nor Is it
permitted about Him that He be attached with anything of the creation or
separated from it. The intellect, however high it goes, reaches its furthest
limit at the doorstep of ‘Incapacity to perceive is perception’ and “He has not
recognized Allah who compares Him with any of His creatures’. The ultimate
destination of intellect is its perception of Him in this way: ‘there is nothing
like Him, and He is All-Hearing, All-Seeing’ (a/-Shira, 42.11). Sayyid Sanad
29
The First Discussion
has made it clear in Sharh al-mawagif that the way of reasoning cannot lead to
proof of the possibility of seeing Him, Exalted 1s He.
As for the traditional evidence, some of it is from the Book, and some
from the Sunnah. There are two items of evidence from the Book:
Evidence from the Book
The request of Musa for the seeing when he said: ‘O my Lord, show (Your-
self) to me, that I may look upon You’ (a/-A ‘raf, 6.143). Their way of arguing
from this is to suggest that the question may result from ignorance. But that
is impossible, because of the impossibility of Prophets being ignorant of
what is impossible in respect of Him when they are the most knowledgeable
of people about Allah, His greatness, and what is compulsory in respect of
Him and what is impossible. Another possibility is that the question Musa
put was accompanied by his knowledge that seeing Allah is impossible. That
is also void, because wilfully seeking the impossible is not of the state of
righteous people, so how could it be expected of one of the Prophets? That
is only the state of impudent and disputatious people. It then follows that
seeing is allowed in respect of Him, Exalted is He, and that Musa, upon him
be peace, knew of the possibility of it and that is why he dared to ask for it.
The answer to that has been given as follows: Musa, upon him be peace,
was aware of the impossibility of seeing Allah, but in asking for it he did not
intend obtaining the impossible. He only intended thereby to hold back his
people, who were stubborn in seeking it and made their belief in his Message
dependent upon it. So that, perhaps, when they were struck by the severe re-
sponse that it is impossible, they would pull back from their error, turn from
 their presumption, especially when the response was accompanied by a clear
 sign rebuking them for such obduracy.
It has been objected to this answer that if those people were believers,
 Musa’s response that it is impossible should have sufficed them, seeing that
 he was the trustworthy Messenger and his call was accompanied by clear
 signs which leave no room for any doubt about the truth of his word or the
 validity of his call. But if they were unbelievers then the answer to them that
 it is impossible would be of no avail to them.
This objection has been rebutted on the ground that those people were
 not on anything of the faith. How could the attribute of belief be applied to
 such as those who said: ‘We shall never believe in you until we see Allah
plainly’ (¢/-Bagarah, 2.55)?
Misa, upon him be peace, only intended to eradicate their obstinacy,
and to eliminate their stubbornness by an emphatic response coming to them
19See Imam Salimi, Masharig al-amvar (2TM edition), 187.
30
On the seeing of Allah
from Allah the All-Powerful, the All-Wise. That response contradicts the
character of what he said on their behalf—in it are manifested such signs as
cut off every doubt, and knock out every desire for the impossible thing they
asked.
What supports the argument that Musa, upon him be peace, did not ask
for the seeing on is own account, but on account of his people, is that the
Quran has repeatedly stated that Allah reproached them for this question,
and regarded it as one of their greater crimes and graver acts of unbelief. As
He said: ‘Indeed they asked Musa for an even greater than that, for they said:
Show us Allah openly’ (a/-Nusa?, 4.153). And He said: ‘And (remember) when
you said: “O Musa, we shall never believe in you until we see Allah plainly’,
and even while you looked on, the thunderclap seized you’ (a/-Bagarah, 2.55).
And Musa, upon him be peace, made his excuse to his Lord after the violent
quaking from what happened, referring it to the foolish among his people.
He said: ‘O my Lord, if it had been Your will, Youcould have destroyed,
long before, both them and me. Would You destroy us for the deeds of the
foolish ones among us? This is no more than trial from You. By it, You cause
whom You will to stray, and you lead whom You will into the right path.
You are our Protector. So forgive us and give us Your mercy, for You are the
best of those who forgive.’ (al-A ‘raf, 7.155)
Two objections have been put forward to this answer:
1If Musa, upon him be peace, had not asked for the seeing on his own
account, he would not have repented of asking.
2If he had asked it for other than himself he would not have related it to
himself. He would have said ‘O my Lord, show Yourself to them so they
may look upon You’, rather than ‘O my Lord, show Yourself to me that
I may look upon You’.
The answer to the first objection is that he hurried to repentance be-
cause he felt implicated in what he asked, though he had a good intention
that was known to Allah, Exalted is He. This situation demands his seeking
permission from Allah before putting the question.
The answer to the second objection is that, when he related the matter
to himself rather than to his people, it was more effective in convincing them
of the impossibility of seeing. When they realized that Misa—regardless of
his high position and his heart’s being clean of their foulness—cannot see,
they would understand that what is impossible for him is even more so for
them.
In sum: Misa, upon him be peace, did not ask for the seeing in a desire
to achieve it. He only did so in order to make his asking an instrument for
the persuasion of his people, for which he strove, and as a means for the
mission that he stood for. His likeness in this is Ibrahim, upon him be peace,
31
The First Discussion
who, upon secing the star, the moon and the sun, said: ‘This is my Lord’ (a/-
1n‘am, 6.76-8). It is quite certain that he did not intend to make them divine,
 for no sound intellect can easily accept deification of creatures. Then how
could such a thing be possible for the intellects of the Prophets who are pre-
pared under the supervision of Allah, Exalted is He, and chosen by Him to
be vessels for His guidance, and to embody the Truth that they are sent with?
 And how possible for the intellect of Ibrahim the Friend, whom Allah hon-
 oured with His friendship, and whom He chose to be father of the Prophets
 and leader of the /anifs. He, upon him be peace, only intended by his
 speech—which was unbelief in appearance but in reality was belief and tawhid
 (affirmation of the Oneness of God)—to establish proof against those
 around him who worshipped celestial bodies, by affirming that these bodies
are merely mutable creatures—they pass through different positions and ex-
perience decline and setting. Anything that is like that cannot have any rela-
 tion to Lordship or Godhood. That is evident from what Allah, Exalted is
 He, said after narrating Ibrahim’s story: “That was Our argument which We
gave to Ibrahim to use against his people.’ (a4-An “am, 6.83)
That is how the specch of Ibrahim is interpreted, upon him be peace,
 even though there is no wording in the Quran that indicates that his people
 worshipped celestial bodies. Therefore, given the abundance of expressions
 indicating that it was the people of Musa who asked for the seeing, that in-
 terpretation is better suited to explain Misa’s question as intended to re-
 proach his people. Is it intelligible that Mtsa4 would ask for the very same
 thing that they asked for and received the rebuke that they did for doing so?
By allah, to allege such a thing is nothing other than to assimilate Musa to
 the despicable ones among the Children of Israel, and to lower him, upon
him be peace, from the sublimity of Prophethood to which Allah had raised
him and of the cause for which He chose him, to the lowest levels of igno-
rance to which those ancestors of the Jews had fallen who demanded to see
Allah. So the word of Allah became true for them, through their deserving
humiliation in this world and punishment in the hereafter.
After what I had recorded here I became aware of a writing of Shaykh
al-Islim, the thorough scholar al-Khalili, Allah have mercy on him, which
strengthens and clarifies my argument. So I thought to quote it verbatim so
that the bare body of my words may be adorned with the pearls of his
speech. He said, after explaining the sense of Musa’s question:
The supporting testimony for this is what Allah, Exalted is He, has referred to
Ibrahim, upon him be peace, as saying: “When the night covered him over he saw a
star. He said: “This is my Lord.” But when it set, he said: “I do not love those that
set.’ When he saw the moon rising in splendour, he said: “This is my Lord.” But
when the moon set, he said: “Unless my Lord guide me I shall surely be among
those who go astray.” When he saw the sun rising in splendour, he said: “This is my
32
On the secing of Allah
Lord, this is the greatest of all.” But when the sun sct, he said: “O my people, Iam
indeed free of your fault of ascribing partners to Allah.” (a/-.-1uSam, 6.76—8). So, see
how it was permitted to Ibrahim, upon him be peace, to utter the word of polythe-
ism three times, saying it to them as from himself, without any obligation, and with-
out any fear of threat to himself, his religion or his property. He was neither forced
to that, nor compelled. He had wide field to argue by some other means. Indeed, he
did reason with them with other things more than once, as is made clear in the Book
of Allah, Exalted is He. But he found that to address them according to this method
and deal with them by this means would be more effective in cutting down their ar-
gument, invalidating their utterances, silencing them and making them specchless.
That is why Allah praised him for that, and narrated what he spoke there, and said
in support of him: “That was Our argument which We gave to Ibrahim against his
people.’ (alu Sam, 6.83)
The speech of Ibrahim, upon him be peace, with its clear polytheism—since it was
presented to demolish the foundations of polytheism and uttered to clucidate the
truth—was not called polytheism, neither literally, nor in meaning, nor understood
as such by any reason or judgement. That being so, how can it be right to say of the
speech of Musa, upon him be peace—if its intention was to silence his people and
establish an argument over them by having them hear from Allah, [exalted is Fle, the
prohibition of secing—that it is false. Rather, it is the clear truth.
Thus, Musa to whom Allah spoke directly and Ibrahim the Friend are equal in the
matter of truth. Their utterances, in the apparent meaning, are equally prohibited.
But they were spoken in order to ruin the false and to affirm the truth. So both of
them are the same in the matter of lawfulness. Will it be permitted to differentiate
between them? There is no difference between them to whoever knows the truth.
Both are right and the essence of guidance. Their like cannot emanate but from the
office of Prophethood. But even the daylight can be hidden to some eyes. How apt
is what the poet has said: ‘If you are unaware of the situation, then you consult an
expert: do not therefore dispute with him. If you cannot sight the crescent, then sur-
render to those who have scen it with their eyes.’
If you ask: How can it be sound to compare and argue from the story of Ibrahim in
these verses, upon him be peace, when the commentators have differed as to its in-
terpretation?
We will answer: The right interpretation of the verses is what we have said. That ts
what the experts believe and those who are fair-minded. But some of the people,
since they were not able to get to the essence of it, said that this incident happened
during the childhood of Ibrahim, upon him be peace. But that ts invalid, for the ac-
count of polytheism is meaningless alike from a child as from an adult, because it is
vain. What is the point of making Ibrahim appear foolish, upon him be peace, and
narrating polytheism from him during his childhood?
Some have said that Ibrahim said it interrogatively, in order to leave his people with
an uncertain impression [as to his true faith]. But that is not a strong opinion, Oth-
ers have said that the implication is that Ibrahim said to his people, “This is my Lord
as you claim. But this interpretation has no basis as there is nothing to demonstrate
the point made in the addition. And others have said that the implication ts that it
33
The First Discussion
was the [i.c. Ibrahim’s people] who said, “This is my Lord.’ But there 1s no proof for
this interpretation cither. Therefore, the correct interpretation ts the first one.20
Their second evidence from the Quran ts the word of Allah, Exalted ts
 He: ‘But look upon the mountain—if it abides in its place then you will see
 Me’ (a/--1 ‘raf, 6.143). Their reasoning from this verse is that Allah, Exalted 1s
 He, conditioned the secing on the abiding of the mountain, which in itself is
 something possible, and whatever is conditioned on something possible is
 itself possible also.
The answer to this is that there is no such possibility after the mountain
 had been disintegrated, and the decree of Allah, had become clear. The de-
cree of Allah cannot be reversed, for there is no changing the word of Allah.
It was in the knowledge of Allah that the mountain would not abide, and
nothing can go against His knowledge. The mountain’s abiding was only pos-
sible according to the circumscribed and restricted knowledge of creatures,
before it became clear to them through the disintegration of the mountain
 what was in the knowledge and decree of Allah. In this regard Imam Ibn
“Ashur says:
Since the negation of the mountain’s abiding in its place was known to Allah, it was
night to connect with it the matter whose actual impossibility was intended, without
paying any attention to the evidence of negation. That is why there is no argument
from this conditional, for the Ahl al-Sunnah against the Mu tazilis, that could imply
that seeing Allah, Exalted is He, is allowed, in contrast to the habit of reasoning
from it of many of our Sudama?.
His saying “Then you will see Me’ is not a promise of sceing. For, His saving before-
 hand, ‘You shall never see Me’, has climinated the desire of the one who asked for
 the secing. Rather, it was a declarationthat the purposebehind Musa’s looking at
the mountain is to come to know with certainty the human incapacity to see Allah,
Exalted is He, and that is more appropriate in respect of the non-abiding of the
 power of the mountain. Then the force of the speech is: the mountain will not abide
 in its place because of the manifestation that will happen to it; therefore, you [O
 Misa] are not the one who can see Me, for that is impossible for you. The type of
 condiuonal here used ts the impossible conditional.?!
 Evidence from the Sunnah
 As for evidence from the Sunnah:
It is narrated from a group of the Companions, may Allah be pleased
 with them, that they confirm the seeing of his Lord by the Prophet upon him
 be peace and the blessings of Allah, on the night of Isra° and Miraj. The way
20.Tambid qawdGd al-iman (Oman: Wizarat al-Turath al-Qawmi wa I-Thaqafah), 1:383.
20al-Tabrir wa al-tannir (al-Dar al-Tanisiyyah li-l-Nashr), 9:92—3.
34
On the seeing of Allah
they reason from this to the possibility of seeing is that if seeing Allah had
not been possible then none of the Companions would have held the view
that it really happened, and they had more wisdom, knowledge and insight
than those who came after them. The reason for taking account of this evi-
dence from the Sunnah is that the Companions, may Allah be pleased with
them, could not report such a matter arbitrarily. They could only do so in
reference to what they learnt from the Messenger of Allah, upon him be
peace and the blessings of Allah.
The answer to this is that the narration of the Companions’ confirming
the Prophet’s seeing of his Lord is cither a fabrication of the narrators in at-
tributing it to the Companions, or it is a result of the narrators’ misunder-
standing what they narrated. How could anyone of the Companions say that
the Prophet upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah, had seen his
Lord, while the Mother of the Believers, ‘A?ishah, may Allah be pleased with
her, rejects such a claim, regarding it as a great slander against Allah, as it has
been narrated from her with the most sound and strong chains in the Musnad
of Imam Rabi‘ b. Habib and in the Sahshs of al-Bukhari and Muslim through
Masruq. Indulging in a grave slander against Allah is the greatest of all major
sins. It is compulsory upon any Muslim to avoid it, let alone the Companions
of the Prophet, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah, who are the
people of the best period. It is recorded in al-Bukhari that Masruq says:
I said to ‘\?ishah, may Allah be pleased with her: ‘O my mother, has Muhammmad
seen his Lord?’ Then she said: ‘Surely my hair has stood on end on account of what
you have said!’
Those words indicate the terror and constriction around her heart that she
felt because of the impossibility of such a thing in respect of Allah, Exalted is
He.
Among those from whom an opinion contrary to ‘A?ishah’s is narrated,
the most famous is that of ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with
them. However, anyone who examines the text of his narration closely will
find that Ibn ‘Abbas only meant by ‘sceing’ the extreme or peak of knowl-
edge of Allah, Exalted is He, that came to the Messenger of Allah, upon him
be peace and the blessings of Allah, on that blessed night, because of the
signs of Allah that appeared to him, and the secrets of the Supreme Realm
that were revealed to him.
Imam Muslim says in his Sabzb: ‘Aba Bakr b. Abi Shaybah and Abu Bakr
al~Ashajj narrated to us, both of them from Waki‘. Al-Ashajj says: Waki‘,
who narrated to us, says: ‘Amash narrated to us from Ziyad al-Husayn Abi
Jahmah from Abi al-‘Aliya from Ibn ‘Abbas, who said, referring to Allah’s
saying—‘The heart did not lie in what it saw. And he did see him descending
another time.”—‘‘He saw Him with his heart twice.”” And in another narra-
35
The First Discussion
 tion SAt@ reported Ibn ‘Abbas saying: ‘He saw Him with his heart.’ It is so
 clear that the seeing was with the heart, not the eye. Clearer still in negation
 of seeing with the eye is what Ibn Mardawayh has stated, through ‘Ata’, that
 Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them, said: ‘The Messenger of Allah,
 upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah, did not see Him with his eye.
He only saw Him with his heart.’ “Uthman b. Mandah al-Darimi has narrated
the consensus of the Companions that he did not see Him.”
If it is objected: the Prophet, upon him be peace and the blessings of Al-
lah, was the most perfect of all people for he was honoured with the
Prophethood and the lasting Message by Allah, so how can it be said that he
had two kinds of knowledge of Allah, if ‘seeing’ is interpreted as ‘knowing’?
The answer to that objection 1s: different states of manifestation of Allah
befall the knower of Allah, and then he is absorbed in a state of experiencing
His Glory and Majesty as he sees Him, Exalted is He. Without doubt the
Prophet, upon him be the best peace and the blessings of Allah, as the great-
est of all in intellect and knowledge, was honoured by Allah with what is far
greater and more lasting than what could be attained by others when these
inner states befall them, especially in that noble journey when the veils were
lifted for him, and those secrets of the Supreme Realm appeared to him that
had not appeared to anyone other than him. Perhaps on these two occasions,
which is what Ibn ‘Abbas is referring to, the manifestations were more com-
plete and more comprehensive. So Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with
him, interpreted it as seeing with the heart. However, we prefer to interpret
the seeing in the verse in a/-Najm (53.11—13) in accordance with what has
been related of the Prophet, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah,
through ‘A’ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, in the Masnad of Imam
 Rabi‘ and the Sabibs of al-Bukhari and Muslim. She says: ‘I am the first per-
son of this “mah who asked the Prophet, upon him be peace and the bless-
 ings of Allah, about that. The Prophet said: “The ‘him’ was just Jibril. I did
 not see him in the form in which Allah has created him other than on these
 two occasions. I saw him descending from the heaven, the greatness of his
 being covered what is between the heaven and the earth.” It is certain that
 the Prophet, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah, had better
 knowledge of the meanings and aims of the Quran: after affirmation by the
 marfi< (the statement of the Prophet himself) no attention need be paid to
 the wanqif (the statement of a Companion).
The negation of seeing Allah, Exalted is He, has been clearly and firmly
 narrated from the Prophet, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah, in
 a way that does not leave any room for doubt. Imam Muslim has narrated in
2200Muahasin al-teuil of Qasimi (‘Isa al-Babi al-Halabi and Co.), 15: 5567.
36
On the seeing of Allah
his Sabib from Abu Dharr, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Prophet,
upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah, was asked: ‘Have you seen
your Lord? He said: “A Light. How can I see Him?’” In his words ‘How can
I see Him?’ is expressed the unlikelihood of his being able to see Him, Ex-
alted is He. Ibn Mardawayh has narrated from ‘A?ishah, may Allah be pleased
with her, that she said: ‘I am the first who asked the Messenger of Allah,
upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah, about this. I said: “O Mcessen-
ger of Allah, did you see your Lord?” He said: “No. I only saw Jibril descend-
ing.” How could it be imagined of Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with
them, that he would say that the Prophet, upon him be peace and the bless-
ings of Allah, saw Him with his eye, when the negation of seeing in this
worldandthe next has beennarratedfromhim—as we shall see below,
insha? Allah.
Many of those who confirm the seeing in the hereafter have made it
clear that it did not happen to anyone, even the Prophet, upon him be peace
and the blessings of Allah, in this world. Perhaps that is the opinion of most
of them.
Evidence for its actually happening
The second type of evidence concerns its happening in the hereafter. It con-
 sists of some quotations from the Book and the Sunnah.
Evidence from the Book
The citations from the Book are:
 1Allah’s saying, Exalted is He: ‘Some faces that Day will be radiant, look-
ing to their Lord.’ (a/-Quyamah, 75.22, 23)
This is the strongest evidence that they have referred to in this context.
The counter-argument to this is that the word nagar (the word that has been
 used in the verse to meaning seeing) is more general than mPyah. Nagar is
 even used in the meaning of making an effort to see, though seeing did not
 happen in fact. For it is sound to say, ‘I looked at it but I did not see it’,
whereas it is impermissible to say, ‘I saw it but I did not see it’. It is written in
 al-Oamits.
 Nazarabit (nazirabi] on the pattern of masarabit and samiabi, and |nagara\ ?tla yht
 nazaran wa manzaran wa nagaranan wa mangaratan wa tangaran. contemplated it with his
 eye.
 In the commentary on Qamiis, Imam Zabidi quoting from Basa’ir writes:
37
The First Discussion
al-naxar is also used in the meaning of turning the eye to perceive a thing and to see
it. Sometimes only observation is meant by it. Sometimes it means the knowledge
that is attained after observation.
Then the commentator says:
 nazartu ia something: when you direct your eye to it, you sce it or you do not see
 it.3
iNagar is commonly used in the meaning of /n/zar i.e. waiting, as Allah,
 Exalted is He, says: “Will they wait untill Allah comes to them in canopies of
 clouds with angels?’ (a/-Baqarah, 2.210). And His saying: “They will not wait
 for aught but a single Blast’ (Ya Sin, 36.49); and His saying: “The Day when
 the hypocrites—men and women—will say to the believers: “Wait for us so
 that we may borrow a light from your light” (a/-Hadid, 57.13). It is in this
 sense that wazar in the verse (from a/-Oyyamab) will be interpreted, and for the
 following reasons:
1Avoiding contradiction between interpretations of the Quran: if mazar in
the verse is interpreted as seeing, it will contradict the firm evidence of
its negation, soon to be presented, isha? Allah.
 2The well-known coherence and inter-relatedness of the verses of the
Quran. And this cannot be except by interpreting nazar in the sense of
intizar (waiting). For these verses of the Quran have divided the people
that Day into two parties. Of one party: their faces will be radiant—i.e.
delighted and shining with expectation of their reward from Allah—for
they are awaiting the mercy of Allah and entering His Paradise. The
other party: they will be in the state contrary to those of the first: their
faces will be dismal—i.e. gloomy and pallid on account of the punish-
ment that they are expecting—in the thought that some back-breaking
calamity is about to be inflicted on them. The radiance of these faces is
compared with the darkening of those. And the waiting of these for the
mercy of Allah and entering His Paradise is compared with the others’
expectation of the Punishment. If mazar here is interpreted as seeing,
then this relation between the verses will be cut, and their connection
will be broken, and their coherence will go. Because there will be no
comparison between the seeing of one group and the expectation of the
other group of some back-breaking calamity. Such rhetorical niceties are
not missed by eloquent people in their speech, prose or poetry. Then
what of the Speech of Allah, Exalted is He, which is more subtle in ex-
pression, and more effective in depiction, more coherent, and more
harmonious, than any human speech? And how could it be otherwise,
when it is the Speech of Allah, Exalted is He?
23Taj al-“ariis (Maktabat al-Hayah), 3:573.
38
On the seeing of Allah
This interpretation is the one that is in harmony with the end of Svrab
‘Abasa, and that is His saying: ‘Some faces that Day will be radiant, laughing,
rejoicing. And other faces that Day will be dust-stained, darkness will cover
them’ (‘Abasa, 80.38—41). For there is no difference between the description
of the believers’ faces here and the description of their faces in the verse of
al-Oramah. The one who waits for the mercy, he rejoices in that waiting; and
the one who rejoices awaits that which will give him joy.
Placing the object of the action before its agent means that it is confined
to it. Thus, the placing of é@ rabbi-ha in the verse before nazirah tells us that
those faces do not look but to Him. That only can be right if waar is inter-
preted as ¢tar. If the intended meaning had been ‘seeing’, this would imply
that they will not see anything except Him, Exalted is He. While it is known,
rationally and traditionally, that the people will see each other and the bless-
ings that Allah has prepared for them.|
Those who affirm the seeing have rejected the interpretation of mazar as
intizar for three reasons:
The first reason is that in the waiting there is a vexation which is incom-
patible with Allah’s honouring His loyal servants on the Day of Resurrection.
The second reason is that His believing servants awaiting the mercy of
Allah is something that 1s done in this world. Then how can there be promise
of such waiting in the hereafter?
The third reason is that use of the preposition //a@ with xagar prohibits
the interpretation of it as waiting, especially when ‘faces’ is the subject of the
verb.
All these reasons are rejected. The first is rejected because the verses
portray for us the Station on the Day of Resurrection before the righteous
people are moved to the place of reward, and the sinful to the place of pun-
ishment. The context of the preceding verses is evidence for this. And what
Allah says about the wretched ones—‘they will think that a back-breaking ca-
lamity will be inflicted upon them’—confirms this. Because, surely, this hap-
pens before their entering into the Fire: there is no sense in their thinking
that after they have entered the Fire and have experienced what they have
experienced, and after the back-breaking calamity that they expected has in-
deed been inflicted upon them. Also, there is no doubt that the people in the
Station will be in different states. The faces of the righteous will be radiant
with their awaiting Allah’s mercy that had been promised them. And the
wretched will be in the contrary state. It is not permissible to deny this Sta-
tion where the righteous and wretched will be held before being moved to
the permanent abode of their reward, for it is something proven from the
Book and the Sunnah.
39
The First Discussion
The second reason is rejected because of the sheer unlikeness of the
waiting in this world and that in the hereafter. What a difference between the
one who, in the sphere of desires and temptations, is unaware of his end, un-
sure of his destiny, and the one who has passed the stages and traversed
steep tracks until the angels have received him among the group of the for-
 tunate ones with the words: ‘Fear you not, nor grieve, but receive the glad
 tidings of the Garden that you were promised’ (Fussi/at, 41.30).
And the third reason is rejected because clear evidence and established
 authorities have confirmed that azar, even when used with the preposition
 ila, can have the meaning of waiting. The opinion of whoever rejects that is
 unworthy of consideration. As an Arab poet says:
 Somenmes, because of a sore, the eye cannot recognize the light of the sun.
And sometimes, because of sickness, the tongue cannot recognize the taste of water.
Among the authorities that confirm this sense for nazar is the statement
of the author of a/-Lisan. ‘One says to someone from whom he expects
something: sua-ma nanzurn tla Allah thunma ilark—My hope rests only upon
Allah, then upon you.’4 Among the proofs is what Imam RabiS may Allah’s
mercy be with him, has narrated from Sufyan b. “Uyaynah, from ‘Amash,
from Abu Rashid that a slave-girl of Utbah b. Umayr said: ‘I only look to
Allah and to you.’ Then ‘Utbah said to her: ‘Do not speak in that way!
Rather, say: “I only look to Allah then to you”.’5
And this saying of Jamil b. Ma‘mar:
When I look upon you as a king, though the ocean divides us
it [seeing you] increases me in blessings.
Another poet has said:
Surely Tam looking to you for what you have promised
As the impoverished man looks to the prosperous, wealthy one.
And another has said:
Some faces there on the night of Hijaz and in love
are looking to a king who ts the resort for the whole creation.
All people look to his generosity as the pilgrims look to the rising of the crescent.
There is no reason to differentiate between the word’s referring to faces
or to something else—to do so would be an arbitrary opinion without argu-
ment. In any case, it has been used in this meaning with reference to faces in
the usage of Arabs. An example is the saying of Hassan:
Some faces on the day of Badr were looking to the Most Merciful that He would
bring success.
2%isan al-“arab (Bulaq), 7:72.
3:228.
25Imam Rabi‘ b. Habib, a/-JamiS al-sabih (Dar al-Fath),
40
Onthe seeing of Allah
Bu‘ayth has said:
 Some faces are looking at a king who is the people’s resort...
If it is argued that the location of expectation is the heart, not the face,
 and therefore nagar in the verse must be interpreted in the sense of seeing,
not waiting, because eyes (and they are the instruments of seeing) are located
in the face. The answer to this is that seeing is not done with the face; rather,
it is done with the eyes. Moreover, relating secing to faces is simply not in the
language—no one has ever been heard to say: ‘I saw him with my face.’ The
license for such usage is extremely difficult for anyone who denies metaphor
 altogether, and specially in the Quran, which is the case with many of those
who affirm the seeing. As for us, we interpret ‘faces’ as ‘persons’, for that is a
 usage known to Arabs, as they say: ‘I intended your face’ meaning ‘I intended
you’. Therefore, waiting, though related literally to faces, is, in the meaning
 here, related to persons. That is why ‘thinking’ can be related to the same
 subject, as in His saying: ‘they will think that a back-breaking calamity will be
inflicted upon them’ (a/-Ovyamah, 75.25). Similarly, humiliation, hardship and
 tiredness are related to faces in His saying: ‘Some faces, that Day, will be hu-
 miliated, labouring hard, weary’ (a/-Ghashiyah, 88.2—-3). And the meaning ‘per-
 sons’ is confirmed by what follows “They will enter the Blazing Fire, they are
given to drink of a boiling hot spring. No food will there be for them but a
bitter (food)’ (4-6). For entering into the Fire is not confined to the faces,
 and the drink and food are, surely, for the persons with the faces. Similar
again is the relating of joyful striving and pleasure to faces in His saying:
 ‘Other faces that Day will be joyful, pleased with their striving’ (88.8—9).
In addition to what I have presented above, the interpretation of wagar in
 this verse as waiting is narrated from the Companions, Followers and those
after them. ImamRabi‘ b. Habib has narrated it in his sound Musnad from
‘Alt b. Abi Talib through Aba Ma‘mar Sa‘di. Again, he has narrated it from
Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them, through Dahhak b. Qays and
Sad b. Jubayr. He has related it also from Mujahid, Makhul, Ibrahim, Zuhnri,
SaGd b. Jubayr and Sad b. Misayyab.”6 Ibn Mardawayh has narrated it, from
among the Companions, from Ibn “Umar (may Allah be pleased with them),
and, from among the Followers, from ‘Ikrimah. Then, ‘Abd b. Flumayd has
narrated it from SIkrimah as well as from Mujahid and Abd Salih with a chain
of narration that has been affirmed as sound by Hafiz Ibn Hajar.27 Imam Ibn
Jaric has narrated it from Mujahid with five different chains. In Mujahid’s
 statement there is clear denial of seeing. In Mansuir’s narration from Mujahid
26sIbid, 3:226, 228.
27)Fath al-bari (al-Matbah al-Salafiyyah), 13:425.
41
The First Discussion
 has come that he said: ‘No one of His creatures will see Him.’ Another narra-
 tion through Mansur records that he said: “The people were talking about the
 hadith (Then they will sce their Lord), so I said to Mujahid that “Some people
 say that He will be seen.” Mujahid said: “He will see, but nothing will see
 Him,”
In the Tafsir al-mizan of Allamah al-Tabataba’i (one of the contemporary
 Imami Shi‘a scholars): ‘In the ‘Uji, in the chapter on narrations on fawhid
from Rida, peace be upon him: with his chain to Ibrahim b. Abi Mahmud
 that he said that ‘Alt b. Musa Rida, Allah have mercy upon him, said of His
 words—“Some faces, that Day will be radiant, looking to their Lord” —“that
 is, shining and waiting for the reward from their Lord”. He said: I say that it
 has been narrated in a/Tawhid, al-Ihtijaj and al-Majma‘ from ‘Ali, peace be
 upon him.’
From most firm evidence and most clear proofs, we know that mazar,
 while being used with the preposition //a, does not have the sense of seeing in
 His speech: ‘As for those who sell the faith they owe to Allah and their own
 solemn plighted word for a small price, they shall have no portion in the
 hereafter. Nor will Allah speak to them or look at them on the Day of
 Judgement’ (A/ Umran, 3.77). Because, if nazar in this verse is interpreted as
 seeing, it will lead to the meaning that Allah will not see these people on the
 Day of Resurrection. This is altogether impossible, and such a belief is real
 error because it is a rejection of faith in Allah, Exalted is He. There is no way
 but to interpret vagar here as mercy and favour. Hence we know that nazar of
 the strong one to the weak is his mercy and favour, and azar of the weak to
 the strong is awaiting that from him.
It will be clear to you from the preceding discussion that this verse por-
 trays to us the state of the people in the Station before the fortunate ones are
 movedto the Abode of Favour, and the unfortunate to the Fire of hell. If
 nazar in this verse had the meaning of seeing, and the faces are radiant on ac-
 count of this seeing, then it implies that this state will also include the hypo-
 crites of this w#mah because they will share the seeing with the believers as is
 the implication of the badith of Abi SaSd and Aba Hurayrah in the Sabibs of
 al-Bukhari and Muslim, upon which those who affirm seeing rely. (he ex-
 planation of this will follow, isha? Allah.)
It has become difficult for those who affirm seeing to relate ‘seeing’ in
 the verse to ‘faces’. They are undecided in interpreting the seeing as seeing
with the eyes, or with the faces, or the whole body, or some sixth sense. This
confusion is clear evidence that they do not have any ground for their opin-
ion. If they had understood the verse in the right way, and interpreted it ac-
28‘Tufsir al-mizan (Muassasat al-\ami li-l-Matbu‘at), 2:116.
42
On the seeing of Allah
cording to the language and the context, then they would have been safe
from this confusion and avoided this bewilderment.
The expert and fair-minded ones from among the believers in seeing
have realized the weakness of the arguments to prove secing from this evi-
dence, and they have acknowledged as much. Sayyid Muhammmad Rashid
Rida says in a4-Manar.
As for the seeing of the Lord, Exalted is He, it should probably be said that the
verses of negation are more clear than the verses of affirmation, like His saying “You
will never see me’ (a/.A1 raf, 7.143), and His saving “The eyes can not reach Him’ (a/-
cin‘am, 6.103). These two verses are clearer in what they denote than what, on the
side of affirmation, is denoted by Allah’s saying: ‘Some faces that Day will be radi-
ant, looking to their Lord’. Because the usage of mazar in the meaning of Mmfizar
(waiting) is abundant in the Quran and in the speech of Arabs. Like His saying:
‘They will not wait for aught but a single Blast’ (Yasin, 36.49); or ‘Are they not wait-
ing but for its fulfilment?’ (a+-1%rdf, 7.53); or “Will they wait until Allah comes to
them in canopies of clouds with angels?’ (4/- Bagarah, 2.210). And it is confirmed that
nazar has been used in this meaning with the preposition //a, and that is why some
people have interpreted it the other way—that 1s, directing the sight to the object to
be seen—where it has been related to the faces, and there is nothing in the faces to
which seeing can be connected except the eyes.??
What Rida points to at the end of the argument of those who interpret
nazar as seeing because of its relation to faces, and the refutation thereof, has
been stated above.
That most thorough scholar Imam Ibn ‘Ashir says in the /afsir of this
verse:
The reading of the verse that makes it mean—the believers will see with their eyes
and their seeing is seeing the Essence (dhaf/) of Allah—is a speculative one. It has
made possible the interpretations put forward by the Mu‘tazilis—that the intended
meaning is seeing of His Majesty and pleasure in His Holiness, which seeing will not
be granted to those who are not from among the fortunate ones.
2Allah’s saying, Exalted is He: “To those who do right is a goodly reward
and more’ (Yvinus, 10.26)
They have interpreted ‘goodly reward’ as Paradise and ‘more’ as the see-
ing. Their evidence for this meaning is the hadith of Suhayb in the Sabibs of
al-Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet, upon him be peace and the bless-
ings of Allah, said: ‘When the people of Paradise enter Paradise a caller will
call out: “For you there is a promise with Allah that He wants to fulfil.” They
will say: “Did You not make our faces white, did You not deliver us from the
Fire, and did You not enter us into the Garden?” He says: “Then the veil will
29al-Manar (+" edition), 9:131.
300al-Tabrir wa f-tannir (al-Dar al-Tanisiyyah li-l-Nashn), 29:353.,
43
The First Discussion
be lifted.” He said—By Allah, Allah has not given them anything more be-
loved to them than looking to him.’
You sce that the word ‘more’ is uncertain in meaning. It does not denote
seeing in its proper meaning or normal usage. As for the hadith that they have
relied on to interpret this verse, its denoting the meaning that they want 1s
very weak:
Firstly, because azar does not necessarily mean ‘seeing’, as was ex-
 plained above in the discussion of the verse from a/Qiyamah. The lifting of
 the veil is perhaps an allusion to more of respect and of elevating the rank,
 and opening the doors to unlimited bounty. This is definitely the meaning in
 which lifting of the veil and looking at Allah in the hadith should be inter-
 preted in order to prevent contradiction between the verses of Allah and the
 hadiths of His Messenger, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah.
Secondly, interpreting ‘more’ to mean the seeing contradicts their inter-
pretation of the verse of a/-Q/yamah upon which they relied to affirm the see-
ing. The sense of the verse of a/-Qtyamabh is that the seeing will take place at
the Station before entering Paradise, whereas, according to their interpreta-
tion of the verse of Yanus and the hadith of Suhayb, the seeing will not hap-
pen except after entering Paradise.
Thirdly, because this contradicts the badiths of Abt Hurayrah and Aba
Sa_d, upon which they have relied to prove the seeing at the Station.
Even if the /adith had been a clear text in interpreting agar as seeing,
there would have been no proof in it because of its being a solitary (ahaa)
tradition and its opposition to the proofs of the negation of seeing which are
stronger and clearer. So how are we to rely on it when there is doubt about
it? It is said: “When doubt falls upon the evidence, the argument based upon
it falls.’ This is a matter to do with the faith, so only that evidence is accept-
able that is secure in both text and meaning.
Fourthly, the interpretation of ‘more’ has been narrated from the sa/af
 with some sense other than seeing. If the hadith had been a clear and correct
text with the meaning of seeing, then the narrators had no right to abandon it
 in favour of something else. Among examples of that are what Imam Rabi‘
 and Imam Ibn Jarir3! have narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased
 with them, that he interpreted the ‘more’ as an elevated chamber of pearl
 having four doors. Imam Rabi‘ has narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas that the
 Prophet, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah, said: ‘The people of
 the Garden will remain surprised by the state they are in until Allah opens for
 them the door of “more”. When it is opened, then nothing will come to
 them from it but will be better that what they have in their Garden.’ Ibn Jarir
on.
31[bn Jarir has narrated this with three chains of narrati
44
On the seeing of Allah
has narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas and from ‘Alqamah b. Qays that ‘more’ means
multiplying the good tenfold. And this, too, is what Imam Rabi‘ has narrated
 from Ibn ‘Abb4s and from Hasan.
Imam Rabi‘ has narrated through his chain of narration from Imam SAIi
b. Abi Talib, may Allah honour his countenance, that he interpreted ‘more’ as
an elevated chamber of a single pearl, which will have four doors—which is
similar to what has been narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas, mentionedabove. Ibn
Jarir has narrated from Hasan that he interpreted ‘more’ as forgiveness from
Allah and His pleasure. That is also narrated from Mujahid through Rabi%
Rabi has narrated from Abu Hazim, and Ibn Jarir has narrated from Ibn
Zayd, that the ‘more’ is the people’s not being accountable for what He had
given them in this world.
Rabi‘ has narrated from Sha‘bi that ‘more’ is entering Paradise, and from
Muhammmad b. Ka‘b that it is the respect and reward that Allah will increase
 for the people.”
Some of these opinions are different from each other and some of them
are inter-related or close to each other. Most obvious of all these is that
‘more’ is abundance of the material and spiritual gifts that Allah will provide
to His servants in Paradise without limit. That is the sense of the warfi‘ hadith
of Ibn ‘Abbas, narrated by al-Rabi‘, and that is the implication of Suhayb’s
marfii hadith in its true sense, as narrated by Imam al-Bukhari and Imam Mus-
lim.
3.Allah’s saying, Exalted is He: ‘And there is more with Us’ (Qaf, 50.35)
It is narrated from some of them that ‘more’ (wazid) is seeing Allah, Exalted
is He. As their argument in favour of seeing from the word xiyadah has
failed, their argument from the word wazid fails for the same reasons.
4Allah’s saying, Exalted is He: ‘Verily, from their Lord that Day will they
be veiled’ (a-Mutaffifin, 83.15).
Their reasoning here is that as the wording means veiling of the unbe-
lievers from their Lord, its implication suggests that the believers will see
Him. As the veiling from the unbelievers is a punishment they have been
threatened with, so nothing is appropriate for the believers but the opposite
thereof. This is a failed argument for a number of reasons:
The first reason is that ‘veiling’ in this verse is a figurative expression for
being deprived of His mercy and being kept away from the house of His
honour. Just as nearness to Allah is not a physical thing, but is interpreted as
carrying out His commands and refraining from disobedience, in the same
way Allah’s nearness to the servant does not mean anything other than His
32.ImamRabi‘ b. Habib, a/-Jami© al-sabib (Maktabat al-Istiqamah), 3:232; Tafsir Ibn Jarir
(Dar al-Baz), 11:75-76.
45
The First Discussion
encompassing the servant with His merciful care, and covering him with His
divine gifts. Both senses come together in the hadith qudsi that Muslim has
narrated through Abi Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him: “Whoever
approaches Me by a hand’s breadth, I approach him by an arm’s length, and
whoever comes nearer to me by an arm’s length, I come nearer to him by the
span of both arms outspread.’ Qatadah and Ibn Abi Mulaykah have inter-
preted ‘veiling’ in this verse, as Ibn Jarir has narrated from them, in the sense
 I have just explained-3
The second is that this reasoning is based on mafhiim al-mukhalafah, that
 is, on an understanding of the words that is at variance with the meaning of
the words, and is therefore conjectural. The jurists have differed about ac-
cepting this kind of evidence in deciding even secondary practical matters, so
how could it be accepted in fundamental matters of faith? While faith is a
fruit of certainty, this way of reasoning is comparable to using a /aqab (agno-
men, nickname), which is the weakest route to understanding—that is the
opinion of experts in wsi/ al-figh (the sources and principles of jurisprudence),
of jurists, and of all the people of other branches of knowledge—so much so
that they have accounted those who took that line as most strange.
The third is that if it is permitted to refer to this sense in order to affirm
that the believers will see Allah on the Day of Resurrection, then it would be
more appropriate to refer to the meaning to be understood from the condi-
tion ‘that day’ in order to affirm the seeing of Him by the unbelievers before
‘that day’. For words that express time follow the same grammatical rule as
adjectives in determining the subject, and the sense of an adjective is among
the strongest in determining meaning. This is confirmed in the writing of ex-
perts in wil al-figh. Imam Nir al-Din Salimi, may Allah be pleased with him,
has said in Shams al-usil. ‘The adjective, the intended object and the condi-
tion—all of these are the strongest and clearest (in determining) the sense.’
From among those pleasantries which should be stored up for the dis-
traction of bereaved mothers is what Ibn al-Qayyim has narrated in Hadi al-
anvab from Ibn al-Mubarak that the pronoun in Allah’s saying—‘This is what
you rejected as false’ (a/-Mutaffifin, 83.17)—is referring to the secing,*4 thereby
to facilitate its interpretation as a threat against those who deny seeing. To
the tune of this narration have danced many of those people who say what
they do not know, and those who digest whatever is thrown to them. Among
them is the &hatib, whose recorded speech | have listened to in his own voice,
and to which Ireferred earlier. It comes in this man’s &+ufbah that the threat
is falling upon the Ibadis who deny the sccing, and they (the Ibadis) are the
 33Yufsir [bn Jarir (Dar al-Vikr), 3:100.
 360Padi al-anvah (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-“imiyyah), 241
46
On the seeing of Allah
ones meant by it. I would like to know if this statement has arisen from a de-
sire that has made him dumb and blind, or out of his ignorance of the lan-
guage and styles of speech. Because anyone who has a sense of human lan-
guage can realize that the indication cannot be to other than the antecedent,
which may be present or have the force of being present because it has been
given in the context. The pronoun in the verse being referred to is the de-
monstrative pronoun, which is pointing to the entering into the Fire that has
been mentioned antecedently. Like that is His saying, Exalted is He: ‘Depart
to that which you used to reject as false. Depart to a shadow in three col-
umns, which yields no shade of coolness, and is of no use against the fierce
blaze’ (a/-Mursalat, 77.29-31). If the matter had been as they claim, then it
would have been decisive that they will see Him. Because, when you say to
someone, in a style of reproach and scolding: “This is what you did not be-
lieve in’, then there is no possibility other than that you are pointing to some-
thing that you have now made plain after it had been secret. Then the proof
has been established against him by this making plain. Had they not been so
jejune in their statements interpreting the Book of Allah, Exalted is He, and
so careless in the way they shift the speech from its context, I would have
gathered the statements of wufassirin (the exegetes of the Quran) on the
verse “That which you used to reject as false’, especially those among them
who believe in seeing, so that the error of this corrupt interpretation would
have been clear. But its corruptness is clear enough for there to be no need
 to make it clearer. An Arab poet has said: ‘Nothing can be right in the mind
when daylight needs proof.’
5Allah’s saying, Exalted is He: ‘On raised couches will they command a
view’ (a/-Mutaffifin, 83.23).
This is an argument from something that has no evidence. For the end
of the verse describes them as ‘commanding a view’, without mentioning the
object of the view. It is securely known that they will get enjoyment by look-
ing to different kinds of bounties, and different kinds of strange things, that
will please their souls and cool their eyes. No one of the sa/afhas said that the
meaning of ‘commanding a view’ in the verse is sceing Allah. Rather, Ibn
Jarir and others have narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas, Qatadah and others that they
will look at their enemies in the Fire, mocking them. This is what the context
requires, and what the mufassirin have relied on, except those among them
who are heretical.
6Those verses that declare the meeting with Allah.
They argue from these verses because they have interpreted the mecting
as secing. And that is a mistake, because meeting is more general than secing.
47
The First Discussion
Sometimes ‘meeting’ is used for things that cannot be seen. As it is in His
saying, Exalted is He: ‘You did indeed wish for Death before you encoun-
tered it? (A/ ‘Iran, 3.143). There is no dispute as to the permissibility of the
blind person saying: ‘I met so-and-so’. A common figure of speech among
Arabs is: ‘I experienced in (lit. ‘met from’) this matter severity, or relief, or a
way, or hardship, or ease, or good, or ill’. In the Quran has come a promise
of mecting for unbelievers, as in His saying, Exalted is He: “So He has put, as
a consequence, hypocrisy into their hearts till the Day whereon they shall
 meet Him’ (a/-Tawbab, 9.77). And His saying: ‘O man! Verily, you are ever
 toiling on towards your Lord—painfully toiling—but you shall meet Him’ (a/-
 Inshiqaq, 84.6). If it is said that the pronoun in the first verse is referring to
 hypocrisy, and in the second verse to toiling, not to Allah, then we will say
 that in this too is a proof for us that the meeting is more general in sense
 even than the sense of seeing. Because hypocrisy and toiling cannot be seen,
 for they are examples of invisible entities.
Meeting with Allah has been interpreted as the movement to the Last
 House, because with it the promise of Allah will be fulfilled and the secrets
 of His unseen revealed. With this meaning in mind, the word has also been
 used for death: it can be said of someone who has died that ‘he has met Al-
lah’, In the Lisan, through Ibn al-Athir’s commentary on the /adith—
‘Whoever loves the meeting with Allah, Allah loves the meeting with him’—
it is said that the meaning of ‘meeting’ here is turning one’s mind to the Last
Hour and seeking what is with Allah.35 Meeting can be a threat as it can be a
promise, as it is in both the previous verses quoted, and as it is in the adith,
‘he will meet Allah while He is angry with him’.
7Allah’s saying, Exalted is He: ‘And when you look there you will see
bliss and a Realm Magnificent.’ (a/-Insan, 76.20)
Fakhr al-Din al-Razi has argued from this verse in his fafsir on Strat al-
 An ‘am, claiming that one of the readings of the verse is ‘wa/ikan’ (king). And
 he says: “The Muslims are unanimous that that king is no other than Allah,
 Exalted is He. In my view the reasoning from this verse is stronger than that
from any other verse.’36
Al-Razi’s saying that ‘the reasoning from this verse is stronger than that
from any other verse’ is a sufficient evidence for you of the weakness of the
 evidence that they hold. This argument is no more than chasing ‘a mirage in
 sandy deserts, which the man parched with thirst mistakes for water; until,
 when he comes up to it, he finds it to be nothing’ (a4Nair, 24.39). For the
 35Lisan al-arab, 20121.
3al-Tafsir al-kabir, 13:131.
48
On the seeing of Allah
reading that al-Razi has claimed is not proven. I consulted the books of read-
ings and the books of /afsir which are concerned to quote readings, but I did
not find any mention of this reading. Moreover, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi himself
does not mention this reading while interpreting this verse. Where he has
mentioned it, that is, in the fafsir of al-An‘am, he does not refer it to any au-
thority. If we assume that it is a narrated (i.e. authoritative) reading, then it
must be one of those solitary readings, about which most experts say that
they cannot be taken as proof for subsidiary legal matters, so how can such
readings be a proof in a matter of faith?
Evidence from the Sunnah
As for the Sunnah, they have put forward an abundance of those hadiths that
they have gathered in favour of their argument. The most famous and the
strongest of the /adiths that they have relied upon is the Sadith: ‘Soon you will
see your Lord openly as you see the moon on the night of full moon.’ They
have narrated this Sadith through Abi Hurayrah, Abt Sa‘id Khudri and Jarir
with differences in wording. Mostly in the books of faith, they confine them-
selves to a portion of the whole text. Before commenting on their argumen-
tation, I shall discuss some of the different wordings and chains of narration.
Both Shaykhs—the wording is from al-Bukhari—have narrated it in
Kitab al-tawhid. Imam al-Bukhari says:
“Abd al-SAziz b. “Abdullah has narrated to us, that Ibrahim b. Sa‘d has narrated to us
from Ibn Shihab, from ‘Ata? b. Yazid al-Laythi, from Abu Hurayrah that the people
said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, will we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?’
Then the Messenger of Allah, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah, said:
‘Are you harmed by the moon on the night of full moon?’ They said: ‘No, O Mes-
senger of Allah.’ Then he said: ‘Are you harmed by the sun having no veil?’ They
said: ‘No, O Messenger of Allah.’ He said: ‘So surely you will see Him like that. Al-
lah will gather the people on the Day of Resurrection. Then He will say: “Whoever
worshipped anything he should follow it.” So whoever worshipped the sun, he will
follow the sun. And whoever worshipped the moon, he will follow the moon. And
whoever worshipped false gods, he will follow the false gods. And this awmah will
remain with its intercessors’ or ‘its hypocrites’—Ibrahim was uncertain of the word-
ing—Then Allah will come to them and He will say: “I am your Lord.” Then they
will say: “This is our place until our Lord comes to us. When our Lord comes We
will recognize Him.” Then Allah will come to them in His form that they knew.
Then He will say to them: “I am your Lord.” Then they will say: “You are our
Lord.” Then they will follow Him....’ [to the end of the hadith]
Imam Muslim has narrated it in Kitab al-iman from Zuhayr b. Elarb, from
Ya‘qib b. Ibrahim with the previous chain. In his narration it is firmly ‘with
its hypocrites’ with no doubt. In it, there is this addition:
49
The First Discussion
Then Allah, Exalted ts He, will come to them ina form other than that they knew,
then He will say: “I am your Lord.” Then they will say: “We seek refuge in Allah
from you. This is our place until our Lord comes....” [to the end of the hadith]
It has come with different wording in the Sabihayn and other books of
Hadith. An example ts the badith of Abt Sa‘d in the Sabihayn. You, O re-
spected reader, will perceive with your insight, that taking these words liter-
ally will lead to what is rejected by reason and refuted by the evidence, as will
become clear from the sequel:
It follows from it that His Essence (dha/), Exalted is He, changes from
one form to the other. Such change is a characteristic of contingent existents
 (buduth). It, necessarily implies contingency of Him, Exalted is He.
It also follows from it that Allah, Exalted is He, is seen by this swab
 (including believers and hypocrites) in this world with clear sight so that His
 form will remain printed in the minds of those who see. Then, when He
 comes to them in another form, they will refuse to accept that form as their
 Lord, and they will seek refuge in Allah from it. Otherwise, how would they
 recognize His form, seeing that they did not recognize Him when He came
 in a form other than that, and they recognized Him when He turned back to
 it? And all this at the first of the Stations of the Day of Resurrection!
There have been debates between myself and certain scholars on that
 matter. When I pinned them down with this argument, they answered that
 this knowledge of His form is not a result of any earlier seeing. It is a result
 of their knowledge from description of Him in His Book and in the
 Prophet’s Sunnah. Then I urged them strongly: Whoever has read the Book
 of Allah and has studied the Sunnah of His Messenger must know that real
 form in which He will see his Lord, Exalted is He, so that, when he sees Him
in another form he does not recognize Him. Then please bring me the de-
 scription of this form and definition of it from your knowledge through your
reading of the Quran and your study of the Jadiths of the Messenger, upon
him be the best peace and the blessings of Allah. Then they were taken aback
and their argument became void, and the praise belongs to Allah. And
among what falsifies their interpretation that they turned to—fleeing from
the compelling argument—is its opposition to the clear text of the hadith of
Abi Sadin the Sabshayn. It is in the Sabih of al-Bukhari with the words:
‘Then the Omnipotent will come to them in a form than that they had seen
Him in at first.” The wording of Muslim is: ‘Until when no one is left except
those who worshipped Allah, pious and non-pious, then the Lord of the
Universe, Exalted is He, will come to them in a form closer to the one they
have seen Him in.’ Both wordings are clear that their knowledge of His form
will be a result of a previous seeing. There is no way for those who take the —
hadith literally but to say that He is seen in this world. Yet most of them have
50
On the seeing of Allah
 rejected that (the seeing of Him in this world). Whoever said it restricted the
 seeing of Him to some special individuals, and did not hold the opinion that
 it included the pious and non-pious of this wah, nor the opinion of the
 seeing of Him in barzakh (the isthmus between the two worlds). That is
 something no one has claimed before, let alone had any evidence for it.
After this explanation that I have put forward, I read in Fath al-bar7:
 And someone other than him [i.c. other than Khattabi] has said about ‘in the form
 that they knew’ that, possibly, it is a hint to their knowledge of Him when He took
 out the progeny of Adam from his spinal column, then He caused them forget that
 in this world, then will cause them remember it [again] in the next world.37
There are two possible ways of taking this opinion: either the speaker
 means that when they were taken out from the spinal column of Adam they
 saw His Essence, Exalted is He, or he means that they attained a knowledge
 that was not theirs later. The first one is void for two reasons:
No one has previously held this opinion, and no text has pointed to it. It
 is contrary to the reason they give for not seeing their Lord in this world,
 namely that they have not moved from the state of perishing, and perishing
 existents have no capacity to see the Eternal. Is it intelligible that while in the
 spinal column of Adam in some microscopic form they were better able and
 fitted to see Him than Musa, whom Allah addressed directly, after he had
 been chosen for the message and His speech, and brought closer to the near
 station?
The second is not understandable, because it is unimaginable that the fu-
 ture progeny of Adam will be, in that transitional moment, possessed of
more knowledge of Allah than after their growth in this world where Allah
has favoured them with knowledge and intellect. The declaration that they
have seen Him according to the hadith of Abu Sa‘id causes this possibility to
 fall down—except if the seeing is interpreted as knowledge. Then it follows
 from it, necessarily, that the intended meaning of the seeing in the hadith is an
increase of knowledge of Him.
That the seeing of Him is common to the pious and non-pious, believers
and hypocrites, is contrary to what most of them have declared: that the see-
ing is a special reward for the people of faith.
It is contradictory to the hadith of Suhayb that they presented as evi-
dence for the seeing by interpreting looking (wagar) in that padith as secing.
For that hadith makes it clear that the secing will occur after their entering
into Paradise, and that it is an addition to the bounty that has been bestowed
upon them, as was explained above.
37Fath al-bari (al-Matbah al-Salafiyvah), 13:428.
51
The First Discussion
Most believers in the seeing hold that it will happen without &ayf (with-
Out our understanding of how it will happen). The comparison in the hadith
with the seeing of the moon—'like that you will see Him’—contradicts this
view. So too does the mention of the form in the Jadith and their not recog-
nizing it when it has changed from what they were familiar with.
On account of this difficulty with the /adith, the affirmers of seeing are
puzzled in understanding it. Ibn Battal has narrated that Muhallab said: ‘In
truth, Allah will send for them an angel to examine them on their belief in
 the attributes of their Lord, nothing is like Him. When the angel will say to
 them: “I am your Lord”, they will reject him because the characteristics of
 creaturehood that they will see in him, saying: “When our Lord will come we
 will recognize Him” 1.e. When He appears to them in a kingdom which is not
 appropriate to anyone other than Him, and in a glory which is not similar to
 anything of His creatures, then they will say: “You are our Lord.’”38
This is a statement that indicates only confusion combined with insis-
 tence upon supporting a particular notion whether it is proved or not. There
 are two things which reject this interpretation:
The first is that telling a lie is hateful to Allah and shameful. Allah is not
to command alie, becauseAllahdoesnot commandevil andshameful
things; rather, He forbids them. The most shameful and dangerous lie is that
 a servant from among the servants of Allah should claim that he is Allah. No
angel among the angels of Allah, who of all His creatures are the most aware
of His rights, and the most fearful of His punishment, could dare to say such
a thing.
The second is that that place is the place of reward, not a place of testing
of belief or any other thing. The reward of the people will be only according
to the belief and action that they achieved in this world, not according to
 what they will have in the Last House.
If the seeing in the hadith is interpreted as knowing, then the difficulty is
resolved, the ambiguity cleared and the contradiction removed. Yes, there
 will remain a difficulty in their saying “We seek refuge with Allah from You.’
Because seeking refuge frow Allah cannot be imagined from a believer in any
state. That is why this addition needs further reflection. Perhaps it is a kind
of representation of their dismay of the terror that they will see in that great
Station. It is similar to what has come in the hadith of repentance (when, in
total confusion, the penitent uttered): ‘O Allah, You are my servant and I am
 Your Lord.’ And the renewal of the servant’s knowledge of his Lord by see-
 ing those signs which were not anywhere in his mind, is something that can-
not be denied. It is not far-fetched to say that the hadith is a representation of
 38Ibid.
52
On the seeing of Allah
thoughts interacting within them, while they are seeing scenes unfamiliar to
them, and there is clarifying for them of those matters that they did not
know. Then there is no wonder if a confusion befalls them such as to cause
their minds to fly off—unul when their minds come down to the tree of real-
ity, and settle upon the solidity of certainty. Those scenes that they will sce,
and those manifestations that they will experience, will not be but from Him,
Exalted is He. He turns the states as He wills. In cach state there are manifes-
tations of His Majesty, and scenes of His greatness, whichhave been ex-
pressed (in the Quran) as being forms related to Him, because they are from
Him and will return to Him.
AA group of those who affirm the seeing have come close to this inter-
pretation. One example is what Hafiz Ibn Hajar has quoted, saying: “Those
who affirm the seeing have differed as to its meaning. A group of the people
have said that knowledge of Allah, Exalted is He, will come to the viewer, as
through eyesight it comes in respect of the things that are seen.’ That is in
accord with Ibn Hajar’s saying about the hadith from the chapter ‘as you see
the moon’. However, He 1s ineffably-pure from direction, dimension and in-
strumentality (Aayfiyah). That knowledge is something greater than merely
knowing. Some of them have said that the meaning of seeing is knowledge.
Again, some have expressed it as a change occurring in the state of a human
being that is somehow related to His unique Essence in the same way that
 the eyes are related to visible things. Others among them have said that the
seeing of Allah by the believers is a kind of revealing and knowledge but it is
more complete and more clear than knowledge. And this is closer to the
truth than the first opinion.*9
Close to that is the interpretation of seeing by Imam al-Ghazali in some
of his books.
The use of ‘seeing’ in the meaning of ‘knowing’ is known in the lan-
guage, as we noted with reference to the author of a/-Oamiis and its commen-
tator. Among the proofs for this is the saying of Allah, Exalted is He: “Have
you not seen how your Lord does prolong the shadow?, (a/-Furgan, 25.45).
And: ‘Have you not seen how your Lord dealt with the ‘Ad?’. (a/-Fajr, 89.6).
And: ‘Did you not see how your Lord dealt with the Companions of the Ele-
phant?” (a/-Fif, 105.1). And: ‘Did you not see that Allah knows all that is in
the heavens and on earth?’ (a-Mujadalah, 58.7). And: ‘Did they not see how
many of those before them We destroyed?’ (a/-An‘am, 6.6). And the poet
says: ‘I have seen that Allah is the greatest of every thing.” Another poet said:
‘I have seen that Allah destroyed the people of ‘Ad.’
39Thid, 426.
53
The First Discussion
The claim that ‘seeing’ does not have the meaning of ‘knowing’ except
when the verb has two objects is rejected by the saying of Allah, Exalted is
He: ‘Now you have seen it and you were looking’ (A/ UImran, 3.143). And His
saying: “Did they not see how many of those before them We destroyed?’ (a+
Anam, 6.6).|
No doubt that in the Garden there are divine manifestations for the
people of Bliss that will supersede what is in the Stations of Resurrection. So
no wonder that the most truthful of all mankind and jinn, and the most elo-
quent of Arabs and non-Arabs, express themselves using ‘seeing’, or other
phrases similar to it, to bring it closer to the mind. The Prophet, upon him be
peace and the blessings of Allah, used to address the Arabs in the clear Ara-
bic language that they grew up in, so they knew its meanings, and realized its
purposes. So do not wonder if this mode of speech did not cause any prob-
lem for them.
When the servant purifies himself for Allah, Exalted is He, in this world,
 regardless of the thickness of the curtains of its dark material nature, there
 appear to him in his invocation and prayer scenes of greatness, and the signs
 of Majesty are revealed to him that remove him from his own existence,
 drowning him in the realm of observation, so he is oblivious of himself and
 busy with the graces of intimacy, bestowed upon him by Allah, which are
 flowing from the realm of holiness—especially in certain states, like solitary
worship, and at certain times, like the nights of Ramadan,andin certain
 places, like the two Sanctuaries. What, then, are we to imagine of the Last
 House, which is prepared for the pious and where their souls will ascend to
 the height of human perfection?
Such scenes of intimacy in this world none can deny except one who is
deprived of that transparency of the soul and thinness of the bodily senses
 that the servant feels whilst standing before Allah, Exalted is He, praying or
invoking, until he becomes, as a result of his intimacy with his Lord, as if he
were seeing Him with his eye, without His changing the Essence that is im-
perceptible with the eyes. The Messenger of Allah, upon him be peace and
the blessings of Allah, has named this state as shsan. That is in his saying:
‘Ibsan is that you worship Allah as if you were seeing Him. For if you do not
see Him, He sees you.’ Then, why wonder if there occur for the believers
who are true in their faith, sincere in their actions, those Majestic manifesta-
tions for their intellects and hearts in the hereafter which are greater than
that? And why be surprised if this is expressed as ‘seeing’, given that such us-
age is familiar in the Arabic language?
From this, the meaning of seeing in the hadiths will be clear. And by this
it is possible to reconcile these fadiths and those verses of purification (tran-
scendence) which are explicit in forbidding the seeing. And however it may
54
On the seeing of Allah
be, these adiths are in any case solitary traditions (abad). Such badiths cannot
 stand as proof in the matters of belief. Because the belief is a fruit of cer-
tainty, and certainty is only established on the basis of firm proofs which are
mutawatir (narrated by many from many), and explicit in denotation so as to
leave no possibility of any other interpretation. The abad hadith permits no
 more than conjecture as to the affirmation of its text. That is why the experts
have said that it can make some particular action compulsory, but does not
 serve to bring knowledge (of relevant principles). If this is the status of abad
badiths in respect of proof, what then of their status when they are opposed
by firm texts of the Quran? That is why we judge as invalid those narrations
which (if they cannot be otherwise interpreted) are clearly fashioning simili-
 tudes between the Creator and the creature. For it is impossible that any such
could come from the Messenger of Allah, upon him be peace and the bless-
ings of Allah, who never speaks out of desire. That is like the hadith: “When it
is Friday He descends on His Chair, then the Chair is encompassed with the
pulpits of light, then the Prophets come until they sit on them....’ This is
contrary to both reason and authoritative tradition. Moreover, it is contrary
 to what the believers in seeing themselves say—that He will be seen without
being encompassed—because He would necessarily be encompassed if the
pulpits of the Prophets encompass the Chair on which He will be estab-
lished.
Also: some Companions,may Allah be pleased with them, did not ac-
cept the narration of others of them when they found it contrary to their un-
derstanding of the meaning of the Book. This was the case with ‘Umar on
the narration of Fatimah b. Qays. And it was the case with ‘A?ishah on the
narration of Ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with all of them). Yet, they
were the people of the best of times and finest of epochs. Then, what do you
think about those who came after them, when confusion became apparent,
and deception, heresy (d/d‘a) and intrigues became more frequent, and the
time far removed from the respected epoch?
I heard in the recorded &hutbah, to which I referred earlier, a mocking
criticism of the Ibadis from the speaker, to the effect that the Ibadis do not
rely on the sadiths of seeing because they are abad. As if no one other than
the Ibadis have held the view that an ahad hadith is unacceptable for a matter
of belief! Indeed, the man is only mocking himself for, in saying this, he has
affirmed his ignorance of what the experts of his “#/ama? have said. I will only
quote some of their statements, without pointing to any statement by the
Ibadis:
Imam Ibn al-Subkt in Jam‘ a/-JawamiS, and Mahalli in the commentary on
it, have said: “The solitary narration does not convey knowledge unless it is
accompanied by and linked to a corroborative context—as in informing a
55
The First Discussion
man of the death of his son who was close to death, with corroborating in-
formation about the weeping (for the dead), the bringing of a shroud and
coffin.... Most people say that the abad hadith does not convey knowledge in
any circumstance.’
In Tangib of Ibn al-Hajib and its commentary a/-Tamdih there is the ob-
servation: “The ahbad hadith leads to conjecture if it accrues those conditions
that we will mention snusha? Allah. Such hadiths are sufficient to make action
compulsory, according to some scholars; according to other scholars, not so:
they do not convey necessary knowledge. There is no act but from [neces-
sary] knowledge ....(continuing, until the author says:) Reason bears witness
 that it [abad hadith| does not lead to certainty.”4°
In the Hashiyah of Sa‘d al-Din al-Taftazani on them is written: “This 1s
 the opinion of the majority.”4! Then it says: ‘But the intellect bears witness
 that the report of one reliable does not necessitate certainty, and that the
 possibility of a lie stands, though it is unlikely. Otherwise it will be necessary
 to believe firmly in two contradictory things, when both are reported by two
 reliable people.”
Hujjat al-Islam Abt Hamid al-Ghazali says: ‘Know that we mean by
 khabar al-wabid here those reports that do not reach to the extent of fawatur
(many from many) in providing knowledge. So whatever has been reported
 by a group of five or six, for example, is &babar al-wabid ....(continuing, until
 he says:) That understood, we then say that Ahabar al-wabid does not provide
 knowledge. This is known axiomatically. For we do not testify to everything
 that we hear. If we accept and suppose contradiction of two reports then
 how can we testify to two opposites? As to what has been narrated from the
 nitthaddtthin (hadith scholars) that it provides knowledge: perhaps they meant
that it provides knowledge of (particular) actions becoming obligatory, as
 conjecture can also be called knowledge. That is why some of them have said
 that &habar al-wabid provides outward knowledge. Knowledge does not have
 any outward or inward side. That ‘knowledge’ 1s merely conjecture.”3
In Fawatih al-rabamiit bi sharh Misallam al-thubit of Ibn ‘Abdal-Shukur
 there is the comment: ‘Most of the people of ssi/ (sources and principles of
 jurisprudence), including the three imams, hold that babar al-wabid, if this
 one person is not a protected Prophet, does not provide knowledge at all. It
 makes no difference if it is surrounded by corroborative links or not.... (con-
 tinuing until he says:) If the report of one had provided knowledge then it
 40gl-Tawdth “ala /-tangih, 431, 432, in the margins of Hashiyat al-Talvih of SaSd Taftazani
(Matba‘ah Maktab Sanayi‘ min taraf al-Sharika al-Sihafiyyah al-Uthmianiyyah, 1310).
4af-Talvib of Sad Tattazani , 431.
42Ibid, 433.
43al-Mustasfa min “im al-nsil of Imam Abo Hamid al-Ghazali (Buliq), 1:145.
56
On the seeing of Allah
would have led to contradiction when two reliable people report two contra-
dicting things.’ Then he says: ‘And that (i.e. reporting of two contradicting
things by two reliable persons) is possible, indeed it is happening, as will not
be obscure to anyone who has explored the Sihbab, Sunan and Masanid?#
Imam Muhammmad ‘SAbduh has said in one of his fatwas: ‘If an heretic
wants to call to this belief then it is compulsory for him to establish for it the
evidencethat leads to certainty, either with rational convincing proofs, or
with the traditional wa/anatr proofs. It is not allowed for him to make an
abad hadith a proof for his belief, even if its chain is strong. For it is known to
all imams that abadith abad do not provide anything but conjecture. “And
conjecture avails nothing against truth” (a4-Najm, 53.28),”45
Allamah Sayyid Muhammmad Rashid Rida says:
Someahbad hadiths will be proof for the one for whomthey are proven and whose
 heart is satisfied with them, but they will not be proof for anyone other than him in
 such a way that the act becomes obligatory. That is why the Companions, may Allah
be pleased with them, did not write down all the Jadiths that they heard, and they did
 not invite to them, whereas they did invite to following the Quran and acting upon
it, and to the practical Sunnah explaining itt .... as the Sabifub of SAli, may Allah hon-
our his countenance, which contained certain abkam like blood moncy, releasing the
prisoner, and making the city [Madinah] a sanctuary like Makkah. Imam Malik did
not accept from either Caliph al-Mansur or al-Rashid that they should make people
act upon his books, even a/-AMfmvatta. Acting upon abad hadith is compulsory to one
who is satisfied with its narration and its meaning.“¢
If that is the status of proof of the ahad in the subsidiary practical mat-
 ters, then what of matters of belief? But how can it be a proof when it con-
tradicts the firm mxfawatir? This Imam himself has said: ‘If the ¢/a/ (technical
difficulty) with a hadith which prevents it from being classed as sabih is the
opposition of its narrator to other reliable narrators, then the opposition to
the firmness of w#fawatir Quran is more deserving to deprive it of the quality
of being sibhah.’47
In what Rida has said there is the implication of statements by experts in
hadith terminology in their discussions about the fabrication of hadith. Indeed,
it is what is understood from the action of the Companions, may Allah be
pleased with them, in their accepting some narrations and rejecting others, as
we said above. Regardless of the emphasis of the people of /adith in their re-
440Fawatih al-rabamit bi sharh MisaHam al-thubit (printed on the lower part of the pages of
al-Mustasfa), 2:121.
45From a fatwa of Imam Muhammmad ‘Abduh quoted by al-Qasim1 in the /afsir of Sarat
al-Abgab in his tafsir, Mabasin al-taruil (Asa al-Babi al-Halabi & Co.), 13:4920.
46al-Manar (4" edition), 1:138.
47Thid, 85-86.
57
The First Discussion
 liance on abad reports in the matter of religion, and their criticism of those
 who do not accept these narrations, we find Imam al-Bukhari conditions ac-
 ceptance thereof for the subsidiary matters when he says:. ‘the chapter of
‘what has come in permitting the report of one reliable in the matter of adban,
 prayer, fasting, duties and abkam.’#8
Chapter 3
On the evidence of those who deny seeing
These proofs and evidence are of two types: rational and traditional.
The rational proofs may be summarized by saying that Allah, Glorified is
He, was before the creation of all existence. His Essence did not movenor
His attributes change after the creation from what they were before it. So His
Essence, Glorified is He, is not attached to any thing of His creation, as It 1s
not detached from it. To be so (attached or detached) is an attribute of con-
tingent existents. Hence it was impossible, according to reason and according
to tradition, to perceive the reality of His Essence. The furthest extent of the
knowledge of Allah’s Essence is a sense of inability to perceive Its reality. As
it is said: ‘Incapacity for perception is perception’.
The familiar seeing with the eye occurs through reflection of the form of
the seen object into the pupil of the viewer by means of vibrations of light
which receive the forms. It is conditional upon a number of factors:
1The first is the soundness of the sense organ.
2‘The second is that the object must be of the kind that are visible. So
those things that cannot be seen, such as the soul, intellect, smells and
sounds, are excluded.
3The third is that the object must face the eye in some direction, or its
form be reflected in something facing the viewer. (In this are included
those forms which can be seen in mirrors or screens.)
4The fourth is that the object must not be, like microbes, so minute that
the eye is unable to make out its form or perceive its reality. This factor
(of size) varies with the variation in the state of the eye, its strength or
weakness.
5The fifth is that the object must not be at the extreme of thinness, as
clear air is.
48Sabih al-Bukhari with Vath al-bari (al-Matbah al-Salafiyyah), 13:231.
58
On the secing of Allah
 6The sixth is that the object must not be too close: attachment to the cye
will veil the object from being seen—that is how the eyelids are veiled
from being seen by the pupils.
 7The seventh is that the object must not be too far away. Because the
eyesight is too weak to see a thing that is very far. That is why massive
celestial bodies remain hidden from our eyes—they are too remote. The
quality of seeing varies under this factor with the variation in strength
and weakness of the eye, and with the variation in greatness or smallness
of the object being viewed.
 8The eighth is absence of any obstructing veil, that is, an opaque body or
whatever may function in that way such as accumulated fog.
 9The ninth is that the object must be either luminous in itself, or the light
of something else must fall upon it.*?
There has been an objection to this argument that these conditions are
 only relevant to seeing something in the present or visible realm. It is not
 permissible to extend them by analogy to seeing something in the absent or
invisible realm (ghayb).
The answer to this is that that is the seeing with which people are famil-
lar, and there is no difference in this regard between present and absent.
Moreover, those who affirm seeing have, in the matter of attributes, them-
 selves likened seeing the absent to the present. So why do they run here from
what they resort to there?
The point cannot be raised here that Allah sees His creations without
 His seeing being bound by any of the conditioning factors mentioned. Be-
 cause He is unlike His creatures in everything: He sees, not in the way they
 see. As He listens, not in the way they listen; He knows, not in the way they
 know; He has power, not in the way they have it; He does, not in the way
 they do. The creatures—even if their states differ—do not exceed the limits
of creaturehood, and they are not characterized with any of the attributes of
the Creator, neither in this world, nor in the hereafter.
As for proofs from tradition: some are from the Book, and some are
 from the Sunnah.
Proofs and evidence from the Book
The proofs and evidence from the Book are as follows:
His saying, Exalted is He: ‘/a tudriku-hu l-absar, wa huwa_yudriku labsar, wa
huwa l-latifu l-khabir—The (faculties of) secing cannot grasp Him, and He
49°Mashdrig al-amvar, 198, citing a/-Mamagifand the commentary thercon, with some addi-
tions and changes.
59
The First Discussion
grasps all seeing, He is the All-Subtle and All-Aware’ (a/-An‘am, 6.103). The
reasoning from this verse is that Allah, Exalted is He, has praised Himself
therein, in the statement that sight cannot reach to Him. The reach of sight is
seeing. So it has become clear from the verse that inability of sight to see
Him is an Essential attribute, permanent with Him, because, if He is seen,
then His praise will necessarily vanish. And when it vanishes it will turn into
its Opposite, namely dispraise, Exalted be He from any such. From another
 angle the verse conveys information from Allah, Glorified is He, about one
 of His attributes. And information about Allah’s attributes cannot change,
 because if it does, it means the information is (at some point in time) untrue.
 ‘And who is more true in speech than Allah?’ (a/-Nisa?, 4.122)
Objections to this reasoning have taken five pathways:
The first is that the verse has negated ‘reach’, not ‘sight’, and there is a
 difference between the two. ‘Reach’ implies encompassing what is reached
 from all around it, which is impossible in respect of Him, Exalted is He.
 ‘Sight’ does not require that, because it is more general than ‘reach’. The ne-
 gation of the more specific is not a negation of the more general. In the same
 way,His saying, Exaltedis He—‘Andthey will not comprehend(wa/a
Jubitiina) Him in knowledge’ (Taha, 20.110)—does not negate knowledge al-
together. Because the servants have some knowledge of Him, Exalted is He.
They fear Him because of that knowledge, and they expect from Him, they
obey Him and they worship Him. (In the verse from Sirat al-An‘am,) He is
only negating the encompassing of the reality of His Essence, Glorified is
He.
That is the best known of the points those who affirm the seeing of Al-
lah have relied on in rebutting this argument. That is why you will find them
rushing to it in haste to escape it.
The second objection is that, in this verse, there is nothing more than
negation of all eyes seeing Him—that is what is termed negation of the gen-
erality. The verse is not negating that each individual eye will see Him —that
is what is termed generality of negation. Everyone agrees (they say) that a/
eyes will not see Him; rather, only some eyes will see Him. The least that can
be said is that this is a possible meaning of the verse; and if there is a possi-
bility of an alternative interpretation of the evidence, the reasoning from that
evidence fails. Some of the extremist fanatics have so far exaggerated as to
reverse the meaning of the verse, claiming that it rather denotes affirmation
of seeing than negation of it. They base this opinion on the fact that the sen-
tence (lit. ‘The sights do not reach to Him’) is negative, not bound to any
general or specific reference. Therefore, the verse is to be interpreted as ‘not
reaching by some eyes’, not ‘by all eyes’. The specification of some with the
negation, connotes affirmation of that which is negated for the others.
60
On the sceing of Allah
The third objection is that though the verse is general about individuals,
it is not general about times. The negation is without any condition, and
therefore not bound to any meaning of ‘for all time’.
The fourth is that the verse denotes inability of eyes to sec Him. But it
does not denote inability of the viewers to see Him. Because it is possible
that the verse is negating the seeing done in the usual way, by the part of the
body (the eye) facing and reflecting (what is scen). Therefore, it does not
necessarily negate the seeing (of Allah in some other way). In sum, this objec-
tion is: the praise of Allah in the verse is with the negation of His being
mabsirtyyah (an object of sight), not with the negation of secing Him at all.5°
The fifth is that the generality of reference in the verse is narrowed by
the proofs and evidence (elsewhere) of affirmation of the seeing.*!
All these objections are rejected: |
As for the first: it is contrary to the Arabic usage of daraka/idrak and its
derived forms. The meaning of ‘encompassing’ cannot be understood from
the word. The statements of the pillars among experts in Arabic language,
and their clear and affirmed proofs indicate that ¢drak does not have the
meaning of ‘encompassing’. Rather, the two meanings are quite distinct from
each other.
The author of a/-Oamis and its commentator say:
 d-r-k, vocalized al-daraku. reaching (a-labaqi); wa qad adraka-hu. when something
 reached it. -I/-daraku is a noun from (the masdar) al-idraku. In al-Sibab: al-idraku:
 reaching (a/-/abiiqn). It is said: mashaytu hatta adraktu-hu—l walked until I reached
 him; wa Sshtu batta adrakin gamana-hu—l lived until I reached his time.5?
The text of al-Jawhari’s statement in a/-Sibah is:
 al-idraku. reaching (a/-labtiqnu). It is said: mashaytu batta adraktn-hi. 1 walked until I
 reached him; wa “shtu hatta adraktn gamana-hir. \ lived until I reached his time; wa ad-
 raktu-hu bi basar-7 1 saw him (lit. | reached him with my sight).
In a/-Lisan:
 al-daraki. reaching.... [continuing until it says].... wa /adaraka al-gaumur the people
 caught up with each other. In the Quran: ‘hata idhd ?ddarakit fr-ha jamian—uanl
when they catch up with one another all of them [in the Fire]’ (@-A ‘raf, 7.38).>
These are the texts of the pillars of the language, who have transmitted it
 to us with objectivity. There is nothing in them that would indicate interpre-
50Mahasin al-tenil, 16:2450—-52, with summary and explanation. See also a/Mawagif and
its commentary, and the /afsirs of al-Fakhr, al-Nasafi and al-Alusi on this verse.
 510al-Razi: Mafatih al-ghayb (Tchran: Dar al-Kutub al-“Umiyyah), 13:128.
520Taj al-“aris (Dar Maktabat al-Hayah), 7:126.
 53al-Sthab (Beirut: Dar al-lm li al-Malayin), 4:1582.
540Lisan al-“arab (Dar al-Mairif), 3:1363.
61
The First Discussion
 tation of a/-idraku as ‘encompassing’. It is impossible to interpret the meaning
 of al-labiign, al-labaqu in that way. One’s saying (for example) /abigtu aljidara bi
yad-i (lit. ‘I reached the wall with my hand’) does not mean anything other
 than touching the wall. That is a good, clear expression, acceptable in the
 language and by convention, and it is impossible that the hand should ‘en-
 compass’ the wall. Like that is the Arabic saying: ‘I dropped the rope into the
 well until it reached (/abiga) water’. Such examples are innumerable. I did not
find any lexical reference work which interprets sdrak as ‘encompassing’. It 1s
sufficient as proof of the error of this interpretation that convention and
taste will not accept one’s saying about a wall encompassing a farm: éuna-hu
mudrikun la-hu (lit. ‘it is reaching to it’). In the same way (it would be unac-
ceptable) for one to say—al-baytu mudrikun li-man kana wa ma kana dakhila-hu
(lit. “the house is reaching to whoever or whatever is inside it’)}—-when one
knows beyond doubt that the house ‘encompasses’ (and not ‘reaches’) what-
ever is inside it.
If the meaning of /@ tndriku-hu Labsar is that the absar do not reach Him,
then its meaning is firmly that the faculties of sight do not reach to Him in
any way such that He becomes seen by them, because basar is used for the
sense of seeing, as it is used for the instrument of it, namely the eye. And the
illustrative example given by the author of a/-Sihab—“shtu hatta adrakin
gamana-bir. \ lived until I reached his time—is evidence for the correctness of
what I have said about the difference between reaching (/drak) and encom-
passing (/hata). Everyone can understand that the speaker of that sentence
did not mean that he ‘encompassed’ the time of the person from beginning
till end. Because if that had been the meaning then it would not have been
allowed for anyone to say about any of the Companions of the Messenger,
upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah, that the Companion reached
his time unless that Companion had encompassed his time from birth to
death.
Among the proofs which indicate the error of interpreting zdrak as ‘en-
compassing’ is that no one will dispute the correctness of the sentence about
someone struck by an arrow: adraka-hu al-sabmu (‘the arrow reached him’). If
someone says abata bi-hi al-sahmu (‘the arrow encompassed him’), then no rea-
sonable person will regard his utterance as anything but senseless.
Clearer than these is what was quoted above from the commentary on
al-Oamiis whose author interpreted nPyah as idrak al-mari. 1n al-Lisan also: al-
idraku. reaching (al-labiiqn). It is said: mashaytu hatta adrakin-hu (‘1 walked until
I reached him); wa “Sishtu hatta adraktn zamana-hu (‘1 lived until I reached his
time’); wa adraktu-hn bi basar (1 saw him’).55
85hid, 1364.
62
On the seeing of Allah
The various derived forms of /drak denote the same. His saying, Exalted
 is He, in the Quran—‘hatta idha ?ddarakii fi-ha jami“an (‘until when they catch
 up with one another all of them’ (a4/-A ‘raf, 7.38)—does not intend that each
 group has ‘encompassed’ the other. It only means that each group has fol-
 lowed and caught up to the one before it.
What is quoted from the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them,
 about the verse (6.103) denying the seeing is among the clearest, strongest
 and most firm proofs that zdrak, when related to the eyes, is only used in the
 meaning of ‘seeing’. For they, may Allah be pleased with them, were pure Ar-
 abs, created in the eloquent Arabic tongue with their native Arabic upbring-
 ing. The Quran that was being revealed among them, increased their knowl-
 edge of the meanings of this language and their awareness of its usage. Then
 how could they be ignorant of the difference between myah (seeing) and
 idrak, (reaching with the sight) if there had been a difference between them?
Of what has been narrated from them on that matter is what Imam
 Rabin his Musnad and bothShaykhsin their Sabibs have narratedfrom
 Masrugq that he said:
 I was resting on a cushion in the house of A?ishah, then she said: ‘O Aba ‘Vishah,
 there are three things that whoever utters one of them has invented a great slander
 avainst Allah. Whoever claims that Muhammad, upon him be peace and the bless-
 ings of Allah, has seen his Lord, has invented a great slander against Allah.’
 I was leaning on the cushion then I sat up and I said: ‘O Mother of the Believers,
 give me some time and do not rush [me]. Has not Allah, Honoured is He and Ex-
 alted, said: “And without doubt he saw him in the clear horizon” (a/-Takwir, 81.23)
 and ‘Indeed he saw him at a second descent” (a/-Najm, 53.13)?”
 Then she said: ‘I am the first person of this “mwah who asked the Messenger of Al-
 lah, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah, about this matter. He said: “The
 ‘him’ was just Jibril. I did not sce him in the form in which Allah created him other
 than on these two occasions. I saw him descending from the heaven, while the vast-
 ness of his being covered whatever is between the heaven and the earth.”
 Then she said: ‘Did you not hear what Allah says: 4a tidriku-hu Labsar, n'a huwa_yu-
 driku l-absar, wa huva I-latifu -kbabir—The faculties of sight do not reach to Him, but
 He reaches all sight, and He is the All-Subtle, the All-Aware (a-AnSam, 6.103)?"
Imam Rab‘ has narrated from ‘Ala and Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be
 pleased with them, that they cited this honoured verse to deny the secing of
Allah.*6_
Fakhr al-Din al-Razi has made an attempt to reject SA’ishah’s citing of
 this verse in denial of the seeing as a proof that the meaning of ¢drak here is
 not restricted to ‘encompassing’. He writes: ‘Knowledge of the words of the
 56\usnad al-Imam al-Rab@ (Maktabat al-Istiqamah), 3:226—27.
63
The First Discussion
language is only attained through the scholars of the language. As for how to
cite evidence: it is not something to be left to fag/d (imitation).’57
This is a failed effort, to be rejected on three grounds:
The first is that the pure Arabs—when relying only on their own Arabic
nature in their speech and understanding of the meanings of that speech—
are stronger as evidence than those scholars of the Arabic language who
came after them, and compiled its words and explained their meanings. In-
deed, the latter referred to the former in order to understand meanings; and,
in this regard, it was not the other way around.
The second is that what the authorities of the Arabic language have
quoted from Arabs about the meanings of /drak is in complete agreement
with what ‘A?ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, has chosen in the hadith
 quoted.
The third is that citing her argument is not doing fag/rd. It is only adopt-
ing a means to understand the meanings of the language.
In differentiating between m?yah and idrak, Ibn Jarir al-Tabari has relied
 on His saying: “And when the two hosts saw each other (fara°a), the people
 of Musa said: “We are surely overtaken (/a-mudrakiin)”. He (Musa) said: “By
 no means, my Lord is with me, soon He will guide me.”” (¢/-Shu“ara?, 26.61—
 62). Here Musa negated his people’s fear of their enemy overtaking them,
 while the secing happened on both sides. Ibn Hazm has followed Ibn Jarir.5*
 Hafiz Ibn Hajar has quoted the same from al-Qurtubi, the author of a/
 Mufhim, and commented on this with the statement:
 It is a strange argument. Because the word to which ‘dra’ is attached in the verse of
 al-|nSam As absar (‘the faculties of sight’). When the sight reaching to Him has been
 nepated, the obvious meaning is negation of secing—in contrast to how /dra& is
 used in the story of Musa. Had no reports existed concerning the affirmation of see-
 ing, then it would not have been permitted to turn away from that obvious mean-
 ing.59.
I add to what Hafiz Ibn Hajar has said that the meaning of sdrak differs
 according to the difference of the kind of mudrikat (that which is to be
 reached). So /drak of the eye is its seeing of an object; sdrak of the ear is its
 listening to a sound; édrak of the hand is its touching of a body; /drak of the
 sword is its falling upon the one being hit; sdrak of the arrow is its reaching a
 target; /drak of the spear is its reaching to the one being hit; and sdrak of one
 enemy to another is having power over the other and being able to inflict
 harm upon him. So the companions of Musa, upon him be peace, did not
 57al-Tafsir al-kabir. Mafatih al-ghayb (2"! edition), 13:128.
 88al-Nisal fi l-milal wa /-nibal Maktabat al-Salam al-“\lamiyyah), 3:2.
59°ath al-bari (al-Matba‘ah al-Salafiyyah), 8:607.
64
On the secing of Allah
wish to avert their enemy’s seeing them, rather they feared their enemy’s
power over them.
Ibn Hajar’s statement implies that he holds our opinion as to the inter-
pretation of the verse, but relies, in opposing its meaning (i.e. its denial of
seeing), on reports which confirm the seeing. But, O reader, as was explained
above, these reports do not convey confirmation of the seeing of Allah. So—
and praise belongs to Allah—the soundness of our argument has been estab-
lished.
The best of what I have read on the interpretation of this verse is the
statement of Imam Abu Bakr Ahmad b. SAIi al-Razi al-Hanafi, known as al-
Jassas, in his book Abkam al-Our-an. The text of it is as follows:
 It is said that the original meaning of fdrak is ‘reaching’, as one says: adraka zaman al-
Mansir—he reached the time of al-Mansur. And one says: adraka Aba Hanifata—he
reached Abi Hanifah. And adraka al-taSam i.e. the food was ready (reached the state
of being cooked); adraka al-zar“u wa /thamarn i.e. the crops and fruit were ripe
 (reached maturity); and adraka al-ghulamu i.e. the boy became a man (reached matur-
ity’).
And /drak al-basar l-l-sha?—treaching of the sight to the thing, secing it. Because
 there is no dispute among scholars of the language that saying of someone édrakfn bi-
 basar-i shakhsan (1 have reached someone with my sight) means I have seen him with
 my eye. It is not correct that /drdk is encompassing. Because a house encompasses
what is in it, but it does not /drak or ‘reach’ to [what is in it]. So Allah’s saying: 4
tndrikuibu l-absar means that the eyes cannot see Him. This is praise [of Him] by ne-
gating the seeing of the eyes, as in His saying (2.255): fa ta@khudhu-hu sinatun wa la
nan (Sleep does not overtake Him nor slumber). Whatever Allah praises by negat-
ing it from Himself, then affirming its opposite is dispraise and shortcoming. So
confirmation of its opposite is not in any way permissible. For if His deserving the
attribute of la ta kbudbn-hu sinatun wa la nawm becomes void, then it cannot but lead
to an attribution of fault.
Seeing cannot be particularly affirmed from His saying (a/-Qiamah, 75.22—23):
‘Some faces, that Day, will be radiant, looking towards their Lord (a rabbi-ha
nazirab) because nagar has several possible meanings, such as waiting for the re-
ward—as has been narrated from a group of the sa/af’ Therefore, when that inter-
pretation is possible, then objection to it by means of an interpretation which is not
possible is not allowable.
 [As for] the reports that are narrated about the secing, if they are sound—the in-
tended meaning behind them is simply knowledge. It is secure knowledge with no
doubt in it, for the use of ‘secing’ in the sense of ‘knowledge’ is well known in the
language.©
As for the second objection: it contradicts His praise in the verse of not
being visible to the faculties of sight. Because if the verse is interpreted as
600Abkam al-Our’an (Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi), 3:4.
65
The First Discussion
denying only universality (i.e. as denying only that a// eyes will see Him)—as
they claim—then there will be no meaning of praise. Then all visible crea-
tures will share with Allah, Exalted is He, in this quality, for there is no crea-
ture that has been or could ever be seen by a// eyes, not even the sun—which
is the most visible to all those living on the planet earth—for the beings of
other worlds do not see the sun on account of their distance from it, just as
we do not see, among those far bodies which are moving in the remote gal-
axies, what is bigger and brighter than the sun—let alone human beings and
whoever may be likened to them. Indeed, any human being from us cannot
be seen by all the contemporary eyes on this earth alone, let alone by those
who died before him, or will come after him, or who may be in other worlds.
 From another angle, the permission to interpret the verse in this way implies
 the permissibility of the same interpretation in similar verses, such as: ‘Allah
 does not love transgressors’ (a/-Baqarah, 2.190; al-Mda?idah, 5.87); ‘Allah does
 not love squanderers’ (a-An‘am, 6.141; al-A ‘raf, 7.31); ‘Allah does not love
 those who do wrong’ (A/ Imran, 3.57; 140); and ‘Allah does not love any ar-
 rogant boaster’ (Luqman, 31.18). There is no reason to regard these verses in
 a different way as all of them have been presented in the context of His
 praise. And that suffices to expose the failure of that possibility that they
 have mentioned.
As for making the verse a proof that the seeing is permitted—on the
 grounds that it is negating without restrictive reference either universal or
 particular and, therefore, is to be interpreted as not seeing by some eyes, not
 by a// eyes, because specifying negation for some denotes affirmation of the
 same for others—the reasoning is so weak as hardly to need to be weakened
 further. Anyone whose reason is safe from intoxication of desire, and whose
 taste is free of corruption, will realize its voidness. The negation in His saying
 ‘the faculties of sight (absar) cannot reach to Him’ does not specify some see-
 ing faculties. Rather, it includes all eyes with explicit wording which is cor-
 roborated by the associated contexts. The article in a/-absar means universal-
 ity, which we can understand as either ‘the kind as a whole’ (js) or as “each
 and every’ (/stighraq). If we take it in the sense of ‘each and every’ then it is
 more clear than needs further explanation: there is no meaning of ‘each and
 every’ but inclusion of the particular individuals to which the meaning of the
 word applies. If we take it as ‘the kind as a whole’, then every member of the
 genus is included in the term whether in affirming or negating. If the argu-
 ment were correct, anyone who swears in the name of Allah that he did not
 visit graves, though visiting them all the time, could not be regarded as mak-
 ing a false oath because it is beyond reason that he could have visited all the
 graves on earth. Similarly, it follows from that argument that whoever swears
 that he did not commit adultery with women, though he has done so with
66
On the seeing of Allah
thousands of women, will be truthful and not false to his oath because it is
impossible that he could have committed adultery with all the women on
earth. The argument likewise implies that one will not be falsifying his oath
who swears that he did not steal dates, though he has stolen innumerable
dates. The argument implies, in fact, that a person’s saying ‘I did not visit
graves’ is to be understood as meaning ‘I have visited some graves’. And the
 same in the other examples.
If it is proposed that, perhaps, according to those who offer this argu-
ment, the article in a/absar is bound to a context (‘abdi), not referring to the
‘kind as a whole’, nor to ‘each and every’, we answer that this interpretation
of it as so bound is contrary to the praise (of Allah) that is understood by the
verse and is the implication of the context. Such a usage (being bound to
context) must have a referent to which it is connected (wabhia), and there is
none. Even if we assume that there is such a referent, is it possible that nega-
tion of something for that referent, means affirmation of the same for every-
thing else? Is not this a sort of mwafbiim al-lagqab—reasoning from the absence
of a qualifying term in apposition, an invalid proposition—something that is
not relied upon even for matters of conjecture, so how rely upon it in mat-
ters that must depend upon certain authority?
As for the third objection: that unconditional negation does not denote
permanency. This is rejected, alike by the language, as by custom and law.
Everybody knows that saying ‘I do not drink milk’ denotes negation of drink-
ing milk at any time. If that were not true, then he will not have made a false
oath whoswears that he does not fornicate, does not steal, does not drink
wine, does not kill the forbidden soul without right, even if he does any of
those things in the future—on the grounds that an unconditional negation
does not include all times.
There is no dispute that negative imperative constructions have the same
implications as negative constructions. If the opinion (that permanency is not
entailed in such constructions) is allowed, then no prohibition will stand. For
it will be allowed to the people to consume the usury that Allah has forbid-
den in His Book, and to kill the forbidden soul without right, and to commit
every corruption in the earth, and to do all that is forbidden in Islam, on the
argument that a negative imperative is not inclusive of all times.
As was explained above, the fact that this verse is like other verses on
the same pattern which are presented in the context of His praise, refutes
their claim. If the negation in this verse is taken to mean for this world, not
for the hereafter, then it must be allowed in similar verses, like His saying:
‘Slumber does not overtake Him, nor sleep’ (a/-Bagarah, 2.255); and: ‘He has
taken neither a wife nor a son’ (a/-Jinn, 72.3); and: ‘He does not beget, nor is
He begotten, and there is none like unto Him’ (a/-Ikb/as, 112.34); and: ‘And
67
The First Discussion
your Lord does not treat anyone with injustice’ (a/-Kahf, 18.49). Then, it
would be permitted in respect of Him in the hereafter what was forbidden in
this world, like slumber, sleep, a spouse, children, a peer, injustice. Allah is
Exalted and High above that.
Indeed, it is obligatory for every Muslim to believe that this world and
the next world have no effect on the Essence of Allah, Exalted is He. It 1s
impossible for Allah, Glorified is He, that the tme can affect Him, as it is
impossible for Him that space can accompany Him. Allah, Exalted is He, 1s
 the Creator of time and space. His Essence never changes, nor His attributes
ever shift. The change of states in this world and in the next world is re-
 stricted to creatures.
Imam Diy? al-Din ‘Abd al-Aziz al-Thamini, may Allah be pleased with
 Him, has stated in his Ma‘a/im that the opinion that something denoting the
 generality of individuals unconditionally does not denote the generality of
 times, is one held by some imams of jurisprudence like Amidi, al-Qarafi and
 al-Isbahani. This opinion is far from reflecting deep or comprehensive study.
 Profound study on the matter is reflected in the opinion of such experts as
 Fakhr al-Din, Ibn Dagiq al-‘Id, Subki, his son, and many others from among
 the later scholars—namely, that the construction necessarily implies that the
 meaning of the word is comprehensive of all instances.®
As for the fourth objection: that the verse has negated the reach of the
 faculties of sight, not the reach of the viewers. This is refuted by the fact that
 in principle sight is the faculty through which the eye achieves perception. Its
 use for the eye is correct, as the use of hearing is allowed for the ear. If we
 suppose that someone sees with his head, or his ears, or his nostrils, or his
 hands, or his legs, or his whole face, or his whole body, then the seeing fac-
 ulty will be available in whatever he sees with. Since what is negated in the
 verse is the reach of the faculty of sight, then any other means of it will be
 included in the negation.
As for the fifth objection: that the verse is specific in reference. This is
 rejected for two reasons. The first is the inexistence of any specifier. This is
 clear from what we have already established of the voidness of what the af-
 firmers cling to as proof and evidence. The second is that the presentation of
 this verse in the context of His praise, Exalted is He, by negating the reach of
 the faculties of sight prevents reference to anything specific.
If it is said that the negation of seeing Allah, Exalted is He, cannot be
 regarded as praise of Him because other things, such as air, spirits, atoms and
 electricity, share with Him in not being visible:
The answer is that the negation of seeing Him, Glorified is He, is on ac-
 count of His Majesty and greatness, whereas negation of it in respect of other
61\faSalin al-din (Oman: Wizarat al-Turath al-Qawmi wa I-Thagifah), 2:38-39.
68
On the seeing of Allah
 things which are not visible is because Allah has made them hidden from
 sight. Moreover, it would follow from that objection that His saying ‘Slumber
 does not overtake Him, nor sleep’ and ‘He did not take (to Himself) any
 spouse or any children’ cannot be counted as praise of Him because the exis-
 tence of those of His creatures which do not sleep, do not marry and do not
 beget. The angels are qualified with all of those; and the sun, moon, earth
 and other celestial bodies also do not sleep.
The thorough scholar al-Nhalili has divided things in this regard into
 four categories. He writes:
 1 = The first is that which sces but cannot be scen. It is the peak of honour and
summit of perfection, because it is qualified with the ability of secing every-
thing, and being above the reach of any sight. It is true only of Allah, Exalted is
He and Glorified. He alone is of unlimited perfection, and unique in the quality
of honour and Majesty. “There is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is
One who hears and sees’ (a/-Shiira, 42.11).
 2The second is that which both sees and is seen. It is the best of all later types
and comprises all living things like angels, jinn, human beings, birds and all
classes of animals, for example cattle, other quadrupeds, herbivores, carnivores,
and most insects.
 3.The third is that which is seen but cannot see—like opaque bodies such as
earth, mountains, minerals, plants and all substances and contingent properties
(a‘rad).
4The fourth is that which can neither see nor be seen, like those things that are
felt by the senses of smell and taste, and sounds that are prchended by the
hearing, or those things that are not felt by the senses such as belief, unbelief,
reason and knowledge, anger and restraint and other qualities and morals
which are commanded by the law and for which there is reward or punish-
ment.
Both Ibn Taymiyyah and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi have said in interpretation
of the verse, ‘the faculties of sight cannot reach to Him’, what ts rejected by
 sound reason, and refused by fair-minded taste. They have turned this verse
into an instrument to support their claim which is contradictory to its clear
 sense. They have regarded it as an argument in favour of those who affirm
the seeing, by turning its meaning upside down.
Ibn Taymiyyah says:
This verse is more indicative of the permissibility of secing than of its impossibility.
Because Allah, Glorified is He, has presented it in the context of His praise. It is
known that praise is done only with positive qualities because mere not-being is not
a perfection, and it is not praised with. The Lord, Exalted is He, has praised with
not-being only when it implies the existence [of a positive attribute]: like His praise
620Tambid qawaGd al-iman(Sultanate of Oman:Wizarat al-Turath al-Qawmiwa_ I-
Thagffah), 1:183.
69
The First Discussion
with the negation of slumber and sleep, which implies the perfection of His being
Everlasting; and the negation of death which implies the perfection of his being
Ever-living; and the negation of tiredness which implies the perfection of his being
All-Powerful; and the negation of partner, wife, children and supporter which tm-
plics the perfection of His being Lord, His Divinity, and His being the Overwhelm-
ing; and the negation of eating and drinking which implies the perfection of His be-
ing the Self-Sufficient; and the negation of intercession without His permission
which implies the perfection of His Oneness and His being without need of His
creation; and the negation of injustice which implies the perfection of His Justice,
Knowledge and Abundance; and the negation of forgetting and absence of anything
 from His knowledge which implics the perfection of His Knowledge and its com-
prehensiveness; and the negation of any like or peer which implies the perfection of
 His Essence and attributes. That is why He is not being praised with any mere not-
being which does not imply any affirmative attribute. Because the negated in its not-
being shares in the name. The Perfect cannot be described with an attribute shared
 by Him and by the non-existent. If the meaning of His saying ‘the faculties of sight
 do not reach to Him’ had been that He is never seen in any state, then there would
 not have been any praise or any perfection in that, because the non-existent shares
with Him in that—mere not-being is not seen and cannot be reached by sight. The
 Lord is above being praised with something shared with merce not-being. Therefore,
 the meaning [of the verse] is that ‘He will be seen but He will not be grasped or en-
 compassed.’®
That is a statement to baffle anyone who enjoys a bit of reasoning that is
 not clouded by wishing. It is obviously void, and contradictory. Suffice it to
 point out that Ibn Taymiyyah affirmed at the outset that the verse is pre-
 sented in the context of praise. He followed that with the statement that Al-
 lah cannot be praised with mere not-being. He went on to say that mere not-
 being cannot be seen and cannot be reached with sight. Then he presented
 the conclusion of all that, namely that Allah will be seen, but will not be
 comprehended or ‘encompassed’. This implies that the negation of being
 reached by sight does not constitute praise of Him, and that, on the basis of
 how he has interpreted /drak, that the High Essence of Allah can be ‘encom-
 passed’ since, as he himself made clear, mere not-being cannot be “encom-
 passed’ (just as it cannot be seen).
In sum, the strangest aspect of what Ibn Taymiyyah has presented in
 this statement of his is to subject the firm texts to a rule made out of conjec-
 ture and fancy, which has no rational or traditional basis. Whereas, it is
 obligatory for us, O servants of Allah, that we affirm for Allah what He has
affirmed for Himself, and we negate from Him what He Himself has ne-
gated. Because He, Glorified is He, is the most knowledgeable of His Es-
ah ila biléd al-afrah, 209-10.
63Jbn al-Qayyim (narrating from Ibn Taymiyyah) Hadi al-anv
See also: a/-Manar (4 edition), 9:132.
70
On the seeing of Allah
sence and His attributes. It is not for us to object to Him as to His negation
and affirmation.
Among the strangest things of all is the hardening refutation by Han-
balis—including Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim—of Ash‘ari, Mu‘tazili
and other theologians on matters that are most deserving of acceptance as
correct, true and close to reality and to the principles of a theology that rec-
onciles rational argument with the scriptural texts. By contrast, you find them
(the Hanbalis) letting go the reins of their imaginations to derive these specu-
lative propositions for no other reason than to flee the overwhelming force
of the scriptural texts and the compelling force of the argument.
If we do, just for the sake of argument, assume their failed logic, we
would say that in the negation of seeing Allah, Glorified is He, there is affir-
mation of an attribute of perfection for Him, and it is His Majesty. In a
sound hadith there is a clear text that the Majesty of Allah, Glorified is He,
prevents the seeing of Him. Both Shaykhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim) have nar-
rated from Abt Musa Ash‘ari that the Prophet, upon him be peace and the
blessings of Allah, said: “Two gardens are of silver, their pots and whatever is
in them; two gardens are of gold, their pots and whatever is in them. There
will not be between the people and their looking to their Lord anything but
the mantle of Majesty on His Face in the Garden of Eden.’ Then, what is the
problem in Allah’s negation, Glorified is He, that eyes can see His exalted
Essence?
On the assumption—it is not true—that there is a difference in meaning
between nyah and idrak, Ibn Taymiyyah is forced—according to this rule
that he has contrived from his own imagination—to admit that he 1s
confirming for Allah what He has negated from Himself, that is, the eyes
reaching to Him.
Among the greatest dangers for religion is when storms of desire so up-
root the reason of the most learned scholars that they begin playing with the
text as they please until they make from it an argument which contradicts the
text’s very meaning.
Fakhr al-Din al-Razi says:
If the seeing of Allah, Exalted is He, had not been possible, then there would not
have been any praise [of Him] in ‘the sight does not reach to Him’. Do not you see
that the non-existent cannot be sccen? Thesciences, power, intention, smells, and
tastes—nothing of these can be seen. There is no praise for any of them in their not
being seeable. Thus it is proved that His saying ‘the sight docs not reach to Him’
does carry the meaning of praise, and proved that it only implies praise if the secing
is possible. This means that His saying ‘the sight does not reach to Tin’ conveys
{the meaning] that His secing is possible. Full reflection on the matter tells us that
when something in itself is such that secing it is impossible, then its being not seen
does not imply any praise or honour for it. But if it in itself is possible to be scen,
71
The First Discussion
and it has got power to veil the faculties of sight from secing and grasping it, then
this perfect power will connote praise and greatness. Thus it is established that this
verse denotes that He, Exalted is He, may be seen according to His Essence.
When thus proven, it is obligatory to affirm that the believers will see Him on the
Day of Resurrection. The relevant evidence is that there are two opinions: Some
people say that the sceing is possible and that believers will see Him. Some say that
they will not sce Him, and seeing Him is not possible. As for the opinion that secing
Him is possible but no one of the believers will sce Him: this is an opinion that no
 one of this wvmab has held, so it is void. Then, it is proved from what we have said
 that this verse denotes that His seeing is in itself possible, and given that the matter
 is proven to be so, then it 1s obligatory to affirm that the believers will see Him.
 Thus it is proven, from what we have said, that this verse denotes that the seeing is
 to happen. It is a fine, subtle argument from the verse.
After this statement that Fakhr al-Din al-Razi has given expression to,
 there cannot be any comment from anyone except—so long as he takes the
 negation of a thing to be a proof of its affirmation—to question his belief in
 the Oneness of Allah and negating children and partners to Him. According
 to this statement, the Christians and the mushrikiin (those who associate part-
 ners with Allah) can derive from His saying, ‘Say: Praise is for Allah, Who
 begets no son and has no partner in His dominion’ (a/Isra?, 17.111) a firm
 proof that He, Glorified is He, has a son and a partner, and that they can add
 to that affirmation of a spouse for Him, Exalted is He, affirmation of every-
 thing that He has negated of Himself, like slumber, sleep, unawareness,
 tiredness, injustice—all, so long as the negation is a firm evidence of possibil-
 ity, and hence of affirmation.
You may marvel at this, but the wonder is that Fakhr al-Din could make
 from His saying ‘the sight does not reach to Him’ a means to affirm the
 proof of seeing by turning reality, and the argument, upside down, when he it
 is who claimed in his own rulings that connections of words to meanings are
 no better than conjecture. He says it clearly:
 The connections of words to their meanings are conjectural, because they depend
 on transmission of language, on [knowledge of] declensions and conjugations, while
 the first thing about those transmitting it 1s that they were individuals. The reports
 by individuals only convey conjecture [not authority]. Also those denotations of
 meaning are dependent on the meaning not being ambiguous, not being figurative,
 not being transformed, not being unclear, not being particularized, not being con-
 tradictory to reason. Assuming the occurrence of any of these, it becomes compul-
 sory to take the [meaning of the] word metaphorically [non-literally]. Without doubt,
64Mafatih al.ghayh: al-Tafsir al-kabir (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-“Ilmiyyah, 2m edition) 13:125.
72
On the sceing of Allah
 belief in these assumptions [about the meanings of words] is mere conjecture. What
 depends on conjecture is very apt to be conjecture.
Note how Fakhr al-Din al-Razi presents the connection of the words to
 their original meanings as conjectural, while he makes their denoting the op-
 posite of those meanings firm and reliable.
To sum up the preceding discussion: the meaning of the honorific verse
 on negation of seeing Him in this world and in the next world is a firm, clear
 meaning. All of what those who oppose this depend upon amounts to no
 more than a fog of fancy, which lingers only to disappear with the rising of
 the sun of reality. The text of this verse is enhanced by what comes at the
 end of it: ‘And He is the All-Subtle (a/-Laf#) and the All-Aware (a/-Khabin)’.
 His being a/-Laff is the reason why ‘the faculties of sight cannot reach to
 Him’, and His being a/-Khabir is the reason behind ‘And He reaches to all
 sight’. Both attributes are of His Essence, and can never alter. As for a/-
 Khabir. it is obvious that it is among His Essential attributes because it is
 similar in meaning to the Name ‘the All-Knowing’. As for a/-Latif Imam Ibn
 ‘Ashur says:
 It is a sifah mushabbahah [a permanent quality] denoting one of the attributes of Al-
 lah’s Essence, Exalted is He. It is an attribute purifying Him from the ability of rea-
 son to encompass His Essence, or the ability of the senses to encompass His Es-
 sence or attributes. Therefore, the choice of this word to express this attribute for
 Allah, Exalted is He, is the summit of precision and elegance in diction. Because it is
 the nearest way in the Arabic language to express the meaning of the description of
 His Essence according to the usage of the language, and closer to the customs and
 norms of the people.
2His saying to Musa, upon him be peace: ‘/an fara-ni (You shall not see
Me)’ (al-A ‘raf, 7.143).
This is an unconditional negation, not bound to any time, and there is
no alteration in the words of Allah. If the seeing could happen in any time
 from the times of this world or the next, then that would be in contradiction
to the truth of this information. That the text has just this meaning is empha-
sized by the terrific crushing of the mountain on the abiding of which the
seeing was conditioned, so that its disintegration could be the clearest sign to
eliminate the desires of those who, in respect of Allah, are arrogant in de-
manding what is impossible for Him and contradictory to His Majesty. It is
65Ibid, 1:28. The invalidity of the ruling of Fakhr al-Din has been explained by Imam
Nar al-Din Salim? in Talat al-Shams (Oman: Wizarat al-Turath al-Qawmi! wa al-
Thagqffah), 1:30.
660al-Tabrir wa /-tamnir (al-Dar al-Tunisiyyah li-l-Nashn), 7:417.
73
The First Discussion
clear, to anyone who has eyes to see with, that the mountain did not abide,
therefore there is no pretext for any desire to attain that which is impossible.
How delicate, refined and elegant are the words of Musa, upon him be
peace, after his coming to after this incident: “Glory be to You, to You I turn
in repentance, and I am the first to believe’ (a/-A ‘raf, 7.143). Misa, upon him
be peace, hastened first to declare the transcendence of Allah, Glorified is
He, the right of His being Lord, acknowledging his mistake, and honouring
the right of Allah—even though his heart was devoid of the intention of
what is denoted by the apparent text of his speech. For he did not ask what
he asked except to silence his people, as was said earlier. He followed that
with sincere repentance of what he had fallen into, expecting His forgiveness,
E:xalted is He. He ended his speech, upon him be peace, by stating that he ts
 the first to believe that Allah, Exalted is He, cannot be seen. That is what Ibn
Jarir has narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them. In this,
 there is affirmation of true belief, glorifying Allah from being reached by see-
 ing, a truth that cannot be hidden to anyone who has sight. Because he, upon
 him be peace, did not, in saying ‘I am the first to believe’, intend anything ex-
 cept apology for what is hinted by the outward form of his speech, though
 Allah was aware of his inward (intent). The likeness of that is asking forgive-
 ness with the tongue and uttering the firm resolve not to return to disobedi-
 ence. For Allah is aware of all secrets, nothing of what is contained in the
 hearts is hidden from Him.
The particle /an gives emphasis to a negation, or expresses the perma-
nence of it, or both these together. One derives from that that seeing Him,
Exalted is He, is impossible, because that impossibility is something related
to His Essence, Exalted is He. It is of His Essence that it is not able to be
seen. The glorifying Allah with which the apology commenced in the speech
of Musa, upon him be peace, is indicative of that point. Had there been for
anyone any hope of attaining seeing, then Allah would not have made hope-
less His servant Musa whom He chose over the people by (conveying
through him) His Message and by (conversing with him in) His own speech.
This reasoning has been objected to on the ground that the negation of
seeing is bound with the life of this world, because man is created here in
transience and that is why he cannot see the Everlasting, Exalted is He. It has
been objected to also on the ground that the answer is not expressed in a way
that means that Allah will not be seen ever: the seeing that is negated is re-
ferred to Musa, upon him be peace, so it does not imply generality with the
negation—in contrast to what it would mean if the wording had been ‘I can-
not be seen’.
Alias! says:
74
On the seeing of Allah
 Some experts have referred in the meaning of the verse to the possibility (of seeing)
 beyond the particular incident that took place |i.e. the incident with Misa]. And this
 is that Allah, Exalted is He, has linked the negation of secing to the inability of the
 viewer [Musa] and the weakness of his seeing faculty, for He said to him ‘You shall
 not see Me’. If seeing Him had been impossible, then the answer would have been ‘I
 am not to be seen’. Do you not see that if he had said ‘Show me [Yourself]. I would
 look upon Your form and Your location’, then it would not have been an appropri-
 ate answer to say “You cannot sce My form and My location’. Rather, the appropri-
 ate answer would be ‘I am not of form or location’.
Many who affirm the seeing have relied upon denying the permanence
 of negation because /an is used (in dan fara-ni). What my memory has retained
 about that is what al-Suyuti has stated in his commentary on ‘Ugéd al-Juman:
Then fan is for emphasis in the negation of something, the attainment of which is
 imagined. It is also said that dw is for permanence, though it has fallen out of use.
 Ibn al-Khatib Zamalkani has specified the particle 4@ for permanence with nega-
 tion...
Ibn al-Khatib Zamalkani has been quoted as distinguishing /an and /g,
both negatives. He says that with /am the negation does not continue, while
with /@ it does. He has derived this from the way the two particles are pro-
nounced: /av is short when uttered, and &@ is prolonged. For the negation
with /an he has given the example of Allah’s saying ‘You shall not see me’,
and for negation with /@ he has given the example of Allah’s saying “The fac-
ulties of sight cannot reach to Him’—on the basis of their distinction be-
tween rm7yah (seeing) and sdrak (grasping, encompassing), discussed above.
From that he has understood the negation of seeing as being severed, be-
cause it will end with the ending of this world, in contrast to the negation of
idrak. The strongest of what they have relied on in denying the permanency
of negation with /an is His saying about the Jews (that they claim special
rights with Allah, yet will never desire death on account of their fear of pun-
ishment in the hereafter): ‘a Jan yatamannaw-hu (And they will never desire it)’
(al-Baqarah, 2.95), together with His saying about the people of the Fire in
general: “They will cry: “O Malik, would that your Lord put an end to us’”(a/-
Lukhruf, 43.77).
The answer is that such restricting of the negation of seeing to the life of
this world rather than the next world is an assertion—for which no evidence
is established—because the attributes of Allah do not change (from one
realm to another), and His Majesty does not alter (from one realm to an-
other). The foregoing proofs and evidence to establish that seeing Him is
contrary to His Majesty suffice to falsify this assertion.
The claim that the phrasing of the answer does not convey universality
of negation is rejected by observing that the answer was not otherwise than
75
The First Discussion
in accordance with the question. What reason can grasp is that the negation
of the seeing taking place for Mis’, upon him be peace, is decisive and final
in respect of the negation of its taking place for any one else. For if it had
been possible, then Misa was more deserving of that for the qualities Allah
specified in him, and the virtues that He gave him, such as his being chosen
with the message and (with Allah’s addressing him in direct) speech. So this
 is the clear answer, there is no dust on it—in contrast with ‘You cannot see
 My form’ or ‘You cannot see My location’ as response to ‘Show me Your
 form’ or ‘Show Me your location’ because that requires demonstration of
 form and location.
As for permanence: it varies with the variation of states and of places of
 the addressee. Since the Jews were fond of the life of this world and fully in-
clined to it, and they were afraid of death because of the punishment that
they expected after it—let alone their avarice to fulfill their desires in this
 world—the permanence of their not wishing for death was confined to this
 world. And since such states do not touch the Essence of Allah, and altera-
tion and transformation are not allowed for the attributes of Allah, the nega-
tion of seeing which is contradictory to His Majesty was eternal and perma-
nent, whether the negation is indicated with /a or any other particle.
Ibn al-Khatib Zamalkant’s distinction between /an and /a is no more than
a matter of his personal taste. The meanings of language are not derived
from individual tastes. Only those quotations are referred to, which are af-
firmed from the tongues of its people who are the sources of its explanation.
The confirmed proofs of that indicate the opposite of what Ibn al-Khatib has
said. It is enough that the Quran has used /an and /a to negate the same term,
as in His saying ‘“/an_yafamannawna-hi (they shall not wish for it)’ (a/-Bagarah,
2.95) and His saying “/a@ yafamannawna-hii (they shall not long for it)’ (a+
 Jumi‘ah, 62.7). And the negation with /an of the ability of the mushrikiin to
bring the like of any surah of the Quran, and of the ability of their gods to
create even a fly, in His saying: ‘wa /an taf‘alii (and you shall not do so)’ (a+
Bagarah, 2.24), and His saying: ‘inna /-ladhina tad‘tina min ditni L-lahi lan yakhluqu
dhubaban (indeed those whom you call upon beside Allah shall not create a
fly)’ (al-Hajj, 22.73) while it is known firmly that this negation is eternal and
permanent.
3His saying, Exalted is He: ‘It is not fitting for a man that Allah should
speak to him except by inspiration or from behind a veil.’ (a/Shura,
42.51)
‘A?ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, cited that verse in proof of the
impossibility of seeing, as we saw above. The reasoning here is that Allah has
negated that anyone can hear speech from Him, except in the ways He has
76
On the seeing of Allah
stated. This negation has been emphasized by placing it on Aana (in ‘na ma
kana t-bashiri’) to emphasize the impossibility of what is negated happening.
This negation is not bound to a time as we have explained in regard to His
saying “the faculties of sight cannot reach to Him’. Because that is what befits
the Majesty of Allah. If His seeing had been possible then His speaking too
would have been possible by other means (than those indicated in the verse).
4The severe criticism and harsh reproof that is presented in the verses of
the Book against the Jews and mushriktin who asked to see Allah, with a
warning to Muslims against falling into what they had fallen into.
An example is His saying, Exalted is He: ‘The people of the Book ask
you to cause a book to descend to them from heaven. Indeed, they asked
Musa for an even greater than that, for they said: “Show us Allah plainly”.
Then they were seized for their presumption by thunder and lightning’ (a/-
Nisa, 4.153), and His saying, Exalted is He: ‘Those who do not hope to meet
Us say: “Why are not the angels sent down to us?” or “Why do we not see
our Lord?” Indeed they have an arrogant conceit of themselves and mighty is
the insolence of their impiety’ (a/-Furgan, 25.21). That is followed by the
explanation of their state when they will see the angels: ‘The Day they sce the
angels, no joy will there be for the sinners that Day, and the angels will say:
“There is a barrier forbidden to you altogether” (25.22). And He remained
silent on the seeing of Allah, Exalted is He, because of the great obduracy
and terrible unbelief that is in asking for it. And His saying: ‘Would you
question your Messenger as Musa was questioned before? But whoever
changes from faith to unbelief has strayed without doubt from the even way’
(al-Bagarah, 2.108). The reasoning from that is the explicit indication in this
criticism that those who asked for the seeing had exceeded all bounds, and
hurled themselves into the barriers until they stepped on forbidden ground
and essayed an impossible thing. That is why the Children of Israel were
punished with the thunder on account of this question, whereas they were
not punished with it on account of all the other terrible things that they did,
even their worshipping the calf.
If it is said that the criticism is not over the question itself but over ob-
duracy (the determined refusal to obey):
The answer is that He criticized their obduracy in every matter but made
their asking to see Him greater than all the rest, as in His saying: ‘Indeed they
asked Musa for an even greater than that’. How often it happened that the
nations became arrogant before their Prophets, challenging them on the mat-
ter of (miraculous) signs—as is known from /awafur reports—but their pun-
ishment for this demand (for miracles) was not like the punishment of the
Children of Israel for their asking for the seeing. It is enough that Musa,
77
The First Discussion
upon him be peace, was seized by thunder merely for asking it, though he did
not intend but to turn them away from falsehood and convince them of the
truth. As soon as he returned to consciousness from this thunder he has-
tened to glorify Allah, to repentance, to apology, and to declaration of the
belicf he held in pure transcendence.
The Children of Israel themselves—regardless of their continual obdu-
 racy and their insistence on disputatiousness and defiance—were not sub-
 jected to this terrifying punishment except over this question.
 Evidence from the Sunnah
 As for the Sunnah, there are the following proofs and evidence:
 1
 Both Imams al-Bukhari and Muslim and others have narrated from Abt
 Musa Ash‘ari that the Prophet, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah,
 said: “Two gardens are of silver, their pots and whatever is in them; two
 gardens are of gold, their pots and whatever is in them. There will not be
 between the people and their looking to their Lord but the mantle of Majesty
 on His Face in the Garden of Eden.’ The reasoning from this is its
 explicitness about their not seeing Allah because of the impediment of the
 mantle of Majesty between them and seeing. Majesty is an Essential attribute
 of Allah. It is not possible that He will retire from it as He does not retire
 from Power, Knowledge, Will, Life, Hearing and Seeing. For if He retires
 from it for any moment then He will be turning from it to its opposite, that
is lowliness, which is contrary to His being Lord. Whoever claims His seeing
in the face of this denial of it—it necessarily entails taking away from the
Majesty of the High Essence.
The relation of mantle to Majesty in the hadith is like that of direct and
indirect similitude in dbababu /-asil and /nyjayn al-ma? in the saying of the poet:
The wind ts playing with the branches of the tree
While the evening gold (dhababu -asih is flowing in the silver of the water (ijayn al-
wa).
There is in the Jadith a hint of likening Majesty to a mantle in the manner of
similitude without ‘like’ (¢ashbih al-baligh), as has come to us in the hadith qudst,
His saying: ‘Majesty is My mantle, and Greatness is My wrap.’ This does not
mean anything other than that Allah, Exalted is He, is qualified with Majesty
and Greatness as we are qualified with our mantles and wraps. So it is not for
anyone to be arrogant and dispute Him in either quality. This is clear from
the end of the adit: ‘Whoever disputes Me in these, I will enter him into the
Fire, and it touches Me not.’
78
On the secing of Allah
If it is said: Why do you interpret azar in support of negation of secing,
 while you interpret it in support of affirmation of waiting, as you have said
 on the verse of a/-Qiyamah and the hadith of Suhayb?
The answer is that the interpretation of mazar there as waiting is because
that sense is the one that agrees with rational contexts, and is in accordance
 with the context of the verse and the hadith. We do not prevent the interpre-
 tation of azar as seeing if that is the sense intended by it. It is a word that
 can have more than one meaning. The associated contexts determine the
(appropriate) meaning. The context here requires the interpretation of nagar
 as seeing. The /adith implies that the friends have arrived at the house of Al-
 lah’s honour, because of His respecting them and making them near to Him,
 and elevating their ranks to the point where there is not left any kind of hon-
 our they are familiar with but they have received it—except seeing. Nor are
 they prevented from seeing as a form of deprivation, but because it is con-
 tradictory to the attribute of Majesty particular to the greatness of Allah. In
 this way the texts of negation and affirmation are harmonized. The ‘faces’ in
 the verse mean the persons, according to the experts even among those who
 affirm the seeing.
This hadith has become troublesome for the believers in seeing. To de-
 fend their belief, they have made an effort to interpret it in a way that is re-
 fused by sound nature, and rejected by non-corrupted taste, like the state-
 ment of Hafiz Ibn Hajar interpreting al-Kirmani’s response to the difficulty:
 “There is an ellipsis in this speech which is supplied—after the words in His
 saying “except the mantle of Majesty’—‘‘so He will favour them by lifting
 this mantle”, so that the felicity of seeing Him will happen for them.’6?
By Allah, following the like of these far-fetched interpretations will lead
 to not abiding by the meaning of any text, on account of the possibility of
 understanding that the negation of something can be changed into an affir-
 mation, and the affirmation of it into a negation.
The great scholar and author of a/-Manar has rightly observed, after cit-
ing the interpretation just quoted: ‘In it there is an artificial effort that is not
proper for the Auffaz of the Sunnah to be paying attention to, when they re-
ject interpretations comparable to that or better than that made by Jahmis
and Muttazilis.’6
Hafiz has interpreted the mantle in this badith as the veil mentioned in
the hadith of Suhayb. After discussion of points for and against, he says: “The
implication of the /adith of the chapter is that the requirement of the Honour
of Allah and His Exaltedness is that no one can see Him. But His Mercy to
67)Fath al-bari (al-Matbah al-Salafiyyah), 13:432.
68al-Manar (Maktabat al-Qahirah, 4" edition), 9:139.
79
The First Discussion
 believers requires that He will show them His Face as a perfection of favour.
 When the obstacle is removed He will treat them against the demandsof
 Majesty (i.e. prepare them so that their faculties are capable of beholding it).
 Thereby He has lifted from them a veil that prevented the seeing.’6
The author of a/-Manar quotes this statement by Hafiz, but makes no
 comment on it of any kind, though it is no less artificial an effort than the
 previous one. The hadith does not convey that the prevention of seeing Allah
is because of something within His servants, such as the fear on account of
 which their eyes bow down, or their hearts are awed. Rather, it conveys that
the prevention of seeing is for a reason particular to the Essence of Allah,
that is, His attribute of Majesty. The attributes of Allah do not contradict
each other, as they are not contradicted by His actions. So Hafiz’s saying—
‘He will treat them against the demands of Majesty—is one at which shud-
der the skins of those who fear their Lord. It is far-fetched indeed that Allah,
Glorified is He, should do what is not required by His Essential attributes.
How, while these attributes are the greatest and the most worthy to be pro-
claimed and praised? We do not need here to repeat the earlier discussion
about the hadith of Suhayb.
2
The badith that has been narrated by Muslim from Aba Musa Ash‘ari He
says:
 The Messenger of Allah, upon him be peace, stood among us with five words, he
said: ‘{1] Verily, Allah, Exalted is He, does not sleep, and that is not appropriate for
 Him. [2] He lowers the Balance and raises it. [3] To Him are carried aloft the actions
 done in the night before the actions done in the day, and the actions of the day be-
fore the actions of the night. [4] His veil is “light”—and in one narration—“fire”’.
[5] If He lifts the veil then the light of His Face will burn whatever it reaches of His
 creauion.
The reasoning from this adith on the impossibility of seeing is what it
 requires of belief in the impossibility of the sight of His servants reaching to
 Him, Glorified is He. The Prophet, upon him be peace and the blessings of
 Allah, only intended by this sadith to illustrate the impossibility of human in-
 tellect reaching to the reality of the Sacred Essence, or people’s eyes stretch-
 ing to It—and seeing is usually a means of reaching to reality. The author of
 al-Manar—in spite of the abundance of his knowledge and the depth of his
 understanding—has missed this meaning, and interpreted the hadith accord-
ing to a materialistic method which is not appropriate to the glorification of
Allah, Exalted is He.
69°Fath al-bari (al-Matbah al-Salafiyyah), 13:4353.
80
On the seeing of Allah
In summary what he says is that it has recently been proven that electric-
 ity, manyof whosewondersmankindhave witnessed, is the origin of the
 matter of the whole universe and its stages. And this electricity is light or the
 source of light, and the motion that creates light or is created by light. Since
 the Creator and Fashioner, the One Glorified above the shortcomings of His
 creatures, none of which is completed except by Him, has been veiled from
 them by the light, you can understand that electricity, and everything of the
 material world for which it has been made as the origin, is the veil preventing
 the seeing of the Lord, Exalted is He, in that material world. The lifting of
 this veil will not happen but in Paradise. The lifting of the veil is what will
 cause the people of Paradise to reach to the highest and most perfect stages
 of knowledge of Him. It is seeing without any understanding of how and
 without encompassing.”
This exegesis, though its author claims that it is in agreement with the
 way of the sa/af and the evidence of modern science, is rejected on two
 grounds:
The first is that it requires that the High Essence is surrounded by His
 creatures, for electricity is one of His non-visible creations, and it is existing
 in this earthly world. Whereas one group of those who affirm the seeing—
 among them the author of a/Manar, according to the belief that he has
 held—limit the Essence of Allah, Exalted is He, to the direction ‘above’, and
 affirm His abiding over the Throne.
The second is that electricity being the origin of the universe is not a
 confirmed reality. Rather, it is a hypothesis. Hypotheses have no foundation
 except conjecture. So it cannot be allowed to interpret the confirmed texts in
 the light of hypotheses. Moreover, there is the danger in so doing of subject-
ing the texts to modification with the modification and mutation of such hy-
 potheses.
Finally, we would say that the sadith is an indirect expression of the im-
possibility of the creature reaching to the reality of the Essence of the Crea-
 tor with either sense or thought. Examples of such indirect expressions are
 known in the speech of the Messenger, upon him be peace and the blessings
of Allah, and indeed also in the words of Allah, Exalted is He. In the hadith
gudsi is: ‘When I love him I become his ear that he listens with, and his eye
that he sees with, and his hand that he grasps with, and his foot that he walks
with.’ If we are bound with the bonds of externals and confined to the nar-
rowness of the words, without turning our eyes and minds to wider goals and
further ends, then it becomes necessary for us to affirm that Allah, Glorified
is He, is Himself literally the ear of the worshipper beloved to Him, his eye,
70Hashiyat al-Manar 9(1), 167-68 (, Maktabat al-Qahirah, 4"" edition).
81
The First Discussion
his hand and his leg. This is something rejected by the belief of everyone
who believes in Allah. When you have understood this, you must know that
 the ‘light or ‘fire’ mentioned in the padith of Abu Musa are not sensory.
 Rather, they are an indirect expression of the attributes of His Greatness and
 Majesty that are manifested for those who seek knowledge of Him, and that
 amaze with the beauty of His Greatness and the manifestation of Perfection,
 and (an indirect expression also) of what may befall those who are journeying
 to Him of misguidance and going astray—from which we seek refuge in Al-
 lah. If the interpretation chosen by the author of a/-Manar is allowed, then it
 will be appropriate for the believers in wabdat al-wujiid (unity of being) to in-
 terpret His saying—‘Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth’ (a/-Nuar,
 24.35)—as meaning that His Essence is the lights that appear to us in the
 higher and lower worlds like the sun, the moon and other celestial bodies.
 Thereupon they will make from this verse a proof for their error, and an evi-
 dence for their unbelief. Exalted is Allah from whatever the inventors say.
 3
 The badith that Muslim has narrated from Aba Dharr that the Prophet, upon
 him be the best of peace and the blessings of Allah, when he was asked about
 seeing his Lord, said: ‘Light. How can I see Him?’
 The reasoning from this is that the Prophet, upon him be peace and the
 blessings of Allah, declared the occurrence of seeing impossible by saying
 ‘How can I see Him?’. That is proof of the impossibility of seeing Him, Ex-
 alted is He.
Conclusion:
The outcome of the Discussion
After this presentation of the subject of seeing Allah, Exalted is He, in this
world and in the next world, and review of the arguments of those who deny
and those who affirm, and the objections and their answers, I do not think,
respected reader, that you will doubt that those who deny have held the
stronger, the more sound and prudent view. It is clear from the lucidity of
their arguments and the safety of their opinion that they are free of any influ-
ence from the Jews and mushrikiin who asked to see Allah. Moreover, that
stance is more blessed in its coherence with the original rule about the attrib-
utes of Allah, Exalted is He, namely His non-likeness to His creatures:
‘Nothing is like unto Him, He is All-Hearing, All-Seeing’. If you are not con-
vinced by what I have mentioned, then at least you should be convinced that
82
On the seeing of Allah
those who hold this view adhere to the foundation of Allah’s Book and His
Messenger’s Sunnah. Therefore, there is no reason to connect them to unbe-
lief or misguidance and cut the relations which join them to the Muslim s-
mah. Before I leave this subject, I would like to put before you two matters,
that may perhaps succeed with your thinking and reflection:
The first is that you will find in the Book of Allah those favours that He
has promised the believers in the hereafter mentioned in the clearest phrases
and repeated in different places so as to arouse longing for them. But you
will not find any mention of seeing except what those who affirm interpret
on the basis of the word ‘more’ or something of that sort. The seeing is not
mentioned except ambiguously. Do you think it comprehensible—if the see-
ing were proved, and it is greater than any bounty in Paradise—that this mere
slight hint shouldsuffice, whereasfoodanddrink, accommodation, mar-
rilages, gardens, rivers and other pleasures and agreeable things, are men-
tioned time after time with clear phrases that leave no scope for any other in-
terpretation?
The second is the story of His servant and friend, Ibrahim, that Allah
has related in His Book, while Ibrahim is establishing the argument against
his people who worshipped celestial bodies. To declare the voidness of their
divinity, he derived evidence from their actual state, because they moved
from one state to the other, visible at one time and hidden at another. It is
known that being hidden they had not perished, rather the horizon hid them
from sight. Is there not in this a proof that what is apparent to the sight, then
disappears, cannot be fit for Godhood and Lordship? Because the One Who
merits being Lord and God cannot pass through states, changing from one
to another. Then how will it be for us if we affirm for Allah this attribute that
Ibrahim has rebuked in his divinely inspired and clear argument against his
people? How then do we claim that He will appear for the people of Paradise
who will see Him, and afterwards He will veil Himself from them until the
time comes for the next seeing?
I do not think, respected reader, when you reflect on these two matters,
together with what has been written in the foregoing discussion, that you will
be in any doubt as to the impossibility of seeing Him, and the safety of belief
of those who think it. I do not wish to prolong the matter for you, for the
wise grasp the realities clearly with a little light: ‘Who is not benefited by little
wisdom, may be harmed by more.’
83
THE SECOND DISCUSSION:
ON THE QUR?AN’S BEING CREATED
This discussion consists of an Introduction, four Chapters and a Conclusion.
The Second Discussion
Introduction
This contains an introduction to (the meaning of the terms used in this Dis-
cussion) ‘creation’, the ‘Quran’, the distinction between the Quran and
other revealed books and ‘kalam al-nafs?.TM
The dictionary meaning of a/-&halg (creation) is origination without any
precedent. In the terminology of the people of religion, it means bringing the
 thing from not-being to being. In this sense it is one of those actions of Allah
which are particular to Him and which cannot emanate from any other than
 Him. What has come in the Quran like ‘And behold, when you created out
 of clay, like the figure of a bird’ (a/-Ma?idah, 5.110) recounts an incident that
 happened before the strict legal meaning of being creator was made particu-
 lar to Allah, Exalted is He.
The Quran is (1) the speech (2) revealed (3) in its letters and words (4)
 to the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah,
 which is (5) inimitable in its combinations and meanings, and (6) narrated
 from him through firm /aatur (i.e. ‘many from many’) traditions.
(1) ‘Speech’ is the general category, and what follows it are particulariza-
 tions to exclude unintended meanings. (2) Saying ‘revealed’ excludes normal
 human speech, prose or verse, for Allah creates it in their brains, and makes
 it flow on their tongues. (3) Saying ‘in its letters and words’ excludes Pro-
 phetic Aadiths, because the construction of these /adiths in letters and words
 goes back to the Prophets who uttered these sayings. The words thereof were
 not revealed to them; rather, the meanings were revealed to them. (4) Saying
 ‘to the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah’
 excludes all the divine books revealed to other Prophets, like the scriptures
 of Ibrahim, of Musa, the Torah, the Injil (Gospel), and the Psalms. (5) Saying
 ‘inimitable’ excludes those divine (gudsi) badiths which, even assuming their
 fawatur, were not revealed to be inimitable as was the Quran. And (6) by
 specifying the condition of fawatur, the individual readings have been ex-
cluded, because they are not given the same status as the Qur'an.
As for the difference between kalam al-nafsi and the Quran and other
revealed Books: ka/am al-nafsi is an Essential attribute of Allah by which His
perfection is affirmed, and shortcoming is negated of Him, for affirmation of
speech is a negation of its opposite, namely dumbness. In the same way,
71['Translator’s note: Literally ‘specch of the Self or ‘inward speech’, kala al-nafs7 is used
throughout in the technical sense of ‘expression of the Divine Will without form, i.e.
without words or sounds’
86
On the Quran’s being created
 affirmation of knowledge is negation of ignorance, affirmation of power is
 negation of impotence, affirmation of hearing is negation of deafness,
 affirmationof seeing is negationof blindness,and affirmationof life is
 negation of death.
Mut‘tazilis hold that it is unnecessary to affirm Speaking as an eternal
 attribute of Allah, since the attribute of Power suffices to negate dumbness
 of Him. Perhaps some of our scholars (also) have held this opinion. Those of
 our scholars who have affirmed alam al-nafsi agree with Ash‘aris on its
differing from other kinds of speech. It is not letters, nor sounds, nor
 sentences, nor words, and it is abiding with the Essence of Allah, Exalted is
He. The intention behind this is not other than to negate dumbness of Him,
Exalted is He.
The Muttazilis who considered it sufficient to affirm the attribute of
Power for Him rather than affirm Speaking as a distinct eternal attribute,
thought that the Essential attributes always and only imply negation of their
opposites. Speech is not an opposite of dumbness such that dumbness is ne-
gated by affirming it. The opposite of speech is silence. For it happens that a
non-speaking person is not dumb; rather, he is not non-silent.
Imam Ibn Abi Nabhan, may Allah have mercy on them, has nicely ex-
plained the meaning of speech that is void of sounds and letters in a way ac-
ceptable to reason. The summary of what he says is: If you would understand
the reality of this speech, then consider the sovereign of your limbs and con-
troller of your body, namely the nervous system which is the centre of the
reasoning faculty and control. You will find it commanding and forbidding in
its kingdom—the whole of your body—with a speech which is transmitted
by the means that Allah has made between it and the limbs, glands and cells
of the body. There is no part in the body however small where any of its
commands or prohibitions can reach, but that part hastens immediately to
obey. That is because of the unseen power and hidden secret that Allah has
entrusted to this sovereign. When this sign is clear in Allah’s creatures, then
what do you think of the Creator, the All-Knowing, from whose grip nothing
of the universe can flee, and from whose overwhelming and control no mi-
nor or major thing can escape? That is what is intended by His saying, ‘For to
anything which We have willed, We but say “Be” and it is’ (a+Nabh/, 16.40).
The usage of ‘speech’ for something like that, something not heard and
not read, is known to Arabs. An example ts the saying of Akhtal:
The discourse (&hiuthah) of a speaker should not delight you unless it is original with
the inner language (Aa/am). Indeed, speech is in the heart, and the tongue has only
been made a sign of the heart.
As for the revealed books: they are a speech combined from the alpha-
betical letters, read with the tongues, written on slates, preserved in the
87
The Second Discussion
hearts, heard with the ears, revealed by Allah through the Angel to His cho-
sen servants. It is distinguished from all other speech by not issuing from
human faculties, though it is combined of the same letters that are the com-
ponents of their speech, and compounded of the same words that are used in
their addresses. Each part of it has a beginning and an end. Allah has en-
trusted to mankind the ability of reciting it, listening to it, writing it and
 memorizing it. Regardless of all that, it is not allowed to refer (its authorship)
 to mankind, collectively or individually. Because Allah alone brought it with
 His power from non-existence into existence, then He revealed it with His
 knowledge, from a/-/awh al-mabfnz (the Preserved Tablet) on the hearts of His
 Prophets, and to the intellects of those of His servants whom He has hon-
 oured with its memorization.
Allah has particularized some of it—namely, the Quran—with an un-
seen spirit that He breathed into it, so that minds are struck with wonder at
the secret of His Lordship that became manifested for them. Comparable to
that is Allah’s creation of man from earth, Exalted is He, in a way that
amazes the mind because of the sensual and non-sensual faculties that Allah
has placed in man, which is connected to this unseen secret of Allah’s having
breathed His spirit into this creation.
Imam Ibn Abi Nabhan, may Allah have mercy on both (father and son),
has explained nicely the reason for referring this Word (Aa/am/) to Allah, Ex-
alted is He. He says:
Consider: if Allah, Exalted is He, wills to address His servants with the truest and
most eloquent speech other than this which He has revealed to them, is He not
powerful to create it written with the Pen of His Power on a/-/awh al-mabfriz? Then
He orders one of His angels in heaven to descend with it to the heart of one of His
servants on earth who conveys it to the people, commanding them to recite it, write
it, and act upon its content. Certainly, whoever believes in Allah will not be in any
doubt about His power over it. Once the possibility of this has become clear to you,
say to whom [else] this speech will be referred [if not to Allah]? Will it be said that it
is the speech of the people who recite it, or the speech of the Messenger who has
conveyed it to them, or the speech of the Angel who has descended with it, or the
speech of the /a) where it has been written, or the speech of the Pen which has
 written it—or the speech of the Great Creator who has brought it from not-being
into being? What comes directly to the mind of every thinking person is that it is
impermissible to refer it, in fact, to anyone other than Him, Exalted is He.”
Shaykh al-Islam al-Muhaqgqiq al-Khalili, may Allah have mercy on him,
 has offered an explanation similar to that, at the end of which he says:
al-Mandar 9(1), 167-68 (Maktabat al-
 72Ibid, (with some explanatory changes) Hadshiyat
Qahirah, 4" edition).
88
On the Quran’s being created
 As for its being referred to Allah, Exalted is He, while it is being recited by us, ut-
 tered by our tongues with sounds, melodies, with letters and words issuing from us:
 here the rule is that every saying is referred to the one who [first] says it, not to the
 one who rehearses it, reading or chanting it. The explanation of it is that if someone
 says about the wu ‘allaqab of Imrv? al-Qays, or about the gasidas of Aba Tammam or
 al-Buhturi or others, that they are his own speech, referring them to himself because
 he reads them out, it will be a serious fault on his part. Or, as you find with compo-
 sitions referred to the people of knowledge—you refer them to the one who com-
 posed them, even if you did not hear him uttering them. It is possible that the writer
 never spoke [aloud] what he wrote. Or, as is narrated from the Prophet, upon him
 be peace and the blessings of Allah, that he said to a man: ‘Recite to me your verses
 which you said last night, and which were not uttered by your tongue, nor heard by
 your ears.’ Then the man said: ‘I bear witness that you are Allah’s Messenger. Surely
 I did say those verses, though my tongue did not utter them, nor my ears hear
 them.’ Then he recited the verses to him. So the Quran, however He originated it,
 and by which He challenged the eloquent [to produce the like of it], and made them.
 powerless in the face of it, cannot be referred but to Him.73
And when we speak of the creation of the Quran, we refer only to this
 Quran that is recited by the tongue, written in the mushafs, as defined earlier.
 We do not speak of Aalam al-nafsi. There is no evidence from the Book itself
 or from the Sunnah naming kalam al-nafsi as Quran. It is only Ash‘aris who
 have used this term for the Quran. There is no dispute over adopting a par-
 ticular term—but in adopting it they did not refer to any authoritative proof.
That is why we have not relied on it. We affirm the attribute of speech for
 Allah as Imam Diy@ al-Din ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Thamini, may Allah have mercy on
 him, says in his Ma‘alimr:
 Know that specch is sometimes referred to Allah in the meaning of negating dumb-
ness of Him, and it is then to be understood as an Essential attribute in the way of
 such attributes. And sometimes it is referred to Him in the sense of its being one of
 His actions, and it is then to be understood as such. So the meaning of His being
Speaking, according to the first interpretation, is that He is not dumb; and according
to the second that He is a Creator of speech.”4
What it is compulsory to establish in the mind when discussing the crea-
tion of the Quran is that by ‘Quran’ is not meant Allah’s knowledge of the
Books that He has sent down to His Messengers, for no-one will doubt the
eternity of Allah’s knowledge, Exalted is He, of these Books, except those
who hold the opinion of the origination and contingency of His attributes—
and they are not worthy of consideration. The point is that the eternity of
His Knowledge does not imply the eternity of the known. Allah, Glorified is
73Tambid qawaGd al-iman (Oman: Wizarat al-Turath al-Qawmi wa |-Thagffah,Ist edition)
2:10—11.
4Ma‘alim al-din (Oman: Wizarat al-Turath al-Qawmi wa |-Thaqifah, Ist edition) 2:9.
89
The Second Discussion
He, has eternal knowledge of the speech of mankind, as He has knowledge
of His speech, and knowledge of all His creatures, in the same way that He
has knowledge of what has happened, what will happen, and of what will not
happen—the how it would have been if it had happened. But that does not
in any way necessarily mean the eternity of any of these objects of knowl-
edge. That is why some of the sa/af said that the Quran is originated, and Al-
lah’s knowledge of it is eternal. In this regard al-Muhaqqigq al-Khalili, may Al-
lah have mercy on him, says:
Allah’s Knowledge, which is among the attributes of His Essence, has been when
 there was no Torah, no Gospel, no Psalms, no ScripturesandnoQuran.This
 knowledge is now the same as it was before. Because the Essential attributes are not
 subject to increase, alteration or change in any way. Only the effects of, and india-
 tions to, these attributes change, grow or diminish, according to the renewaland
 origination of the known. All the effects are created. Allah, Exalted is He, says:
 ‘Then behold the effects (athar) of Allah’s Mercy—how He gives life to the earth
 after its death’ (a/-Ryim, 30.50).
 The revealed books are in reality indications to His Knowledge which is an attribute
 of His Essence. They are not the attribute of the Knowledge itself which is a quality
 of HiseternalEssence.Otherwise,the Torah,Gospel,Psalms,theScrollsof
 Ibrahim and Musa, the Quran and all the Revelations, would be eternal, existing in
 eternity with Allah, Exalted is He, with their created, originated words in abundance.
 So many creatures would be eternal, existing in eternity alongwith Allah the Eternal.
 That is invalid, because there is no eternal other than Him, and everything other
 than Him is originated. It is not possible that the Quran should be eternal with Him
 without its existing in form, written or recited in its words. For that would mean
 believing in the existence of a reality which is not existing, which is impossible. Thus
 it is known, necessarily, that the Essential Eternal is His knowledge of the Qur'an,
 Torah and Gospel, as His knowledge of other creatures is also eternal. Because it is
 an Essential attribute of the Eternal, the Ever-Living, the Necessary of Existence,
 Exalted and Glorified is He. That is something that can never be disputed.75
From the preceding discussion the respected reader will have clearly
 understood the difference between kalam al-nafsi and the speech revealed to
Allah’s servants, as also the distinction betweenthe Revelation and Allah’s
 knowledge of it. Similarly, it will have become clear why this revealed speech
is referred only to Allah and why it is impermissible to refer it to any other
 than Him, Exalted is He, except in a metaphorical way as Allah has referred
it to Jibril in His saying ‘Indeed this is the word of a most honourable
messenger’ (a/-Hagqqah, 69.40; a/-Takuwir, 81.19).
78Tambid qawa“id al-iman (Oman: Wizarat al-Turith al-Qawmi wa 1-Thaqafah,1st edition)
2:9-10.
90
On the Quran’s being created
Chapter 1
On the differences among the wwmah on
the revealed Word being eternal or created
 From among the issues which preoccupied the wmah and created among
 them a great dispute, and divided its groups into different factions is the issue
 of the revealed speech of Allah: is it originated or eternal? This dispute has
 driven them to discuss kalam al-nafsi and dispute about affirmation or nega-
 tion of it. I have no wish in this book to gather the opinions of the disputing
 parties, or to present proofs and evidence for and against each opinion, ex-
 cept insofar as I am forced to do so in order to prepare the ground for the
 explanation of what the Ibadis’ critics have criticized of the Ibadis’ belief in
 the creation of the Quran revealed to our master Muhammad, upon him be
 the best of peace and the blessings of Allah.
You have seen, respected reader, in the Introduction to this Discussion,
 that among the groups of this “mah ate those who deny kalam al-nafsi alto-
gether—namely, the Mut‘tazilis—deeming it sufficient, in order to negate
dumbness of Allah, to affirm His attribute of Power. As you have seen, our
people, the Ash‘aris, and the majority of the wmah, agree on the affirmation
of kalam al-nafsi. You have surely taken good note of the distinction made by
our people between Aalam al-nafsi and the Quran and other revealed books,
as I have quoted from the author of a-Ma‘alim and Imam Ibn Abi Nabhan.
Likewise, I hope you will have taken clear note of the difference between the
revelation and Allah’s knowledge of it, as I have quoted for you from al-
Muhagqigq al-Khalilt.
That and the other distinctions have become confused for many people.
Their confusion led them to dispute about the Quran: is it created or not-
created? The fire of this fina was ignited by those disguised converts to the
ummah who had adopted Islam in order to satisfy some secret desires of their
hearts. The most important of these desires was to ignite the fire of /r/na
among the groups of the “mah, dividing it into parties and factions. ‘Each
party rejoices in that which is with itself (a4-Ma?miniin, 23.53). Perhaps at the
head of these was Aba Shakir al-Disani, about whom it has been said: he was
a Jew who pretended Islam, in the same way as did, among his ancestors,
Saul, the (former) Jew, who divided the followers of Christ, upon him be
peace, by igniting the fire of dispute among them.
The first group of the righteous ancestors passed on to their Lord be-
fore their ears heard any sound of any saying on this subject. They were in
91
The Second Discussion
consensus on the point that Allah is the Creator of everything, and that
whatever is other than Him is created, and the Quran—like other revealed
Books—is Allah’s speech, His Revelation and sending down. This was the
agreed statement of Muslim scholars in Omanin the time of Imamal-
Muhanna b. Jayfar, when a wave of dispute on this issue covered them, a dis-
pute whose gales had swept the city of Basra, at that time rife with different
ideological trends. The Omanis had close relations with Basra because of the
 strong cultural and economic links that bound them. I wish they had stopped
 at that limit, indeed I wish all Muslims had been content with this amount of
 belief and statement on the subject. But caprice has grown stronger on this
 issue, and those passions have grown stronger which kindled the fire of this
jitna in whose heat the Muslims are burning.
The reason for all that is extremism. The thing with extremism is that it
 inspires its opposite. The beginning of it was the feud of ah/ al-hadith and
 whoever followed their way with the rationalists (like the Mu‘tazilis and oth-
 ers) and their inciting the authorities and the people against the latter. Later,
 when power shifted in favour of the Mu‘tazilis—at the end of the time of
 Ma’miun, then in the time of Mu‘tasim—they exploited their opportunity to
take revenge on ah/ al-hadith, and went to extremes in killing and persecution.
Hearts filled with hatred. The issue took on emotional colouring in the dis-
cussion. Each group started abusing the other, and accusing, and charging
 with bid‘a (heretical innovation) and deviation.
Since our people, the people of istigamah, did not participate in any of
those /i/vas, and did not mix with those hatreds, they did not fall under the
 influence of passions. So their discussion of the subject was more objective,
because their starting-point was proof and evidence, not the reality of hatreds
and ill-will.
As for the Ibadis of the western Islamic world: on account of their being
far removed from those events, they did not hold back in proclaiming the
right opinion from the beginning, as a declaration of the truth accompanied
 by referral to evidence. As for the people of the east: among them, their
 greatest imam, Muhammad b. Mahbib, may Allah have mercy on him, tried
to proclaim what his brothers, the imams and leaders of the western regions,
 had proclaimed. But Muhammad b. Hashim opposed him vigorously in that
 matter, so he turned away from it. Then came their agreed statement, as I
 mentioned above, when they gathered in the city of Dama (present-day al-
 Sayb). This was: to be content with what the ancestors of this swmah had
 held, and to be silent in respect of declaring either the creationor non-
 creation of the Qur'an.
I do not think they adopted this posture of keeping silent except to shut
 the door to, and to turn away from, oppressors. For their most conspicuous
92
On the Quran’s being created
 characteristic, may Allah have mercy on them, and their strongest principle,
were to fight wrong-doing and to resist oppressors, without being swayed by
which people were oppressing and which were victims of oppression.
May Allah reward their profound and enlightened insights and pure
 hearts.”
This dimension of their thinking remained hidden from the eyes of
 those who came after them. The later people thought their silence on declar-
ing the creation of the Quran was because of their belief in its eternity.
Therefore, the later people declared the opposite (i.e. the non-creation of the
 Quran) and attacked those who held its being created. That led them to a
 strange contradiction, as you will see (below) when you read what was writ-
 ten on the subject at that time, like the first volume of Bayan al-sharS the first
volume of a/-Kashf wa l-bayan and Diwan al-Imam Ibn al-Nadr.
Very often you will feel in what they wrote the effect of a strong reac-
 tion to the whna (persecution, inquisition)—it is manifested in what they
wrote about it, in what they said about the sufferers being heroes of the a-
mah, martyrs for true belief, who protected this true belief with their blood
and preserved it through their sacrifice. The impact of this heated emotional
rhetoric is reflected in everything that those who supported them in that po-
 sition have put together. This applies whether these supporters were from
among the eastern Ibadis or Ash‘aris or others. That line of thinking contin-
ued in the eastern Ibadi circle until there appeared from among the later
scholars of Oman those who, through their writing, opened the locks of con-
 fusion, and through their explanation removed the veils of doubt until the
eastern Ibadi position came to agree and cohere with the western Ibadi posi-
tion.
I investigated the reasons for the confusion on this issue which has gone
to the extent of harsh criticism by one group of Muslims against those who
believe in the creation of the Quran. I found this confusion to be owed to
two factors:
The first is confusion in their minds of the revealed Quran with alam
al-nafst by which negation of dumbness is intended.
76 = =JImam Nir al-Din al-Salimi thinks that the early eastern Ibadi imams’ non-declaration
of the creation of the Quran and other revealed books derives from their shunning the
Jahmis’ belief in the origination and contingency of Allah’s Essential attributes, because
they feared that this subject would be construed as a branch of that Jahmi belief: Tahfat
al-ayan (Oman: Wizarat al-Turith al-Qawmt wa |-Thaqafah), 1:156-57. This does not
contradict what I have said. It is not impossible that their non-declaration of the crea-
tion of the Quran was for both reasons.
93
The Second Discussion
The second is confusion of the Quran with Allah’s knowledge of it, Ex-
alted and Glorified is He—whereas the attributes of Speaking and Knowl-
edge are both eternal.
What was stated earlier in the Introduction about the distinction be-
tween the revealed speech and kal/am al-nafsi and between it and the Knowl-
edge of Allah, Exalted is He, suffice to remove this confusion and dissolve
this doubt. I add to it that speaking, in the dictionary sense and in conven-
tional usage, cannot but have the meaning of producing speech. When you
say ‘fakallama Mubammad (Muhammad spoke), your statement does not con-
vey anything except that he produced speech in the past. When you say ‘yafa-
kallanu? (he speaks/will speak) it does not mean other than his speaking in
 the present or future—the (Arabic) tense of the verb here is for both present
 and future. When you say ‘/akallam, ya fulaw (Speak, O So-and-So), it does
 not mean otherwise than requiring the addressee to speak.
What you say in any of those three phrases cannot mean that the speech
 is a quality abiding with the person of the speaker or the one from whom the
 speech is sought. Otherwise, what will be the meaning of your saying to
 someone: ‘Speak’, if the sought speech is abiding with him? Is not this asking
 for what is already there? This does not contradict the person’s recalling the
 speech before uttering it. The meaning of kalam al-nafsi differs from that of
 uttered speech. Besides that, it is clearly evident that when you report of
 someone that he spoke on Friday, or that he will speak on Saturday, your
 report does not convey (in the dictionary sense and in conventional usage)
 that he was speaker of that speech before the (specified) occasion. Allah has
 addressed His servants in their language that they know, and in their senses
 that they are familiar with. When He has informed them that He spoke to
 some one of His creatures at some time, His saying that will not convey
 other than that He produced speech at that time. Then there is no reason to
 make that address which the addressed person heard or read into an eternal
 attribute abiding with the Essence of Allah, Exalted is He. True, it is known
 to Allah, Glorified is He, since forever—(in the same way) as His knowledge
 (is eternal) of the speech of His creatures, its letters and words, combined in
 sentences or standing alone, words and meanings, the voice-box where the
 sounds are produced and the inflections of the words, its sounds and its
qualities.
Ibn al-Qayyim says:
The Quran, the clear Sunnah, reason, and the word of the salaf denote that Allah,
Glorified is He, speaks by His Will, as denoted by the fact that His being Speaking is
a quality abiding with His I'ssence, and is an attribute of [both] His Essence and His
action. Allah, Exalted is He, says: ‘For to anything that We have willed, We but say
“Be” and it is’ (a-Nuab/, 16.40); and His saying: When He intends a thing, His
command is “Be” and it is’ (asin, 36.82). When the verb [in 106.40] is strictly future
94
On the Quran’s being created
in meaning, moreover has ‘a’ [particle indicating an action to come] after it, and the
 verb-form [waqi/n| denotes present and future, and ‘4’ is made up of two letters,
 one before the other—then what this verse means is exactly what is understood by
 clear minds and natures. In the same way His saying: ‘When We decide to destroy a
township, W’e command those among them...” (a/-Isr@, 17.16) ‘al-amP, the com-
 mand—whether a natural or legal command is meant—is existing after it had not
 been. Another example is His saying: ‘Indeed We created you, and gave you shape,
 then We bade the angels to prostrate to Adam” (a/-1Vaf, 7.11). He only said ‘pros-
 trate’ to them after creating Adam and giving him shape. Another example is His
 saying, Exalted is He: “When Misa came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord
 addressed him, he said: “O my Lord show (Yourself) to me that I may look upon
 You.” He said: “By no means can you see Me...” ” (a/-/1 df, 7.14347). Thus, there
 are many proofs which denote that the speaking is the address that occurred on the
 particular occasion. An example is His saying: ‘So when he came to the fire, he was
 called from the right bank’ (a/-Qasas, 28.30). He who called him is He who said to
 him: ‘Indeed I am Allah, there is no god but Me, so worship Me’ (Taha, 20.14). An-
 other example is His saying: ‘The day when Allah will call to them and say’ (a/-Qasas,
 28.62, 65, 74). And His saying: ‘On the day when He will gather them all together
 and say to the angels, “W’as it you that these used to worship?” (Saba?, 34.40). And
 His saying: “The day when We will ask hell, “Are you filled to the full?” It will say,
 “are there any more to come?” (Qaf, 50.30). It is impossible that He, Glorified is
 He, will say to hell “Are you filled to the full?’ and it will say “Are there any more to
 come?” before the creation of hell and before its existence. Reflect well upon the
 texts of the Quranfrom its beginning to its end, and the texts of the Sunnah, espe-
 cially the badiths of Shafa‘ah and the hadith of Mi‘raj and others like ‘Do you know
what your Lord has said this night?’; and his saying: ‘In truth, Allah creates whatever
He wills of His creatures, and among what He has created is this: “Do not speak in
the prayer”; and his saying: ‘There is no-one among you, but his Lord will speak to
him; there will be no interpreter or doorman between him and Him.’
The true and trustworthy speaker has reported that He speaks to His angels in this
world. He asks them: ‘How have you left my servants?’. And He will speak to them
on the Day of Resurrection, and He will speak to His Prophets, His Messengers and
His believing servants on that Day, and He will speak to the people of Paradise in
Paradise, and He will greet them in their destinations, and that He says every night:
‘\W’ho asks Me so that I will give him? Who secks My forgiveness so that 1 forgive
him? Who forwards a loan to One not in need and not unjust?’ The Prophet, upon
him be peace and the blessings of Allah, said: ‘Indeed Allah made your father come
alive and spoke to him”. It is known that He spoke to him at that time, and said to
him: ‘Proclaim your wish to Me.’ And many many other texts from the Quran and
Sunnah.77
All that is an argument in our favour, confirming the correctness of
what we have proved, that the meaning of Allah’s being Speaking is produc-
7al-Sawa%q al-mursalah (Cairo: Matbat al-Imam), 429-30. See also: Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyab
(Riyadh: Matabi al-Riyad), 12:239—40.
95
The Second Discussion
ing speech on the occasion of it. Otherwise, what is the meaning of its being
conditioned with night, with day or with this world or the hereafter or other
times, if this speech had been eternal?
The distinction between Allah’s producing His speech and the servant's
producing his speech is twofold:
Firstly, the distinction between Allah’s actions and the servants’ actions.
The servant is not fully independent in producing his action, rather he earns
 it and Allah is the creator of it. Reward and punishment are based on the
 earning of the servant not on the creation of the Creator. The creature’s
 speech, like the rest of his actions, is created by Allah. The creature owns
 nothing but earning. It is not considered strange that Allah creates for the
servant, inside him, a speech, then makes it flow on the servant’s tongue
through his option; in the same way, it is not strange that Allah creates in the
servant a motion, then makes it flow through his option on the moving part
of his body. Allah’s speech—like all His actions such as bringing into exis-
tence and taking to non-existence, giving and preventing, raising and lower-
ing, expanding and narrowing, giving life and giving death—is not subject to
intervention by any of His creatures.
Secondly, there is the difference between Allah’s speaking and the
creature’s speaking, in the same way as His actions differ from His creature’s
actions. For example, Allah’s teaching His servants. Either this is an
inspiration that He places in the hearts of those He specifies therewith—for
example: “He taught Adam all the names’ (a/-Bagarah, 2.31); and ‘He taught
you what you did not know (a/-Nisa?, 4.113); and ‘He taught by the Pen,
taught man what he did not know’ (a/-‘A/aq, 96.4—5)—or it is a revelation
that He makes through His Messengers, in which is included teaching man
‘what he did not know’. As for people’s teaching one another—this is by
dictation and instruction.
In the same way, the meaning of ‘help’ when it is related to Allah differs
from when it is related to the servants. The servants’ helping one another is
giving support directly or through their wealth or military means. The help of
Allah is His creation of the causes of the servants’ victory and providing it to
them. For example, His saying, Exalted is He: ‘Indeed He helped you at
Badr’ (A/ ‘Imran, 3.123); and His saying: ‘Assuredly Allah will help those who
help Him’ (a/-Haj, 22.40). Similarly, (the notion of) ‘giving’: it can be related
to Allah and to the servants, and its meaning differs in the two relations.
From this you will realize that the difference between the two modes of
speaking derives from the difference of relation. If it is related to the Creator
its meaning will differ from when it is related to the creatures. If related to
creatures endowed with consciousness, namely mankind, it denotes an action
sharedby man’sexternalandinternalsenses, his brain, his lungs,his
96
On the Quran’s being created
bronchial tubes, his throat, his tongue, his teeth and lips, and by the force of
air issuing from the lungs and pushing out the sound. In this sense speaking
is inconceivable in respect of Allah, Glorified is He. It is not permissible to
interpret His being Speaking in this sense. Allah, Exalted is He, has explained
for us His speaking to His servants, where He says: ‘It is not fitting for a man
that Allah should speak to him, except by inspiration, or from behind a veil,
 or by the sending of a messenger to reveal, with Allah’s permission, what
 Allah wills, for He is Most High, Most Wise” (a/-Shira, 42.51). It is sufficient
for you that He, Glorified is He, has made inspiration speak from Him;
 moreover, being inspiration, it is Allah who specifies with it whoever He wills
from among His servants. This cannot occur between one man and another,
 because man has no power over inspiration. If this had occurred among
 people, the familiar meaning of speaking would not have been used for it,
 either in the dictionary or in convention.|
That understood, the permissibility should be clear to you of speech
 from behind the veil (when the speaking is related to Allah), in the sense of
 creation of audible sound not emanating from any particular thing, that con-
 veys the intention of Allah, and that is picked up by the hearing of one cho-
 sen by Allah for such address. Allah’s speaking to Misa, upon him be peace,
 is to be interpreted in this way. This is one of the two possibilities mentioned
 by Imam al-Tahir b.“Ashir (who is a Maliki in madbhab, Ash‘ari in belief) in
 respect of Allah’s speaking to His angels. He says:
 Allah’s ‘speaking’ to the angels is used to signify that whereby they understand Flis
 Will, and is termed alam al-nafsi. Possibly this was speech that the angels actually
 heard, then the usage of ‘speaking’ is in the real sense, and its relation to Allah is
 that He created that ‘speaking’ without any of the conventional means. It is also
 possible that it is another pointer to His Will. In this case the usage ‘speaking’ is a
 metaphor, because the pointer is [directed to the comprehension of] intelligent be-
ings. The metaphor in this usage is stronger than the metaphor in, for example, the
 saying of the Prophet, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah: ‘The fire com-
plained to its Lord’; and in Allah’s saying, Exalted is He: ‘He said to it and to the
earth: “(Come you together, willingly or unwillingly.” They said: “We come in willing
Obedience.”” (Fussilat, 41.11). There is no advantage in choosing between the two
possibilities.78
Similar to that is Imam al-Tahir b.‘Ashir’s statement on the teaching of
the names to Adam:
The teaching of the names to Adam by Allah was ... by the method of dictattion—
presenting the named to him and, as he saw it, its name being dictated by means of a
created sound audible to him.”9
78al-Tabrir wa al-tanvir (Tunis: al-Dar al-Tunisiyyah li-l-Nashr), 1:397.
79Whid, 1: 411.
97
The Second Discussion
From what I cited earlier from the statements of the two Imams,Ibn
Abi Nabhan and al-Khalili, may Allah have mercy on them, the way in which
the Quran and other revealed books are Allah’s speech will have become
clear to you, as well as its being created by Him, Glorified is He, and collapse
of the doubt of those who believe in its eternity on the basis of His saying: ‘If
one among the associators asks you for asylum, grant it to him, so that he
may hear the Word of Allah’ (a/-Tawbah, 9.6). This is what the belief of our
Ibadi people is established on, and it is the opinion of many Ash‘aris, so far
so that al-Muhaqqiq al-Khalili says: ‘We and Ash‘aris have agreed on (the
Quran’s) being created. That has been declared by Shaykh Abia Sa‘id and
Muhammad b. Mahbub, may Allah have mercy on them. Our western people
 have agreed to it in line with the Mu‘tazilis. No-one denies it except for a few
 Hanbalis.’8
Among those Ash‘aris who have declared the creation of the Quran is
 Fakhr al-Din al-Razi. He has more than once narrated the consensus of the
 Icarned on it. An example is his statement in the preface of his great safsir.
 The impossibility of a word which is composed of letters and sounds being eternal
 is self-evident to the mind for two reasons:
 The first is that a word cannot be a word unless its letters are sequential. The letter
 [uttered] before the last [that is uttered] is originated, and if something’s being origi-
 nated is affirmed, its eternity is then impossible. So for the letter following the end
 of the first, there is no doubt that it is originated.
 The second is that, if those letters from which the word is composedoccurredin
 onc go, the word cannot be. A word composed of three letters can occur in any one
 of six combinations. If the letters occurred all together, the word’s occurring in
 some of those combinations will not be better than its occurring in any of the rest.
 [Alternatively] if the letters occurred in succession then the word is originated.®!
He says in the fafsir of Sitrat al-A ‘raf:
 People differ about the speech of Allah, Exalted is He. Some say that His Word is
an expression in letters combined and composed in order. Others say that His Word
is an attribute in the true sense but that it is other than letters and words. As for the
first opinion: the learned agree that it is originated necessarily on account of its be-
ing after it was not. Hanbalis and Hashawis claim the Word composed of letters and
sounds is eternal. That is an opinion beneath the notice of any learned person.®
Thenal-Razi mademention of a debate of his whichwe will cometo
below, ‘sha? Allah.
80Tumbid qan'a“d al-iman (Oman: Wizarat al-Turath al-Qawmi wa 1-Thaqafah), 2:6.
810al-Tafsir al-kabir (Tchran: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 2TM edition), 1: 30.
82Ibid, 14: 228.
98
On the Quran’s being created
In his safsir of Siirat al-Shiira, he severely criticized those Hanbalis who
hold the opinion of the eternity of the QurAnic letters. He says:
These people are so low as not to deserve mention among the group of the learned.
It happened one day that I said to one of them: ‘If Allah spoke these letters, then
either He spoke them in one go, or in succession. The first is void, because the
speaking of all these letters in one go will not convey orderly composition which is
combination in sequence. It necessarily follows that this composition combined of
these successive letters cannot then be Allah’s speech. The second is void, because if
Allah spoke them in succession then it will be originated.’ When that man heard this
statement [of mine], he said: ‘It is obligatory for us to affirm and pass on’, i.e. we af-
firm that the Quran is eternal and pass by this statement that we have heard. At that
 point I wondered greatly at the safety of heart of this speaker. -
Then Fakhr al-Din says:
 They have agreed that these letters and sounds came into existence after they were
 not there, they happened after they had been non-being. Thereafter, they have dif-
fered in their [choice of] expression: ‘they are created’; or ‘it should not be stated
[that they are created]’; conversely: ‘it should be stated that they are originated’; or
 some other phrases.%
We find Imam Ibn ‘Ashir in his /efsir of Sitrat al-Nisa? saying—after
 talking about the Word of Allah, revealed through the Angel to the
 Messengers, named as the Qur4n, Torah, Gospel and Psalms—‘No-one who
 has any share in knowledge of the religion can entertain any doubt as to its
 being originated. But some imams of Islam prevented the declaration of its
 being originated or created in the assemblies of debate (which were attended
 by the general public or by arrogant oppressors), and (they sought to prevent
 mutual) abusiveness and harm, to remove the (causes of) dispute, to preserve
 the relation to Islam, and to avoid the noise of the lowly, mean-minded
 people.”
The statements of these two Ash‘ari imams clarifies what al-Muhaqqiq
 al-Khalili has said: that the position of Ash“ris towards this Quran, revealed
 to the Messenger, upon him be the best of peace and the blessings of Allah,
 recited with the tongues, preserved in the hearts, written in the mushafs, does
not differ from our position and that of Mu'tazilis and others who believe in
its creation. This is what Imam al-Salimi, may Allah have mercy on him,
meant when he judged the dispute between us and them to be merely ‘ver-
bal’.85
However, it appears to me that the Ash‘aris did not agree on this
position or they did not remain with it. We find in their books and in what ts
83 =Ibid, 27.187-88.
84al-Tabrir wa al-tamvir (Tunis: al-Dar al-Tanisiyyah, 1st edition), 6:38.
85Masharig al-anwar, 245.
99
The Second Discussion
narrated from them that the Quran that we read, hear, memorize and write,
is not itself the Word of Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He. Rather, His
Word is an eternal quality abiding with His Essence. These letters and sounds
are just an expression of that Word. They are created in order to connect
minds to the purposes of that Eternal Word. They give the analogy of a
mirror in which the images of things are reflected, so the person sees these
things through the mirror, whereas what he sees is just an image of the form
being reflected. We find that Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (who is from among
 Ash‘ari imams) refers this opinion to Ash‘ari and his people with a phrase
which implies his disagreement with them. He makes it clear that the non-
 Ash‘aris oppose the Ash‘aris in that. The text of what he says is:
 The «mab is in consensus that Allah, Exalted is He, is Speaking. The people other
 than Ash‘ari and his followers agree that the Word of Allah is these heard letters and
 combined sounds. Ash‘ari and his followers claim that the Word of Allah, Exalted is
 He, is an eternal quality expressed in these letters and sounds.*6
Evidently, the Ash‘aris are confused on this issue. Fakhr al-Din who in-
 dicates his renunciation of their opinion in that statement of his, has himself
 said in the Preface of his Tafsir.
 When we say about these successive letters and successive sounds that they are the
 Word of Allah, Exalted is He, the intention is that these words denote the quality
 which ts abiding with the Essence of Allah, Exalted is He. The name Word has been
 used for that quality metaphorically.
He goes on to say:
When we say that the Word of Allah is eternal we do not mean by it but that eternal
 quality which ts the meaning of these words and expressions. When we sav that the
Word of Allah is a miracle for Muhammad, upon him be peace and the blessings of
Allah, we mean by it these letters and these sounds which are originated. As the
 Eternal was in existence before Muhammad, upon him be peace and the blessings
 of Allah, how can it be a miracle for him? When we say that the Wordof Allah is
 surahs and verses, we mean by it these letters. When we say that the Word of Allah
is eloquent we mean by it these words. When we begin the /ofsir of Allah’s Word we
 mean by it also these words.8?
Then he says:
TheHashawishaveclaimedthat thesesoundswhichwehearfromthis man
 [reciting the Quran] are themselves the Word of Allah, Exalted is He. This is void,
because we know as self-evident that these letters and sounds that we hear from this
man are a quality of his tongue and his vocalization. If we say that these are
themselves the Word of Allah, Exalted is He, we will be compelled to say that the
samequalityexactlyis abiding withthe Essenceof Allah,Exaltedis He,and
86al-Tafsir al-kabir (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 2TM edition), 27:187.
87Ibid, 1:31.
100
On the Quran’s being created
incarnating in the bodyof this man. The corruptness of this is self-evident.
Furthermore, this is exactly what the Christians say, that the xguiim of the Word
incarnated in a clear human. They claim that it is incarnation in the man Is, upon
him be peace, and at the same time an attribute of Allah, not moving from Him.
This is exactly what the Hashawis say: that the Word of Allah, Exalted is Fle, is
incarnated in the tongue of this man, without its moving from the Essence of Allah,
Exalted is He. There is no difference between the two sayings, except that the
Christian says this thing about Isa alone, and these fools have said this foul saying
about every human being from east to west.88
From that discussion and the like of it in the texts of Ash‘ari imams, it is
understood that they use the name Quran for Aalam al-nafsi which is an Es-
sential attribute of Allah, Exalted is He. That is what they mean when they
say that the Quran is not-created. This is the basis upon which those rely
 who say that the difference between us and them does not go beyond the
‘verbal’.
But this Ash‘ari opinion has encountered harsh criticism from two op-
 posing groups at the same time, namely those who believe in the eternity of
 the recited Quran, and those who believe in its being originated. The objec-
 tion of both groups may be summarized in this way: in many verses Allah,
 Glorified is He, has named this Word that we recite Quran, Furqin (Crite-
 rion), Kitab (Book), and Huda (Guidance). Among these verses are: ‘We re-
 late to you the most beautiful of stories in that We reveal to you this Quran’
 (Yusuf, 12.3). And His saying: ‘Indeed this Quran guides to that which is
 most right’ (a/-Isra?, 17.9). And His saying: ‘The month of Ramadan in which
 was sent down the Qur4n, as a guide to mankind, also clear explanations of
 the Guidance and the Criterion’ (a/-Bagarah, 2.185). And His saying: ‘We have
 sent it down as an Arabic Quran’ (Yésuf, 12.2). And His saying: “We have
 made it as an Arabic Quran’ (a/-Zukhruf, 43.3). And His saying: ‘Blessed is
 He who sent down the Criterion to His servant’ (a/-Furgan, 25.1). And His
 saying: “Those are verses of the Quran and a clear Book’ (a/-Nuamil, 27.1).
And His saying: ‘Those are the verses of the Book and clear Quran’ (a/-Hijr,
 15.1). And His saying: ‘That Book, no doubt in it, is a Guidance for the God-
 fearing’ (a/-Bagarah, 2.2). Allah has described the Quran as sending down, as
 has come earlier in some verses. Examples are His saying: ‘Indeed, We have
 sent it down in a blessed night’ (a/-Dukhan, 44.3); and His saying: ‘A Book
 that We have sent down to you in order that you might lead mankind out of
 the depths of darkness into light’ (Ibrahim, 14.1); and His saying: ‘He it is who
has sent down to you the Book; in it are verses clearly defined’ (A/ ‘Imran,
3.7); and His saying: ‘We have indeed sent it down in the night of power’ (a/-
Qadr, 97.1). Allah has described it as being explained in detail in His saying:
88Ibid, 1:31—32.
101
The Second Discussion
‘For We have certainly sent to them a Book which We have expounded in
detail on the basis of knowledge ...” (aA ‘raf, 7.52). And He has described it
as being detailed with clear definition in His saying: ‘A Book with verses
clearly defined, then explained in detail from One who is Wise and All-
Aware’ (Hild, 11.1). And He has distinguished among its verses, describing
some as clearly defined and some as allegorical in His saying: “He it is who
has sent down to you the Book; in it are verses clearly defined—they are the
 core of the Book—and others are allegorical (wutashabibat’ (Al ‘Imran, 3.7).
He has described it as being recited, where He says: ‘When you recite the
 Quran, We put between you and those who do not believe in the hereafter a
veil invisible’ (a/-Isra?, 17.45). And He said: ‘Read, therefore, of the Qur'an as
 much as may be easy for you’ (a/-Muzzammil, 73.20); and He said: ‘When you
 read the Quran, seek Allah’s protection from Satan the rejected one’ (a/
 Nabi, 16.98).
He has described it as being preserved in the hearts. He says: ‘Rather it is
 clear signs in the hearts of those endowedwith knowledge’(a/-CAnkabiit,
 29.49). And that it is preserved in the Tablet. He says: ‘Nay, this is a Glorious
 Quran, (inscribed) on the Preserved Tablet” (a/-Burijj, 85.21—22).
It is known firmly that He did not intend in any of these verses but this
 known Quran, because there has been no narration of naming other than
 this as Quran. The sound hadiths of the Messenger of Allah, upon him be
 peace and the blessings of Allah, have named it as the Quran, like his saying:
 “The best among you are those who learn the Quran and teach it.’ And his
 saying: ‘Indeed this Quran is Allah’s banquet.’ The Prophet, upon him be
peace and the blessings of Allah, has prohibited travelling into enemy terri-
tory with the Quran. He did not mean by that but the wushaf.
It is clear from all that, that nothing is intended by the Quran, the Book,
the Remembranceand the Guidance other than this Wordsent down, and
that it is read, preserved, written, divided into mubkam (definite) and
mitashabih (allegorical), mnjmal (general) and wmufassal (particular), nasikh
(abrogating) and mansikh (abrogated). Refusal to affirm these qualities with
the Quran is a refusal of what has been declared by the texts, indicated by
reason, and attested by reality.
Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim have quoted from Ash‘ari that for
him the Word is an eternal attribute, it is not a sound, not a letter, and it is
not divided. It is the very original (‘ay) of command and prohibition, narra-
tive and interrogation, it is the very original of the Torah, Gospel, the Quran
and Psalms. Its being command and prohibition, narrative and interrogation,
are qualities of that one meaning. And its being Torah, Gospel, Quran and
Psalms is division in its expression. If it is phrased in Arabic it is Quran, if it
102
On the Qurin’s being created
is phrased in Hebrew it is Torah, if it is phrased in Syriac it is Gospel. The
expressions are created, but the reality is eternal.®
If what they have quoted is accurate, its invalidity is too clear to need
any explanation, on account of its conjoining opposites, like making com-
mand the same as prohibition, narrative the same as interrogation. Indeed,
that is not merely conjoining two opposites; rather, it is making the opposite
 exactly its own contrary. It follows from it that the translation of Torah and
 Gospel into Arabic will make them Quran, and translation of the Quran
 into Hebrew will make it Torah, and into Syriac will make it Gospel. This is
 the very original (‘ayv) of invalidity. Let it suffice you to know that in the
 Quran are wisdom, judgements, stories, parables, knowledge and benefits
 that are not in the earlier books, as too the arrangement of the Quran differs
 from their arrangement.
I think that Ash‘aris did not have a unified position on this issue. This is
 Ibn Raslan from among them, who says in his Zibad:
 His Word is like His eternal attributes. He did not produce the heard for the Kalim
 (Musa). It is written on tablets, read with the tongue, as it is preserved by the minds
 [who memorize it].
So we see him affirming the attribute of eternity for the Wordheard,
 written and read. But his commentator (al-Fishani) interprets his statement in
 a way that reconciles it with what has been narrated from Ash‘ari. He says:
 Its qualification with these four qualities is its qualification in respect of the four ex-
 istent natures of existent nature [the ‘humours’]. It is not incarnating in washafs and
 in hearts and in tongues, rather it is a meaning abiding with the Essence of Allah,
 Exalted is He.%
 Before that, he says:
The truth is the word of the people of the truth that He, Exalted is He, is Speaker of
 an eternal Word abiding with His Essence. If it is expressed in Arabic it is Quran, in
 Hebrew it is Torah and in Syriac it is Gospel, and other differences in the expres-
 sion.%!
And just before that he had said that ‘His Word is not a letter or sound,
because both those are originated qualities’.
The confusion of this statement is too clear to need any explanation or
analysis. Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyyah have gone to the extreme and judged
the holders of this opinion guilty of unbelief. No doubt that they meant &u/r
89al-Sawag al-mursalab, 426. (It is repeated in the 12" volume of the collected fatwas of
Ibn Taymiyyah.)
90Mawahib al-samad ft ball Alfa al-Zubad (Qatar: al-Shw’tn al-Dinivyah al-Qatariyyah),
1:27,
91Ibid, 1:26.
103
The Second Discussion
 millf (such unbelief as expels from the community of Muslims). As for Ibn
 Hazm, he says:
 This is mere unbelief with no other interpretation possible. Because we will ask
 them about the Quran: is it Allah’s Word or not? If they say it is not the Word of
Allah they have entered unbelicf by consensus of the wwmah. If they say it is the
 Word of Allah, then we will ask them about the Quran: is it that which is recited 1n
the mosques, written in wushafs, preserved in the hearts, or not? If they say No, then
they will be unbelievers by consensus of the wwmah. And if they say Yes, then they
will have abandoned their corrupt opinion, and acknowledged that the Word of Al-
lah, Exalted is He, is in the wushafs, heard from the readers, preserved in the hearts,
as all the people of Islam say.?
As for Ibn Taymiyyah, he has related of (the mass of) their people (prac-
tices such as) violating the sanctity of the wushaf, sometimes stepping upon it
and running over it, sometimes writing it with dung or the like. Then he says
about them:
These people are worse in unbelief and hypocrisy than those who say: ‘The binding
and the paper are Allah’s Word.’ For the latter believed in the truth [mixed] with
some falsehood. While these belied the Book and what Allah has sent His Messen-
gers with. “Those who reject the Book and what We have sent Our Messengers with:
soon they shall know. When the yokes shall be round their necks, and the chains,
they shall be dragged along in the boiling fetid fluid, then in the Fire shall they be
 burnt’ (a/-Ghafir, 40.70—72).%
(Ibn Taymiyyah has presented in his refutation of them even viler
 phrases, from mention of which I cleanse this book. It is not understandable
 how what he has attributed to them could be attributed by one believing in
 Islam.)
I do not wish here to talk about the correctness or invalidity of this
 judgement that they have given about the people who hold this opinion. That
 would require widening the discussion which I do not intend to do. I only
 wish to say that the contradiction in which both of them have fallen into is
 not less bad than what they have criticized in others. As for Ibn Hazm—
 together with his affirmation that the Glorious Quran is the Word of Allah,
 Exalted is He—we find him emphasizing that His Word is itself (Say) His
 Essence. He quotes from the Ash‘aris: ‘The Ash‘aris have said: Allah’s Word
 is an attribute of His Essence, eternal, not-created, and it is other than Allah,
 Exalted is He, not Allah, Exalted is He, and it is other than knowledge of Al-
lah, Exalted is He, and that there is not but one Word of Allah, Exalted is
He.’ Then he says: ‘The People of the Sunnah have put forward several ar-
guments. Among them is that they say: that the Word of Allah, Exalted is
92al-Kisal fi Lmilal wa Labwa? wa l-nibal (Maktabat al-Salim al-“Alamiyyah), 3: 25.
93Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah (Matabi al-Riyad), 12:382.
104
On the Quran’s being created
He, if it is other than Allah, then it either will be a substance or a quality...’
and so on. He also says:
As for the Ash‘aris their saying that the Word of Allah is other than Allah compels
them [to acknowledge] what we have compelled them to [acknowledge] in respect of
[Allah’s] Knowledge and Power equally, that we have examined thoroughly before
this, and the praise belongs to Allah, the Lord of mankind.TM
No doubt it becomes necessary on this view (which Ibn Hazm is criticiz-
ing) that the Quran must itself (“ayn) be the Essence of Allah, Exalted is He,
and that He, Glorified is He, by sending it down, explaining it in detail and
making its verses definite and clear did not send down, did not make detail
and define but His own Essence, Glorified is He. As it necessitates that the
scribe of the Quran, its reciter and its memorizer, do not write, recite and
memorize but His Essence, Exalted is He. And that the High Essence must
 be these letters and sounds, which will be divided by the division of the
 Quran into surahs, verses, sentences, words, letters and sounds. Exalted is
 Allah and High above all such.
Ibn Hazm in his argument for the eternity of the Quran has presented a
 sophistry so strange that the mind cannot imagine it coming from someone
 like him, with such abundance of knowledge and strength of understanding.%5
I have preferred to turn away from presenting it, being content with the
 invalidation of it by Imam Shams al-Din Aba Ya‘qib Yusuf b. Ibrahim
 Warjilani at the end of his book a/-‘Ad/ wa Linsaf.6 (The only surprising thing
 is that Imam Abt Ya‘qib has referred what Ibn Hazm has said to Imam
 Ahmad b. Hanbal, and I did not find it in any of the books of the Hanbalis;
 rather, what I found in them is contradictory to it.)
As for Ibn Taymiyyah, you will see in the next chapter, isha? Allah,
 from the texts of what he said, what will make you aware of his contradiction
 and confusion.
There appears another colour of meaning difference between us and
Ash‘aris and eastern Ibadis who hold to the eternity of the Quran. It is that
 they have declared that what Musa, upon him be peace, heard in his secret
conversation with his Lord is the eternal Aa/am al-nafsi of Allah, not-created.
That is the implication of Ibn Raslan in his Zubad. They say that it (the con-
versation with Musa) was not sound and not letters. Imam Ibn ‘Ashur has
made it clear in his /afsir of Allah’s saying: ‘And to Musa Allah spoke directly’
(al-Nnisa’, 4.164). The text of his saying is:
94al-Fisal ft |-milal wa l-abn@ wa /-nuibal (Maktabat al-Salim al-“Alamiyvah), 3: 4.
95hid, 3:6-8.
96al-“Adl wa Linsaf (Oman: Wizarat al-Turath al-Qawmi wa I-Thaqifah), 2:147—56.
105
The Second Discussion
Speaking (taédim) is connection of the attribute of speech with the addressee, with
the meaning that specch is a distinct attribute; or [it is} connection of the [attribute
of] knowledge with conveying the thing to be known to the addressee; or [it 1s] con-
 nection of the [attribute of] will with conveying the willed to the addressee. The
 Ash‘aris have said: Allah’s speaking to His servant is that He creates for the servant
 a sense from the direction of hearing, through which the knowledge of the Word of
 Allah is attained without letters and sounds.”
That, as you see, contradicts what has been quoted from him earlier of
 his interpretation of Allah’s saying to the angels that ‘I am making a &halifah
 in the earth’, and His teaching the names to Adam. I wish to know how one
 can reconcile what he says here with what he said there. Furthermore, after
this statement which does not exceed one page he said:
His saying “tak/imai’ is a masdar (verbal root) used for emphasis. The emphatic use of
masdar has to do with emphasizing the meaning [of the verb] and affirmation of it
 with [particles such as] ‘gad and ‘inna’. The emphasis is not intended to remove the
possibility of metaphor |i.c. to force a literal reading]. That is why Arabs have used
masdar to emphasize those verbs that are only used metaphorically. For example, His
saying, Iixalted is He: ‘Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, O
People of the House, and to purify you (ywfabbirakum) with a through purifying
(tathirany (al-Abzab, 33.33). He intends that He will purify them by an inward purifi-
cation, that is, by inner perfection. The emphatic form does not convey absence of
metaphor. [Another example:] Hind bint al-Nu‘man b. Bashir says criticizing her
husband Rawh b. ZinbaS
 The silk shricked at Rawh, and refused his skin, and the clouds clamoured clamor-
 ously (Sajat Sajijan) on account of his leprosy
 al-“gij is not but a metaphor. The masdar reinforces the emphasized verb in the
 meaning that it had before the emphasis.
 Then the meaning of His saying ‘fak/imav here is that Musa heard a speech from
 near Allah in a way that has no possibility that Allah sent Jibril to him with a word,
 or that He revealed [something] to him within him. As for how this word came
 from near Allah, that is another matter which is a point of discussion among the
 sects. That is why the reasoning of many Ash‘aris from this verse on the speech that
 Musa heard being the Essential attribute abiding with Allah is a weak argument. Ibn
 ‘Arafah has narrated that al-Maziri has said in Sharh al-Ta/gin that this verse is a
proof against the Mu‘tazilis in their opinion that Allah did not speak to Musa with-
 out medium, but instead though the medium of creating speech, because [that 1s
what] He has emphasized with the masdar. [Ibn ‘Arafah has also narrated] that Ibn
©\bd al-Salim al-Tunisi, shaykh [teacher] of Ibn ‘Arafah has rejected [Ibn ‘Arafah’s
explanation] on the grounds that emphasis with wasdar is to remove doubt from the
utterance, not from the uttered. Ibn ‘Arafah has followed this with what goes back
to the refutation of Ibn ‘Abd al-Salam.*8
97al-Tabrir wa al-tannir (al-Dar al-Tunisiyyah li-l-Nashr), 6:37.
9% = hid, 38-39.
106
On the Quran’s being created
We may perhaps draw from what he has said here and there that his
opinion on this issue did not rest on any definite thing. And perhaps he ac-
knowledges too the permissibility of each of the two opinions.
Asfor us, the Ibadis, whobelieve in the creation of the Quran, and
whoever holds this opinion from among Muttazilis and others—we agree
with Hanbalis (who believe in the eternity of Quranic texts) that Musa, upon
him be peace, heard from Allah’s Speaking a speech composed of letters and
that it had sound. But we differ on its eternity or origination. They believe in
 its eternity, and we believe in its origination. We have said only this: that it
 was a real speech from Allah to Misa, in that it was not through any me-
 dium, but Allah created it where He willed, then He caused him to hear it
 without its being uttered by any angel or any other creature. Many have said
 that Allah, Exalted is He, created it in the tree and caused him to hear it from
 the tree. This is what Fakhr al-Din al-Razi has referred to Imim Abi Mansir
 Maturidi.”
That (the speaking being in the tree) is not definite because there is
 nothing (in the Qur’an) indicating it. It is but one of the possibilities men-
 tioned.
We draw for what has passed that the Ash‘ari position on this issue dif-
 fers from the position of both opponent groups. This is clear in what (as
 quoted earlier from) Fakhr al-Din has referred to al-Ash‘ari and his followers
 in respect of their opposition to the others on the issue of the Word.
He has narrated from them saying: ‘As it is not impossible that the Es-
 sence of Allah will be seen while It has no body and is not in a space, then
 what impossibility is there in hearing Allah’s Word while it has no letters and
 no sound’,100
The force of this argument is specifically directed at those who affirm
 the seeing. As for us, it does not—the praise belongs to Allah—touch us.
Chapter 2
On the clash of opinions of those
who believe in the Qur’an’s
being eternal (not-created)
The belief in the eternity of the Quran—though its meanings differ and its
ways are diverse because of the differences among its supporters—emanates
99al-Tafsir al-Rabir (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-“IImiyyah) 14: 238 and 27:188.
100Ibid, 27:188.
107
The Second Discussion
from one source, namely not differentiating between Speaking as an Essential
attribute of Allah and its effects, the Books that Allah has sent down to His
Messengers. All who hold this opinion must necessarily believe in the eternity
of all originated things, because these (also) are effects of Allah’s attributes.
Because the creatures, regardless of their differences (from each other), are
not other than effects of His Power, Will and Knowledge. Each of these is
an eternal Essential attribute because of the impossibility of Allah’s qualifica-
tion with their opposites.
In spite of the unity in the source of this opinion, you will be surprised
to find among its supporters such dispute and controversy that their state-
ments neither agree on one path nor lead to one goal. The matter did not
stop there but went further to mutual accusations of ignorance, innovation,
going astray, and unbelief—indications of which you have seen (in the fore-
going).
If we are silent as to their different groups, and attend to only one
group—the Hanbalis—we are surprised to find that they have taken different
approaches to establish and interpret their belief or teaching. The supporters
of each approach among them claim that they are more right and better in
 following the opinion of their imam, Ahmad b. Hanbal. Among examples of
what they differ on are:'
aThe voice of the reciter of the Quran and his recitation.
bThe letters of the alphabet from which the words of the Quran and
other are composed.
cAllah’s being Speaking, whether it is by His Will or not (by His Will).
Since their differences about the letters, sounds and recitation overlap,
we have considered them together in reviewing and criticizing their opinions
about them.
One group among them hold that the voice of the reciter is eternal, and
believe that it is abiding with the Essence of Allah, Exalted is He. From these
are Muhammad b. Dawid Bissisi, Ibn Hamid, Abt Nasr Sijzi and Qadi Abu
Yala.AbaBakral-Marwadhiandothershave criticized them for that,
narrating from Ahmad his statement: ‘Whoever says My utterance of the
Quran is created, he is a Jahmi, and whoever says it is not-created, he is an
innovator.10!
In this text that they have narrated, there is a contradiction that cannot
be obscure to any intelligent person. There is no intermediary between
creature and non-creature. The thing is either created or non-created. If it is
created then why does he accuse of error those who speak of its creation? If
it is not, then why does he attribute innovation to those who speak of its
non-creation?
101a/-Sanaiq al-mursalah (Cairo: Matbat al-Imam), 440.
108
On the Quran’s being created
Ibn Taymiyyah has said:
 When they—Hanbalis—spoke about the letters of the alphabet they held two opin-
ions. One group, differentiating between two likes, say thar letters are of two types,
 one being eternal and the other being created—as Ibn Hamid, Qadi Aba Yala, Ibn
 ‘Aqil and others have said. The majority have criticized them for that and said: This
 is in opposition to sense and reason. The reality of this letter is the [same as the] re-
 ality of that letter, and, they say, letters are of one type. Qadi Ya‘qib al-Barzini has
 written a book on that, in'which he has opposed his shaykh Qadi Aba Yala.
 Ibn Taymiyyah goes on to say:
 Qadi Ya‘qtb has said in his book that what he has said is the opinion of Abi Bakr
 Ahmad b. al-Musayyab al-Tabari who narrated it from a group of the best people of
 Tabaristan. [He recorded also] that he has heard Faqih ‘Abd al-\Wahhab b. Halabah,
 the qadi of Harran, saying: This is the doctrine (wadbhab) of al-“Alawi al-Harrini and
 a group of the people of Harran. Aba ‘Abdullah b. Hamid has said from a group of
 the people of Tabaristan from among those who relate to our school (wadbhab)—
 like AbaMuhammadal-Kashfal, Isma“l al-Kawdhari and a party of their follow-
 ers—that the letters are eternal.
 Qadi Aba Yaa made a statement to that effect and narrated for me from a group of
 [the people of] Sham that they hold that opinion; among them are al-Nabulasi and
 others. Qadi Husayn has said that his father, at the end of his life, came back to this
 opinion. They have said it from Sharif Aba ‘Ali b. Abi Masa, and were followed in
 that by Shaykh Aba al-Faraj al-Maqdisi, his son ‘Abd al-Wahhab, Aba al-Hasan b.
 al-Zaghuni and people like him.
 QadiYa‘qibhassaidthat the statement of Ahmadcan support both opinions,
 which are based on his response when informed that Sari al-Saqati had said: ‘When
 Allah created the letters, they prostrated to Him except alif which said “I will not
 prostrate unless I am commanded”.’ Then Ahmad said, ‘This is unbelief.’ And these
 [opinions] have relied on Ahmad’s saying: ‘Anything of the creatures on the tongue
 of the creatures is created.’ And on his saying: ‘Had it been so, then his prayer with
 the Quran will not be completed as it is not completed with other words of human
 origin.” And on Ahmad’s saying to Ahmad b. Hasan al-Tirmidhi: ‘Are you not-
 created?’ He said: ‘Why not?’ Then Ahmad said: ‘Is not everything of you created?’
 He said: ‘Why not?’ [Ahmad] said: ‘Then your specch is part of you and it is cre-
ated.,”102
In these narrations there is infinite contradiction—though Ibn
Taymiyyah claims the inexistence of contradiction. Study them, respected
reader, with the eye of intellectual freedom which reveals the truth and
discloses the minutest thing, not with the eye of blind following which makes
sand as water, and imagination as reality. (If you do so,) you will find the first
of those citations indicates the most extreme criticism of the opinion that the
letters of the alphabet, of which speech is composed and with which the
10220Fatana Ibn Taymiyyah (Matabi al-Riyad, 1° edition), 12:83-85.
109
The Second Discussion
people address one another, is created—to the point that the one who says
this is accused of unbelief. I seek refuge in Allah. The implication of that
(criticism) is that these letters in eternity are like the High Essence. You will
find in the second something that indicates that everything of the creatures
on the tongue of the creatures is created. Which, then, of the two opinions 1s
more deserving of (being called) true and correct? If it is the first one, then it
means necessarily that the second one is unbelief. And if it is the other, then
 also the same, because of the /adith of Abu Dharr, may Allah be pleased with
him, in the Sahih of Muslim: ‘Whoever accuses a man of unbelief or calls him
 an enemy of Allah, and this man is not so, then it (the accusation) comes
 back to him (the accuser).’
As for the excuse Ibn Taymiyyah offers by saying:
 Ahmad rejected the statement of the one who says that when Allah created the let-
 ters... Ahmad said: “Whoever says that any letter of the alphabet is created, he is
Jahmi, because he has walked on a path of innovation, and whoever says that the
 alphabet is created, then he [also] says that the Quran is created.’ (Fatana Ibn Taymi-
yah, 12:83-85)
That is an excuse of no use. To deny the being created of what is known
 by reason and fawatur tradition to be created, and to attach it to Allah, Ex-
 alted is He, in eternity, avoiding the firm Quranic texts that everything other
 than Allah is created—such as Allah’s saying: ‘Creator of every thing’ (a/-
An‘am, 6.102; al-Ra“d, 13.16; al-Zumar, 39.62; al-Ghafir, 40.62), and His saying:
 ‘He created all things and ordered them in due proportions’(a/-Furgan,
 25.2)—1s in no way permissible. How so, when the driving force behind this
is only the fear of the rising of the sun of reality, and evaporation of the fog
 of fancies, which they intended as a veil between reason and their grasp of
 the realities. Not content with mere refusal of reality, they went further to
pass judgement on those who proclaim the reality as being Jahmi, innovators
and unbelievers. Fa in-na hi-l-labi wa in-na ilayhi rajiin. so surely we belong to
Allah and to Him surely we are returning. In how wretched a state Islam is
left when interpreted in these contradictory directions! How far astray are the
people of Islam if they do not recognize Islam but through these things.
If you would have more of their contradiction then listen to what Ibn
Taymiyyah also says:
As for saying that the written ink is eternal: we do not know of any well-known per-
son who has said it, nor have we seen that in the books of any writer, neither from
the followers of Aba Hanifah, or Malik, or Shafi, or Ahmad. Rather, we have seen
in the books of a group of writers from among the followers of Malik, Shafid and
Ahmadcriticism of the opinion that the ink is eternal, and of the belief of those
who narrated that. In the opinion of some of them is this, that in the wshaf there
are cternal letters which are not the ink.
110
On the Quran’s being created
Then, among them are those who say that the ink is apparent in the washaf but not
 incarnating, and some say that it is incarnating, In the sayings of some of them is
 what implies that for the form—the form of the letter and figure—[but] not [for] its
 material substance whichis its ink. This opinion ts also invalid. Just as the saving,
 that anything from the voices of human beings is eternal, is an invalid opinion. It is
 an opinion put forward by a group from among the followers of Malik, Shafi? and
 Ahmad, the majority of whom reject it. The saying of Ahmad and the majority of
 his followers rejecting this opinion is well-known.
There is no doubt that whoever says that the voices of the servants are eternal, he is
 an innovator and inventor. In the same way as whoever says that this Quran is not
 the word of Allah, he is an innovator and inventor...(Ibid, 12:179)
Look at this clash and factionalism in the opinions, without any evidence
 to rely on, except justification of what each of these people imagine to be the
 truth. Otherwise, what is the proof of that, from the evidence of narrated
 and sound tradition?
Add to what he has said earlier, his saying—after mentioning the state-
 ment of those who affirm the Quran to be created—
Then they were faced by some people who intended to straighten the Sunnah but
 fell into innovation, and rejected one falschood with another falsehood, and coun-
 tered the corrupt with the corrupt. They said that our recitation of the Quran ts
not-created, and our utterance of it is not-created, because this is the Quran, and
the Quran is not-created. They did not differentiate in the denotation between the
unqualified noun and the qualified noun, nor between the state of the named when
it is unaccompanied and its state when accompanied. [That’s why] Imam Ahmad
criticized also those who say the recitation of the servants, their reading, their words
and their voices, are not-created, and commanded the abandonment of them, just as
he related the first group to the Jahmis and innovation. The narration of that from
him is throughthe narration of his son ‘Abdullah, Salih, al-Marwadhi, Fawran, Abu
Talib, Aba Bakr b. Sadagah and a considerable body of his students and followers.
His closest follower, Aba Bakr Marwadhi took that stand after [Ahmad’s] death, and
compiled [Ahmad’s] opinions and those of the leaders from among his followers
and others like ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Warragq, al-Athram, Abt. Dawud al-Sijistani, Fadl
b. Ziyad, Muthanna b. Jami‘ al-Anbari, Muhammad b. Ishaq al-San‘ani, Muhammad
b. Sahl b. ‘Askar, and other scholars of Islam. And he explained the innovation of
those people who say that the recitation of the servants and their utterance of the
Quran are not-created.
Al-Khallal has mentioned that in Kitab a/-Saunah, and detailed his opinion on that.
Al-Khallal says: ‘Reported to me Abt Bakr al-Marwadhi, that it reached Aba SAb-
dullah from Abt Talib that he wrote to the people of Nasibin: “My utterance of the
Quranis not-created.” Abi Bakr says: Then Salih b. Ahmad came to us, and said:
“Come, all of you, to my father.” Then we came and entered upon Abu S\bdullah.
He was very angry, the anger having become apparent on his face. He said: “Go and
bring Aba Talib to me.” So I fetched him, and he sat in front of Abu ‘Abdullah, and
he was trembling. [Ahmad] said: “Have you written to the people of Nasibin telling
111
The Second Discussion
them on my behalf that I said: “My utterance of the Quran is not-created’?” He said:
“T only expressed my [own] opinion.” [Ahmad]: “This is not allowed, neither from
vou nor from me. I never heard any scholar saying this.” Aba SAbdullah said: “The
Quran is the Word of Allah, not-created.” Then it was said to Abt Talib: “Go and
tell the people that Abu ‘Abdullah has prohibited saying My utterance of the Quran
is not-created.” Then Abi Talib came out, and he met a group of ah/ al-hadith and
 told them that Abu “Abdullah had forbidden him to say My utterance of the Quran
 is not-created.’
 In spite of these [reports], each of those groups—I[those] who say that our utterance
 of the Quran ts not-created and those who say that our utterance and our recitation
 are created—invent their relation to Abu ‘Abdullah, narrating their [own] opinion
from him and claiming that he held it, because he was an imam accepted by all the
people, and because the truth that is with every group was spoken by Ahmad, and
the falsehood for which every group criticize the others was rejected by Ahmad.
Muhammad b. Dawtd al-Missisi—one of the scholars of hadith, and one of the
shaykhs of Abu Dawud—and some contemporaries, such as Abu Hatim al-Razi and
others, say: Our utterance of the Quran is not-created. And a number have fol-
lowed them in this matter, like Aba ‘Abdullah b. Hamid, Aba Nasr al-Sijzi, Abu
“Abdullah b. Mandah, Shaykh al-Islam Aba Ismail al-Ansari, Abd al-‘AlA al-
Hamadani, Abu }-Faraj al-Maqdisi and others, [and they also] say: Our utterance of
the Quran ts not-created. They narrate that from Ahmad, and that Ahmad came
back to that [position], as Aba Nasr has said in his book a/-Ibanah. These are weak
narrations with unknownchains of narration; which cannot oppose what has been
[transmitted] w/aratir from him, to his close students, people of his family, and re-
liable scholars. Especially so, when it is known that in his lifetime he explained the
mistake of Abu Talib in narrating from him, so far so that Ahmad stopped him
from that and became very angry with him.
I have scen some of these [people] criticizing those narrations that are proved [to
be] from him [Ahmad]. Some of them have altered their words, and some have al-
tered their meanings. As for those who have affirmed the narration from him, and
agreed with him in criticizing both positions—they are the majority of the people of
Sunnah, and the theologians related to him like Aba I-Hasan al-Ash‘ari and people
like him. He has said in Magalat Ah/ al-Sunnah wa |-Hadith that they reject the one
who says My utterance of the Quran is created, and the one who says My utterance
of the Quran is not-created, and that is the position he holds.
But among them are those who have interpreted the statement of Ahmad and oth-
ers as meaning that he has prohibited saying that the Quran is uttered. This is what
al-Ash‘ari, Ibn al-Baqillani, Qadi Abt Yala and his followers, like AbtI-Hasan al-
Zaghuni and people like him, have said.
Now, some of the people who have interpreted his statement in that way, say: the
meaning is that Ahmad has criticized the one who says My utterance of the Quran
is created—al-Ashariandhis followershave said this. Others of themsay: the
meaning is, rather, that Ahmad has criticized the one who says My utterance of the
Qur'an ts not-created—Qadi [Abi Yaa], Ibn al-Zaghuni and people like them have
said this. Because Ahmad and all the imams reject [the notion] that any thing of the
112
On the Quran’s being created
 specch of Allah, the letters or the meanings, is created, or that the meaning of the
 Torah is the same as the meaning of the Quran. They reject likewise [the notion]
 that the word of Allah when expressed in Arabic is Quran, and when expressed in
 Hebrew is Torah. They reject [the notion] that the Quran which is revealed is not
 the Word of Allah, and [reject the] claim that the Word of Allah is created. Ahmad
 and other imams criticize those people who would make out that any thing of the
 actions and voices of the servants is not-created, let alone its being eternal. Abmad’s
 Statement on the issue of recitation, belief and the Quran is of one [consistent]
 style: he prohibited saying that it is created because that implies, of some of the at-
 tributes of Allah, that they are created and [saying the like of that] is a pathway [lead-
 ing to error]; and he prohibited saying that it is not-created, because that [way] has
 innovation and error in it. (Ibid, 12:359-63)
Respected reader, I have quoted for you these phrases exactly from the
 discourse of Ibn Taymiyyah, so you may be aware, firstly, of their dispute in
 this issue which leads to resorting to (accusations of) innovation; and, sec-
 ondly, of the absence in their discourses of any evidence from the Quran, or
 Sunnah, or of rational proofs—excepting what they have narrated from
 Imam Ahmad, and they alter the interpretation of that according to what
 Suits each party of interpreters. You will find them, while presenting argu-
 ment, comparing the word of Imam Ahmad with the Word of Allah and the
word of His Messenger, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah. They
make the word of Imam Ahmad the fundamental to which each group of
 them refers, although they always claim with their tongues and pens not to be
imitating or following the opinions of the imams without evidence. Consider
what has come at the end of these passages about (a person’s) recitation and
belief, let alone the Quran itself, being with the attributes of Allah, Exalted is
He. How can the mind of anyone whose intellect is enlightened accept that
the belief which is in the hearts of believers, and the recitation which flows
on the tongues of reciters, is with His eternal attributes, Exalted is He?
We find Ibn Taymiyyah narrating from Ahmad, al-Bukhari and a group
of the followers of Ahmad—like ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Warragq, al-Athram, al-
Marwadhi, Muhammadb. Bashshar, Abu |-Husayn al-Tisi and others—that
they strongly criticized whoever says that the servant’s utterance of the
Quran or his voicing it, or (any) other qualities of the servants which are at-
tached with the Qur4n, are not-created, and they commanded any such to be
abandoned (ibid, 12:422).
Ibn Taymiyyah follows this by citing certain events which befell the fol-
lowers of Ahmad because of their referring to him (the judgement) that the
utterance of the servant of the Qur4n is not-created (ibid, 12:423—27).
Thus, you see how it becomes possible to place recitation sometimes
among attributes of the servant so that belief in its eternity is prohibited, and
113
The Second Discussion
at other times among attributes of Allah so that belief in its creation is pro-
hibited. However, all existing things, substances and qualities, are either cre-
ated and originated—and every thing originated 1s created—or they are eter-
nal. And that is what none other than Allah can be described with—Allah
who is the First, the Last, who has created every thing, then proportioned it.
Being originated and eternity are two opposites, they cannot be removed
 from any particular existent, just as they cannot be combined. How can both
be negated of any particular thing, and the one who holds either opinion be
 regarded as going astray?
Their state of shock went so far that they prohibited labeling ink, when
 the Quran is written with it, as created or eternal (ibid, 12:167).
Then Ibn Taymiyyah turned back from declaring its creation where he
 says: ‘Just so is what is written in the wasabif of His speech: it is His speech
 written in wasabif. His Word is not-created, and the ink with which His Word
 and the word of others is written is created.’ (Ibid, 12:54—55)
Then Ibn Taymiyyah made a distinction between those letters from
 which the Quran is composed, and those letters from which other words are
 composed, where he says:
 Whoever says that the letters of the alphabet are all created, and that the word of
 Allah is created, has said something that is contradictory [both] to clear intelligible
 discourse and sound narration. Whoever says that the voices of the people or their
 ink or anything of that is eternal has opposed the sayings of the sa/af, and the cor-
 ruption of his opinion ts evident to all, and he will be inventing something not said
 by any [individual] Muslim, nor by any major grouping of Muslims. Rather, all four
 imams and their major followers are free from that. Whoever says a real-particular
 letter or a real-particular word ts eternal has invented an opinion invalid both in Law
 and in reason. And whoever says that the genus of those letters spoken by Allah in
 the Quran and other Books are not-created, and the Arabic speech that He has
 spoken is not-created, and that the letters composing it are part of it and adhere to
 it, that Allah has spokenthemandthat they are not-created—heis right. (bid,
12:55)
You find in that discourse what is most strange. On the one hand, you
 find in it that whoever says that a real-particular letter or real-particular word
 is eternal in itself has invented a saying that is invalid in Law and reason—
 that in itself is true—then (on the other hand) you find after it what refutes
 it, namely that those letters of which the Quran is composed and those
 words of which it is combined are not-created. How can the same thing be
 created and not-created? Besides that, Ibn Taymiyyah himself quotes from
 Imam Ahmad that whoever says that any of the letters of the alphabet are
 created is a Jahmi (ibid, 12:85). No doubt the apparent meaning of what he
 says is to distinguish between the letters and words if they occur in the Word
 of Allah and if they occur in the word of creatures. According to this
114
On the Quran’s being created
 apparent meaning, those in the Word of Allah are not-created, and those in
 the word of His creatures are created. Now that necessitates that the names
 of the Prophets and others and other names that are mentioned in the
 Quran, if they occur in the Quran are eternal, and if they occur elsewhere
 are originated. And it follows therefrom that each of them will have two
 contradictory statuses.
Clearer than what Ibn Taymiyyah says is the saying of his student Ibn al-
 Qayyim: ‘If it is said—that the letters of the alphabet are created or not-
 created. The answer to it is—that the letters are of two types: the letters
 occurring in the word of creatures are created, and the letters of the Quran
 are not-created.”!93
In sum, what has been quoted of what Ibn Taymiyyah says makes it
 clear that the stand of Imam Ahmad and most of his followers is that they
 strongly criticized those who say that the recitation of the servants and their
 utterances of the Quranare not-created, and they passed on them the
 judgement of innovation, and commanded their abandonment. (Yet,) we find
 in Ibn Taymiyyah’s own statement what opposes that where he says:
 As for the letters, are they created or not-created? The dispute about that is well-
 known among the later generations. As for the early generations, it is not narrated
 from any of them that the letters, words and recitation of the Quran are created,
and there is nothing which denotes that. Rather, rejection of whoever says that our
 utterances of the Quranare created is affirmed from more than one of them, and
 they say that he is a Jahmi; some of them have declared his unbelief. In the sayings
of some of them it is recitation of the Quran, and in the sayings of others it is the
letters of the Quran. Those from whom that is affirmed are Ahmad b. Hanbal, Abu
al- Walid al-Jaradi the student of Shafit, Ishag b. Rahwayh, al-Humaydi, Muhammad
b. Aslam al-Tisi, Hisham b. (Umar and Ahmad b. Salih al-Misri. (Ibid, 12:571)
There is no reason to comment on this statement. If the recitation of the
reciter of the Quran is not-created, even though it is an action like his other
actions, and the reciter himself is created, and all his actions are existing after
they did not exist—then Allah is sufficient for me. I believe in Him, Glori-
fied is He, He is Lord, there is no partner with Him in His creation, none
equal to Him in His Lordship, and none similar to Him in His attributes.
Ibn Taymiyyah also says:
There are three matters:
The first: the letters of the Quran which are His Word before Jibril came down
with it, and after he came down with it. Whoever says that these letters are created
has opposed the consensus of the sa/af. Because there was no-one in their time who
said this except those who said that the Quran is created. Those are the people who
103al-Sawaq al-mursalah (Cairo: Matba‘at al-Imam), 435.
115
The Second Discussion
believed in the creation of the words of the Quran. Except for that, [the sa/aj/] do
not acknowledge any poof for its being created or not-created. More than one of the
great theologians have recognized this. From among these theologians is ‘Abd al-
Karim al-Shahristani with his awareness of the religion and of opinions. He has said
unconditionally that the sa/af held that the letters of the Quran are not-created. He
also said: the opinion of the Quran’s being originated is new. He has approved the
opinion of the sa/afin his book entitled Nvbayat al-kalam.
The second: the actions of the servants. They are those motions of the people in
which the recitation appears. Now, there is no dispute among the sa/af that the ac-
tions of the sa/af are created. That is why it is said that most of them judged as an
innovator [heretic] whoever says My utterance of the Quran is [not-]created'TM be-
cause that 1s qualified as his action.
The third: the apparent recitation from the servant following the motion of the
 verse. Some of them describe this as created. The first person who said this—
 according to what has reached us—is Husayn al-Karabisi, his student Dawidal-
 AAsbahani,!5 and a [certain] group. The scholars of the Sunnah at that time criticized
 them for that, and said harsh sayings about them. The majority of them—the sa/af
 called them a/-/afxiyyah—are those who say that our utterance of the Quran is cre-
 ated, or the Quran in our words is created, and the like of that.
 A group of the people of sadith and Sunnah, and they are many, have opposed them,
 saying that our utterance of the Quran is not-created. \What the texts of Imam
 Ahmad and his class of the people of knowledge are based upon is [as follows]:
 whoever says My utterance of the Quran is created is a Jahmi; and whoever says
 that it is not-created is an innovator [heretic]. This is the correct opinion to the
 majority of the people of the Sunnah—that neither of these sayings is to be said—as
it is the teaching of Imam Ahmad and the majority of the sa/af. For each of these
 [saying created or saying not-created] entails the suggestion of an error. For the
voices of the servants are originated, no doubt about that, albeit some of those who
supported the Sunnah deny that the sound of the Quran heard from the servant
 [uttering it] 1s created.
The majority of the people of the Sunnah have rejected that and have criticized it
 following the approach adopted by Ahmad and other imams of guidance. The
Prophet, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah, said: ‘Adorn the Quran
with your voices.’
As for the recitation in itself which is letters and words of the Quran, it is not-
created. The servant only reads out the Word of Allah with his voice. In the same
way if he says that the Prophet, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah, said:
‘The actions are with the intentions...’ This saying is uttered by him [but] its mean-
ing is the saying of the Prophet, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah, and
[the servant] has conveyed it with his motion and voice. Likewise, the Quran its
word and meaning are the speech of Allah, Exalted is He. There is nothing of the
104The printed text of Fafdawa has ‘created’; the sense obviously is ‘not-created’ which fits
with the context and with what has been said elsewhere.
105 = That is as the name is given in a/-Fatawa, ‘Abt Dawid? is what is correct.
116
On the Quran’s being created
creature in it except his conveying, rendering and voice. For no intelligent person
can the distinction be obscure between the recitation itself, before the creature’s ut-
terance of it and after the creature’s utterance of it, and between the action and
 work of the servant in recitation of the Quran. Both some of those who argued for
 and some of those who argue against got involved in the mistake only because they
treated two separate matters as one, and they sought to argue the origination of the
 letters of the Quran by those evidence which proves the origination of the actions
 of the servants and whatever derives from them. This is the worst mistake. There is
 No rational or traditional argument which can prove the origination of the letters of
 the Quran, except the general class of those arguments which would [also seek to]
 establish the origination of its meanings. The answer to such arguments is like the
 answer to [the quest] of those who seek guidance from Allah, and He guides them.
 (Ibid, 12:572—74)
This statement of Ibn Taymiyyah does not differ from the rest of what
 has been quoted earlier, which indicates the clash of their opinions and con-
 tradiction of their arguments. In that respect it does not need any comment.
 I would only put before the respected reader the following points:
 1Ibn Taymiyyah has narrated in the beginning of this quoted speech that
whoever says that the letters of the Quran are created is an opponent of
the consensus. What is this consensus? The righteous early generations
of the Companions and the Followers did not raise the issue of the
creation of the Quran. They were content with belief in its being sent
down from the All-Wise, the All-Praised, and that Allah is the Creator of
everything, that whatever is other than Him is created. Since the issue
has been raised, and the dispute appeared, among the (later) groups of
the #mah, there is no reason to regard the opinion of one of the groups
as the consensus. Yes, the opinion of those who refer to the firm
evidence of the Book, the sound mnfawatir Sunnah, and those basic
fundamentals which are agreed upon (—that has the right to be called
the consensus). This only can be known by examining the opinions and
looking into their evidence. And of that, soon, isha? Allah, will be
presented to you in this Discussion what will satisfy you and explain it
with indubitable truth.
2Ibn Taymiyyah has differentiated between the actions of the servants
(namely their motions in which the recitation appears)—he narrated that
there is no dispute among the early generations that the actions of the
servants are created—and the recitation appearing from the servant after
the motion (which produces the recitation of) the verse. He has narrated
from the scholars of the Sunnah that they have criticized those who be-
lieve in its creation. Yet it is known for sure that the motion that appears
from the servant when reciting the Quran ts not other than his action
which is expressed in recitation. How can the action of the servant be
not-created while the actor himself is created?
117
The Second Discussion
3Ibn Taymiyyah has differentiated between the recitation before the ut-
terance of the creature, and after the utterance, and between the action
and work of the servant in the recitation of the Quran. He has claimed
that the difference between the two cannot remain obscure to any intel-
ligent person. Yet the recitation—as I said just now—is not otherwise
than an action of the reciter. So how does he differentiate between the
action of the servant and his work in it? Is this not but like differentiat-
ing between the hitting emanating from the hitter and the fasting com-
ing from the faster and between the work of the servant in them? In re-
ality it is only differentiating between the thing and itself.
 4Ibn Taymiyyah has claimed that there is no rational or traditional argu-
ment which proves the origination of the letters of the Quran. There is
no answer to this except to say ‘Nothing can be right to the mind when
daylight needs evidence’.
Insha? Allah, these arguments will soon be presented to you in the last
 Chapter of this Discussion. Here, another text from Ibn Taymiyyah in their
 dispute on this issue. He says:
 The opinion that the utterance is not-created has been referred to Muhammadb.
 Yahya al-Dhuhali and Abt Hatim al-Razi. Some people refer it also to Aba Zur‘a
 saying that he (Aba Zur‘a) and Aba Hatim abandonedal-Bukhari whenhe was
 abandoned by Muhammad b. Yahya al-Dhuhali. The story of it is well-known.
 After the death of Ahmad it happened among some of his students and others and
 among other groups for this reason. The leading people with Muhammad b. Dawid
 and al-Missisi, the shaykh of Aba Dawid,believed in this. WhenSalih b. Ahmad
 became the leading judge, Abi Bakr al-Marwadhi asked him to clarify for the leading
 people the issue of Abu Talib, because this incident was witnessed by Salih and
 ‘Abdullah, sons of Ahmad, al-Marwadhi, Fawran and others. Al-Marwadhi wrote a
 book in rejection of the one who says My utterance of the Quran is not-created. He
 sent it to the scholars in Makka, Madina, Kufa, Basra, Khurasan and others. Abd 1-
 Khallal has mentioned that in Krab al-Sunnah and explained it in detail.
 In spite of this, some groups among those who relate to the Sunnahandthe
 following of Ahmad, like Abu ‘Abdullah b. Mandah, Abi Nasr al-Sijzi, Abi Isma‘il
 al-Ansari, Aba al-‘\la al-Hamadant and others, say that our utterance of the Quran
is not-created, and they say this is the opinion of Ahmad. They reject—or, some of
 them reject—the narration of Abu Talib, and they say this was invented against him.
 Or they say that he turned back from that, as Aba Nasr al-Sijzi has said in his
 famous book a/-Ibanah.
The matter is not as these say. The people most knowledgeable about Ahmad and
closest of all to him and the truest in narration from him are those who have
narrated [that] from him. But the people of Khurasan did not have such knowledge
of the opinions of Ahmad as the people of Iraq had, who were closer to him. The
worst fi/id about [the issue of] utterance happened in Khurasan—wherethere was
118
On the Quran’s being created
prejudice against al-Bukhari—without regard for his greatness and imamah, albcit
though those who stood against him were also great imams. (Ibid, 12:207-08)
This text conveys that they were not content with dispute on opinion
and belief, but went beyond that to belying each other in the narrations
 which they connect to Ahmad and refer to him.
Ibn Taymiyyah has said after this text that he found, written in the very
 hand-writing of some of those shaykhs who have knowledge and religion,
 this saying: ‘al-Bukhari died in the village of Khartank, then Ahmad sent to
 the people of the village commanding them not to perform the funeral
 prayer over him because of his opinion on the issue of utterance.’
Ibn Taymiyyah has commented by saying that this is a most blatant lie
 against Ahmad and al-Bukhari, and that the fabricator of it is ignorant of
 their states, because the death of Ahmad preceded the death of al-Bukhari by
 15 years: Ahmad died in the year 241, while al-Bukhari died in the year 256.
 (Ibid, 12:208—09)|
This is a clear picture of the hateful prejudice that existed among them
 over this issue. It is enough that Ibn Taymiyyah refers this lie to those who
 had knowledge and religion among them. What then of those who were void
 of either or both (knowledge and religion)? What of religion remains for one
 who allows himself to tell a lie in matters of the religion? I cannot compre-
 hend this allowing a lie except as a consequence of the belief in the forgive-
 ness of those who commit major sins, or that they will be punished for a cer-
 tain period of time, then released from the Fire.
Moreover, Ibn Taymiyyah has mentioned that he saw in the hand-
 writing of Qadi Abi Ya‘la (this) saying: ‘I have quoted from the end of Kitab
 al-Risalah of al-Bukhari about the reading being not the read. He says: This
 has come to me from Ahmad b. Hanbal by 22 ways, some of them opposing
 the others. For me what is correct is that [Ahmad] said: I did not hear any
 scholar saying My utterance of the Quran is not-created. He says: The fol-
lowers of Ahmad b. Hanbal have divided into about fifty.’ (bid, 12:366)
In this dispute they do not go back to any basis in the Book or Sunnah.
Their reliance is only what they narrate from Imam Ahmad and what they
interpret of his sayings. As if they have made his speech as one of those
foundations of the religion which are to be referred to (as decisively authori-
tative). Where are they in respect of His saying, Exalted is He: ‘If you differ
in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger if you do
believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best and most suitable for final de-
termination’ (a/-Nuisa?, 4.59). They have shut their eyes to whatever has come
from Allah and the Messenger that reveals the face of the truth and opens
the curtains of ignorance of the reality of the truth in this issue, which, ‘sha?
Allah, will be presented to you in the last Chapter. You will, nevertheless, go
119
The SecondDiscussion
on hearing from them their claims not to be following and not to be abiding
by anything except what has been affirmed from Allah and the Messenger.
Where is the reality in respect of the claim?
Persistence has, with some of them, gone to the extent of requiring eve-
rything that follows from belief in the eternity of the Qur4n, to the point
that some of them have insisted that the word of the creatures 1s not-created
because it is similar to the Word of Allah in its letters and words. As Qadi
Ibn SAqil of the Hanbalis has said. Ibn Taymiyyah has narrated that from him
(ibid, 12:88) and says after it:
This that Ibn SAqil has narrated is from some already mentioned students. Among
them is Qadi Ya‘qub Birzini, who has mentioned it in his book, saying: “The tenth
evidence: it is that these letters, in themselves, their properties, meaning and virtue,
are those which are in the Book of Allah, Exalted is He, in His attributes. And the
 Book with its letters is eternal. The same is here.’
 He says: ‘If it is said—we do not accept that because that [in the Quran] has certain
 dignity, whereas this [outside the Quran] has not. The answer will be—W'e do not
 accept that; rather, this [outside the Quran] also has [the same] dignity. If it is
 said—lIf it had the [same] dignity then it would be necessary to forbid a woman in
 the state of impurity touching it and reading it. The answer will be—sometimes she
is not forbidden to touch it and read it though it has that dignity (for example, a
portion of a verse). She is stopped from reading it because of the dignity of it and it
is eternal. Yet, she is not prohibited to read and touch it because of the need to
teach it. In the same way, it is said of the child that touching the wshaf without pu-
rity is allowed for him, because of the need to teach.
‘If it is said—Then it necessities that an oath [on these letters outside the Quran]
will become final, and when the man breaches his oath it will be considered as such
[as a breach of an oath on the Quran]. The answer will be—As it is in respect of the
letters of the Quran, in the same way, it is our opinion, here.
‘If it is said—lIs it not true that when certain letters conform in meaning to the same
letters in the Quran, it denotes that they are those? Do you not see that when a
speaker speaks a word intending to address a man, and its properties conform to
whatis in the Bookof Allah,Exaltedis He(for example, a man’s saying, “O
Dawid, O Nuh, O Yahya, etc.), that though these names conform to what is in the
Book of Allah, and they are eternal in the Book of Allah, yet when addressed among
mankind they are originated?
‘The answer will be—Everything that is in agreement with the Book of Allah in its
words, order, and letters, then it is from the Book of Allah, even though it has been
intended to address a man thereby. If it is said——That implies that if he intends with
these names a man while he is in the prayer, that his prayer will not be invalid. The
answer will be—That is our opinion. An example has been narrated from ‘Ali and
others. When one of the Kharijis called him [while he was in prayer] “If you were to
join gods with Allah, truly fruitless will be your work and you will surely be among
the losers” ” (a/-Zumar, 39.65). He says: ‘Then SAli answered him while he was in the
prayer: “So patiently persevere: for surely the promise of Allah is true: nor let those
120
On the Quran’s being created
excite you who have no certainty of faith” (a/-Riim, 30.60). It has been narrated from
“Abdullah b. Mas‘td that when some of his companions asked permission to enter
to him, he said: “Enter Egypt in safety if Allah wills” (Yasuf, 12.99)’
He says: ‘If it is said—lIs it not the case that when one says “O Yahya hold the Book
with strength” and intends a boy whose name is Yahya, the address will be created,
and if he intends the Quran then it will be eternal? The answer will be—In both
cases it will be eternal. Because the eternal is an expression meaning what has ex-
isted since forever, and the originated is an expression meaning what happened after
it did not exist. The intention does not make the originated eternal, and the eternal
originated, He says: And whoever says that, then he has gone far in ignorance and
error.’
He also says: ‘Everything that is similar to another it is only similar to it in some-
thing, and it cannot be similar to it in all states. Because if it is like it in all its states
then it is it, not other. We have explained that these letters are similar to the letters
 of the Quran, therefore they are not the same.’ (Ibid, 12:86-91)
Ibn Taymiyyah follows this quotation by saying: ‘This is the statement of
 Qadi Ya‘qiib and his likes, though he is the greatest of those who spoke on
 this issue. Since his answer consisted of what opposes the clear text [of
 Quran and Sunnah], consensus and reason, Ibn ‘Aqil and other imams of the
 school who had more knowledge of it have opposed him.’ (Ibid, 12:91)
Ibn Taymiyyah continues, after quoting the refutation of Ibn ‘Aqil: ‘This
 that Ibn SAgil has said has less error in it than what Birzini has said. For that
 is in plain opposition to the clear text [of Quran and Sunnah], consensus and
 reason.’ (Ibid, 12:326)
See, how Ibn Taymiyyah records of one of their great imams—he es-
 teems him the greatest of all those who spoke on this issue—plain opposi-
 tion to the clear text (of Quran and Sunnah), consensus and reason. Ibn
Taymiyyah did not exempt Ibn ‘Aqil—whom he esteems as having more
 knowledge of the wadhhab than himself—from error, though he regards his
 error as less than that of Birzini. The matter did not stop there. Rather, we
 find Ibn Taymiyyah quoting his imams accusing of unbelief those who follow
the opinion of Birzini. He has narrated from Hammad b. Zayd that he was
asked about one who says that the word of mankind is not-created, and said:
‘This is the opinion of the people of unbelief.’ So too he has narrated from
Mu‘tamir b. Sulayman that he said: ‘This is unbelief.’ Ibn Taymiyyah did not
comment on these except with what implies support of them (ibid, 12:93).
From this heated difference that you find among them on this issue such that
it is made impossible to reconcile them, you can understand that they did not
restrict themselves with rules. That is why some of them became very lax—
claiming that the leather of the wushaf, the pin upon which it ts hung, and the
wall behind it—all that is from the Word of Allah, therefore is not-created
according to their claim. Although Ibn Taymiyyah has referred (the like of)
this to the ignorant ones among them (ibid, 12:381), it is possible that they
121
The Second Discussion
regard their opponents as themselves the ignorant ones, and claim, as they
do, that they are more worthy of the wadbhab of Imam Ahmad.
From this, respected reader, you can understand the danger of this belief
and the problem that it caused to Islam. Ascribing the quality of eternity (for,
as long as they deny the creation of these things, there is no doubt that these
are eternal to them) to that whose being originated no intellect can doubt and
no sense dispute—such as leathers, pins and walls—is a thing after which
nothing remains but to affirm eternity of the whole world and to deny divin-
ity altogether. Otherwise, how is it possible to acknowledge the attributes of
Godhood, Lordship and Oneness for Allah, Glorified is He, at the same time
as affirming eternity for things other than Him, Exalted is He, by negating
their being created by Him, Exalted is He, whereas He alone, Exalted is He,
has the attribute of eternity just as He alone has the attribute of Godhood. If
it is allowed for another to share with Him in either of the two attributes, it
will be allowed in the other as well. In that (reflection) there is what will un-
veil for every eye that raising this issue within the circle of Islam was no
other than a plot by the enemies of Islam to turn Muslims away from the
strict belief of fawhid, and to tear up their unity by means of these contradic-
tory sayings and opposed doctrines.
That was felt by one of those later scholars who were influenced by the
belief of Hanbalis, a degree of influence that led him to such prejudice as it is
compulsory on every Muslim researcher to avoid. He is Imam al-Shawkani,
who gave up his Zaydi belief, and embraced what is given the name Salafi be-
lief. He says in his famous /afsir.
The imams of the Sunnah were right in restraining [people] from accepting the
belief in the creation of the Quran and its origination, and Allah protected by them
the wah of their Prophet from innovation . But they, may Allah have mercy on
them, exceeded that to affirm its eternity. They did not confine themselves to that
affirmation, [but went further] to the point that they accused of unbelief those who
believe in its origination. Moreover, they went to excess so that they accused of
unbelief those who say My utterance of the Quran is created, and even accused of
unbelief those who were undecided. I wish they had not exceeded the limit of being
undecided, and referring [perfect] knowledge to the Knower of the unseen. Nothing
of speculative theology (Aasim) was heard from the early generations of the
Companions and the Followers and those who came after them, until the time of
the wibna and the appearance of discussion on this issue, nor was any saying quoted
from them about that. Now, restraining [people] from acceptance of what they were
invited to, holding fast to the being undecided, and referring [perfect] knowledge of
the matter to its Knower was the ideal way. In that lay security, and freedom from
accusation of unbelief against groups of the servants of Allah. The matter is for
Allah, Glorified is He.1%
106Ruth al-gadir (Matba‘at Mustafa al-Babi al-Halabt wa Awladih) 3:384.
122
On the Quran’s being created
It will not be obscure to any intelligent person what in this statement of
his admits the reality, together with the prejudice in respect of those, of
whom he has related that by them Allah protected this smabh from the evil
of innovation. Yet—what he has said of their presenting this without any
proof and evidence, and their daring to accuse of unbelief groups of the ser-
vants of Allah without correctness and evidence—what innovation is more
dangerous for the smah than that?
As for their dispute about the connection of the Will of Allah with His
(attribute of) Speaking, Ibn Taymiyyah has made it clear where he says:
Ahmad and other imams have declared that Allah has been Speaking since forever
 when He wills. Ahmad has declared that Allah speaks with His will. But the follow-
ers of Ibn Kullab, like Qadi and others have interpreted His being Speaking [as fol-
 lows]: His Will in respect of His being Speaking is to enable hearing—for, according
to them, He does not speak by a [distinct act of] His Will and Power.
 Ahmad and other sa/af have declared the Quran is the Word of Allah, not-created.
 No-one from among the sa/afhas said that Allah spoke without His Will and Power.
 And none of them has said that the real-particular speech (such as the Quran or His
 calling to Musa or other than that of His specch) is eternal, pre-cternally and sempi-
 ternally, and that with Allah abide real-particular letters, or real-particular sounds,
 which are eternal pre-eternally and sempiternally. Ahmad and other imams of the
 Muslims have not said that and their sayings do not denote that. Rather, what
 Ahmad and other imams have said is clear in its opposition to that. [What they say
 is] that Allah speaks with His Will and Power, and He has been Speaking since for-
 ever when He wills, alongside their saying that the Word of Allah is not-created, and
 that it has emanated from Him, not-created, [not] emanating from other than Him.
Their texts about that are many and well-known in the books that are established as
 indeed theirs. As, for example, what has been written by Aba Bakr al-Khallal in
Kifab al-Sunnah and other books, and what has been compiled of the sayings of
Ahmad and others by ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Hatim, and what has been written by
his students like his sons Salih, ‘Abdullah and Hanbal, AbG Dawid al-Sijistini the
author of a/-Swnan, al-Athram, al-Marradhi, Aba Zur‘a, Aba Hatum, al-Bukhari the
author of a/-Sabih, Uthman b. Sa%id al-Darimi, Ibrahim al-Harbi, ‘Abd al-\Wahhab al-
Warraq, ‘Abbas b. ‘Abd al-Azim al-‘Ambari, Harb b. Isma‘ll al-Kirmani, and those
whose number is not counted among the great ones of knowledge and religion, and
the students of [Ahmad’s] students from those who have compiled his sayings and
his narrations like ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Hatim, Aba Bakr al-Khallal, Abt |-Hasan
al-Bun4ani al-Asbahani, and like these, and those who followed him and other imams
like him in the roots and branches [of the Law], like Aba ‘Isa al-Tirmidhi the author
of al-Jami Aba SAbd al-Rahman al-Nasa’I and people like them, and like Abt
Muhammad b. Qutaybah and people like him. (Ibid, 12:85-87)
123
The Second Discussion
You know that those among them who hold that Allah’s being Speaking
is without His Will base their opinion on what is necessitated by making His
worldly speech an eternal attribute abiding with His Essence. For the Eternal,
no will can precede His Eternity, as also for Knowledge, Power, Life and
other attributes of Allah, Exalted is He. Just as it cannot be said that Allah ts
Powerful by His Will, Alive by His Will, Knower by His Will lest minds
should infer origination (and contingency) in respect of these attributes, in
the same way it becomes necessary for those who believe in the eternity of
His being Speaking to say that it is not bound by His Will. When Ibn Taymi-
yyah sensed falling into this trap, he hastened to demolish all that he had
built, and to break up what he had made as the foundation in this issue. He
 says: ‘And none of them (1.e. the sa/af) has said that Allah spoke without His
Will and Power. And none of them has said that the real-particular speech
 (such as the Qurar or His calling to Musa or other than that of His speech)
 is eternal, pre-eternally and sempiternally, and that with Allah abide real-
 particular letters, or real-particular sounds, which are eternal pre-eternally and
 sempiternally. Ahmad and other imams of the Muslims have not said that
 and their sayings do not denote that. Rather, what Ahmad and other imams
 have said is clear in its opposition to that.’ (Ibid, 12:86)
When the matter is as he has affirmed here, why this clamour? And why
 is it said that the Quran is not-created? When he rejects that any of the sa/af
 has spoken of its being since forever?
If it is said—That by refusing the creation of the Quran and criticizing
 those who believe in that, they did not intend but rejection of its being ema-
 nating from other than Him, Exalted is He—as is conveyed by the saying of
Ibn Taymiyyah (which has been quoted earlier) ‘alongside their saying that
 the Wordof Allah is not-created, and that it has emanatedfrom Him, not-
created, (not) emanating from other than Him.’ (Ibid.)
Then the answer is—That description of something as being created
does not at all imply that it is emanating from other than Allah, Exalted is
He. The heavens, the earth and whatever and whoever is in themdid not
emanate from other than Him, Exalted is He. Must the description of being
created be negated of them because of that? As the starting point of the
Quran is from Allah—as Ibn Taymiyyah has made clear—in the same way
 the starting point of the universe is from Him, Exalted is He. ‘Or, who origi-
nates creation, then repeats it, and who gives you sustenance from heaven
and earth? Can there be another god besides Allah? Say, bring forth your ar-
gument if you are telling the truth’ (a/-Nam/, 27.64).
How astonishing is the contradiction and confusion in Ibn Taymiyyah’s
saying: ‘that the Word of Allah is not-created, and that it has emanated from
Him, not-created, (not) emanating from other than Him.’ There he has
124
On the Quran’s being created
negated creation of the Word, and affirmed the initiation of it. Is initiation
not but creation? And his saying at the end: ‘not-created, (not) emanating
from other than Him.’ If his intention is that every thing that is created has
started from other than Allah, it is rejected by the evidence of reason and
narration as is clear from what I said just above. And if his intention is
negation of conjoining both qualities in the Word of Allah—namely its
creation and its starting from other than Him—then there will be no
meaning in that except if its starting from other than Him is interpreted as
being an adjective binding the negated creation. This is—by the Lord of the
Ka‘bah—exactly what is believed by the believers in the creation of the
Quran.Becausenoneof them says that it started from other than Him,
Glorified is He. All of them agree that it is His Word, His Revelation and His
sending down.
If it is said—Perhaps in this text that you have quoted from Ibn Taymi-
yyah there is a printing mistake which has led to this confusion?
The answer is—There are other texts which denote the same meaning.
Thus the possibility of mistake in it is a remote possibility, close to impossi-
ble. From these texts:
A
The sa/af say: the Quran is the revealed Word of Allah not-created. They say that
He has been Speaking, since forever, when He wills. They have explained that the
speech of Allah is eternal, i.e. its genus is eternal, existing since forever. None of
them has said that the particular concrete word is eternal, and none of them has said
that the Quran is eternal. Rather, they have said that it is the revealed Word of Al-
lah not-created. Since Allah has uttered the Quran by His Will, the Quran is His
Word, descended from Him not-created. Moreover, it is not eternal, it has not been
since forever with the eternity of Allah, though Allah has been Speaking since for-
ever when He wills. So only the genus of His speech is eternal. (Ibid, 12:54)
B
As no-one from among the sa/afhas said that it is created, [so too] none of them has
said that it is eternal. Neither of these two has been said by anyone among the
Companions, their Followers in sincerity, those after them like the four imams and
others. Rather, the narrations are wtawatir from them that they used to say that the
Quran is the Word of Allah. When those people appeared who said that it is cre-
ated, they said, refuting them, that it is not-created. (Ibid, 12:301)
C
The sal/af have said that Allah, Exalted is He, has been since forever Speaking when
He wills. If it is said that the Word of Allah is eternal, it will be with the meaning
that He did not become Speaking after He had not been Speaking, and that His
Word is not-created. [It will] not [be with the] meaning that an eternal is abiding
alongwith His Essence. Rather, He has been Speaking since forever when He wills.
None of the sa/af has said that the particular concrete word itself is eternal. They
used to say that the revealed Word of Allah is not-created, has started from Him,
125
The Second Discussion
and will return to Him. No-one among them has said that the Quran is eternal.
They did not say that His Word is one meaning abiding with His Essence. Neither
did they say that the letters of the Quran, or its letters and sounds, are eternal, since
forever, abiding with the Essence of Allah. However, the genus of the letters have
been uttered by Allah since forever when He wills. Rather, they said that the letters
of the Quran are not-created. They have criticized those who say that Allah created
the letters. (Ibid, 12:56)
From his sayings is extracted what follows:
1Interpreting the eternity of His speech as (meaning) that He, Glorified is
He, has been Speaking since forever—i.e. never unable in respect of
speaking. That is not a disputed matter between us and them. We all af-
firm for Him, Exalted is He, the attribute of Speaking since forever in
this sense. It is understood from many texts of our scholars. We have
presented above, from the author of a/-Ma‘alim, may Allah have mercy
on him, his quotation of the consensus on it.
2Ibn Taymiyyah and all the early scholars on whom he relies do not say
about the Quran sent down to our Prophet, upon him be peace and the
blessings of Allah, that it is eternal in itself. As they do not say that
about any revealed Book, or any (other) speech referred to Him, Exalted
is He, such as His speaking to Musa. They do not say, about any of that,
that it is an eternal attribute, or that it is abiding with the Essence of Al-
lah, Exalted is He. There is no dispute in this matter between us and
them. Rather, it is contrary to what has been declared by many Ash‘aris,
Kullabis (the followers of ‘Abdullah b. SaQd b. Kullab). Ibn Taymiyyah
has said that he was the first who declared the eternity of the Quran
(ibid, 12:301), and he has said that the Kullabis were in clear dispute, or
(even the) Hanbalis themselves, in respect of describing the Quran itself
with eternity and (saying) that it is an attribute of Allah abiding with His
Essence—and so too for all the revealed Books, and for every speech
referred to Him, Exalted is He. (Some of these texts were quoted ear-
lier.)
3Regardless of their acknowledgement of the non-eternity of the Quran
and the other revealed Books, they deny of them the quality of being
created. And they accuse with error or unbelief whoever holds the
opinion of their being created. This is a point of some surprise and
wonder. For all existing things—either they are eternal, since forever,
their non-being did not precede their being; or they are originated, came
into being after they did not exist—in this world are in need of one who
broughtthemfromnon-beingto being.Thatis themeaningof
creation—as was said earlier in the Introduction to this Discussion.
There is no better evidence of the existence of the Creator, Exalted and
Glorified is He, than the origination of His creatures. That is why the
126
On the Quran’s being created
Quran arouses us to be surprised at the state of those who deny Him,
Exalted is He, or doubt about Him regardless of the availability of the
evidence that demonstrates His being. As you clearly find in His saying,
Glorified is He: ‘Is there a doubt about Allah, the Creator of the heavens
and the earth?’ (Ibrahim, 14.10). It is impossible that what is non-eternal
and inexistent since forever should by itself come from non-being to
being, because of the impossibility of non-being having power or will or
other qualities on which this coming depends. If that had been
permitted of the Quran or speech like that composed of letters and
conjoined words and sentences denoting meanings, then it would have
been possible for all other qualities. If it had been possible for qualities,
then it would have been possible also for substances, because (in this
respect) there is nothing to distinguish them.
If the door is opened to permitting the being of a thing after non-being
 without creation, then nothing can stand in the face of those atheists who
 claim that the origination of the universe and its order are not but products
 of blind chance, without having been originated by a creator, or planned by a
 planner. The most amazing thing is that someone should admit the being of
 a thing after its not-being and yet, regardless of that admission, deny that Al-
 lah, Exalted is He, has created it. But there are definite Quranic texts that Al-
 lah has created all things, like His saying: ‘Allah is the Creator of every thing’
 (al-Ra‘d, 13.16), and His saying: ‘He created all things and ordered them in
 due proportion’ (a/-Furgan, 25.2). The denial (of creation) necessitates either
 the rejection of the being of the thing whose creation is denied—this is the
 exact belief of those whosay: ‘Nothing has Allah sent down to man’ (a/-
An‘am, 6.91)—or the rejection of these (Quranic) texts. The explanation of
 that will be presented, insha? Allah, in the fourth chapter of this Discussion.
May it be that the dispute between us and them does not go beyond a
matter of choice of words, as long as they admit the origination (of the
Quran)—they have merely refrained from saying it is created, which we have
gone forward to—?
The answer is: It is possible that it might have been so, had they been
contentwithrestraint, andnot accusedof error and unbelief those who
speak according to those texts of the Quran which have been pointed to.
But becauseof the accusationof unbelief, innovationand error that has
come from them against the people of insight—those who did not dare to
enter into those openings, nor make bold to walk in those paths, except with
a clear evidence from the texts of the Quran which showed them the foot-
steps, and protected them from the points where intellects can slip—there
remains no reason to regard the dispute as merely verbal. Moreover, there ts
no reason to impede what the Quran has made clear, for the Quran is a
127
The Second Discussion
proof in the (matters of) expression, just as it is a proof in (matters of) wor-
ship. However, we are content in this issue with belief in the Quran being
the Word of Allah, His Revelation, and His sending down, and that whatever
is other than Allah is created, even though the Qur4n’s being created is not
identified as a point of belief, as that is included generally. This is (the
ground) on which the sa/af walked, from among the Companions and those
after them, before the fina of dispute arose in this issue. On that (ground
too) passed the early scholars of Oman, as was stated earlier. Ibn Taymiyyah
himself has made it clear, as above, that no-one among the Companions and
the Followers spoke of its eternity (ibid, 12:301).
If they did not speak of its eternity, then on what basis is it that they
speak of the denial of its creation? For the discussion of this issue only arose
after the fading away of the epoch of the sa/af. It is known firmly that the
 Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, would never deny the quality
 of being created from anything other than Allah, Exalted is He, together with
 all those Quranic texts which affirm that Allah is the Creator of every thing,
 and together with the consensus of the learned that whatever is not eternal is
 originated, and that every thing originated must have one who originated it,
 i.e. brought it from non-being into being. That precisely is creation.
In sum, when you comprehend what they have written on this issue, you
 will find them falling into what they flee from, and becoming entangled in
 what they would wish to be excused of.
This is a little from much of the confusion into which the believers in
 the eternity of the Quran and other Words of Allah sent down to His
 Prophets and Messengers have fallen. I did not intend by it but to awaken.
 Whoever wants a more comprehensive understanding (of their position)
 should refer to the books of the holders of this belief, such as the twelfth
 volume of the Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah, which exceeds 600 pages. You will not
 move from one topic therein to another without witnessing the contradiction
 of what he says, such as will suffice to demonstrate that the foundation on
 which they have laid down this belief is crumbling from its bases. They
 would have been in no need to enter into these wildernessses, if they had
 confined themselves to that (solid ground of) sound belief in the Qur'an and
 the creation upon which the sa/af walked—namely, that the Quran is the
 Book of Allah, His Revelation and His sending down, and that all that is
 other than Allah is created. If it (really) was necessary to go beyond this
 general (statement) into detail, then responsibility makes it certain that the
 foundation to refer to must be what is demonstrated by the Book and the
 authenticatedSunnah—whichyou will encounter,isha? Allah,in the last
 chapter of this Discussion—and not to rely upon the opinion of any
 particular individual and make him the basis of the argument. Since every
128
On the Quran’s being created
 individual can be right and wrong, it is not allowed (in such matters) to
followanyonewithoutevidence,exceptthe one whose saying itself is
 evidence. He was the one who is encompassed with the protection described
 by the Most High: ‘Nor does he say out of his own desire. It is no less than
 inspiration sent down to him’ (a/-Najm, 53.34). As for anyone other than
 him—however great he may be—acceptance and rejection (of what comes)
 from him, both (are permitted).
Chapter 3
On the evidence of those who deny
the creation of the Quran
 We presented at the beginning of this discussion an account of the uncer-
 tainty from which belief in the non-creation of the Quran and other (in-
 Stances) of the revealed Word has sprung, namely the confusion, among the
 people who hold this belief, of the attribute of Speaking (by which is in-
 tended the negation of dumbness) with Essential Knowledge. And Allah’s
 Knowledge is all-encompassing, eternal and not originated. In the foregoing,
 this confusion has been lifted in a way that cannot leave room for doubt.
And praise belongs to Allah. Besides what I have already mentioned, the
 people who hold this belief have relied on a number of things:
 1The first is that Allah has shown His favour to His servants by teaching
them the Qur4n, not by creating it, where He says: ‘The Most Merciful
has taught the Quran’ (a/-Rahman, 55.1-2).
That is, as you see, a negative argument from what does not clearly tell
of non-creation, nor can that be understood from it in any way. If the fa-
vouring through teaching were evidence of non-creation, it would imply that
the whole explanation (bayan) was not-created, because of His saying after it:
‘He has created man. He has taught him intelligent speech’ (a/-Rabman, 55.3-
4). He did not say that He created the bayan for him. Rather, in both places
the favouring is by teaching not by creation, because the point (of emphasis)
is the benefiting from them. Allah has reminded of His favour to His ser-
vants in subjecting the creation to them, where He says: ‘He has subjected to
you, as from Him, all that is in the heavens and on earth’ (a/-Jathiyah, 45.13).
Following this argument, will it be said that this is a proof of the non-
creation of whatever is in the heavens and in the earth, that Allah has sub-
jected it to His servants?
129
The Second Discussion
IOThe second is His saying: ‘His are the creation and the command?’ (a/-
A ‘af, 7.54). The argument here turns on the conjunction (a//) between
‘the creation’ and ‘the command’. Thus they say that ‘the creation’ is the
created, and ‘the command’is His Wordwhichis not-created.(The
command) is His saying ‘Be’: ‘Indeed when He intends a thing, His
command is “Be” and it is’ (Yasin, 36.82). There is (they argue), in this
differentiation between the creation and the command, evidence of the
corruption in the thinking of those who believe in the creation of the
Quran. For, if His Word which is command had been created, then He
would have said “His are the creation and the creation’. That has been
narrated from Ibn ‘Uyaynah, and has been mentioned by many exegetes
of the Qur'an like Ibn Abi Hatim, al-Qurtubt and al-Qasimi.
The corruption of this opinion is too clear to need further clarification.
They have argued from non-evidence, and they have relied upon what cannot
be relied upon. It indicates, if any thing, the poverty of their argument, and
their being dazed by reality. Indeed, I am in serious doubt of the soundness
of the relation of this argument to Ibn Uyaynah—(for he is renowned) for
his depth of knowledge and greatness in understanding. He was famous
among his contemporaries for beauty of narration and profundity of com-
prehension. If this (opinion) is proved from him, then it was a falling-down
so serious that one would not say “May you rise again’. The reasoning fails on
several counts:
1The first is that the context of this statement is nothing other than Al-
lah’s being alone in originating the originated things and turning them
according to His will. The text of whole verse is: ‘Your Guardian Lord is
Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then He set-
tled Himself on the Throne. He draws the night as a veil over the day,
each seeking the other in rapid succession. And the sun, the moon and
the stars are subservient by His command. Indeed His are the creation
and the command.Blessed is Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the
worlds’ (a/-A ‘raf, 7.54). The most that this verse tells us is that, just as
Allah, Glorified is He, is alone in bringing the universe out of non-being
(into being), in the same way He is alone in the management of it. He
has no partner in its creation and in its management. None other than
Him has anything of the creation and management. Rather, to Him
alone belong the creation and the command. The meaning here, clearly,
is management. And there is nothing in that which even remotely points
either to the eternity of the Quran or to its contingency.
The second is that conjunction does not necessarily mean difference
(between the conjoined elements) in every respect. Rather, it is enough
that the difference is relatively, like the difference between specific and
130
On the Quran’s being created
 general, unconditioned and conditioned, or the difference of qualifiers
with sameness of the noun. Among examples of that are His saying, Ex-
alted is He: “Guard strictly prayers, and the middle prayer’ (a/-Bagarah,
2.238). The middle prayer is not (separated) out of the genus of the
 prayers, the guarding of which has been commanded. And His saying:
‘Whoever is an enemy to Allah, and His angels, and His Messengers, and
 Jibril and Mikal’ (a/-Bagarah, 2.98). No-one says that Jibril and Mikal are
(separated) out of the genus of angels. And His saying: ‘These are the
 verses of the Book and of a Quran that makes the things clear’ (a/-Hijr,
15.1), and His saying: ‘These are the verses of the Quran and of a Book
 that makes things clear’ (a/-Nam/, 27.1). In both verses the Book is the
 same as the Quran. The difference between them is not but relative.
 And His saying: ‘Allah commands justice and the doing of good’ (a/-
 Nahi, 16.90). No intelligent person will argue about justice being the do-
 ing of good, and the doing of good being justice.
 The third is that the command of Allah, Exalted is He, has been men-
 tioned in the Quran jointly with what denotes its creation. He says:
 ‘And Allah’s command must be fulfilled’ (a/-Abzab, 33.37), and He says:
 ‘So Allah might accomplish a matter (amr) already decided’ (a/-Anfal,
 8.42), and He says: ‘And the command of Allah is a decree determined’
 (al-Abzab, 33.38). How can the (matter that is) decided be since forever?
 He says, Glorified is He: ‘He directs the command from the heavens to
 the earth’ (a/-Sajdah, 32.5). The directed is originated. He says: ‘and Our
 commandis but a single word, like the twinkling of an eye’ (a/-Qamuar,
 54.50). And He says: ‘Do they wait but for the angels to come to them
 or there comes the command of your Lord’ (a/-Nab/, 16.33). That is evi-
 dence that this command had not happened at the time of revelation of
 the verse, since its happening is expected. He says, Exalted is He: ‘Until
when came Our command and the fountains of the earth gushed forth’
 (Hud, 11.40). The intention with this command is the drowning that the
people of Nuh were punished with: reason and tradition alike affirm its
being originated.
The fourth is that His command means in one place in the Quran
something different from what it means in another. In His saying, ‘Until
when came Our command and the fountains of the earth gushed forth’,
it is not the same as in His saying, ‘Has come the command of Allah,
seek not then to hasten it’ (a/-Nab/, 16.1), and His saying: ‘Do they wait
but for the angels to come to them or there comes the command of
your Lord?’
The fifth is that interpretation of ‘the command?’ in these verses which
we have cited as (meaning) the Qurn is not correct. It is known with
131
The Second Discussion
certainty that the Quran is not meant (by ‘command’ in His saying: ‘or
there comes the command of your Lord’, and His saying: “Has come the
command of Allah’, and His saying: “Until when came Our command’,
and His saying: “So Allah might accomplish a matter already decided’,
and His saying: ‘And the command of Allah is a decree determined’. So
how can ‘command’ (amr) in His saying ‘His are the creation and the
command’ be interpreted as the Quran, whereas the text denotes the
opposite of that?
The leading experts of fafsir have realized the corruption of this opinion,
so they rejected the very basis of it, even those among them who believe in
the eternity of the Quran. Some of them did not even pay any attention to it,
and were content to mention in the /afsir of this verse only what is right, like
Ibn Jarir, who says in /afsir on a/-amr in the verse:
Allah commanded them, then they obeyed His command: Listen, to Allah belongs
 the whole creation, and the command that is not opposed. And His commandis not
 rejected, but not [the commandof] all things other than Him,-and not [the com-
 mand of] those gods and idols worshipped by the associators, which do not harm
 and do not benefit, do not create and do not command.Blessed is Allah our God,
 to whom belongs the worship of every thing, the Lord of the Worlds.!97
 Muthanna narrated to me, saying that Ishaq narrated to us, saying that Hisham Abi
 “Abd al-Rahman narrated to me, saying that Baqiyyah b. al-W‘alid narrated to us,
 saying that “Abd al-Ghaffar b. SAbd al-SAziz al-Ansari narrated to me from ‘Abd al-
 ‘Aziz al-Shami, from his father—who was a Companion—saying that the Messenger
 of Allah, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah, said: ‘Whoever does not
 praise Allah for the good deed that he has done, and praises himself, his thanks will
 be little, and his action will be invalidated. And whoever claims that Allah has set
 aside for the servants any portion of the command, he has rejected faith in what
 Allah has sent down to His Prophets, because He says: “His are the creation and the
command. Blessed is Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds’’.’
Some of them have pointed to this and rejected it like Alusi. After men-
tioning the opinion referred to Ibn “Uyaynah, Alusi follows it by comment-
ing: ‘and it is nothing’.!08
Fakhr al-Din Al-Razi—after quoting the argument of his people from
this verse on Allah’s word being eternal—says:
Qadi has said: The excgetes of the Quran agree that the meaning of this command
(amr) is not the revealed word, rather the meaning is execution of the Will of Allah,
Exalted is He. For the intent of the verse is glorification of His Power. Others say it
is notfar-fetchedtosaythatthecommand,thoughincludedin creation,
nevertheless denotes, in being a command, another kind of Perfection and Majesty.
107Ibn Jarir al-Tabart: Jamal-bayanSan ta?nil al-Qurdn (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr Lebanon),
8:206.
108al-Alasi: Rit) al-ma‘ani (Dar Thy? al-Turath al-‘Arabi), 8:183.
132
On the Quran’s being created
His saying: “Hlis are the creation and the command’ means that His is the creation
and origination in the first instance, then after the origination and creation His is the
command and laying of obligations (a&/f) in the second stage. Do you not see that,
if He had said that ‘His is the creation and His is the /a&/if and His are reward and
punishment’, it would have been good and communicative. And, [just as] the reward
and punishment are included in creation, so too here. Others say: The meaning of
His saying: “His are the creation and the command?’ is that if He wills He creates,
and if He wills He does not create. In the same way, the meaning of ‘and the
command’ will be that if He wills He commands, and if He wills He does not
command. If accomplishment of the command is connected with His Will, then tt
necessarily means that the command is created. As, when the accomplishment of
the created was connected with His Will, it was created. If the command of Allah
had been eternal, then it would not have been according to His Will, rather it would
have been [one] of the necessary concomitants of His Essence. In that case it would
not have been true to say that if He wills He commands, and if He wills He does not
command. That negates the apparent meaning of the verse.!®
However, al-Razi objected to that (argument), saying:
If ‘the command?’ had been included in ‘the creation’, then mentioning of ‘the com-
mand’ alone would have been mere repetition. The rule is ‘No repetition’. The last
thing on the subject is: we have tolerated that in some instances out of necessity, but
the norm is ‘No repetition’.!
His objection collapses in the face of his (own) statement already cited,
and in the face of what I have said during refutation of this argument.
Aba Hayyan has referred this argument from the verse to al-Naqqash
and others, and has followed it by saying: “This is weak reasoning because to
interpret the word as what he has mentioned is not certain; the opposite of
that is rather more obvious.”!!
Ibn Kathir says in the fafsir of this verse: ‘ie. all are under His control,
subjection and Will, that is why He said [with the] alerting [imperative]: “Lis-
ten! His are the creation and the command” i.e. His are the Kingdom and
7112
Jamal al-Din al-Qasimi has quoted from Allamah al-Biga‘ that he has
divided all things whose existence is possible (.e. not necessary)—namely
(everything) other than Allah—into two types. One type is grasped with the
external senses, and called in the terminology of the people of law as the
witnessed, the created or the owned. The other type is that which is not
grasped by the external senses, and it is called the unseen, the commanded or
the celestial. The first (meaning) is understood by the general public. The
109Mafatib al-ghayb (Dar al-Kutub al-Tmiyyah) 14:123-24.
NO = Ibid, 14:124.
M1g/-Babr al-mubit (Dhahran/ Riyadh: Maktabah wa Matabi‘ al-Nasr al-Eladithah), 4:310,
M20Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Dar Thya al-Kutub al-‘Arabiyyah), 2:12 1.
133
The Second Discussion
second is understood by those intellectuals whose intellects are free from
suspicions and speculations."3
S. Rashid Rida has interpreted ‘the command’ by saying: ‘it is making law
or making nature or (having) disposal or direction’.
Imam Ibn Ashir says: ‘a/-khalg (‘the creation’) is bringing the existents
into being, and a/-amr (‘the command’) is subjecting them for the action for
which they are created.’
Then he says: ‘the article in a/-&ha/q and a/-amr is generic. The sentence
conveys the restriction of the genus of creation and the genus of command
as being in the [exclusive] ownership of Allah, Exalted is He. There is noth-
ing [of either] for anyone other than Him. The meaning ts that there 1s noth-
ing of the creation and the command for their [the associators’] gods.”"'5
3The third is His saying, Exalted is He: ‘We created not the heavens, the
earth and all between them, but for just ends (Wi-/-hagq)’ (a/-Hijr, 15.85).
The way they argue ts that the “hagq’ with which Allah has created them
is His saying to them ‘Be’. If this saying (of ‘Be’) had (itself) been cre-
ated, then it would not be correct to (say that) the creations were created
by it, because the creation is not created by a creature.16
The answer to that is by the following (arguments):
AWe do not accept that the meaning of bi-Lhaqg is what you have said.
The best fafsir of the Quran is by the Qur4n itself because of the firm-
ness of its proof, the power of its explanation, and unity of its source.
His saying, Exalted is He, ‘Our Lord, not for nothing have You created
all this” (A/ Imran, 3.191), firmly denotes that the meaning of bi--baqq in
the verse is in opposition to a/-batil (i.e. creation for nothing, vainly). The
intention of describing Allah’s creation of the heavens and the earth and
whatever is between them as Ji-/-bagq is to negate futility of Allah, Ex-
alted is He, in His actions.
It is refutation of the futility that the unbelievers thought of His actions,
as is clear in His saying, Exalted is He: ‘Not without purpose did We
create heaven and earth and all between. That was the thought of the
unbelievers. But woe to the unbelievers because of the Fire’ (Sad, 38.27);
and His saying: ‘We did not create the heavens and the earth and all that
is between for sport (/a‘bin). If it had been Our wish to find a pastime,
We should surely have taken it from what is nearest to Us, had We done
so (had We so wished) (a/-Anbiya?, 21.16-17); and His saying: “We
M3al-Qasimi: Mabasin al-ta’nil (Dar Thya al-Kutub al-SArabivyah), 3:2357.
M4a/-\anar (4" edition), 8: 454.
M5yl-Tabrir wa /-tannir (al-Dar al-Tinisiyyah li-l-Nashr), 8:169.
N60al-Qurtubi: a/-Jami Ii Abkam al-Quran (Cairo: Dar al-Katib al-‘Arabi li-l-Tiba‘ah wa I-
Nashr), 7:222.
134
On the Qurin’s being created
created not the heavens and the earth and all between them merely in
sport. We created them not except for just ends, but most of them do
not know’ (a/-Dukhan, 44.38-39).
The meaning of ‘Be’ in the like of His saying, Exalted is He, ‘For to any-
thing which We have willed, We but say “Be” then it is’ (a/-Nab/, 16.40)
relates to the execution of His Will, Exalted is He, in respect of anything
of the wumkinat in the context of giving it existence or completing it. It
is explained by His saying, Exalted is He, ‘when We have willed’ ice.
when Our Will has conjoined with it in the way of execution (of the
command). Because ‘when’ is for time in the future, and this is empha-
sized in His saying an naqiila la-hu (that We say to it), which is in the im-
perfect tense which, when it is with av, means the future. It is known
with certainty that whatever is since forever—like His Knowledge, His
Power and His Life—the Will cannot be conjoined with it, because
nothing can precede (what is eternal). And this is emphasized by His
saying fa-yakiin (then it is), the connecting particle /a- meaning order and
sequence. From this you know that His saying, Exalted is He, Aun _fa-
Jakun, is, wherever it occurs, nothing but an indirect expression of the
speedy response of things to Him, Glorified is He, in accordance with
the conjunction of His Will with these things. Otherwise, there is no ut-
terance of £af niin (Run) in the concrete sense (of utterance).
If we accept that, then we will say that our discussion is about the Word
revealed, such as the Quran, not the Word unrevealed.
The fourth: seeking refuge in Allah’s complete words as has come in the
hadith: ‘T seek refuge in Allah’s complete words from the evil of what He
has created.’ The argument here is that if His words had been created
then seeking refuge in them would not have been allowed.
The answer to this is: that this seeking refuge in fact is with Allah, Glori-
fied is He, because He is the Lord of the words. The words are included in
 (the sense) because of the blessing and goodness that Allah has put therein.
It is a kind of metaphor."!7 And in the sound adith has come seeking refuge
in His actions, Exalted is He, as in the prayer of the Prophet, upon him be
peace and the blessings of Allah: ‘in Your forgiveness from Your punish-
ment’. Forgiveness is one of His actions, Exalted is He, and it is (therefore)
definitely originated. Seeking refuge in it was allowed because (forgiveness)
does not emanate from other than Allah.
5The fifth is what Abu 1-Qasim al-Lalka’r has narrated from SAli b. Abi
Talib that he said—when it was said to him that you made two men as
117See, on that, the answer of al-Muhaqgqigq al-Khalili to the question about the Aadith ‘O
Allah, I seck refuge in Your pleasure from Your anger’ in Vamhid qawaSd al-imdan
(Oman: Wizarat al-Turath al-Qawmi! wa I-Thagatah), 3.
135
The Second Discussion
your judges—‘I did not make a creature as a judge, I did not make a
judge but the Quran.’
The answer to that is this: his negation of making a creature as judge by
making the Quran as judge is because the Quran is from Allah, Exalted ts
He.Allthat is in it—command,prohibition,permission,restriction, ap-
proval, rejection—is from Allah, Exalted is He. So making the Quranas
judge is referring for judgment to Allah who has sent it down with His
Knowledge, and has related its judgements to Himself. He says: ‘Who is bet-
ter than Allah in judgement?’ (a/-Ma?idah, 5.50)
6The sixth is what has been narrated from ‘Abdullah b. ‘Abbas, may Al-
lah be pleased with them, that he criticized a man who said: ‘Lord of the
Quran’.
The answer is: that this narration, (even) if it were sound, does not con-
stitute evidence because it is referred only to a Companion (and not linked
back to the Prophet). Moreover, evidence as to its not being sound is in
abundance. An example is that Allah, Glorified is He, has joined ‘Lord’ with
an Essential attribute, namely ‘a/-‘izeah’ where He says: ‘Glory to your Lord,
the Lord of Majesty, He is free from what they ascribe to Him’ (a/-Saffat,
37.180). So how can Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them, prohibit
the joining (of ‘Lord’) to the Quran, even if we assume the authenticity of
the opinion resorted to? And an instance (of evidence that the narration is
unsound) is what has come in a hadith related to the Prophet, upon him be
peace and the blessings of Allah: ‘O Allah, Lord of Taha and Yasin....? And
an example (of evidence that the narration is unsound) is that Arabs refer to
the master or owner of a thing as its rabb (‘lord’), as they say ‘lord of the fam-
ily’, ‘lord of the house’. So how can (expressions) like that be prohibited in
respect of the Quran, when it is referred to the Lord of the worlds? From all
this, the unsoundness of this narration from Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be
pleased with them, becomes clear. Even assuming its soundness, it is possible
that his criticism was based on his opinion that the names of Allah are fanqifi,
that He is not to be addressed except with names that have been narrated
(i.e. names that are in the Quran itself or in the Prophetic /adith). This is an
opinion well-known to the a#mah.
136
On the Quran’s being created
Chapter 4
On the evidence of those who believe in
the Qur’an’s being created
The foregoing presentation of the dispute on this issue will have made clear
to you, respected reader, through painstaking comparative study, the mani-
fest confusion in the statements of those who affirm for the Quran and
other revealed Books of Allah, the attribute of eternity. Now that the weak-
ness of their argument has become clear to you, I now present to you the ar-
guments of the other group—those who believe in the Quran’s being cre-
ated.
This evidence is of two types: rational and traditional. We begin with the
rational evidence, and this is as follows:
Rational evidence
1Permittingmultiplicity of the eternal is contradictory to the unicity
which is the most special of the attributes of Allah, Exalted is He. (It is
rejected) because it leads to permitting multiplicity of gods. Because the
True God, Glorified and Exalted is He, only deserved Godhood in con-
nection with His precedence over everything in existence. If there were
any equal to Him in being eternal, then it would be correct for that equal
to be His partner in Godhood, for there is nothing to prevent its being
creator, sustainer, manager and wise.
If it is said—that Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, is distinct from the
Quran and other (instances of the) eternal Word, because of attributes
other than eternity—such as Knowledge, Power, Hearing, Seeing—by
which He alone merits Godhood and Lordship.
Theanswerto it is—that specification of Allah, Glorified is He, with
these attributes, as against His equal in being eternal, is giving a prefer-
ence to Him over it, and this giving preference must have a justification.
If it is said—that the (attribute of) being Speaking is itself one of those
attributes by which Allah merits being alone in the creation and com-
mand.
We say—that those attributes are not separated from Him, Glorified is
He. The present discussion is only about that speech which is preserved
in the hearts of those who have been given the knowledge (of it), and
which is heard by the ears, recited with the tongues, written with pens,
inscribed on tablets. And that is contrary to all those attributes.
137
The Second Discussion
Everything whose eternity is affirmed, its non-existence is impossible
because the existence of the eternal is Essential Necessary Existence,
which does need justificaion—in contrast to the existence of (that
which) is only permissible (not necessary). It is impossible that anyone
should have any authority over it in establishing, or removing, sending
down or raising up, maintaining or taking away. While Allah, Exalted is
He, says bout the Quran: ‘If it were Our Will We could take away that
which We have revealed to you’ (a/-Isra?, 17.86)
The effects of art (i.e. of having been produced) are apparent in the
Qur’an. Each letter of it needs the other in sequence, its words being
composed from them. And each word needs other words to combine as
a sentence. The letters are different, and none of them is not in need of
the other. ‘ba is different from ‘si’, and ‘si’ is different from ‘win’ and
with the combination of these three letters (in a particular sequence) is
composed the phrase ‘l/-s77. Composition is an artwork that points to
the artist, and the artist must precede in existence the made art. From
what has been said of the distinctness of these letters, and their being
absorbed in the composition, (it is clear) that someone has made this
distinctness, and has made each of them different from the other, and
composed them with this art of composition, and made of it this elo-
quent speech.
The permissibility of reasoning about the Quran in the same way that all
His actions are reasoned about. Thus, it is said that Allah spoke with
Musa in order to choose him over other people by this favour (to him).
Allah spoke to His servants by the Quran in order to establish His
argument over them, and to guide them to His paths. He made the
Makkan Quran more attentive to matters of belief than to rituals and
judgements because of the insolence of the Quraysh and their ignorance.
And He made the Madinan Quran more attentive to rituals and
judgments because (by then) the faith had become rooted by the part of
 the Quran revealed in Makka. That (kind of seeking out reasons) is not
allowed in respect of any of His attributes, Exalted is He, just as
reasoning about His Essence is not allowed. Thus, (in respect of His
attribute of Power) it will not be said that Allah got power over this
because of this, and (in respect of His Knowledge) that He knew this
because of this, and (in respect of His being All-Seeing) that He saw this
 for this reason. And the same in respect of the other attributes.
The Quran’s being conjoined with occasions of time like one’s saying,
‘Allah spoke with Musa whenhe went to the mountain.’At the begin-
ning of this Discussion we presented from the texts of the Quran and
Sunnah what indicates this. His attributes have precedence over occa-
sions of time, so their being joined with them is impermissible.
138
On the Quran’s being created
 6The letters of the Quran are the same letters from which is composed
the speech of the Arabs, prose and poetry, rhymed prose, ex tempore
(verses), battle odes, praise odes (and so on). And it is shared in by the
speech of all mankind. If the Quran is eternal it will mean necessarily
that the speech of mankind as a whole is eternal since their speech is
also composed from the same letters. Also it implies that the speech
precedes the speakers. Otherwise how can that which is eternal be com-
posed from that which is originated?
If the eternity of the letters is believed in for the Quran and all the rest
of the Word of Allah, (but) not for the speech of mankind, then that
implies necessarily that, in each of these letters, there are two
contradictory qualities: being originated and being eternal. Is this
anything other than compounding two opposites?"!8
If it is said—thatthis argumentis not compellingbecauseIbn
Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim have differentiated between (on the one
hand) the letters of the Quran and others of the Word of Allah, Exalted
is He, and (on the other) the letters of the speech of mankind, so that
even if they are the same, their sameness is in genus (i.e. general kind),
not in particularity.
The answer to it is—their opinion is rejected on two grounds. The first
is that we do not accept that this sameness is not particular. Because if it
were (not particular), then that necessitates plurality of the same letter to
the degree of the plurality of those who utter it and write it. The second
is that there cannot be identity of genus between the originated and the
eternal.
As for traditional evidence, some of it is from the Quran and some
from the Sunnah. The evidence from the Quran is in many verses. I confine
myself to only the following:
Evidence from the Quran
1Hissaying, Exalted is He: ‘the Creator of all things.’ (a4An‘am,
6.102; a/-Ra“d, 13.16; al-Zumar, 33.62, al-Ghafir, 40.62)
118These arguments are summarized—with some addition and clarification—from the
Risdlah of Imam Muhammad b. Aflah b. “Abd al-Wabhab al-Rustami, mav Allah have
mercy on him, on the creation of the Quran. They are also available in Aisi) al-Jaahir
of Imam al-Barradi. See a/-Jawabir al-mantagah (Cairo: al-Matabis al-Baraniyvah, 1302)
183—85, 191-92.
139
The Second Discussion
The way of reasoning from this verse is that the Quran is either a thing
or nothing. If it is nothing then why this dispute—if the disputed does not
exist? And what has Allah sent down, detailed it and strengthened it in the
composition, if that does not pertain to some thing. But then, if the Qur'an is
a thing, what excludes it from the generality (of the ‘all things’ mentioned in
the verse)?
If it is said—that applying the generality of the verse to every thing ne-
cessitates that Allah is the Creator of His Essence and attributes. The answer
 to it is—that it is impossible in reason and tradition to include the High Es-
 sence in this generality. The experts of 1s#/ have regarded this as belonging to
 the class of rational specification. His attributes in that respect are like His
 Essence, because of the impossibility of their non-existence, because that re-
quires the putting together of opposites. Exalted is Allah.
If it is said—that the Wordis an attribute amongthese attributes, so
why do you not exempt it from the generality of the verse as you have ex-
empted (the other attributes)?
The answer is that our discussion is not about alam al-nafsi which is an
Essential attribute of Allah, and by the affirmation of which is affirmed His
power over speaking. Our discussion is about a revealed Word composed of
letters, recited by the tongues, heard by the ears, understood by the minds,
stored by the brain, compiled in the mushaf. Is there anything like that among
His Essential attributes?
2His saying, Exalted is He: ‘And He created all things, then made
them in order.’ (a/-Furgan, 25.2)
This quality is apparent in the Quran. Because its chapters, verses,
sentences, words, letters, vocalizations, recitation and meanings, wisdom
and judgements, reports and parables, are (all) in order.
3His saying, Exalted is He: ‘Indeed, We have created every thing
with an order.’ (a-Qamar, 54.49)~
This is as the previous item.
4His saying, Exalted is He: ‘We have made it an Arabic Quran, so you
will understand.’ (a/-Zukhbruf, 43.3)
The reasoning with this verse in respect of its creation is by two ways.
The first is its saying about the Quran that it is made. The made is that
which is transferred from one state to the other, which cannot be except in
that which is created. The second is the reasoning of its being made in the
Arabic language with the intention that the addressees may understand it.
140
On the Quran’s being created
Like that verse are all the verses which make it clear that it is made, for
example His saying, Exalted is He: But We have made it a light, We guide by
it whomever We will from among Our servants’ (a/-Shiira, 42.52).
ImamMuhammadb. Aflah, may Allah be pleased with him, has com-
mented on the evidence of ‘making’ as affirmation of its being created; he
says:
The “mab is in consensus that every doer is before his doing, and the maker is be-
 fore the making, and the artist is before the art, and that the maker is other than the
made. When the difference and precedence between them has been affirmed, then it
is true that they are two things, and that the first and precedent is the Eternal Maker,
and the second, the made, is the originated, being after it had not been.”
He has argued from ‘making’ when referred to Allah, in many verses
which denote it—such as His saying, Exalted is He: ‘He made the darknesses
and the light’ (a4/-An‘am, 6.1); and His saying: ‘He made from it, its pair’ (a/-
A ‘raf, 7.189); and His saying: ‘He it is that has made for you the night that
youmayrest therein, andthe day to makethings visible to you’ (Yunus,
 10.67); and His saying: ‘Or who has made the earth firm to live in; made riv-
ers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable; and made a separating
barrier between the two seas’ (a/-Naml, 27.61); and His saying: ‘Of the hills
He made some for your shelter’ (a/-Nab/, 16.81); and His saying: ‘and has
made for you ships and cattle on which you ride’ (a/-Zukhruf, 43.2); and His
saying: ‘And made the sun as a lamp’ (Nd#/, 71.16); and His saying: ‘and We
made the night and the day signs’ (a/-Isra, 17.12).!29 Similar to those (verses 1s
the meaning of ‘making’) in His saying: ‘Have We not made the earth as a
place to draw together’ (a/-Mursalat, 77.25); and His saying: ‘Have We not
made the earth as a wide expanse; and the mountains as pegs; and created
you in pairs; and made your sleep for rest; and made the night as a covering;
and made the day as a means of subsistence’ (a/-Naba’, 78.6-11); and other
verses.
Imam Abit |-Yaqazin Muhammad b. Aflah, may Allah have mercy on
him, says:
The meaning of ‘made’ in these places that we have cited is ‘created’. And so it is for
the one who opposes [our argument], but not, he claims, in the context of the
Quran, because ‘making’ in the Quran is other than creation. If that is allowed for
him, then it must be allowed [also] for another to oppose that and say some similar
saying about [something] other than the Quran—that the ‘making’, about which we
[Ibadis and Hanbalis] agree has the meaning ‘creation’, has [for him] another mean-
ing than ‘creation’. But what is the difference between the two ‘makings’? For [if
there is a difference] it means that Allah has addressed the Arabs with what they do
19Ibid, 186.
120Ibid, 187.
141
The Second Discussion
not understand of their speech, and what they do not know of their language, and
with what therein it is allowed for them to be in doubt and uncertainty about. In
one place ‘making’ is in the meaning of ‘creation’, ‘origination’ and ‘management’.
And in another place [it has] another meaning that we do not understand and we do
not know. The All-Wise is not described with such.
When we and they agree that ‘making’ in His saying—‘ind He made the sun a
lamp’ (Nv, 71.16); and His saying: ‘Indeed, We have made what ts on the earth an
adornment for it’ (a@/-Kahf, 18.7); and His saying: ‘He made for you from yourselves
pairs’ (a/-Shiira, 42.11), and His saying: ‘And He made darknesses and light’ (a/
.AnSam, 6.1)—1s in the meaning of ‘creation’, then all ‘making’ when it is by Allah 1s
in the meaning of creation. In that will be included the Quran and other than the
Quran. Otherwise, debating will become pointless and any evidence [for the argu-
ment] will not be valid.
If they oppose—relying on the saying of Allah: ‘It was not Allah who made a slit-
eared she-camel or a she-camel let loose in pasture... (a/-Maridah, 5.103). It will be
 said—Yes, Allah did not create a slit-eared she-camel as a slit-eared she-camel, as
you claim, nor a she-camel let loose in pasture as a she-camel let loose in pasture, as
you claim. Rather, He negated from Himself what He did not do as the associators
claimed [that He did]. So He criticized them because of their innovation. Its mean-
ing is that We did not create as you have described, rather We created against that
which you have described. The negation here is of the particular qualifier, not of the
particular creation.
 Like that is His saying: ‘Surely, I will make you a leader for mankind’ (a/-Bagarabh,
2.124) i.e. I will create in you the quality that was not in you, and the meaning that
was not found in you, and I had not done so in you before that. The meaning of
 ‘made’ wherever it is found is ‘created’, ‘managed’, ‘...’ and all that is in the same
 meaning, though the words are different.!2!
That is Muhammad b. Aflah’s statement about ‘making’. I add to it that
I investigated (occurrences of) ‘making’ in the Quran referred to Allah, and I
 found it to fall in either of two classes. The ‘making’ is either natural or legal.
In both there is creation of what did not exist (before). In the natural mak-
ing—for example in His saying: ‘He made from it its pair’ (aA ‘raf, 7.189);
and His saying: ‘and has made for you ships and cattle on which you ride’ (a/
Zukhruf, 43.12); and His saying: ‘He made the sun a lamp’ (Nw, 7116)—the
meaning of origination and contingency is clear.
The legal ‘making’ is as in His saying: ‘Surely I will make you a leader for
mankind’ (a/-Bagarah, 2.124), and another example of the same is the negated
making in His saying, Exalted is He: ‘It was not Allah Who made a slit-ear
she-camel or a she-camel let loose in pasture...’(a/-Ma?idah, 5.103), i.e. He did
not legalize the slitting of its ear. An(other) example of the legal ‘making’ is
His saying, Exalted is He: ‘and We made the g/b/ah to which you were used
121[hid, 187-88.
142
On the Quran’s being created
only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn
on their heels’ (a/-Bagarah, 2.143).
The difference between the two ‘makings’ is that the first of them is
bringing into existence the essence of the made thing or an abiding quality of
it which did not exist before. That implies bringing the made from one state
to another state, or from one quality to another quality. That (turning from
one to another state) is accomplished when the ‘making’ is referred to man-
kind, and it is in the meaning of turning from one state to another, as (when)
I made the dough bread, the flour dough. In both cases there is turning of
the made from one state to another in which it was not before. The flour be-
 fore being made dough was not dough, and the dough before being made
bread was not bread. It is not understood from this other than that the thing
made is moving with the making from what it was before (to the changed
state).
The second is inventing a law that turns (the object of the action) from
one verdict to another one, like the Ka‘bah being made the gsb/ah of the Mus-
lims after Bayt al-Maqdis had been their giblah.
Making the Quran Arabic is natural making, because it is inventing a
meaning abiding with the Quran, namely its being Arabic. That will either be
transforming it from one quality to the other—that ts, it was first not-Arabic
then Allah invented in it this quality (of being Arabic). Or (it will be) creating
it with this quality from the beginning—as Allah created the sun joined with
the quality of being a lamp, and as Allah created the night with the quality of
being a covering, and created the day with the quality being a space for seck-
ing livelihood. That is definitely the sense (here) in the (case of the making
Arabic of the) Quran, because of the non-existence of anything to indicate
that it was non-Arabic before, and then Allah transformed it into Arabic. As
for its being the Arabic Word since forever: relating the verb ‘making’ to it in
this way is impermissible in reason and in the dictionary, because ‘making’ is
an action and action precedes what is enacted, so ‘making’ definitely precedes
the made.
The same will be said about His saying, Glorified is He: “But We made it
a light, We guide by it whoever We will from among Our servants’ (a/-Shiira,
42.52)s
This will appear as self-evident to whoever reflects on the meaning of
‘making’, and thinks about the Eternal Necessary attributes of Allah, Exalted
is He, and the impossibility of relating ‘making’ to these attributes. For it is
impossible in Law that one should say that Allah has made His Knowledge
all-encompassing, or His Power all-containing, or that Allah has made His
Existencepre-eternalandsempiternal,or that Hehas madeHis Hearing
catch all sounds, or made His Seeing encompass all that is visible—because
these phrases imply Allah’s production of these attributes.
143
The Second Discussion
An objection has been offered to the argument for the creation of the
Quran from its being made Arabic—that ‘making’ is sometimes other than
creation, as in His saying: ‘They make for Allah daughters, Glorified is He’
 (al-Nab/, 16.57) and His saying: “They made the angels who are servants of
 the Most Gracious females’ (a/-Zukhruf, 43.19), and His saying: “You make it
 your provision that you lie’ (a/-Waqi"ah, 56.82).
The answer to it is—that the distance between the two ‘makings’, and
 makers is immense. The making in the context of what we are here discuss-
 ing is an affirmed action referred to Allah, Exalted is He. Whoever rejects it
 or rejects its effect (namely, the Quran), has unbelieved. That which is
 made—namely, the Quran in its Arabic, its giving light and its guidance—tis
 an established reality. Whoever rejects it, he has certainly unbelieved. The
 ‘making’ in what they have objected with is a falsehood referred to the unbe-
 lievers. The made—namely, the angels being feminine—is a nothing. Who-
 ever affirms that will be regarded as an unbeliever. There is no problem with
 the sameness of the letters of the verb (ja‘a/a) in both references—namely,
jim, ‘ayn, lam—because the verb in reference to Allah has one meaning, and
 in reference to someone else has another meaning regardless of there being
 no difference in the word. Like that is His saying, Exalted is He—‘He is who
created you and those before you’ (a/-Bagarah, 2.21); and His saying: ‘And Al-
 lah created you and whatever you do’ (a/Saffat, 37.96); and His saying: ‘In-
 deed We created man from a quintessence of clay’ (a/-Mw?miniin, 23.12); and
 His saying: “We have indeed created man in the best of moulds’ (@/Tum,
 95.4)—and other similar verses where the creation is referred to Allah. It is in
 all cases with the meaning of bringing from non-being into being. You will
 find this same verb, the same word and the same letters, referred to the un-
 believers. It has (in those references) a sense that is not proper to the right-
 eous servants Allah, let alone its being permissible in respect of Allah, the
 Lord of the Worlds, Exalted is He. That (meaning) is (explicit) in His saying:
 ‘And you create falsehood’ (a/-CAnkabit, 29.17). Is there any way to interpret
 that in one place according to the meaning of the other? Or is the compari-
 son between the two verbs as impossible as the impossibility of the compari-
 son between the two doers?
 5His saying, Exalted is He: ‘Never comes aught to them of a renewed
message (dhikr) from their Lord, but they listen to it as in jest’ (a/
Anbiya?, 21.2). Similar is His saying: “But there comes not to them a
newly-revealed message from the Most Gracious, but they turn away
therefrom.’ (a/-Shu“ara?, 26.6)
144
On the Quran’s being created
The argument from both verses is description of the message therein as
 being originated, which is being created. Without doubt, in both verses the
 meaning of ‘message’ is not but the Quran because of the evidence of His
 saying: ‘It is not but a message for the worlds’ (a/-Qalam, 68.52; Yiisuf, 12.104;
 Jad, 38.87); and His saying: ‘Surely We have sent down the message’ (a/-Hijr,
 15.9); and His saying: ‘Surely it is a message for you and your people’ (a/-
 Zukhruf, 43.44); and His saying: ‘By the Quran possessed of the message’
 (Sad, 38.1), and His saying: ‘It is not but a message and clarifying Quran’
 (Yasin, 36.69), and His saying: “This is a blessed message, We have sent it
 down’ (a/-Anbiya?, 21.50)
The believers in the eternity of the Quran have followed two ap-
 proaches in their rejection of the argument, from the verses of a/-Anbiy?
 (21.2) and a/-Shu‘ara? (26.6), of the believers in its creation. Those among
 them who believe in the eternity of its letters and words hold that, in both
verses, the meaning of being originated applies to sending down (of the
 Quran) when Allah wills that as is the demand of His wisdom. The meaning
is that that which is originated is the sending down of the Book, not the
Book itself. Some of them have expressed this by saying that the meaning of
being originated is in the renewal (of the sending down of the Book). Those
among them who differentiate between the Quran and those letters and
words which are recited and compiled, say: that which is originated 1s the let-
ters and words, which are expressions of the Quran—which 1s an eternal at-
tribute abiding with His Essence—and narration thereof. Both these opin-
ions are rejected.
As for the first argument—it is invalidated by the fact that the thing-
Originated is what the action of originating falls upon. The condition of it is
that it is preceded by the doer and the action. Origination is bringing from
non-being into being. To interpret origination as meaning the sending down
is to leave the apparent meaning for no reason—except that the holder of
this opinion has made it the basis to which the texts are referred and (by
which) the evidence is interpreted. How great the hardship (that this kind of
reasoning introduces) in the religion! Moreover, we say that the sending
down itself is transferring that which is sent from one state to another. And
that indicates origination for two reasons—the first is that the eternal does
not shift from its root, and that which is (merely) accidental cannot happen
to it; the second is that there is no authority of anyone over the eternal,
because the eternal is not caused to be (.e. the eternal 1s not caused to be in
one place or time or form rather than in a different place or time or form,
therefore it cannot be transferred from one place or time or form to
another).
145
The Second Discussion
As for the second argument—it is rejected by the fact that to affirm
something (namely the Qur’an) as an attribute for Allah, Exalted is He, which
is other than what has been sent down to the truthful Prophet, upon him be
peace and the blessings of Allah, is a claim without proof.
Imam Abt |-Yaqgazan, may Allah have mercy on him, has objected to
this claim of theirs by saying:
A narration ts either contrary to what 1s being narrated or according to it. If it 1s ac-
cording to it, then how can two conforming things be, one ‘created’ and the other
‘not-created’. The wwmabh is in consensus that whatever is permitted for a thing, Is
 [also] permitted for its like. Otherwise, what the avmah has agreed on is void. If one
says that the narration is other than the narrated, and it is contrary to it, then that is
stranger [sull] and further away from being right. And that is going against the nor-
 mal usage of the “mah and [indeed] of all nations. Because a narration cannot be
 narration of something except when it is like the narrated, expressing it. If the oppo-
 site of what we hold is possible—that the narration is [indeed] contrary to what is
 narrated—then it is necessary of all false reports that they are true, and of all true
 reports that they are false. And poetry will be narration of the Quran, and the
 Quran narration of poetry, and praise [will be] narration of blame, and blame narra-
 tion of praise. And it will not be proper for us to reject a report, or call a reporter
 false, or that we refuse a narration or deny a saying. When this is possible and per-
 mitted then how can the truth be truth and the lie a lie? By my life, if the narration is
 opposite to the narrated, then the truth should be falsehood, and the falsehood
 should be truth. As this is void and falsified, then it is correct [to hold] that the nar-
 ration cannot be opposite to the narrated.
 Also: [if you are right], tell us where the narration is opposite to the narrated. And,
 what is the Quran? Is it the narration or the narrated? If the Quran that Allah sent
 down on the heart of Muhammad, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah,
 and which the Trustworthy Spirit came down with, is the narration, and this [‘the
 narrated’, the Quran that we recite] is other than that, then our discussion with
 them [the Hanbalis] is in respect of the Quran that the Trustworthy Spirit came
down with on the heart of Muhammad, upon him be peace and the blessings of Al-
lah, the Qur'an about which He has said: ‘When W’e recite it, then follow its reciting,
then surcly it is up to Us the explanation thereof (a/-Osyamah, 75.18-19). If the
Quran [that we recite] is the narrated, and the Quran is abiding with the Essence of
Allah, then it has not yet come down. They have followed in that the saying of Ibn
Siriya when he said to the Messenger of Allah, upon him be peace and the blessings
of Allah: ‘Allah has not sent down anything to any of mankind.’ In that way they
have rejected the Quran’s having come down. That is most astonishing.
There is consensus among us and among them that the Quran that is in this world
and that we read is like what was read by the Messenger of Allah, upon him be
peace and the blessings of Allah, and that we have read it according to his reading.
If it had been opposite to it—in the way that they say the narration is opposite to
the narrated—then the Prophet, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah,
would have brought [something] opposite to what Jibril, upon him be peace,
146
On the Quran’s being created
 brought. Similarly, Jibril would have brought [something] opposite to what Mikal
 brought, and Mikal the opposite of what Israfil brought—and thus all of them
 would have brought [something] opposite to the other.
 If you say that the narration is opposite to the narrated then what do we say about
 what Muhammad has narrated from Jibril? Is it this? Or is it opposite to this? Then
 there is no escape from saying this is this, or this is like this. How can [a quality] in a
 thing be permitted that is not permitted in the like of it? Or [are we to say that] ina
 thing [a quality] is not permitted that is permitted in the like of it? Is there any con-
 tradiction greater and worse than this? We seek refuge in Allah from blindness and
 being left helpless, and we beseech Him for help and guidance.!2
 6His saying, Exalted is He: ‘This is a Book, with verses established, fur-
ther explained in detail from One who is All-Wise and All-Informed.’
(Hid, 11.1)
The argument from this verse is that Allah has described the Quran as
 being established and detailed. Both of these are an effect emanating from an
 effect-giver. It is not possible that the effect should be eternal since forever,
 because of the necessity of its effect-giver having precedence over it. The
 preceded is originated because—evidently—tt is after it was not.
This Quran, either it is joined with being established and detailed from
 its beginning, or these are qualities that Allah has created in it, after it had
 been void of them. Both possibilities imply its creation and origination.
The first, because the existence of a thing joined with an originated qual-
ity from its beginning is evidence of its being originated. Since establishing
and detailing are two actions emanating from Allah, Glorified is He, there 1s
no doubt as to their being originated—otherwise, their reference to Allah
would not have been allowed. Its establishing and detailing are not but in the
meaning of bringing it into existence as established and detailed.
Thesecond,becausebeingestablishedanddetailedare twoeffects
falling upon it. The effect emanates from the effect-giver, attesting to the
transferring from one state to the other of that upon which the effect has
fallen. That is impossible for the eternal, because of the impossibility of
anyone having authority over it. That is the reason why it is impossible to say
thatAllahhasestablishedHisPower,ordetailedIt, orthat Hehas
established His Knowledge or detailed It. Because that phrase necessarily
implies origination of His Power and His Knowledge, Exalted is He.
Therefore, it becomes certain that we turn to the first (possibility, namely
that the qualities of being established and detailed are joined with the Qur’an
from the beginning), because of the non-existence of anything that indicates
that the Quran was established after it had lacked being established, or was
detailed after its lack of that.
122Ibid, 189-90.
147
The Second Discussion
7His saying, Exalted is He: “Indeed, We brought to them a Book, We de-
tailed it knowingly.’ (a/-A ‘raf, 7.52)
The argument from this verse in respect of the origination of the Quran
concerns three matters:
The first is that being ‘brought’ is transferral from one state to another
state. That is impossible for the eternal as was explained above.
The second is the report about it that it is detailed. As in the foregoing.
The third is that its detailing emanates from His Knowledge, Glorified is
He. The emanating from a thing must be preceded by it.
 8His saying, Exalted is He: ‘None of Our revelations do We abrogate or
cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar.’ (a/-
Bagqarah, 2.106)
Theargumentfromthis verse is that Allah,Glorifiedis He,has in-
 formed us of abrogation of some of its verses by some others. Abrogation is
 omission and removal, and that is impossible for that which is eternal. Its
 impossibility is greater in respect of something that is in words. The majority
 of the scholars have affirmedthis—amongthemare the believersin the
 eternity of the Quran.
 9His saying, Exalted is He: ‘The month of Ramadan, in which the Quran
was sent down.’ (a/-Bagarah, 2.185)
The argument from this verse is that it is sent down. Sending down is
 moving from one place to the other, which is impossible for the eternal, be-
 cause of the impossibility of anything having authority over it, or its being
 changed in its state. Similarly, in His saying, Exalted is He: ‘He sent down on
 you the Book with truth, confirming what is before it, and He sent down the
Torah and Gospel before’ (A/ Imran, 3.3-4); and His saying: ‘He it is who
 sent down to you the Book, from it are established verses’ (A/ ‘Imran, 3.7);
and His saying: ‘and We have sent down on you the message, so that you ex-
plain for the people what has been sent down to them’ (a/-Nab/, 16.44); and
His saying: ‘Indeed, Wehave sent it downin a blessed night’(4/-Dukhan,
44,3). In its sending down there is a further evidence of its origination,
namely that it has been sent down in parts, so it is divided. And division is
impossible for the eternal.
10His saying, Exalted is He: ‘Surely We have sent down the message, and
surely We will preserve it.’ (a@+-Hyr, 15.9)
148
On the Quran’s being created
The argument (from this verse) is that Allah has reported about it that it
 is preserved by Him. The preserved cannot but be the created, because the
 eternal does not need preserving by those that preserve. For it is impermissi-
 ble to say that Allah preserved His Life, or His Existence, or His Power, or
 His Hearing, or His Seeing, or His Knowledge, whereas it is permissible to
 say that Allah has preserved His Word, if the Word revealed is intended by
 that, and not ka/am al-nafsi. The verse is a proof of its permissibility. As for
 the hadith ‘Preserve Allah, He will preserve you’—it means to preserve one’s
 obedience to His command and prohibition. So it presents no objection to
 what I have said.
 11His saying, Exalted is He: ‘in it are verses clearly defined—they are the
core of the Book—and others are allegorical (wutashabihat” (Al Imran,
3.7)|
The argument from this verse is that the verses of the Quran are
 divided into two types: the clearly defined and the allegorical, and that the
 clearly defined verses are the base for the allegorical which should be referred
 to the former in interpretation. That is impossible in respect of what is
 eternal.
 12His saying, Exalted is He: ‘Rather: it is clear verses in the hearts of those
who are given the knowledge.’ (a/-CAnkabit, 29.49)
The argument from it is that the hearts of scholars are originated. The
 Originated cannot be a vessel for the eternal. No-one among the creatures of
Allah can be a place for the Life of Allah, or His Power, or His Knowledge,
 or His Existence, or His Hearing, or His Seeing, or any attribute of His at-
 tributes. Rather, the creatures can be vessels of the things known to Allah,
and things in the power of Allah, and things seen by Him, because these, like
 them, are creatures.
 13His saying, Exalted is He: ‘But it is a Glorious Quran, in a Preserved
Tablet.’ @/Burij, 85.21)
The argument from it is by two ways. The first is that the Tablet is cre-
ated, and the created cannot be a vessel for the non-created, as above. The
second is that these verses are presented in praise of the Quran, and explain
its glory and greatness and exalted rank. No-one can doubt that it would be a
clearer and stronger argument (for that) if He had said that the Quran is
abiding with His Essence, Exalted is He. If it had been since forever abiding
with Him, Glorified is He, then it would have been more appropriate to say:
‘But it is a Glorious Quran, abiding with the All-Mighty, the All-Praised’, or
some such that denotes what I have said.
149
The Second Discussion
14.His saying, Exalted is He: “We have sent down to you the Book with the
truth, confirming the Book before it, and mastering it.’ (a-A[a?idah, 5.48)
The argument (from this verse) is that He has affirmed its being pre-
ceded by other (than it). The preceded cannot but be originated. And He
has said that it is mastering its predecessor. The mastering is an evidence
that the mastered is originated. If the one before it is originated, then the
quality of being originated is quite appropriate for it also.
15His saying, Exalted is He: ‘It is a Quran which We have divided in order
that you might recite it to men at intervals: We have revealed it by
stages.” (a/-Isra’, 17.106)
The argument is that Allah has said of it that it is divided. The divided is
made. The made cannot but be originated.
The foregoing are examples of the Quranic evidence for its being origi-
nated. As for the evidence from the Sunnah, there are many narrations. We
confine ourselves here to the following:
 Evidence from the Sunnah
 1
 Imam Ahmad, al-Bukhari, and Abt Dawid have narrated from Abt Sa‘id b.
 al-Mu‘alla that he said:
 I was praying in the mosque, then the Messenger of Allah, upon him be peace and
 the blessings of Allah, called me, but I did not respond. Then I said: ‘O Messenger
 of Allah 1 was praying.’ He said: ‘Has not Allah said: “Respond to Allah and the
 Messenger when they call you”?? Then the Prophet said: ‘Indeed I will teach you a
 chapter which is the biggest chapter in the Quran, before you come out from the
 mosque.’ Then he held my hand. When he intended to go out I said to him: ‘Did
you not say: “Indeed I will teach you a chapter which is the biggest chapter in the
 Quran?”He said: ‘It is “al-bamdu lt-l-labi rabbi lSalamin...{al-Fatibah, 1.1—7|—the
“seven oft-repeated” verses, and the greatest Qur’an that I have been given.’
2
ImamRabi‘ b. Habib has narrated in his Muasnad from Aba Ubaydah,from
Jabir b. Zayd, from Abi Sad Khudri, may Allah be pleased with them, that a
man heard another man reciting: ‘Owl: hbuwa Llabu abad al-lahu -samad...(Say:
He is Allah, the One, the Eternally Absolute... (a/-Ikh/as, 112.1-4))’ and re-
peating it. When the morning came he entered upon the Messenger of Allah,
upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah. He mentioned that to him, in
150
On the Qurin’s being created
 a way as if he were underrating that surah. The Messenger of Allah, upon
 him be peace and the blessings of Allah, said: ‘By the One in whose hand is
 my life, it equals the third of the Quran.’ Imam al-Bukhari has recorded it by
 way of Abu Sa‘d in the words: ‘By the One in whose hand is my life, it
 equals the third of the Quran.’
 3
 Imam al-Bukhari has narrated also from Abi Sa‘id the saying:
 The Messenger of Allah, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah, said
 to his Companions: ‘Is any one of you unable to read the third of the Quran
 in a night?’ It became difficult for them and they said: “Who could be capable
 of that, O Messenger of Allah?’ upon him be peace and the blessings of Al-
 lah. He said: ““AWahu abad, Allabu l-samad, Allah the One, the Absolute” is the
 third of the Quran.’
 4
 Imam Ahmad has narrated from Abt Said the like of that (previous hadith),
 saying that Qatadah b. Nu‘man spent the whole night reading the surah ‘Ow/:
 hiwa |-labu abad’. 1t was mentioned to the Prophet, upon him be peace and
 the blessings of Allah. Then he said: ‘By the One in whose hand is my life, it
 equals the half of the Quran,’ or he said ‘the third of the Quran’. Muslim
and al-Tirmidhi have narrated the like of that through Aba Hurayrah, may
Allah be pleased with him. And like that is (also) with Imam Ahmad, al-
Tirmidhi, al-Nasa7i, by way of Aba Ayyab Ansari. Imam al-Tirmidhi says: On
this subject there are narrations from Abi |-Darda’, Aba Sa‘d, Qatadah b. al-
Nu‘man, Abi Hurayrah, Anas, Ibn “Umar, and Abt Mas‘id. Imam Ahmad
and al-Nasa’I have narrated the like of it from Ubayy b. Ka‘b. Imam Ahmad
and al-Nasa’i have also narrated something like it by way of Abu Mas‘ad and
Umm Kulthim b. “SUqbah b. Abi Mu‘ayt referring it to the Prophet, upon
him be peace and the blessings of Allah. They have narrated with Imam
Muslim from the hadith of Abu |-Darda from the Prophet, peace be upon
him.
5
Ahmad, Muhammadb. Nasr and Tabarani have narrated with a sound chain
from Ma‘qil b. Yasar, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Prophet, upon
him be peace and the blessings of Allah, said: ‘[Swraf| a/-Bagarah is the high-
point of the Quran, and its peak; with every verse of it came down eighty
angels; The ayat al/-Kursi (2.255) was taken down from under the Throne, then
was joined with this surah.’
The Second Discussion
6
Abi Yaa, Ibn Hibban, Tabarani and Bayhaqi have narrated from Sahl b.
Sa‘d al-Saidi saying that the Messenger of Allah, upon him be peace and the
blessings of Allah, said: “Indeed every thing has a high point, and the high
point of the Qur'an is S#rat al-Bagarah, whoever reads it in his house during
the day, Satan will not enter it for three days.’
The argument from these /adiths for the creation of the Quran is that
they are clear texts that some (part) of the Qur4n is greater and better than
the other, and that some of it is a high point in relation to the rest of it, and
that some of it was separated, then was joined with it. All that is impossible
 for the eternal. Do you not see that preference of some attributes of Allah
 over the others is not allowed? It will not be said that His Knowledge is bet-
 ter than His Power or vice versa. It will not be said that His Life is greater than
 His Hearing, or His Seeing, or His Power, or His Will. If it is prohibited for
 the attributes as a whole, then it is more appropriate for it to be prohibited
 for one and the same attribute. Allah’s Knowledge is not divided, then some
 of it preferred over the other. His Power is not divided to make some of it
 greater than the other. Similarly, it is not possible that a part of the attribute
 is separated, then joined with itself.
Conclusion
The outcome of the foregoing:
I do not doubt, respected reader, that after your acquaintance with the
 arguments and debates presented in this Discussion on the issue of the crea-
 tion of the Quran, you will have realized that correctness and safety lie in the
belief that it is, like all other existing things, other than Allah. It came into ex-
istence after it had not been. Whatever is like that, it is definitely created. You
will have realized also that the belief in its being eternal opens the door for
those who believe in the possibility of a multiplicity of the eternal to the ex-
tent that it leads to belief in the world’s being eternal. You have seen the ef-
fect of that in what I quoted of the sayings of those who support the eternity
of the Quran and are harsh in criticizing the proponents of belief in its
origination. The situation has led some of them to believe in the eternity of
all of the Words, because of their similarity in the letters and wordsfrom
which they are composed. It led some of them to believe in the eternity of
152
On the Quran’s being created
(even) the leather, the peg and the wall around the Quran. What is there to
prevent, beyond that, going on with this unending continuous chain until it
ends with belief in the eternity of everything, or to the philosophy of the
oneness of all existents. I seek refuge in Allah.
You will also have realized the weakness of the uncertainties that they
have relied upon, and the contradiction in their sayings, and confusion in
their argument. The strongest of what they have referred to in denying the
creation of the Qur4n is that it is a Word related to Allah, Exalted is He, as
in His saying: ‘Grant asylum to him so that he may hear the Word of Allah’
(al-Tawbah, 9.6). They have failed to note that by this argument they are pro-
viding the Christians with a proof for their belief that the Messiah, upon him
be peace, is a ‘son’ of Allah or ‘part’ of Him, because Allah says about him:
‘His word which He bestowed upon Mary and a spirit proceeding from Him’
(al-Nisa’, 4.171).
Regardless of all this, I would have preferred not to go over this issue, in
favour or against, because of my desire to restrict myself to what is narrated
from the first generation of this wwmah, and not to raise any debate that dis-
turbs any Muslim. But what could I do when the tongues would not stop,
and the pens would not refrain from raising this subject without any guid-
ance or evidence. The affair did not stop at that, but went to the extreme of
accusing of unbelief those who say the word of truth or invite to it. Then I
saw myself, because of that, compelled to say a deliberated and quiet word—
I have no intention behind it but to please Allah, Glorified is He—which can
remove, by the hand of proof, the veil of doubt from the face of the dazzling
reality, asking Allah for His guidance in both word and deed.
Whoever reads what I have said in a fair-minded way will find it far from
being influenced by selfish motives, egotism or uncontrolled emotion, for I
have given place to only reasoned argument, nor have I let myself be satisfied
with anything other than strict objectivity. And Allah is behind the intention,
and He is sufficient for me. And how good He is to be relied upon!
153
THE THIRD DISCUSSION
ON THE PERMANENT STAYING IN THE FIRE OF
THOSE WHO COMMIT MAJOR SINS
This discussion contains an Introduction, three Chapters and a Conclusion.
The Third Discussion
Introduction
On the definition of a/-kbulid (permanency) and a/-kaba?ir (major sins):
As for a/-kbulid: it means permanent, everlasting stay. The author of
Lisan al-“Arab says:
al-khbuld.permanentstaying in a place,not comingoutof it; &balada, yakhiudn,
kbuldan wa Rhulidan: remain and stay; dar al-kbild (lit. the house of permanency): the
hereafter, because of the permanent staying of its people therein. IVa &halladahu |-
libu na akbladahu takhiidan; [for example:) wa gad akhlada -labu abla dar al-khiuldi fi-ha
wa khallada-hum—And Allah made to stay the people of the house of permanency
therein and made them permanent’.!3
An example is His saying, Exalted is He: ‘We granted not to any man
before you everlasting life; if then you should die, would they live for ever?”
(al-Anbiya?, 21.34)
The statement of the author of a/-Lisan denotes that a/-Rhu/d is used in
the language to mean everlasting permanence. That is the opinion of al-
Zamakhshari, Ibn ‘Atiyyah, al-Qurtubi, al-Shawkani from among the
miufassirin. It has been fully supported by ‘Allamah al-Battashi, may Allah have
mercy on him.
And the use of a/-khu/fid to mean long duration is done by interpreting it
metaphorically. As in this expression of Labid in his Mu‘al/laqah:
suman khawalida ma _yabinn kalanu-ha—{stones]dumb, long-enduring, their speech
 unintelligible
Again in this expression of al-A‘sha:
fan tazalit Ra-dhalikum thunma la ziltu la-kum khalidan khuliida ljibati—you remain like
 that, then I’ll remain constant for you with the constancy of the hills
Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Aba Hayyan, Aba al-Sa‘id and Qutb al-A?immah
hold that it is used to mean long duration, and do not look to its meaning
permanence or non-permanence. In their view, this is one of those ambigu-
ous nouns whose meaning is determined by context. They have argued the
permanence of the reward and punishment from other evidence from the
Book and Sunnah, not from the word a/-khu/iid. For example, its use together
with the word a/-abad in His saying, Exalted is He, about those who believed
and did good deeds: ‘Their reward is with Allah: gardens of eternity, beneath
which rivers flow; they will dwell therein for ever’ (a/-Bayyinah, 98.8); and His
saying: ‘For any that disobey Allah and His Messenger, is the Fire of hell:
they will dwell therein for ever’ (a/-Jinn, 72.23); and what is gathered from the
123°J isan al-Sarab (Cairo: Dar al-Ma‘“arif Kurnish al-Nil), 2:1225.
156
On the permanency of punishment of major sinners
clear, sound adiths about the permanent staying therein of the people of
both places, and the consensus of the wmah—except those who are not
counted—on the non-perishing of these two places.
These people considered the use of a/-Rbulid to mean non-permanent
duration in the usage of the Arabs, such as the verses of Labid and al-A‘sha,
and decided that the real meaning is the normal usage (not the poetic, figura-
tive one).
‘Allamah al-Battashi has criticized them by saying:
As the Arabs have derived from a/-&huld their expression &bawalid for stones, in the
same way they have derived from a/-abad their expression awabid for wild [not do-
mesticated therefore unbounded] animals.!24
He also says that:
As the Arabs have derived from a/-khuld khawalid al-abjar, from al-abad they have de-
rived anabid wuhish al-gafar, whereas these non-domesticated animals [of the desere|
have a life less [enduring] than those &hawalid.'5
‘Allamah al-Battashi has interpreted the use of a/-Ahulid for long-lasting
stones as the belief of the Jahiliyyah in the non-perishing of the universe. He
has cited the saying of Zuhayr b. Abi Sulma as evidence: ‘Listen: I do not see
in [physical] events anything that endures or is permanent except the great
mountains, and except the sky, the stars, and our Lord, and His days are
counted and the nights.’
Al-Battashi says:
If his intention [in using] &4u/id had not been the meaning of permanency, then he
would not have exaggerated so far as to associate [the rocks] in permanence with
Allah, Glorified is He; on the contrary of the saying about a/-A?bid (continuance,
abiding), there is no escape from its discontinuation when related to the world.
It is in respect of this sense—everlasting permanence—that the dispute
arose among the wah about the permanent staying in the Fire of sinners, as
will be explained below, insha? Allah.
As for a-kabair. it is the plural of Aabirah, it means what is grave in
disobedience, and about the commission of which there follows a warning in
the Quran or the sound Sunnah. Either a punishment for it in this world has
been determined—as for adultery, theft and false accusation of chaste
women—or no punishment for it in this world is described—as for
consumption of interest, the dead, blood and the meat of the pig.
124Shaykh SAllamah Sultan b. Muhammad al-Battashi, Risadshfi -&bulid in Tamhid qavad
al-iman (Oman: Wizarat al-Turath al-Qawmi wa |-Thagafa), 2:19.
125[bid.
126 = Ibid, 20.
157
The Third Discussion
Chapter 1
On the dispute of the people about
permanency of the Garden and the Fire
The Will of Allah, Glorified is He, determined that the life in this world is a
finite life, so no one can share with the Creator in the quality of being eternal.
No one has disputed that; the finitude of the ages in this world is something
about the conception of which people do not differ. Allah, Glorified 1s He,
has made it one of the stages that mankind must traverse. In this world the
people are different in what they have of comfort or hardship, good fortune
or ill-fortune. This difference among them does not relate to the degree of
their differences in the good or harm that they do, their steadfastness or their
deviancy, their obedience or disobedience. Many people of pure heart, steady
character, and who compete to do good deeds, spend their whole lives in
misfortune and suffering and deprivation. And many people of foul heart,
bad character and evil dealing are provided with what they seek, and the
means of comfort are supplied to them, and different kinds of pleasures are
gathered for them. In this is what makes man believe firmly that the good or
ill-fortune in this world are not the reward of the good and bad deeds that
are sent forward by the servant, alongwith the certainty that the Assayer is
All-Seeing, and the Judge is just. That is why the souls are innately disposed
to look to a life after this life, in which every servant will garner what he has
grown and harvest what he has farmed, and he will get what he has sent for-
ward. The Divine Messages came one after the other continually giving good
tidings and warning about that life. The believers in that life did not dispute
about its being different from this transient worldly life. That life is the life of
permanence and eternity. Only some odd people have claimed that the life
hereafter is transient, albeit more enduring and extensive than the first life.
These odd people are of two groups. The first are a sect of this wwmab,
namely the Jahmis, related to Jahm b. Safwan. The second have no relation
to the wah of the Prophet, because they do not believe in the Book, and
build their ideas on wholly materialistic foundations.
As for the first group, the Jahmis, they have relied on two doubts:
The first is that the permanence of something created contradicts the
description of Allah as being the Last. Among the names of Allah are: the
First and the Last. The meaning of His being the First is His precedence over
every existent. In the same way, necessarily, His being the Last will mean His
remaining after every existent.
The second is that the number of the breaths of the people of the two
places (i.e. Paradise and hell) will either be known to Allah, Exalted is He, or
158
On the permanency of punishment of major sinners
not. If known, it means that that number is finite, and its being finite does
not conform with being permanent. If not known, that does not conform
with His attribute that He is Knower of every thing.
The answer to the first is that the permanence of the life of something
created in the hereafter does not contradict His being the Last, Exalted is He,
because of the difference of its permanence from His permanence. For,
whereas His permanence is Essential, its permanence depends on His be-
stowal of it: that is why He deserved the attribute of the Last, and not it.
The answer to the second is that the continuity of their breaths does not
contradict their being encompassed by His Knowledge. For His Knowledge
is Essential Knowledge which cannot be compared with the knowledge of
the creatures.
as for the second group they have argued their opinion from within a
materialistic philosophy based on examining the natures of perceived things.
The short of it is that the permanence of bodies is impossible, because they
are composed of elements opposed in function and so are subject to altera-
tions in state which culminate in disintegration.
The answer to this is that belief in Allah’s power over every thing ne-
gates this doubt at its root. For it is not impossible that the bodies will be re-
turned in another, different nature such that they will not be disintegrated or,
when some part of them is disintegrated, it is replaced.
The firm belief of the believers that Allah has power over every thing
does not leave of this doubt any trace in their hearts. Allah, Glorified is He,
who has created bodies in this world in the way He has created them with
Opposition among their component elements, is not unable to create them on
the Day of Resurrection in another nature different from what they are in
this world. For the world of the unseen has special natures which differ
completely from the natures of this world. So the comparison of one with
the other is not permitted. Infinite permanence has conditions which distn-
guish it from finite existence.
When you realize that the life in the hereafter does not perish, because it
is the life of destination, not the life of station, the life of reward, not the life
of earning, you will know that the reward of that life is an eternal reward,
either success or failure. There is no difference (in this respect) between its
reward and its punishment. However, some groups of people hold the view
of differentiating between them (in respect of permanence). At the head of
these groups are Jews, from whom Allah has narrated this opinion in the
context of recounting a series of their errors, and He has criticized this in
them, and has asked them to present whatever proof they refer to on the
matter. Allah has explained in a clear phrase that the truth is against what
they say, where He says: ‘And they say: “The Fire shall not touch us but fora
few numbered days.” Say: “Have you taken a promise from Allah, for He
159
The Third Discussion
never breaks His promise? Or is it that you say of Allah what you do not
know?” No; those who seek gain in evil, and are surrounded by their sins, are
companions of the Fire: they shall abide therein for ever’ (a/-Baqarah, 2.81-
82).
From this you will know, respected reader, that belief in the transferral
of evil-doers from the punishment to the reward is only an effect of Jewish
penetrationinto Islamicthought.Thegreat scholar,SayyidMuhammad
Rashid Rida became aware of that. He says in the Preface of his fafsir of Surat
al-Bagarah in al-Manar.
The sixth rule is that the reward in respect of faith and deeds 1s conjoined, because
the religion is faith and deeds. It is a delusion for one related to the religion of any
Prophet to think that he will be delivered from permanent staying in the Fire merely
by [that] relation. The testimony to this is what Allah has narrated to us about the
Children of Israel of their deluded pride in their religion, and what He has refuted in
them so that we do not follow their ways in [that], namely [His saying:] ‘And they
say: “The Fire shall not touch us but for a few numbered days.” Say: “Have you
taken a promise from Allah, for He never breaks His promise? Or is it that you say
of Allah what you do not know?” No; those who seek gain in evil, and are sur-
rounded by their sins, are companions of the Fire: they shall abide therein for ever’
(al-Bagarah, 2.81-82)., and what He has narrated from the Jews and Christians of
their saying: “And they say: “None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Chris-
tian.” Those are their vain desires. Say: “Produce your proof if you are truthful.”
No; whoever submits himself wholly to Allah and is a doer of good, he will get his
reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve’ (a/-Bagarah,
2.111-12). But we have followed their ways inch by inch, handspan by handspan, in
confirmation of what has come in the sound hadith. We are distinguished from them
only in that the followers of [the Jews and Christians] are some of the #wmabh, not all
of the “mah, and in the preservation of the text of the whole of our Book, in the
safeguarding of our Prophet’s Sunnah in detail, and that the proof of the people of
knowledge and guidance from among us is standing tll the Day of Resurrection.”
Though we are pleased with the removal from the eyes of this great
scholar of the veil of fag/td until he saw the reality clearly, and let his pen
record it, as here, in clear terms—and he confirms this reality repeatedly in
his /afsir of verses from surahs a/-Bagarah, Al Imran, and Hiid—we regret his
letting himself fall into the trap so that he is undecided on the issue.
Sometimes, as in his ¢afsir of Sirah Yiinus, he expresses a distinction between
the disobedient among the mmvabbidin (those who believe in the Oneness of
God) and others; and at other times, as in his tafsir of Strat al-An‘am he holds
to the ending without condition of the punishment of the Fire—under the
influence of the opinion of Ibn al-Qayyim which, on that point, is in accord
127°ql-Manar (Dar al-Manar, 4" edition), 1:112.
160
On the permanency of punishment of major sinners
with the Jahmis’. (1 will quote, respected reader, extracts from the latter’s
texts wherever it is possible and appropriate.)
From what I have said here, you will know, respected reader, that Ibn al-
Qayyim has accepted on this issue some part of the belief of the Jahmis, as
will be explained below, insha? Allah.
Ash‘aris, and those who follow them from the groups relating to the
Sunnah, hold the opinion of eternity of both places and the not-ceasing of
both the reward of the righteous and the punishment of the non-wauwabbid
disobedient.Asfor the muwabbid disobedient, the Ash‘aris’ opinion is that
they will be punished for a while, then they will be taken out of the Fire and
will enter Paradise and will enjoy it and stay there permanently with the right-
cous.
The belief of us Ibadis is that whoever enters the Fire from among the
mivabhid disobedient and the associators (#ushriks) will remain therein per-
manently, not for a finite period. In the same way, those who enter Paradise
from among the righteous servants of Allah will not come out of it. For both
places are places of permanent stay. The Mu‘tazilis and Kharijis agree with us
on this point, regardless of the diversity of their groups. The Khariyis have
opposed us only in that they judge of every punishable act of disobedience as
shirk entailing expulsion from the mil/ah: in that they opposed the texts of the
Book, the Sunnah and the consensus of the wwmab.
Chapter 2
On the arguments of those who believe in
the end of the punishment
You have seen that the people who hold this view are two groups. One
group believe in the ending of the punishment of all those who are in the
Fire from among wumvabbidin and associators. They are Jahm, his followers,
and whoever holds their opinion, like Ibn al-Qayyim. The other group hold
the opinion of the ending of the punishment of #mvabbidin, but not of asso-
ciators.
As for the first group they have relied (1) on certain verses from the
Quran, (2) on a narration from the Prophet, upon him be peace and the
blessings of Allah, and (3) on certain philosophical ideas.
161
The Third Discussion
1The verses from the Quran
as for the verses, they are as follows:
His saying, Exalted is He: “He will say: The Fire be your dwelling-place.
You will dwell therein for ever, except as Allah wills. For your Lord its
full of wisdom and knowledge’. (a-Aun‘am, 6.128)
And His saying: “Those who are wretched shall be in the Fire: there will
be for them therein the heaving of sighs and sobs. They will dwell
therein so long as the heavens and the earth endure, except as thy Lord
wills: for your Lord is the sure accomplisher of what He plans.’ (Hid,
11.106—07)
The way of reasoning from both these verses turns on the exception
 (from permanent stay) by the Will of Allah, Exalted is He. Also, in the verse
 of Hid, their enduring in the Fire has been tied to the enduring of the heav-
 ens and earth. It is known that the heavens and the earth are perishing; and
whatever is attached to what is perishing is itself perishing also.
To the first there are several answers. The strongest answer is that the
 exception does not denote the ending (of the punishment). Because the
 exception by the Will of Allah comes in the Word of Allah to emphasize that
what is reported happens by His Will (not otherwise). If He wills the
 opposite of that, it will be so. That is like in His saying, Exalted is He: ‘By
 degrees shall We teach you, so you shall not forget, except what Allah wills’
 (al-A Ja, 87.6—7) with the assurance that the Prophet, upon him be peace and
 the blessings of Allah, does not forget anything from what Allah has revealed
 to him and has taught him. Like that too is the conjoining of Allah’s firm
 promise with His Will as in His saying, Glorified is He: ‘You shall enter (/-
 fadkhulunna) the Sacred Mosque, in-sha? Allah in security’ (a/-Fath, 48.27),
 where, as is well known,the ‘/v-’ introduces an unfulfilled condition. That
 (the non-fulfillment of the condition) is definitely not allowed here because
 of its contradiction to the emphasis of the promise of entering (the Sacred
 Mosque) which is emphatic with the daw a/-gasam and niin al-takid (in /a-
 fadkhulunna), and is taken together with what precedes (the above words) in
 His saying, Glorified is He: ‘Surely Allah did make true the vision of His
 Messenger’ (48.27).
There are several answers to the second as well. The most deserving to
be relied on is that the heavens and earth intended in these verses are not the
heavens and the earth of this world. The intended meaning is the heavens
and the earth of the hereafter that will then be shading and carrying them.
The entering of Paradise that the righteous people have been promised, and
the entering of the Fire that the disobedient people have been warned of will
not happen while the heavens and the earth of this world endure. For their
162
On the permanency of punishment of major sinners
 time ends after the collapse of parts of the universe in its first existence. And
 that will happen which Allah has promised in His saying: The Day when the
 earth will be changed to other than the earth, and the heavens (likewise), and
 men will be marshalled forth before Allah, the One, the Irresistible. (Ibrahim,
 14.48).
It will not be difficult for anyone to see that arguing for the ending of
 the punishment of the people of the Fire from the exception that is in the
verses of a/-An‘am and Hild, and its being conditioned on the enduring of the
 heavens and the earth, compels them to say the same about the reward of the
 believers in Paradise, because the verse of Sirah Hiid is followed by His say-
 ing, Exalted is He: ‘And those who are blessed shall be in the Garden: they
will dwell therein so long as the heavens and the earth endure, except as your
 Lord wills’ (Hid, 11.108) The exception here is like the exception there and
 this condition is like that condition. This compelling answer is specifically for
Ibn al-Qayyim and whoever follows him from among those who differentiate
 (in this respect of permanence) between the reward and the punishment; it is
not for the Jahmis—because they believe in the non-permanence of both.
There is no escape for them in His saying, Exalted is He, at the end of
the verse of ‘those who are blessed’: ‘a gift without break’ (11.108), alongwith
His saying before it ‘for your Lord is the sure accomplisher of what He plans’
 (Hid, 11.107), because each verse of the Quran—even though its verses may
be far apart in the order or in order of revelation—testifies to every other. As
His saying ‘a gift without break’ denotes the continuity of the blessing, in the
same way His saying in these verses—‘Nor will there be a way for them out
of the Fire’ (a/Bagarah, 2.167); and: ‘No term shall be determined for them
so they should die, nor shall its chastisement be lightened for them’ (a/-Farr,
35.36); and: ‘Every time they wish to get away therefrom they will be forced
thereto’ (a/-Sajdah, 32.20); and His saying: ‘For its wrath is indeed an affliction
grievous. Evil indeed is it as an abode and as a place to rest in’ (a/-Furgan,
25.65-66); and: “Their wish will be to get out of the Fire, but never will they
get out therefrom, their chastisement will be one that endures’ (a/-Ma?idab, 5.
37); and: ‘and they will not be able to keep away therefrom’ (a/-Infitar, 82.16);
and: ‘Nor will they enter the Garden, until the camel can pass through the
eye of the needle’ (a/-A ‘raf, 7.40)—denote the continuity of the punishment
and the deprivation of its people from the blessing of the Garden. These
texts are sufficient to prove that Allah has not willed for them but the
punishment.
The will of Allah in these verses is undefined not defined. The verses
which declare the permanence of the punishment like those which I have
presented, are clear, there is no uncertainty as to what they denote. The
mattersof the faith are confinedto explicit texts; they are not derived from
163
The Third Discussion
ambiguous evidence. So how can reference be made to what is ambiguous
when what is definite is available? Abrogation is never permitted in the
reports of the Law-Maker because His Knowledge is not refreshed, and He is
not ignorant of anything that happens, and He does not reveal but the truth.
Then there is no sense in what Ibn Jarir and others have narrated from Jabir
b. ‘Abdullah, may Allah be pleased with him, that he said about this verse—
the verse of H#d—that it has overriding force in the Quran. For one part of
the Quran cannot belie another part of it. It is not for Jabir—the great
Companion educated from the school of Prophet—to dare to say this.
Rather, it is something from the contrivances of the people of caprice and
the fabrications of the people of deception.
Now, in what the author of a/-Manar has written in his /afsir of the verse
of Hiid, he has explained the clear and definite (verses) with other clear and
definite (verses). His text ts:
 ‘They will dwell in it as long as the heavens and earth endure’—1.e. they will stay in it
 permanently and for ever; they will not move from it as long as the heavens which
 shade them and the earth which bears them remain. This is in [line with] the mean-
ing of His saving in other verses ‘they will dwell in it permanently for ever’. Because
 the Arabs use this expression in the meaning of permanence. Those are mistaken
who say that what is intended is the period of the duration of the heavens and the
 earth in this world. For this earth will be changed and perish with the coming-to-be
 of the Resurrection. The heaven of the people of the Fire and the people of the
 Garden is what is above them. Their earth is what they are established upon, and it
 is underneath them. Ibn ‘Abbas has said that for every Garden there is an earth and
 a heaven. Suddi and Hasan have narrated the same.
 ‘Except what your Lord wills’—1i.e. this permanent dwelling is that which is pre-
 pared for them in the hereafter, which is appropriate to the quality of their ignorant
 and wrong-doing souls surrounded by the darkness of their sins and the corruption
 of their characters, as we have explained time after time. ‘Except what your Lord
 wills’ of the change of this system in another phase [of creation]. Allah has made it
 only by His Will, and it will remain in the grasp of His Will. The like of this excep-
 tion is known in the context of firm verdicts to denote that its being everlasting ts
 conditional only upon His Will, not to denote the negation of it (being everlasting]
 in general—like His saying, Exalted is He: ‘Say: I have no power over any good or
 harm to myself except as Allah wills” (@-A ‘raf, 7.188), i.e. I do not own any of that
 by my power and will, except what Allah wills to enable me to have power over, by
 subduing its means and guidance. Like it is in His saying: ‘Say I have no power over
 any harm or good to myself except as Allah wills’ (}“%us, 10.49) where [it is the
 same except that] ‘harm’ is mentioned first. And His saying: ‘By degrees shall We
 teach you, so you shall not forget except as Allah wills’ (a/-A a, 87.6—7)—the mean-
ing is that the exception here is to emphasize the negation, i.e. He, Exalted is He,
has guaranteed for His Prophet the preservation of the Quran that He teaches to
him by His Power, and has protected him so that he does not forget anything of it
164
On the permanency of punishment of major sinners
out of human weakness. That will not happen except dasha? Adah, if Allah wills, be-
cause He alone has power over it.
‘Indeed your Lord is the accomplisher of what He wills’-—if He wills other than that
He will do it. Whatever He wills, it happens, and whatever He does not will, it does
not happen. His will is connected with His Fore- knowledge and in accordance with
His Wisdom. Since it is like that, [what He wills] will not be contrary to any of Elis
promises or warnings—like the permanent dwelling of the people of the Fire
therein. This warning is conditional upon His Will. His Will goes in accordance with
His Knowledge and Wisdom.'!28
His saying, Exalted is He, ‘They will dwell therein for ages’ (a/-Naba’,
78.23).
The way they argue from this is that ‘ages’ come to an end. As long as
their dwelling in the Fire is counted by this amount, then it too is coming to
an end.
The answer to this is that, just as the breaths in the hereafter do not end
while there is no relation between them and the ages of time that they cover,
so the ‘ages’ are far indeed from ever coming to an end. The word ahbgab
(ages) is derived from abgaba: ardafa— ‘followed’; so it means the continual
following which (is a term that) has no end.
Fakhr al-Din al-Razi has done well when he says in the /afsir of this
verse:
If it is said: His saying ‘abgaban’ (ages) [means that] even if the ages are long they are
coming to an end, whereas the punishment of the people of Fire is not ending. If
He had said ‘a/-abgal? [with the defining article], then this question would not have
arisen. The example of this question is in His saying about the people of the gib/ub:
‘except what your Lord wills’. In our view the answer [to that] can follow several
ways:
The first is that the word ‘ages’ does not mean passing of an age which has an end.
Only one age is ending. The meaning is that they will dwell in it for ages; when one
aye has passed, another will follow it.
The second is that al-Zajjaj has said that the meaning is that they will dwell in it for
ages. They will not taste during these ages any cool thing or any drink. These ages
are the time for one kind of punishment, namely that they will not taste any cool
thing or any drink, except a boiling fluid and a dark, murky fluid. After these ages of
this punishment they will be given another kind of punishment.
Suppose that abgabd (ages) does convey the meaning of [the punishment’s] ending.
But this denotation of release is [at best] an implicit denotaton. The explicit
denotation is that they will not be released. He says, Exalted is He: “Their wish will
be to get out of the Fire, but never will they get out therefrom; their chastisement
will be one that endures’ (a/-\la?idab, 5.37). There is no doubt that the explicit has
preference.
128Ibid, 12:160-61.
165
The Third Discussion
The author of a/+Kushshafhas mentioned another way [of interpreting] this verse. It
 is that the usage of abgaban is related to bagiba “amu-na [an expression used] when
 there has been little rain or good in a year, and bagiba fulanun [an expression used]
 when someone has lacked provision, so that he ts Sagrb, and its plural is abgab. It
 functions as a clause descriptive of ‘them’ with the meaning that ‘they’ will dwell in
 the Fire suffering from scarcity of water, and His saying—‘They will not taste in it
 any cool thing nor any drink’—will be its fafsir.!29
What al-Razi has referred to al-Zajjaj has been said by many mufassirs. Its
 argument is that the words ‘they will not taste’ are a dependent clause
 qualifying the subject of ‘they will dwell’. The mwfassirs have explained that
these people will dwell in the Fire for ages, not tasting in it any cool thing or
drink except what has been mentioned. After that, they will be transferred to
 another kind of punishment, namely their punishment with the cold of al-
Zamharir, where they will wish to come back to hell. We seek refuge with
 Allah. With this sense there is no difficulty, even with the meaning that the
ages are coming to an end. In any case they have not argued from any text
 which means what they claim. They have only presented some interpretations
 which can be opposed by what invalidates them. And matters of the faith—
 as I said above—must rely upon the firm texts.
 2A narration from the Prophet
 As for the narration, it is the hadith of ‘Abdullah b. ‘Amr b. al-‘As: ‘Indeed
 will come to hell a day when its doors will be shut up, there will be no one in
 it.” The argument from this padith is not decisive because, to begin with, it is
 an abad hadith (a solitary report of the kind) that cannot be relied upon for
 deciding firm matters—to say nothing of the fact that its text and chain of
 narration are in disagreement with stronger evidence. Even if we assume the
 authenticity of this sadirh, it is obligatory to interpret it so that it conforms
with firm texts, namely that the people of the Fire will move from it to al-
Zamharir. But, given the weakness of the /adith, there is no need for that in-
terpretation.
229°a]-Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, a/-Tafsir al-kabir (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-‘IImiyyah. 2TM edi-
tion), 31:13—14.
166
On the permanency of punishment of major sinners
3The philosophical ideas
As for the philosophical ideas, some of them have already been quoted from
the Jahmis. Some of them have been presented by Ibn al-Qayvim in his
books, a/-Sawa%q al-mursalah and Hadi al-arwah.30
The summary of this argument is that the Most Merciful, the Most
Generous and Wise is greater than that He should create a people for evil,
not for good, for punishment, not for mercy. And the primordial nature in
which Allah has created man is fawhid, piety, sincerity, but this nature is
polluted by the various pollutions of disobedience. Some of these pollutions
are cleansed by da‘wah, some by punishment for a short period, and the
cleansing of others needs a longer period of punishment. The purpose of
that is that man should realize his weakness before his Lord, his need of His
mercy, his indebtedness to His favour, his inability to bear His punishment,
alongwith realization of the Power of Allah and His grasp, and that His
favour and blessing to His creatures are vast. When the servant realizes that,
his nature becomes clear from the rust of disobedience and his faith comes
back after the bird of disobedience had flown with it. At that stage there
remains no sense in his being punished (further); and Allah’s actions are
purified from any lack of purposive wisdom, and there is no wisdom in
permanent punishment. Ibn al-Qayyim has arranged what he has derived of
this philosophy, interpreted from the Quran and the afhar he has relied
upon, in twenty-five points.
The author of a/-Manar has presented the text of Ibn al-Qayyim’s state-
ment in Hadi al-anvah, and followed it with words of appreciation and praise
which indicate that he is inclined towards it. That is in his /afsir of the verse
of the Will from S‘rat al-An‘am.' It contradicts what has been quoted from
him earlier in the /afsir of the exception by the Will of Allah in the verse of
Hid, as also his statement in the Preface of his fafsir of Svirat al-Bagarah which
we have quoted, and other texts of his that we will quote below, ‘nsha? Allah.
These ideas are refuted by the fact that Allah’s actions are not bound by
systems decided by human reason, nor are they to be related to norms de-
rived from human imagination. Rather He, Exalted is He, does what He
wills, and judges what He plans: ‘He is not questioned about what He does,
and they are questioned’ (a-Anbiya’, 21.23). We must believe that our limited
intellects are too disabled, wearied and powerless to encompass His wise
purposes in His actions, or to penetrate His secrets in His creation: ‘you are
not given of the knowledge but little’ (@/-Isra°, 17.85)
130°See al-Sana%g al-mursalah (Matba‘at al-Imam), 22-240, and Elad? a-anrah (Dar al-Rutub
al-“Ilmiyyah), 252~77.
131°@/-\lanar (Dar al-Manar, 4" edition), 8:98-99.
167
The Third Discussion
Our duty is only to surrender to what Allah informs us about, and what
He tells is not subject to change, and an instance of that is what He has told
us of the warning. That is because of our certainty that Allah, Exalted is He,
does not speak but the truth, just as He does not command but to the truth:
‘Who is more true in speaking than Allah?’ (a-Nisa?, 4.122)
If we open that door and we refer to our intellects for judgement,
(giving them authority) above what Allah has informed us of, there can be no
other outcome of that than rejection of many, indeed most, texts. For Satan
keeps widening these gulfs, and continues to aim attacks of doubt at the
texts, to incite people to reject them or to interpret them with various invalid
interpretations whichare contrary to what is intendedby thosetexts.
Furthermore, the texts that tell of the permanence of the punishment of the
Fire are like the texts that tell of the permanence of the blessing of the
Garden. When the interpretation of one is permitted, what prevents (the
same) interpretation of the other?
It is somewhat surprising that Ibn al-Qayyim should resort to the ration-
alist doctrine in seeking to reason His actions, relying on reason to decide
good and evil, when he is the strict traditionalist who strongly prohibits the
interpretation of waf/ashabih verses in a way that conforms their meanings to
the meanings of the w#bkam verses. In fact, affirming the transcendence of
Allah, His being other than His creatures, requires such interpretation, and
doing so is permitted by the language and its conventions, and demanded by
the evidence of reason and tradition. How great is the distance between the
two positions!
I have avoided quoting Ibn al-Qayyim’s words and following them with
refutation, being content here with the summary above and my comment fol-
lowing it—in order to save time and relieve the reader of further trouble with
an issue which has now become for the wmah one of the accepted matters.
There is no one—to the best of my understanding—who holds the opinion
of Ibn al-Qayyim in differentiating between the permanence of the blessing
and the punishment.
As for the second group—those who differentiate, in respect of dura-
tion of punishment,betweenthe mwabbid disobedientandothers of the
people of the Fire—they refer, for their opinion, to verses of the Book, nar-
rations from the Sunnah, and rational argumentation. As for the verses: they
have relied upon the same as the first group—the foregoing refutation of the
latter’s argumentation is sufficient to refute the claims of these also—
although there is nothing in those verses which indicates in any way the dif-
ferentiation between the wawabhid disobedient and the others. Rather, those
verses are about the warning of all the people of the Fire. We seek refuge
with Allah. We except what is in Sarat al-Naba?. But what follows that, in the
168
On the permanency of punishment of major sinners
 criticism of the warned people, determines that they are rejecters of the Res-
 urrection. That is in His saying, Exalted is He: ‘For that they used not to look
 to any accounting for their deeds. Rather, they treated Our signs as false.’ So
if any hope of their release does appear in His saying ‘they will dwell in it for
 ages’, then the more deserving of that hope are those who reject the Resur-
 rection and belie the Book. But how can that be, when He has concluded
 that warning by saying: ‘So taste, for no increase shall We grant you, except
in chastisement’ (a/-Naba?, 78.30).
They have also relied upon what does not from far or near point to it,
like His saying, Exalted is He: ‘Often will those who disbelieve wish that they
had been Muslims’ (a/-Hijr, 15.2). Their argument is that those people will so
wish when they sce the disobedient Muslims getting out of the Fire, whereas
 they still remain in it.
This is an interpretation not supported by the wording of the verse, and
there is no evidence for it from anywhere else. Their wishing that (they had
been Muslims) may happen when they see the power of Islam prevailing in
 the earth, and its authority overwhelming the nations, and its word penetrat-
ing the (hearts and minds of the) people. Then they will wish that they had
hastened to accept Islam. Their wishing that might also happen when their
 souls are seized and they witness the first indications of the terrors of the
hereafter that they did not imagine. Or when they are raised from their
graves, and they face the greatest terror, and they realize that there is no es-
cape that day except for those who hold fast to the rope of Islam, and take
refuge with its support, and hold on to its stay. All of these interpretations
are narrated from a group of both the early and later mwfassirin. Then there ts
no scope to argue from this verse to what is unclear.
As for the narrations (that they refer to): there are several, but they are
countered with other narrations which are not fewer in number or less in au-
thenticity. I will mention, insha? Allah, some of them at the end of the coming
chapter. However, given that the narrations of release from the Fire are con-
trary to the texts of the Quran, whereas the narrations of dwelling perma-
nently in the Fire are in conformity with the texts of the Quran, it is certain
that we must refer to what conforms with the Quran, not to what opposes
it.
As for the rational argument: this is that, if the wuwabbid disobedient are
equal to associators in dwelling permanently, then there will be no effect of
the word of sawhid, and no advantage from pious actions.
Theanswerto this is that they, though equal in permanence, are not
equal in punishment—in the same way as the righteous will not be equal in
the reward, rather they will differ according to their actions. The Fire has
stages as the Garden has grades.
169
The Third Discussion
Chapter 3
On the evidence of those who believe in the
permanent dwelling in the Fire of those who
commit the major sins
This evidence is of two types, some from the Book and some from the Sun-
nah.
Evidence from the Book
As from the Book, the evidence is in many verses. We mention some exam-
ples of them below:
1His saying, Exalted is He: ‘And they say: “The Fire shall not touch us
but for a few numbered days.” Say: “Have you taken a promise from Al-
lah, for He never breaks His promise? Or is it that you say of Allah what
you do not know?” No; those who seek gain in evil, and are encom-
passed by their sins—they are companions of the Fire, therein shall they
abide for ever.’ (a/-Baqarah, 2.80-81)
It denotes the permanence (of the punishment) in several ways:
Firstly, this belief (in the non-permanence of the punishment) is of
Jewish origin, as is apparent from this text. It has been mentioned in the
context of rebuking the Jews and publicizing their error.
Secondly, the criticism of this belief has been expressed in the style of
interrogation, the intention of which is a challenge. The Jews did not, in what
they said, rely on any promise from Allah. Rather, it is part of what they in-
vent about Him, Exalted is He, without knowledge. That is sufficient to pre-
vent one from imitating them in what they say, and indulging with them in
what they indulge in, and wasting one’s time with them.
Thirdly, there is a clear explanation in this verse that the destiny of eve-
ryone who commits evil, and whose sin has encompassed him because he has
not rid himself of it through sincere repentance, is that he will dwell in the
Fire for ever with other dwellers in it, permanently. It refutes any claim to the
contrary, and demolishes the wishes of those who wish for salvation while
persisting in sin.
How much more appropriate it is for the intelligent to take caution and
not be deceived by the wishes that are entertained by the People of the Book.
Allah has warned this wah from clinging to that (wishfulness) as the Peo-
ple of Book clung to it, where He says: “Not your desires, nor those of the
170
On the permanency of punishment of major sinners
People of the Book: whoever works evil, will be requited accordingly, nor
will he find, besides Allah, any protector or helper’ («a/-Nisa?, 4.123).
Two objections have been made to this argumentation:
The first is that ‘evil’ here means polytheism (shiré), as has been narrated
 from a group of mufassirin. Since (they say) this warning is for associators, it
does not include the mawabbidin.
The second is that a/-khulid does not mean permanence here; rather, it
means long duration.
The first objection is rejected in that the interpretation of ‘evil’ as only
shirk is moving away from the verse, from what is demanded by its wording.
The word ‘evil’ is undefined, unconditioned, in the context of a conditional
sentence. Undefined terms when used in a condition denote generality, be-
cause the condition is like negation, and the outcome of the undefined in the
context of negation is generality.
By way of further explanation, consider the expression of one who says
to his servants: ‘Whoever brings me a coin in currency will be set free.’ In
line with this wording, whoever brings him anything that can be called ‘coin
in currency’ will be set free: dirham, or dinar, or riyal, or pound or whatever
other currency. Similarly if he says to them: ‘Whoever brings me a cloth will
be set free.” The outcome (the setting free) will be true for whoever brings
anything that can be called ‘cloth’: shirt, or trousers, or turban, or whatever
else. If someoneswears that he has not committed an evil act, whereas he
has committed adultery or theft or drunk wine, or disobeyed his parent, or
consumed usury, will he not be regarded as one who has perjured himself?
There is no assurance for them in His saying, Exalted is He, ‘his sin has
encompassed him’, although they claim that the committer of a major sin, if
he is muwabbid, is not encompassed by his sin—because he has some good
deeds he will not be deprived of their reward. There is no assurance for them
in that because, in our view, not getting rid of disobedience through sincere
repentance makes it encompass its doer, overwhelm him—like one who is
gripped by the forehead or the neck, in contrast to one who escapes from
that by taking refuge in sincere repentance. This is the meaning of what has
been narrated from the sa/af Here are some of the texts narrated in this con-
text:
Imam Ibn Jarir says: Narrated to us Abu Kurayb, saying: narrated to us
Ibn Yamanfrom Sufyan, from A‘mash, from Abu Rawg, from Dabhak:
[commenting on] ‘and his sin encompassed him’, he said [it means]: he
died with his sin.
Narrated to us Abt Kurayb, saying: narrated to us Jabir b. Nuh, saying:
narrated to us A‘mash, from Abu Razin, from Rabi b. Khuthaym:
[commenting on] ‘and his sin encompassed him’, he said [it means]: he
died in it.
171
The Third Discussion
Narrated to us Ibn Humayd, saying: narrated to us Salamah, saying: in-
formed me Ibn Ishaq saying: narrated to me Muhammad b. Abi
Muhammadfrom Sa‘id b. Jubayr or Ikrimah, from Ibn SAbbas: [com-
menting on] ‘and his sin encompassed him’, he said [it means]: his disbe-
lief encompasses all his good deeds—the disbelief includes all the major
sins, because they are a part of ingratitude for [Allah’s] favours—.
Narrated to me Muhammadb. ‘Amr, saying: narrated to us Aba ‘Asim,
saying: narrated to me ‘Isa, from Ibn Abi Najih, from Mujahid: [com-
menting on] ‘and his sin encompassed him’, he said: [the ‘sin’ is] that on
which Allah has made the Fire compulsory.
Narrated to us Bishr, saying: narrated to us Yazid saying: narrated to us
Sa‘id from Qatadah: [commenting on] ‘and his sin encompassed him’, he
 said: the meaning of ‘sin’ is the major sin which makes [entering into the
 Fire] compulsory.
 Narrated to us Hasan, saying: informed us ‘Abd al-Razzaq from
 Qatadah: [commenting on] ‘and his sin encompassed him’, he said: the
 ‘sin’ is the major sins.
 Narrated to me Muthanna, saying: narrated to us Ishaq saying: narrated
 to us Waki‘ and Yahya b. Adam from Sallam b. Miskin saying: a man
 asked Hasan about His saying: ‘and his sin encompassed him’. Hasan
 said: Do you know what ‘sin’ is? O my son, recite the Quran, everything
 on which Allah has put the warning of the Fire is sin.
 Narrated to us Ahmad b. Ishaq al-Ahwazi, saying: narrated to us Abu
 Ahmad al-Zubayri, saying: narrated to us Sufyan from Mansur, from
 Mujahid on His saying, ‘and his sin encompassed him’, [that he] said:
 every encompassing sin is that about which Allah has warned of the
 Fire.
 Narrated to us Ahmadb. Ishaq, saying: narrated to us Abu Ahmadal-
 Zubayri, saying: narrated to us Sufyan from A‘mash, from Abt Razin:
[commenting on] ‘and his sin encompassed him’, he said [it means]: he
 died with his sin.
 Narrated to me Muthanna, saying: narrated to us Abi Nu‘aym, saying:
 narrated to us A‘mash saying: narrated to us Mas‘ad Abt Razin from
 Rabi‘ b. Khuthay on His saying ‘and his sin encompassed him’, he said:
 he is one who dies in his sin before repenting.
 Narrated to us al-Qasim, saying: narrated to us al-Husayn, saying: Waki‘
 said: I heard al-A‘mash saying on His saying, ‘and his sin encompassed
 him”: he died with his sins.
 It has been reported to me from ‘Ammar saying: narrated to us Ibn Abi
Ja‘far from his father from Rabi®: [commenting on] ‘and his sin encom-
 passed him’, [he said it means]: the major [sin] that makes [the Fire]
 compulsory.
172
On the permanency of punishment of major sinners
Narrated to me Misi, saying: narrated to us ‘Amr b, Hammad, saying:
narrated to us Asbat from al-Suddi: [commenting on] ‘and his sin en-
compassed him’, [he said it means]: he died and did not repent.
This that Imam Ibn Jarir has quoted from the early generation of this
ummah on the meaning of this majestic verse, has been adopted by Imam al-
Muhagqqiq Muhammad ‘Abdih following profound study of the meaning of
‘sin’ and ‘encompassment’ by sin. This is what has been quoted from him in
al-Manar.
The [word] ‘sin’ here is under no condition. Our mafassir Jalal al-Din al-Suyiti and
some other mujfassirin have specified it as shirk. If that were correct then there would
be no meaning to His saying, Exalted is He: ‘and his sin encompassed him’. For
shirk is the greatest of all sins, meriting that warning on its own in any case. The
meaning of the sin’s ‘encompassing’ is confining the doer of it and gripping his
sense as if he were arrested in it, having no escape from it. He thinks himself free,
released, whereas [in fact] he is a captive of desires and imprisoned by destructive
things and in the hold of darknesses. The encompassing happens only by free in-
volvement in sins and persisting [in them]. He says, Exalted is He: ‘No; but on their
hearts is the stain of what they earn’ (a/-Mutaffifin, 83.14) i.e. of [their] evils and sins.
In the wording ‘they earn’ there is the meaning of free involvement and persistence.
‘Rana ‘ala’ means to cover, i.e. their hearts have grown covered by the darknesses
 of [their] disobediences,until there is no room left for the light to enter therein.
 Whoever renews [himself] for every sin that he falls into, [by] a sincere repentance
 and correct returning, [his] sins do not encompass him, and do not leave stains on
 his heart. Imim Ahmad, al-Tirmidhi, Hakim (these two say it is a sound adith),
 Nasa’l, Ibn Majah, Ibn Hibbin and others have narrated from the hadith of Abi
 Hurayrah that the Prophet, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah, said: ‘In
 truth whenthe servant commits a sin, a dark stain is stuck on his heart. If he re-
 pents, turns away [from the sin] and asks forgiveness his heart is cleansed. But if he
 repeats the sin the stain is added until it covers his heart.’ That ts the ‘ravd@ that Al-
 lah, Exalted is He, has mentioned in the Quran: ‘No; but on their hearts is the stain
 of what they earn.’ For like that the people of early generation used to say: the sins
 are mail of the disbelief.
The second objection is rejected in that the interpretation of a/-khulid as
meaning long duration, without permanence, requires the adoption of the
same interpretation in other similar places, namely a/-&bulid as promised to
those who believe and do good deeds in Paradise. For there is no evidence
on the basis of which to distinguish between them.
Imam Muhammad ‘Abdth has spoken of that:
B20Jami© al-bayan San ta’nil al-Quran (Dar al-Fikr), 1:386-87.
133g/-\lanar (Dar al-Manar, 4"" edition), 1: 363.
173
The Third Discussion
From among the mufassiri are those who have left the ‘sin’ in the verse without
conditioning it, and they did not interpret it as shirk. But they did interpret the pun-
ishment of it and said: the meaning of &bu/id is long duration, because the believer
will not dwell in the Fire for ever, though he spends his whole his life in sins, and
the sins encompass him and he remains sunk in them all his life. They have made
this interpretation to get away from the belief of the Mu‘tazilis that the people of
major sins will dwell in the Fire for ever, and in support of their view which 1s
against that of the Mutazilis. The Quran is above all wadbhabs; it guides to [the po-
sition] that whoever is encompasscd by his sin will not be or will not remain a be-
liever.
S. Muhammad Rashid Rida says after that:
Indeed, opening the door to the interpretation of a/-kbulid [as long duration] will
embolden the people of independent thinking of this time to enter into it, and
[encourage] to say [further] that the meaning of &bu/id in respect of disbelievers in
punishment ts their staying in it for a long time [not for ever|—the Most Merciful,
the Most Gracious, whose Mercy has exceeded His anger, cannot punish some of
His creatures with a punishment that has no end, because they are not guided by the
religion that He has made for their benefit, not for His benefit. But they did not
understand the benefit. When the imitation is accepted by Allah, as the openers of
the door hold, then the excuse of most people has become clear because they are
imitators of their scholars...and so on to the end of what people are able to say,
especially in this time. The issue is old, and it is the greatest problem of the religion.
Yes the scholars will argue against them by the consensus, albeit silently. But the
interpretation is a door [such that] nothing can shut it up, once it has been
opened.}34
This statement points to what I said earlier, that the interpretation of
Rhulid as long duration, not as permanence, if accepted in the warning of one
group, necessarily entails that Asu/id mentioned in the warning of other
groups must be interpreted in the same way. Moreover, it entails allowing
that interpretation in respect of the promise to the believers of Abu/fd in the
Garden. Rida has pointed to the like of that in the /afsir of Siirat al-Naba>.¥5
This invalidates the opinion of those who confine release from the Fire to
thewuwvabbidin,becauseit necessarilyentailssayingthesameaboutthe
mushrikin, and saying that there is a term (an end) to the blessing of Paradise.
2His saying, Exalted is He: ‘Those who after receiving admonition from
their Lord, desist, shall be pardoned for the past; their case is for Allah;
but those who repeat are companions of the Fire, they will abide therein
for ever. (a/Bagqarah, 2.275)
34bid, 363-64.
BSIbid, 5:343.
174
On the permanency of punishment of major sinners
The reasoning from this verse is that it is a warning for the consumers
of usury, and they are not associators, because the verse is in the context of
warning against the consumption of usury after its prohibition.
It has been objected—on the evidence that at the beginning of the verse
is mentioned the people’s opinion about usury which is contrary to the
verdict of Islam: ‘Trade is like usury’ (2.275)—that this warning is not against
consuming usury, but against considering it to be lawful. The one who
regards as lawful what, like usury, Allah has forbidden in a firm, explicit text
is a mushrik by consensus. Then the verdict of permanent dwelling will not
include those who commit the major sins other than shirk.
The answer is: the interpretation that the warning is directed at consider-
ing (usury) lawful, rather than consuming it, will lighten the effect of the
commands and prohibitions of Allah, Exalted is He, in the hearts of the ser-
vants, and will minimizethe importance of the verdict of unlawfulness on
the forbidden things. However, the context of what is before and after this
verse is prohibition of usury, and increasing the gravity of the matter in the
minds of the people. What those say, who restrict the meaning to considering
lawful, cannot hold this warning back from what is demanded by its context.
Otherwise, there is no point to any of what is said before or after that.
Imam Muhammad ‘Abdih has realized this, so he presented in Kashf al-
litham San mukhaddirat ma‘ani al-ayah k-l-afham what has been summarized by
the author of a/-Manar where he says:
i.e. those who return to the forbidden usury that they had been consuming, after its
prohibition—they are far from following the advice of their Lord who does not
prohibit them except from that which causes them harm individually or collectively;
they are the people of the Fire, they will be attached to it as a friend is attached to
his friend, therefore they will dwell in it permanently.
Mufassirin have interpreted &bulid to make it conform to what is decided in theology
and Law that sins do not necessitate permanent dwelling in the Fire. Most of them
say that the meaning [of permanence in the Fire] is for whoever reverts to making
usury lawful and believes its permissibility. Some of them have rejected this by say-
ing that the discourse is about consuming usury, and what ts said of their consider-
ing it to be like commerce is an explanation of their opinion on the matter before
the prohibition; it does not have the sense that they considered the forbidden as
lawful. If the warning is confined to believing usury to be lawful, then there will be
no warning in respect of consuming It.
The truth is that the Quran is above what the theologians and jurists say. Every
matter of the religion should be referred to the Qur'an. It ts not allowed to interpret
anything of the Quran so as to make it conform with what people have said. The
warning here of dwelling permanently [in the Fire] ts like the warning of the same in
the verse about intentional killing. And there is no ambiguity in the wording [to jus-
tify forcing it] to mean the making lawful [of what ts forbidden].
175
The Third Discussion
It is most surprising that al-Razi should make the verse here a proof against those
who believe in the permanent staying in the Fire of those who commit the major
sins, in support of the doctrine of his fellow Ash‘aris. Better than this interpretation
is the interpretation of some of them that &/u/iid means long duration.
As for us, we say that whatever is called faith, it will save the one who has it from
permanent dwelling in the Fire. Faith is of two kinds. The faith which does not go
beyond an uncertain acceptance of the religion that the man has grown up in, or has
belonged to, and going along with its people, and without opposing what they are
in. And the faith that is an expression of sound knowledge of the religion, with cer-
tainty of conviction that has overwhelmed the intellect with clear evidence, influenc-
ing the self in accordance with surrender, governing the will which controls the
limbs in actions, in such a way that the one who has this faith bows to its authority
in every condition, except where he has no freedom because of the power of igno-
rance or forgetfulness. Usury is not one of those sins that can be done forgcetfully,
or provoked by ignorance, or done on [irresistible] impulse, or when its doer has
fallen into the depths of oblivion—as [may happen with sins like] backbiting or star-
ing at the forbidden. This is the faith which, by the Will of Allah, saves the one who
has it from resting permanently under the anger of Allah. But this faith cannot fit
with going forward to the major and grave sins, in deliberate preference for the love
of wealth and pleasure over the religion of Allah and its wise purposes. As for the
first faith, it is merely formal. It has no value to Allah, Exalted is He, because He,
Exalted is He, does not look at the forms and words. Rather, He looks at the hearts
and actions—as has come in the dadith. The evidence of this that we have affirmed
is [in] many [verses] in the Book of Allah. It is the doctrine of the pious sa/af, though
it is not known by many of those who claim to follow the Sunnah. So far so that
they have emboldened the people to demolish the religion on the basis that being
blessed depends upon acknowledgement of the [truth of] religion, even if one does
not act upon it. So far so that the people take pride in committing destructive sins
while acknowledging that [what they are doing] are major forbidden things—as has
been reported to us of some of our leaders saying [the like of]: ‘I do not deny con-
suming usury, but I am a Muslim and acknowledge that it is forbidden.’ The one
who says this has failed to observe that this statement necessitates acknowledging
that he is among the people of this warning, and that he is pleased to be in war
against Allah and His Messenger, and unjust to himself and to the people, as comes
in another verse. Does he acknowledge the necessitated or does he refuse the clear
warning of the text? So, then, does he believe in a part of the Book and reject the
other part? We seek refuge with Allah from being deserted by Him.¥6
From what Rida has said, it is clear that the doctrine of the pious sa/af is
what the people of istiqgamah adhere to. The praise belongs to Allah.
136[bid, 3:98—99.
176
On the permanency of punishment of major sinners
3.__-His saying, Exalted is He: ‘That is because they say: “The Fire shall not
touch us but for a few numbered days.” For their forgeries deceive them
as to their own religion.’ (A/ Imran, 3.24)
The reasoning from this is, as above, to affirmation that this belief (in the
non-permanency of the punishment) is from the beliefs of the Jews, and that
it emboldened them to disobedience of Allah, and led them to abandon His
Book; moreover, this has been mentioned in the context of refuting their er-
ror, and rebuking their faults. The ¢afsir of this verse by the author of a/-
Manar includes this statement:
Perhaps the meaning of the verse is that they believed that when the Israclite is pun-
ished, his punishment will not be but little, as is the belief of most Muslims today.
 Because they say that the Muslim who commits the major and serious sins, cither
the intercession [of whoever may intercede] will reach him, or expiation will save
him, or he will be granted pardon and forgiveness out of mere grace. If all that
misses him, then he will be punished to the degree of his sin, then he will be taken
out of the Fire and entered into Paradise. As for those who relate to the other relig-
ions they will abide permanently in the Fire whatever be their state, and whatever be
 their actions. [However,] the Quran does not grant any weight to belonging to any
 religion. Rather, it hangs the matter of salvation from the Fire and the success of the
permanent blessing in the place of abode [of the blessed] on the faith that it has de-
scribed and the signs that it has mentioned of its people and their qualities, and on
 righteous actions and good morals, with piety and renouncing all evils, manifest and
 secret.
As for forgiveness, it is in the judgement of the Quran made specific to those who
are not encompasscd by their sins. As for the one encompassed by his sin: [it is that
 he is deep in his sin] until it obscures his sense and stains his heart, so that his care
becomes confined to satisfying his desire, and no authority over himsclf has re-
mained for the religion. ‘Those are the companions of the Fire, they will live in it
permanently.’ That is why this wise Book judges that whoever makes of religion a
sort of national identity and hangs salvation from the Fire on belonging to it, or
 [who] relies on those of the early generation who established [the religion], is de-
ceived by fancy, an inventor who says of Allah [something] without knowledge, as
He said here: ‘for their forgeries deceive them as to their own religion’ (¢1/ Sarin,
3.24), that is, because of their limitation of the term of the punishment for the w-
mah as a whole. This is of the slander that was the foundation of their delusion in
 their religion. [A matter] like that cannot be known by opinion or by speculation,
becauseit is fromthe commandof the Knower of the Unseen, so it cannot be
known except by a revelation from Allah. There ts nothing in the Revelation which
supports [that]. And it can not be relied upon except by a covenant from Allah, Ex-
alted is He, and there is no covenant about this. Rather, Allah’s covenant 1s what has
passed in Sirat al-Bagarab. ‘And they say: “The Fire shall not touch us but for a few
numbered days.” Say: have you taken a promise from Allah, for He never breaks His
promise? Or is it that you say of Allah what you do not know? No; those who seck
gain in evil, and are encompassed by their sins, they are companions of the Fire,
177
The Third Discussion
therein shall they abide for ever. But those who have faith and do righteous deeds,
they are companions of the Garden, therein they shall abide’ (a/-Bagarah, 2.80—82).!97
Then Rashid Rida discussed the fafsir of His saying, Exalted is He “But
how when W’e gather them together against a Day about which there is no
doubt, and each soul will be paid out just what it has earned, and they will
not be wronged’ (A/ Imran, 3:25). And when he reflected on the words ‘and
they will not be wronged’, he wrote:
Mufassiri have said about this sentence a statementthat I wouldlike to draw
attention to. They have said that in it there is evidence that the act of worship is not
destroyed, and that the believer will not stay in the Fire permanently, because paying
in full the reward of his faith and action cannot be in the Fire [only], nor [yet] before
entering [the Fire]. Therefore it must happen after salvation from the Fire. This
word of comment is from al-Baydawi, and Abu !-Sa‘ud has copied it as usual. I say
that earning here is not made specific to the acts of worship and faith. Rather, it
includes all the good and bad that the servant has done. If they mean that the verse
indicates the necessity of the reward over the earning as 1s apparent from the verse,
then it requires for them [to hold] that the unbeliever when he does some good
actions—and there 1s no man who has never done a good action—must necessarily
be rewarded for that. But they do not say that. That is why they have narrowed the
 [meaning of the] verse and taken it away from its apparent meaning. When we bring
 this verse, which has come as a refutation of the belief of those who claim that the
 Fire will not touch them but for numbered days, together with the verse of a/-
 Bagarah which has also come about that, then we will know that the intent of Allah
 is man’s earning of reward according to [his earning]. In other words what its
 considered is the influence of the action upon the soul [vafs]. If its bad effect has
 encompassed the soul’s knowledge and sense and overwhelmed its sense, then the
 soul will remain forever in the Fire because the evil action did not leave in the soul
 any good effect from faith which can prepare it for the place of honour. Rather, it
 has made it one of the people of the place of humiliation because of its sealed
 nature. And if this evil action does not reach to that extent in a way such that the
 influence of the good action outweighs [the evil], or the two are in balance, then this
 soul will be between [the two], and it will be rewarded according to its state—as we
 have earlier established.88
That is his statement. It-cannot be understood from what precedes or
 follows it that any of the actions of a non-believer in the religion of Islam can
 save him from the punishment of the Fire. For, by lacking the faith which is
 the foundation of action, he will be deprived of picking the fruits of his good
 action. Faith is a condition of the correctness and acceptability of actions. He
 says, Exalted is He: ‘Whoever does any deed of righteousness and is a be-
 liever, his effort will not be rejected: We shall record it for him (a/-Anbya’,
 137hid, 267-68.
 138Ibid, 268—69.
178
On the permanency of punishment of major sinners
21.94). And He says: ‘And whoever does deeds of righteousness, and is a be-
liever, will have no fear of harm nor of any curtailment (of reward)’ (Tahd,
20.112). Thus you see that the faith is a condition for the authenticity of the
action.
The argument, of those who believe in the release from the Fire of the
people who commit major sins, from His saying, Exalted is He, ‘and they will
not be wronged’—besides its necessitating, as Rashid Rida has said, that un-
believers will share in that with the believers, also implies that the Jews will
be moredeserving of this command, because the verse came down about
them.
The reality more precisely is that the consideration is of the last actions.
Whoever has ended with sound faith and righteous actions he will be in bliss
with Allah regardless of whatever he might have done before. For repentance
blanks out sins and purifies the person of them. Whoever’s life ends with
persistence in sins, his previous (good) actions will not avail him, because
they have been invalidated by his persistence (in sins). Allah, Exalted is He,
says: /una-mia_yatagabbaln I-labu mina -muttagin “Allah only accepts from those
who are God-fearing, righteous’ (a/-Maidah, 5.27). And righteousness cannot
be reconciled with persistence in sin.
4His saying, Exalted is He: ‘But those who disobey Allah and His Mes-
senger and transgress His limits will be admitted to a Fire, to abide
therein: and they shall have a humiliating punishment.’ (a/-Nisa’, 4.14)
The argument from this is that this verse has come after explaining the rules
of inheritance and that these rules are among the /adiid (bounds) of Allah,
and it promises those who obey Allah and His Messenger permanent stay in
Gardens underneath which rivers flow. From that it is affirmed that whoever
exceeds any judgement of the judgements of Allah, this warning will be true
upon such a person. On the ffsir of this verse both Imam Muhammad
‘Abdih and S. Rashid Rida say what supports their previous statement.!39
5His saying, Exalted is He: ‘Whoever kills a believer intentionally, his rec-
ompense is Hell, to abide therein for ever, and the wrath and the curse
of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful chastisement is prepared for him.’
(al-Nisa?, 4.93).
The argument from this verse is that in it Allah, Exalted is He, has warned
the one who kills a believer of permanent stay in the Fire, and killing is a ma-
jor sin, less than shirk.
139Ibid, 4:432-33.
179
The Third Discussion
They have tried to escape the denotation of this verse by contriving
various kinds of interpretation which have been opposed among themselves
so that they could not agree on any of them.
Fakhr al-Din al-Razi says:
Al-Wahidi has claimed that the people have walked, in responding to this verse,
many different paths. Al-\Wahidi goes on to say: And I do not like any of these be-
cause what they have said 1s either narrowing [the sense], or opposing [the meaning
of other verses], or obscure (/dwar). The wording does not indicate any of that. Al-
Wahidi goes on to say: What I rely upon are two ways. The first is the consensus of
the wufassirm that the verse came down about an unbeliever who killed a believer.
(Then al-Wahidi recounted that story.) The second is that His saying: ‘his recom-
pense is hell’ is future in meaning, i.e. that He will punish him with hell. This is a
warning. Al-\Wahidi says: and not fulfilling the warning is a grace and generosity. In
our view it is permissible that Allah does not fulfil the warning [given] to believers.
That is the summary of al-\Wahidi’s opinion that he has claimed to be better than
what others have said.
After saying this Fakhr al-Din begins refuting it, regardless of his preju-
dice in favour of the belief in the release from the Fire of the people who
commit major sins. This is the text of his statement:
As for the first way, it is weak. Because it is affirmed in jurisprudence that the
consideration is of the generality of the wording, not of the specifics of the
 [occasioning] cause. When it is affirmed that the wording denoting generality is
attained, then applying it to the unbelievers does not harm that generality. Then this
 [first way] completely collapses. After that, we say that the generality of the wording
implies its being inclusive of every killer described with the above-mentioned
qualities. Similarly, there is another way which prevents making this verse specific to
the unbeliever. The explanation of it is by several ways:
The first is that He, Exalted is He, commanded the believers to make jihad
against the unbelievers, then He told them what they needed at the time of
their affair with the jihad. He began by saving: ‘Never should a believer kill a
believer, except by mistake’ (a/-Nisa?, 4.92). He has mentioned in that verse
three expiations: the expiation for killing a Muslim in the domain of Islam; the
expiation for killing a Muslim while he is living with the people [against whom
the Muslims are] at war; and the expiation for killing of a Muslim while he is
living with the people [with whom the Muslims have] a treaty and protection.
Then, after that, He mentioned the ruling on the intentional killing accompa-
nied with the warning. Since the explanation of the ruling on unintentional kill-
ing is explanation of a ruling specific to the Muslims, it then becomes necessary
that the explanation of the ruling on intentional killing, which is the contrary of
killing by mistake, will also be specific to the believers. And if it is not specific
to them, then, at least it should include them.
The second is that He, Exalted is He, says after this verse: ‘O you who believe,
when you go out in the cause of Allah, investigate carefully, and say not to any
one who offers you a salutation, You are not a believer’ (@4Nisa?, 4.94). The
180
On the permanency of punishment of major sinners
miufassir are in consensus that these verses were only revealed about a group
of Muslims who met some people who accepted Islam, but they [the Muslims]
killed them. And they [the Muslims] claimed that they [the others] had accepted
Islam out of fear. On this assumption, this verse came about prohibiting the
believers from killing those who pretend the faith. It also implies that His say-
ing, ‘and whoever kills a believer intentionally’, was revealed to prohibit the be-
lievers from killing [other] believers, in order to reconcile [the verses with each
other]. So, from what we have said, it is affirmed that whatever is before this
verse and after this verse prevents its being made specific to the unbelievers.
The third is that it is established in jurisprudence that basing a legal] ruling on
the property most fitted to it, indicates that property’s being a cause for that
ruling. Thus we have known that, in His saying: ‘As to the thief, male or
female, cut off their hands’ (a-Ma@idah, 5.38), and His saying: ‘The woman and
the man guilty of fornication, flog each of them’ (a/-Nir, 24.2), the reason for
the cutting is the theft, and the reason for flogging is the fornication. Similarly
here, it becomes necessary [to hold] that the reason for this warning is the
intentional killing, because the property. is appropriate to that ruling, So it
becomes compulsory that the ruling is caused by it. That being so, it is
necessary to say that wherever this meaning is affirmed, this ruling will be
applicable. In this way there can be no justification for [al-\Wahidi’s] saying: ‘the
verse is specific to the unbeliever’.
The fourth is that the reason for deserving this warning is either unbelief or
this killing as specified. If the reason for this warning is unbelief, then the un-
belief is accomplished before the killing. So there will be no consequence of
this killing anyway in respect of this warning. On this assumption, [the] verse
will be as if it had said that whoever kills a soul intentionally, then his reward ts
hell, abiding in it, and Allah will be angry with him. For, if intentional killing
has no effect in this warning, then it will be like the soul and all those matters
that have no effect in this warning, and it is known that that is void. If the rea-
son for this warning is the killing being intentional, then it 1s necessary to say
that wherever the [intentional] killing occurs, the warning will occur. Then this
difficulty collapses. Thus, from what we have said, it is affirmed that the way
liked by al-Wahidi 1s nothing.
As for the second way of the two ways that he has chosen, it is the extreme of cor-
ruption. For, [giving] warning is one kind of the kinds of giving information. If he
allows opposition to [the warning], then he has allowed for Allah telling a lie [giving
false information]. And that is a great error, rather it is close to being unbelief. For
the intelligent are in consensus that Allah is purified from telling a lie. Also, if he al-
lows telling a lie for Allah in the warning on the ground that opposing the warning is
a grace, then why is the opposition not allowed to the warning of unbelievers? Fur-
ther, if the opposition to the warning is allowed for the purpose of grace, then why
is Opposition not allowed in the stories and reports for the sake of interest? It is
known that opening this door will lead to raising objections to the Quran, and the
whole Shari‘ah. Thus it is affirmed that each of these two ways is baseless.
181
The Third Discussion
Al-Qaffal has narrated in his /afsir another way that is [presented as being] the
answer [to the whole difficulty]. He says: the verse indicates that the recompense of
the intentional killing is what has been menuoned. But there is nothing tn the verse
to tell that He, Exalted is He, causes this recompense to reach him. Sometimes a
man says to his servant: Your recompense ts that | will do with you this and that,
but I will not do it. This answer ts also weak. For it is affirmed with this verse that
the recompense of the intentional killing is what has been mentioned, and with
other verses has been affirmed that He, Exalted is He, causes the recompense to
reach the deserving. He, Exalted is He, says: “whoever does evil will be requited
accordingly (a@-Nisa?, 4.123), and He says: “That Day will every soul be requited for
what it earned’ (a/-Ghafir, 40.17), and He says: “Then shall anyone who has done an
atom’s weight of good, see it. And anyone who has done an atom’s weight of evil,
shall see it’ (a@/-Zi/=a/, 99.7-8). Rather, He, Exalted is He, has mentioncd in this verse
what indicates that He will cause this reward to reach [the deserving], namely His
saying: ‘and He has prepared for him a great punishment’; because the explanation
that this is his recompense is obtained from His saying: ‘then his reward is hell,
dwelling in it for ever’. If His saying: ‘and He has prepared for him a big
punishment’ had been a report of deserving, then it would have been a repetition. If
we interpret it as reporting that He, Exalted is He, will do it, then there is no
repetition, so it 1s [the] better [interpretation}.4°
After this affirmation here Fakhr al-Din has turned from the clear to the
ambiguous, and from certainty to doubt where he says:
and you should know that we say: this verse is made specific in two points. The
first is when the intentional killing is not an aggression, as in the qésas [legal retalia-
tion]. Because this warning will not fall on [that] at all. The second is [the] aggressive
intentional killing of which [the doer] repents, so this warning will not fall upon it.
When specification is affirmed in these two ways, then we will make this generality
specific when forgiveness happens, in accordance with the evidence of His saying,
Tixalted is He: ‘and He forgives anything else, to whom He pleases’ (a/-Nisa?, 4.48).
Also in this verse there is a generality of promise, and the generalities of promise are
more effective than the generalities of warning, “4!
We do not dispute with Fakhr al-Din that this warning does not include
the non-aggressive killer like the one who takes gisas, nor the one who
repents of his killing so long as the conditions of repentance are met. But we
do dispute with him in its specification in respect of the attainment of
forgiveness for the non-penitent. The voidness of that is clear in two ways:
The first is that this specification either necessitates invalidating the
warning to the intentional killer of abiding in hell—from which follow what
Fakhr al-Din himself has said, that it introduces falsification in the reports of
140a/- Tafsir al-kabir of Fakhr al-Din al-Rizi (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 2TM" edi-
tion), 1: 238-39.
M1[bid, 342.
182
On the permanency of punishment of major sinners
 Allah. He himself has stated that the intelligent are in consensus on the im-
 possibility of that. Or it necessitates the attainment of forgiveness for some
 killers, and not others. From this it necessarily follows that some munahbidin
 will abide in the Fire for ever. Acknowledgement of that will cause them (i.e.
 those who argue that the mswabbidin are released) to fall into what they seck
 to escape. For they did not intend by all their various efforts to interpret this
 verse and others like it but to flee from what it indicates of the non-penitent
 among disobedient mmvabbidin abiding forever in the Fire. Furthermore, the
 forgiveness of some of the disobedient, not others, while their crime is one
 and the same, is contradictory to the justice and wisdom of Allah, Exalted is
 He. Likewise, it necessitates acknowledging what Fakhr al-Din has negated of
 Allah opposing His own report, because the warning did not specify some
 not others.
The second is that His saying ‘and He forgives anything else, to whom
 He pleases’ (4.48) does not in any way indicate forgiveness of the people who
 commit major sins other that shirk, irrespective of their persistence in them.
 This verse has come in two places in a/-Nisa? in the context of specifying the
 entering into Islam of those who did not accept Islam. In the first place it is
 preceded by His saying, Exalted is He: ‘O People of the Book, believe in
 what We have revealed confirming what was with you, before We destroy the
 countenances so as to confound or to curse them as We cursed the Sabbath-
 breakers. And the decision of Allah must be carried out’ (a/-Nisa?, 4.47).
Then it is followed by His saying: ‘Allah does not forgive that partners be set
 up with Him; and He forgives anything else, to whom He pleases’ (a/-Nisa°,
 4.48). It is understood from this context that the meaning of the verse is that
Allah does not forgive whoever remains in his shirk, not turning from it to
tawhid, even if he repents from the rest of his sins. For the repentance of the
mushrik, is not otherwise than by fawbid which is the basis of all good deeds,
 the axis of all virtue, just as shirk is the matrix of sinning. And His saying,
 ‘and He forgives anything else, to whom He pleases’, 1.e. whatever is other
than shirk, that is, all the disobediences of the wushrks other than their shir&,
 for whoever He wills to guide to repentance from his shirk. That is because
Islam eradicates whatever is before it; whoever accepts Islam with sincerity
for Allah, Exalted is He, will come out from His sins like the day his mother
gave birth to him, and none of the sins that he committed in his jahiliyyah
(ignorance before Islam) will reach him. That is the meaning of His saving,
Exaltedis He:‘Sayto theunbelievers,if theydesist,their past will be
forgiven’ (a/-Anfal, 8.38). There is no dispute among the wwmah about that.
The interpretation of this verse as meaning other than this will take it out of
its context.
183
The Third Discussion
As for the second place, it is preceded by His saying: ‘If anyone
contends with the Messenger even after guidance has been plainly conveyed
to him, and follows a path other than that becoming to men to faith, We
shall leave him in the path He has chosen, and land him in hell. What an evil
refuge!’ (a/-Nisa?, 4.115). So, interpreting it to mean other than what I have
mentioned of its /afsir, will take it out from its context. His saying, Exalted is
He: ‘Allah forgives not that partners should be set up with Him’ (4. 48) is an
affirmation carrying the meaning of being the reason for His saying: ‘If
anyone contends with the Messenger even after guidance has been plainly
conveyed to him, and follows a path other than that becoming to men to
faith, We shall leave him in the path He has chosen, and land him in hell.
What an evil refuge!’ And His saying, ‘and He forgives anything else, to
whom He pleases’, is a promise to those mwushriks who embrace Islam of
forgiveness for all their past sins, after what has preceded it of warning to
those who persist in their shirk. From this, the reason clearly emerges of
repeating the wording of the verse another time with no difference other
than the end-rhyme. At first occurrence it is separated by His saying, Exalted
is He: ‘to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin most heinous indeed’
(al-Nisa°, 4.48), and at second occurrence it is separated by His saying: ‘One
who joins other gods with Allah, has strayed far, far away from the right’ (a/-
Nisa’, 4.116). With this (reading) it is possible reconcile these two verses and
the verses confirming His fulfillment of the warning, as of the promise.
As for what Fakhr al-Din has said of the verse of intentional killing be-
ing one of the general, inclusive warnings, and the general, inclusive promises
being more (effective) than those of warning:
The answer to it is that there is no contradiction between the two such
that one must be preferred over the other. The general warnings are about
those who persist, and the general promises are about those who repent. And
each of them is from Allah who does not oppose His promise, and does not
change His words. There is no sense in preferring some reports of Allah over
others, given the impossibility of falsehood in all the reports from Him, Ex-
alted is He. Rather, it is obligatory to put everything in its place, and interpret
it in its way.
The author of a/Manar—after discussing the /afsir of the verse—says:
The majority of the scholars have found the abiding of the killer in the Fire a big
thing. Some of them have interpreted it to mean a long [not permanent] staying in it.
This will open the door to the [same] interpretation for the abiding [in the Fire] of
the unbelievers. It could be said that it also means long duration. Some of [the
scholars] say that this is his recompense that he deserves if Allah recompenses him.
He can forgive him without requiting. Ibn Jarir has narrated [that] from Aba Mijlaz.
The rule for every recompense is that it will happen because of the impossibility of
falsification in the warning [of Allah] as in the promise. The forgiveness happens for
184
On the permanency of punishment of major sinners
some individuals for reasons known to Allah. On this interpretation there is no
escape from the abiding in the Fire of some killers. The apparent [sense] is that they
would be in the majority, since exception mostly comes for the fewer. Some of [the
scholars] say that this warning is conditional upon [the doer’s] considering [such
killing] to be lawful. The meaning is that whoever kills a believer intentionally,
considering it to be lawful, his recompense will be hell, abiding in it for ever. But
 this condition is not mentioned in this verse. If Allah, Exalted is He, had intended it,
He would have mentioned it as He has mentioned the condition of intention, and
 [mentioned] that considering [killing to be] lawful is unbelief, then the recompense
will be related to that not to the killing [itself]. The context rejects this. Some of [the
 scholars] say that this was revealed for a definite individual, so it is specific to him.
This 1s the weakest of all the interpretations, not because consideration is [given] to
 the generality of the wording not to the specific occasion, but rather because the
 text of the verse with an expression of generality (whoever) has come with the
 future tense ‘whoever kills’ and does not say ‘whoever has killed’. Others say that
 this recompense is assured except [for onc] who repents and does good deeds by
which he deserves the forgiveness from the whole of this recompense or part of it.
 In that is an acknowledgement of the eternal abiding of the non-penitent in the
 Fire.'42
After spending some time discussing the repentance of the intentional
 killer, Rashid Rida cites from Imam Muhammad ‘Abduh (a statement) which
 emphasizes that his belief about the intentional killer is that if he does not
repent, he will abide in the Fire forever. And we seek refuge with Allah."
 6His saying, Exalted is He: ‘To those who do right is a goodly reward, in-
deed more. No darkness nor abasement shall cover their faces. They are
companions of the Garden, they will abide therein forever. But those
who have earned evil will have a recompense of like evil: ignominy will
cover their faces. No defender will they have from the wrath of Allah.
Their faces will be covered, as it were, with pieces from the depth of the
darkness of night. They are inhabitants of the Fire: they will abide
therein forever.’ (Yénus, 10.26—27).
The reasoning from this is by several ways:
The first is that Allah has promised the Garden to those who do right.
He has restricted the Garden among them by saying: ‘they are companions of
the Garden’. He has made the subject (#/a?vka) and predicate definite, and
placed between the two the pronoun of separation to emphasize the restric-
tion of it to them.
The second is that He has informed us about them that no darkness or
abasement will touch them. It cannot be understood that if someone is
1442g/-Manar (Dar al-Manar, 4"" edition), 5:341—42.
43°Ibid, 34445.
185
The Third Discussion
entered into the Fire, even for a few moments, that darkness and abasement
will not cover him therein.
The third is that He has warned those who do evil of the Fire, abiding in
it forever. This ruling is correct for the one who does any evil. Because ‘the
evil’ mentioned is general, not limited to individual instances. Whatever is
like that, the ruling upon it, affirmative or negative, applies to each individual.
Do you not see that if someone says ‘I have married women’, it does not
mean that he has married all individual women. Rather, the statement is true,
even if he marries only one of them. And if he swears that he did not marry
women, he will be a perjurer even if he married only one.
If it is said that Allah has promised Paradise to the doers of right, and
whoever does a good deed has done right—although some mufassirin have
interpreted wuhsinin (doers of right) to mean the wmvabbidin, because fawhid is
the basis of good deeds.
The answer to that is: had it been so, there would have been no cause of
any command or prohibition in the Book and Sunnah, as long as what 1s
required had been /awhid by itself. Then, (the point) would have collapsed of
all the verses of warning about what is less than srg, like renouncing prayer,
 stopping payment of the zakah, consuming usury, disobedience to parents,
 cutting off one’s relations, killing the forbidden soul without legal right,
 fornication, and all the other acts of disobedience. Further, it would have
 required that killers, adulterers, thieves and all the people of major sins be
 counted among doers of right as long as they move the formula of fawhid
about in their mouths with their tongues. It is a most surprising thing that he
interprets doing right in the way that he does (i.e. interpreting it as
 proclaiming fawbid), even with the commission of all those evil acts and the
 like of them. By contrast, the Prophet, upon him be peace and the blessings
 of Allah, interprets doing right in his saying: ‘that you worship Allah as if you
 see Him, because if you do not see Him, He sees you.’
 7His saying, Exalted is He: “Those who say: Our Lord avert from us the
wrath of hell, for its wrath is indeed a grievous affliction (gharama).’ (al-
Furgan, 25.65).
 Its description with ghardm indicates its permanence. This is in the Lisan al-‘araly ‘al-
gharam is permanent punishment, continuing evil and trouble, the love and anything
 that cannot be escaped.’ Al-Zajjaj says: ‘it is the worst punishment in the dictionary.
 Allah says: ‘its wrath is indeed a grievous affliction (gharama).’ And al-Tirimmah says:
 ‘The battle of Nisar and the battle of Fijiar were a punishment and they were gharam
 (grievous)’. And His saying: ‘its wrath is indeed a gricvous affliction (ghardania)’, 1.¢.
186
On the permanency of punishment of major sinners
persisting, continuing and permanent. Abi Ubaydah says: ‘ic. destruction and {its}
continuing for them.4
The commentator of a/-Qamiis says:
al-gharaur. what cannot be reverted from, and also the persisting, continuing and
permanent.}45
 8His saying, Exalted is He: ‘Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other
god, nor slay such life as Allah has made sacred, except for just cause,
nor commit fornication; and any that does this meets punishment. The
chastisement on the Day of Judgement will be doubled for him, and he
will dwell therein in ignominy. (a/-Fargan, 25.68-69)
 Here Allah has warned the killer of the sacred soul without legal right, and
 the committer of fornication, of eternal dwelling in the Fire, as He has
warned whoever invokes another god beside Allah.
It has been objected that this warning is specific to those who conjoin
 the three major sins (mentioned), not those who commit one of them.
The answer to this is that this means that if someone sets up another
god with Allah, and does not combine that with killing a sacred soul and
 fornication, then this warning will not be true for him. No one among you
holds this opinion. If it is said that the eternal abiding (in the Fire) of the
mushrikk is confirmed by other texts which demonstrate that his shirk ts
 enough for his deserving this punishment. The answer is that the texts do
not differentiate between shirk and other sins in the matter of eternal abiding
 (in the Fire). Rather, the texts indicate the eternal abiding (in the Fire) of
other than wushriks, with clear naming of some major sins like killing, and
warning of the punishment for disobedience without condition, as in the
verses following:
9His saying, Exalted is He: ‘Anyone who disobeys Allah and His Messen-
ger—for them is hell: they shall dwell therein forever.’ (a/-Jinn, 72.23).
No one who believes in what Allah has revealed will doubt that committing
the major sins is disobedience to Allah and His Messenger. If it is said that
this warning is specific to the greatest act of disobedience, namely setting up
associates with Allah, then we say that this opposes the clear wording for no
reason. If it is said that the reason (for doing so) is to interpret this warning
in a way that reconciles it with what has come as the warning of this
punishment for the mushrik, we say that the coming down of the general
14400Lisan al-arab (Beirut: Dar Sadiq li-l-Tiba‘ah wa -Nashr; Dar Bayrit f-lTibaah wa I-
Nashr), 12:436.
14500Taj al-‘aritis (Dar Maktabat al-Havyat), 9:4.
187
The Third Discussion
verdict about some of the individuals to whom it applies does not narrow its
generality. And as wushriks have been warned of this punishment, in the
same way the people who commit other major sins have been warned of this
punishment in other texts already cited.
10His saying, Exalted is He: “The righteous will be in Bliss, and the wicked
will be in the Fire, which they will enter on the Day of Judgement, and
they will not be able to keep away therefrom.’ (a/-Infitar, 82.13—16)
The argument from this is that here the people are divided into two groups:
the righteous and the wicked; and their reward is divided into two ends, Bliss
and Fire, with a clear statement that the people of the Fire will not be
removed from it. That is on the pattern of His saying: ‘a group is in the
Garden, and a group in the Fire’ (a/- Shira, 42.7).
It has been objected that the meaning of ‘the wicked’ is those people
who are complete in wickedness, those whom Allah has described by His
saying: “They are the rejecters of Allah, the doers of iniquity’ (“Abasa, 80.42).
So far so that Fakhr al-Din al-Razi says: “We do not accept that the commit-
ter of a major sin is one of “the wicked’’.’6
This objection is rejected in that, on the basis of this opinion of theirs,
they must then say that the committers of fornication, those who do the deed
of the people of Lut, the consumers of usury, the killers of souls without
right, the preventers of the payment of zakah, and the rest of the people who
commit major sins other than shirk, will be counted among the righteous
who have been promised Bliss, and a greater contentment from Allah. By
Allah, there is no more effective means to demolish the foundations of the
religion, to abase the rituals, to diffuse the evil, than this opinion. It
demolishes all the commands and prohibitions of Allah, and blows up
everything that has come in His Book and the Sunnah of His Messenger, of
the warning for the people who commit major sins. It is sufficient that
fornication, homosexuality, drinking wine, indifference to being cuckolded,
and all the prohibited things will be among acts of righteousness, because
their committers are in the ranks of the righteous.
Evidence from the Sunnah
As from the Sunnah there are many sound narrations which I could not
gather except after much effort. I restrict myself to the following:
Bukhari, Muslim and others have narrated from Ibn ‘Umar, may Allah be
pleased with them, that the Prophet, upon him be peace and the
460al-Tafsir al-kabir (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 2TM edition), 31:84.
188
On the permanency of punishment of major sinners
blessings of Allah, said: ‘The people of the Garden will enter into the
Garden, and the people of the Fire will enter into the Fire. Then an
announcer will stand among them saying: O People of the Fire there is
no death, and O People of the Garden there is no death. Everyone dwell
eternally in what he is.’ Bukhari has narrated the like of that from Abi
Hurayrah,may Allah be pleased with him; and Tabarani, and Hakim
(declaring it a sound hadith) have narrated from Mudh, may Allah be
pleased with him. Its evidence on the soundness of the faith of those
who believe in the eternal abiding in the Fire of those who commit
major sins, is very clear. It conveys that it will happen after both groups
have entered into their places.
Tabarani, Aba Nu‘aymand Ibn Mardiyah have narrated from Ibn Mas‘td,
may Allah be pleased with him, that the Prophet, upon him be peace
and the blessings of Allah said: ‘Tf it is said to the People of the Fire that
you will dwell in the Fire the amount of each small stone in the world,
they will be pleased with it. And if it is said to the People of the Garden
that you will dwell in it the amount of each small stone, they will be
grieved. Rather, Allah has made for them eternity.’
Ahmad, Bazzar, Hakim and Nasa’i have narrated from Ibn (Umar, may Allah
be pleased with them, that the Prophet, upon him be peace and the
blessings of Allah, said: ‘No one disobedient to his parents nor the
drinker will enter the Garden.’ In another narration: ‘Allah has forbidden
the Garden on three people: the drinker, the one disobedient to his par-
ent, and the one indifferent to being cuckolded who accepts the evil in
his family.’
Bukhari and Muslim have narrated from the Messenger of Allah, upon him
be peace and the blessings of Allah, that he said: “Whoever drinks wine
in this world, he will be deprived of it in the hereafter.’ This is an indi-
rect expression of his deprivation from entering the Garden because the
People of the Garden will have what their souls desire, and content their
eyes, so that they are not deprived of anything.
Bukhari has narrated from the Messenger of Allah, upon him be peace and
the blessings of Allah, that he said: ‘Whoever has been given responsibil-
ity of a matter by Allah, and then does not take due care thereof with
sincerity, Allah will forbid the Garden to him.’
Imam Rabi‘ has narrated in his sound Musnad from Abu ‘Ubaydah from Jabir
b. Zayd, from Anas b. Malik, may Allah be pleased with them, that the
Messenger of Allah, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah, said:
‘Whoever cuts off the right of a Muslim with his oath Allah will forbid
the Garden to him, and will make the Fire compulsory for him.’ Then a
man said: ‘Even if it is a small thing, O Messenger of Allah? The Mes-
senger of Allah, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah, said:
189
The Third Discussion
‘Even if it is a twig from an oak tree.’ That has been narrated by Imam
Malik in his Afmvatta, by Muslim in his Sabb, by Nasa’i in his Sanan from
Aba Umamah, may Allah be pleased with him.
Bukhari, Muslim and others have narrated from Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be
pleased with him, that the Messenger of Allah, upon him be peace and
the blessings of Allah, said: ‘Whoever kills himself with a sharp instru-
ment, then this sharp instrument will be in his hand and he will be stab-
bing himself in the stomach in the Fire of hell, dwelling in it for ever,
and whoever kills himself with a poison, then his poison will remain in
his hand forcing it into him in the Fire of hell, dwelling in it for ever,
and whoever throws himself from a mountain and kills himself, so he
will keep throwing himself down in the Fire of hell, dwelling in it for
ever.’
Muslim has narrated in his Sab) from the Messenger of Allah, upon him be
peace and the blessings of Allah, that he said: “Iwo types of the People
of the Fire, I have not seen them: people having whips like the tails of
the cow, they strike the people with them; and women wearing clothes
[that show them] naked, seductive and seducing, their heads pointed like
the humps of camels—they will not enter the Garden and will not get its
fragrance, while its fragrance is felt for such a distance.’
Bukhari and Muslim have narrated from Hudhayfah b. Yaman, may Allah be
pleased with them, that the Prophet, upon him be peace and the bless-
ings of Allah, said: “The gossip[spreader of rumours]will not enter
Paradise.’
Bukhari and Muslim have narrated from Sa‘d and Abi Bakrah, may Allah be
pleased with them, that the Prophet, upon him be peace and the bless-
ings of Allah, said: “Whoever relates himself to someone other then his
father knowing that he is not his father, then the Garden is forbidden to
him.’
The narrations, as I have said, are abundant about this. Sometimes they
indicate the eternal abiding explicitly, and sometimes they say what conforms
to eternal abiding. Some narrations warn of deprivation of the Garden or of
smelling its fragrance. The result is the same, though the wording is different.
For deprivation of the Garden contradicts entering into it at any time since
the negation of entering it includes all times. The explanation of that was
given above.
190
On the permanency of punishment of major sinners
Conclusion of the Discussion
I have no doubt, respected reader, that after this tour of the evidence and
studying it with the eye of understanding you will have realized that the belief
of those who say that the people of major sins will dwell in the Fire for
ever—which has been rejected by those who have rejected it and, moreover,
they have judged those who hold it to be unbelievers—is the belief spoken
by the Quran and supported by the clear sound padiths from the Prophet,
upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah. It is the belief that the Muslim
must hold fast to, and meet Allah on that belief. How (could it be otherwisc)
when the Noble Quran has joined the contrary belief to the Jews, and criti-
cized them for it, and has affirmed that it is the reason for their missing the
right, where it says: “This because they say: “The Fire shall not touch us but
 for a few numbered days” (A/ “Imran, 3.24)?
It will become clear to whoever studies the conditions of mankind with
care that the belief in limiting the punishment of the disobedient to a limited
term, andtheir turning after it to the Bliss, emboldened this #mmah—asit
emboldened the Jews before them—to dishonour the sacred authority of the
religion, to turn back from the discipline of the virtues, and turn to that laxity
behind desire and plunge into the deep waters thereof.
Nothing is more indicative of that than that demeaning literature which
depicts different varieties of vices, and parades them before readers and lis-
 teners in the worst forms and ugliest appearances. This literature has become
popular in the circles of those who believe in the forgiveness of the people
who commit the major sins, or in the limitation of their punishment to a
 term. It has spread in a way which harms the values of the wmah of the
 Quran, and has overwhelmed the literary works, the long as well as the short
among them, like a/-Aghant, Mubadarat al-ndabad? and al-‘Iqd al-farid, to the ex-
 tent that literature has become a sign of bad manners.
Allah has protected from that the literature of the people of right belief,
who hold firmly in their hearts to the eternity of the punishment of the peo-
ple who commit major sins and persist in them, which has been mentioned
in the Quran, as has the eternity of the reward of the obedient and the doers
of right. So also Allah has protected their behaviour, purified their senses and
saved their hearts from abusing all that is sacred with Allah, and from light-
ening His prohibiting commands. If you turn the pages of their literature you
will find them—as Ahmad Amin says—They do not know either wine or
debauchery, so you do not find in their literature any wine...’¥7
4700Duha al-Islam (Maktabat al-Nahdah al-Misriyvah), 3:342.
191
The Third Discussion
Allow me, respected reader, to say a word—though, as I do so, pain
presses my heart and grief burns my sense—that what multiplies the prob-
lems and intensifies the situation is that certain forms of shamelessness and
debauchery are found in the biographies of people who are counted as the
peaks in the wah of Islam. They were the ones most deserving to embody
the virtues of the religion, and to be adorned with its characteristics and the
nobility of its manners. I have turned away from pointing to some of them
by name or title in a desire to be safe from speaking slanders.
I hold myself aloof from even acknowledging what has been said of
them. Because it is among our principles to respect the dignity of all Mus-
lims, the elite and the generality, let alone their scholars to whom Allah has
accorded,in additionto the honourof Islam,the honourof knowledge.
Moreover, I say that even the impudence to refer these mean things to the
masters of Islam is a crime and not to be regarded as a light matter. It did not
emanate but from lightening the commands of Allah through lightening His
warning as represented in the claim that the mawabbid will not be punished
or, if he is punished, he will not dwell in the punishment forever.
I will not forget what I was told by the great da% the just and most
learned Shaykh ‘Abd al-Mu‘izz ‘Abd al-Sattar: ‘If the wmah would accept
your belief in the eternal dwelling in the punishment of the committers of
major sins, then there would have been a great station for it in righteousness,
purity, chastity—quite otherwise than what we see today.’48
148 = Something similar has been said to me by Shaykh Muhammad b. Zaki b. Ibrahim, the
leader of al-Ashirah al-Muhammadiyyah in Egypt: ‘I wish we had taken their [the Iba-
dis’] opinions on backbiting and spreading rumours as causes of nullifying the fast and
breaking the ablution—and I have pointed to the same in my book a/-WWilayah wa +
bar@ah,
192
CONCLUSION OF THE BOOK
I apologize to you, respected reader. I never imagined that I should meet you
on these pages around these subjects which have kept my pen busy and taken
up your time. I would wish to have met you while talking with you through
the lines on subjects which are more appropriate for the attention of writers
and readers to turn to. For standing up to face the various attacks united in
the single purpose of penetrating Islam and disuniting the wah of Islam
politically and ideologically, is more appropriate for every da Muslim than to
become preoccupied with a dispute of faith among the groups of one and the
same Muslim ammah, a dispute over which centuries upon centuries have
passed, and which has been discussed and studied by different pens deeper in
knowledge, more profound in understanding, more eloquent in explanation,
and stronger in proofs and evidence. But I found my silence in this position
to worsen the problem. The propaganda of the biased people might please
(and persuade) those who have not studies all dimensions of the disputed 1s-
sues from which that propaganda proceeds in order to pass a judgement that
would sever one part of this smah from its body. For those (who hear that
propaganda) do not know the evidence from which this group of the wwmah
must take light when taking their positions on these issues. Since ancient
times this wise saying has been transmitted both orally and in wring: “Man is
the enemy of what he does not know’. And in the same meaning, this poetic
verse which has been said recently: ‘...ignorance of a thing in the eye of the
wise is blindness’. It is from this standpoint that I came to write these pages,
explaining in them what is right with evidence, strengthening the argument
affirmed from the Book and the Sunnah and from rational proof—not by
(merely following) certain people.
Whoever reflects upon my discussion putting senuments aside will find
it does justice to the different groups (mentioned). I have striven to present
the proof of each group, the evidence for each opinion, and to discuss these
arguments in an objective way, removed from predisposing influences.
Through that, I hope that my readers will realize the truth of my intention
and the sincerity of my heart.
I would not wish to miss here—while we are before an issue concerning
the unity of the whole Muslim #ma)—to make an appeal to those Muslim
scholars who receive my book, to study it with care, with sincerity for Allah,
then proclaim the word of truth, without fear of anyone, and without flattery
done at the expense of truth and fact. I do not mean by this that I require
193
Conclusion ot the Book
people to retreat from their beliefs, and to agree with me in what I hold—
indeed, no one can impose beliefs upon minds—beliefs are a result of con-
tentment with the idea, either after study and reflection, or out of imitation.
Rather, my meaning is that it is an obligation upon Muslim scholars—as they
are responsible for this pristine religion, and the “mah of Islam—that they
should adopt in situations like these which threaten to scatter the wah,a
positive position in the face of those who like to raise unrest and abuses
which cannot but result in problems and distress for our Muslim wwmah, and
that they should guide the majority of the people towards tolerance, concilia-
tion and co-operation among Muslims.
I declare to those who do not see any other way than to settle the
dispute on these issues untul the belief of the “mah is unified on them, that I
do not refuse peaceable, objective and constructive dialogue, through which
is not sought but the truth, and which does not lead but to the clarification of
the reality and the appearance of its proof, for such dialogue cannot lead but
to intimacy and harmony among Muslims. The only condition that I put is
that this dialogue be studied from all angles, to avoid narrowness and
sentiments which do not lead but to a bad outcome, which only deform the
face of the reality, and extinguish the light of the truth, and labour to veil its
beauties and place a bar between the truth and the seeing of it.
194
THANKS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
 I am duty bound to remember, and loyalty demands of me that I should not
 forget—in the midst of this clamour that has been raised by those voices cry-
 ing loudly against the Ibadis—those quict voices coming out of truth-
 speaking tongues and clear intentions to record their sincere praise of this
 group who have preserved the true Islam, and defended it with the most pre-
 cious souls and wealth in their possession, and remained steadfast on the
 right path on which walked the Messenger of Allah, upon him be peace and
 the blessings of Allah, his rightly guided caliphs, and his guided Companions,
 may Allah be pleased with them, and the world with its tempting attractions
 did not distract them while the greater number of the people were falling into
 them and being caught in their traps.
Allah has raised these voices in order to enlighten the path of the reality
 for those who seek it, and to tear down those slanders—which did not stand
 upon any foundation of reality but were woven by hatred—against this be-
 lieving group known among the believers and others by the name of Ibadis. I
 am not now in a situation to be able to enumerate these voices and their
 sources—time does not allow me to do that. I must be content to record for
 the people of these voices the best praise and finest praver. And I want to
 point to some of these fair-minded persons, to present before the respected
 reader the forms of their justice towards this school and its people. (Here,
 then,) for the readers, are some scenes from these forms of justice:
The great scholar zz al-Din al-Tannikhi, former member of the Scien-
 tific Society of Damascus, who has recorded with his fair pen shining pages
 of the virtues of the people of istigamah, to the extent that he says about
 those who accuse them of misguidance:
Whoever accuses the Ibadis of misguidance and error is from among those who
have divided their religion and become sects, and from among ignorant wrong-
doers.!49
The great scholar Sayyid ‘Abd al-Hafiz ‘Abd Rabbih, from among the
scholars of al-Azhar al-Sharif. In his writings about the Ibadis has come this:
They have derived their doctrine (wadbhab) from the noble Quran, and they have
acquired it from the authenticated Sunnah, and they have walked tn their direction
to the worship of Allah the same path that was walked by the Companions and
accepted by the consensus. They have striven that their steps should be on the same
path, the same track, on the paved road, along the way that the Messenger, peace be
upon him, passed in his Jong journey and distant travelling, his blessed procession,
149°zzal-Din al-Tannikhi:Khuhisat al-waseil fi tartio al-maseil Damascus: al-Matbat al-
Umumivyah, 1st edition), ‘Mfugaddimah’, H.
195
Thanks and Acknowledgement
coming and going with his blessed Message throughout 23 years, with their striving
for the truth, firmness in the right, their discipline of the self (wa/s), unul the matter
became clear for them, and the path became enlightened, and it became clear for all
the world—or the fair-minded, sincere people in it—that these are the people of
istigamah, or they are in reality that saving group of which the true Prophet was
informed, and Allah commanded His Messenger to choose it and adopt it as the way
leading to His worship, and His pleasure, in His saying, Exalted is He: ‘Say: “This 1s
my way; I do invite to Allah, with certain knowledge, I and whoever follows me.
Glory to Allah, and never will I join gods with Allah’” (Yasuf, 12.108).
The Ibadi school is not a strange thing in this world, or an alien to the life; rather, it
is the right currency which should be dealt with in different areas, and in all envi-
ronments. It is, with the help of Allah, a currency in which admixture [of false
metal], counterfeit and forgery are impossible, and in its logic the practice of false
compromises is not allowed, nor walking on two ropes, because for them the truth
is one and whole, indivisible.°
He also says:
In general—and after investigation, research, study, analysis and reasoning—it has
become clear that the Ibadi way ts the best path in Islamic performance, in the deal-
ings of life. Its leaders and preachers are those who have countered the groups of
hypocrisy, and opposed the gales of shirk and atheism, and challenged—with firm-
ness, power and toughness—those stupid, evil, strange actions that appear in the
behaviour of false or shameless rulers and oppressors on the religious level, or in the
worldly affairs, individual or collective—in accordance with the logic of the religion.
How needy ts the world today of this distinctive colour in Islamic frgh.
How needy is the world of the preachers and leaders of the Ibadis, whose
responsibility, and among whose primary duties, it is to reform the religious trend,
to establish accountability in place of laxity [before the Law], to hold firmly the neck
of shamelessness, misguidance and immorality, and to bring abiding by the Law into
different spheres of life.!5!
He also says:
In reality the Ibadis have become the true, eloquent language and enlightened
structure between Allah and the people. They are those who distil the truth of the
religion for mankind, and present on the tables of humanity the agreeable food of
the truth. They are the saved group that the Prophet, upon him be peace and the
blessings of Allah, has told [us] about in all his Jadiths and narrations. The presence
of this kind of people was a firm necessity which gathered the mercy of Allah to His
servants, and demanded from them to mect this mercy with different kinds of rites
of worship and devotion. The first among these is sincere gratitude, sincere worship,
and to celebrate His favours, and to translate all that into the behaviour that is loved
by Allah and His Messenger.
150Sayyid ‘Abd al-Hafiz “Abd Rabbih: a/-Ibbadiyyah: madbhab wa sultik (Cairo, 1st edition
18.11.1985) p. 22-23).
51°bid, 237.
196
Thanks and Acknowledgement
Among the manifestations of the generous mercy of Allah was that He did not Icave
His servants like this—in this world—as wasted, scattered, degraded, fallen amidst
heaps of doubts, and the debris of fia, and the broken wreckage of civilization de-
stroyed, amidst the ruins of confusion and uncertainty. For it was a necessary condi-
tion of man’s existence—in order to assure his impact, the evolution of his existence
and the continuity of life with him—that he should cross the way and traverse the
bridge of history from past to present, that he should travel all the stages of that his-
tory in the company of the most prominent elements of influence upon him, for af-
 firmation and negation. It was necessary that he should be accompanied in this his-
tory by that guided group who have carried their souls in their open hands [ready to
give], placed their lives on their weapons, and walked in time of fear demanding
humanity for man within the framework of the Law of Allah and what has been de-
signed by His Power, woven by the hand of the Shari‘ah, and nurtured by care for
Islam and the life of the Prophet, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah, and
who have helped man to interpret and implement the Law.
Are there people more pious, more clean, more loyal and more obedient in playing
 this role, and living out this great and important message, other than the Ibadis?
Is there any school which conforms with this spiritual development and harmonizes
with that legal stature, other than the school [of the Ibadis]?
Is there on the face of the earth or within the embrace of life one who can encom-
pass these divine teachings, or who can gather those divine universal sentiments,
other than an Ibadi man—a true Ibadi—whose emanation ts from Allah and whose
return is to Allah, and his life is between this emanation and return, and he ts always
with Allah?!52
The fair writer and Zaytini scholar Professor ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Majdhub
says in his statement about Ibadis:
The most obvious characteristic of Ibadis is their firm holding to the religion, by
performing its duties and avoiding what it forbids—to the extent of exaggeration—
and their extreme hatred for people of injustice and corruption. Because of these
two qualities, they were able to realize for themselves a religious dignity and political
supremacy that has made their name eternal in history.
He also says:
They preserved the purity of the Muhammadan message in the principles of their
school, and did not retreat from the straight path on which walked the Messenger of
Allah, upon him be peace and the blessings of Allah, and his pious Companions in
their behaviour and affairs of life. They did not commit any sin, and in leadership
they did not commit any injustice nor any kind of oppression such as is not [true]
except for a few rulers other than them.
Rather, injustice for them was impossible—not because they were protected, but
because the man of religion and the man of politics to them is the same. To the
152Ibid, 246-47.
153gl-Sirah al-madbhabi bi-Ifriqiyyah ila qiyam al-dawtah al-Zubayriyyah (al-Dar al-Tunisiyvah li-l-
Nashp), 104.
197
Thanks and Acknowledgement
Ibadis, the one responsible for the affairs of the people is the imam himself. That ts
the foundation of Islam in respect of government on which stood the guided ca-
liphs. [The Ibadis] preserved it and defended it. It is natural that a school like this
should spread and the people inclined to follow it in the western Islamic world, so
that they could get security and honour in its shades, when they had become fed up
with the life of anarchy and injustice under the hands of many ‘Umayyad and SAb-
basid governors.'54
Then he says:
Perhaps the first Ibadi preacher who came to these cities... was Salmah b. Sa‘d who
knew how to move the country, and which valleys to walk in order to be safe from
the oppression of the oppressors, and have security for his work to spread. So he
chose the hillways, far from desert and arid lands and far from coastal areas under
the power of the rulers, in the mountains of Nafusah and Dammiar, Nafzawah and
the heights and mountains around them. All these are populated areas. Here it was
possible for him to stay, and establish daS®wah among the Berbers, explaining to
[their] minds the true form of Islam in belief, worship and business. It was a form
other than what the people had witnessed in the rulers and their followers at that
time. Then the people gathered around him, responding to his invitation. He started
moving from one place to the other. He did not leave any place without leaving
behind there followers whose number increased by days and years until they came
to have a position, and represented a power which is given much weight [lit. a
thousand considerations].
From Africa two Ibadis walked—after they had received the basic fundamentals of
the religion and schooling at the hand of Salmah b. Sa‘d—to Iraq, in a deputation
including a number of Ibadis beside these two. They spent some years seeking
knowledge at the hand of the Imam of the school at that time, Aba: “Ubaydah
Muslim b. Abi Karimah. The first student was from Qayrawan, ‘Abd al-Rahman b.
Rustam, and the other was Abu Dawid from the South. When they completed their
education,andtheir imamwassatisfied with themfor theirawareness, he
commanded them [to do] good and saw them off to their land. Aba Dawid had a
position in the world of reform. He freed himself for the religious and educational
struggle. He created in the direction of Nafzawah and other areas of the South a
Muslim generation distinctive in its religion and character. This generation was a
pious seed for the following generations which held fast to the Sunnah and piety,
and opposed heresies and evil.155
Speaking about the opposition of Ibadis in the leadership of their Imam
Abi |-Khattab al-MaSafiri, Majdhub says:
This is Abu I-Khattab ‘Abd al-A‘l4 b. al-Samh al-Ma‘afirl, to whom‘Abd al-Rahman
b. Rustam sent a messenger to convey to him the evil happenings in Qayrawan. On
this Aba I-Khattab advanced to carry out the duty imposed upon him by the affec-
tion of brotherhood, and necessitated by one of the most important principles of his
154Thid, 10405.
55Ihid, 105-06.
198
Thanks and Acknowleduement
 school, namely confronting the rulers with the sword, and shedding their blood
 when they exceed the bounds of Allah, and incline to the [private] desire in their
 judgements. Abu |-Khattab came with a great army voluntecred to establish justice
 and etface the corruption and injustice committed by ‘Asim al-W arfjami and his fol-
 lowers. He met with success.
Then, after he had provided security to the people, protecting their provisions and
 digniues, he appointed ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Rustam as the governor over al-
 Qayrawan, and got back to Tripoli. The goverership of Ibn Rustam lasted two
 years, during which the Muslims in the whole of Qayrawan and Africa tasted secu-
 rity and realized the meaning of justice, and got, perhaps for the first time, the taste
 of the honourable life in the shade of pure Islamic rule.!56
Then Majdhib says about the role of the Ibadis in general in the lands
 of the Maghreb:
 The reality is that the Ibadis were able to impose their historic existence; they
 achieved an important religious honour. Its effects have remained ull today in his
 followers who live among us. They are committed to the service of the religion, and
 to resistance to heresies and evil, firm in their commanding of good and prohibiung
 of evil. For, they actualized a political honour which has its place in the history of
 Islam in the Arab west.!57
Great professor, Shaykh Muhammad Shahhatah Abu |-Hasan says:
 I do not favour anyone in this, my position. Rather, I say that the followers of this
 school [the Ibadis] against whom some people have acted meanly, are more tolerant
 than us, and more responsive to the command of Allah by being friendly. I have
 lived among them for more than twelve years, teaching the subject of /a/sir in the
Institute of Sharf Judgement:. I did not find (during that ume anything that] might
have polluted the sincerity of the relationship and what might have made me say
 something without evidence, regardless of the differences on some issues. We, I and
my students, and the great scholars of the school, followed the stronger evidence.'#
After this survey that you have made with me, respected reader—in
these pages among these issues—because of the situations imposed upon us,
I hope that the reality would have appeared to you and you have seen it as
manifest. I entrust you to Allah, Exalted is He, supplicating Him to provide
us with the opportunity to meet again and again under the shade of pristine
Islam when Muslims are united, their word become one, and their disputes
vanished that now disfigure the purity of their being one. As I pray to Allah
to guide our hands, and the hands of all this wah, to righteous and sincere
action, to true and pure speech that pleases him, and to enlighten our inward
156[bid, 108-09.
157Ibid, 110.
158A booklet entided ‘Explanation for the people’ (unpublished manuscript in ity author's
own hand), 4.
199
Thanks and Acknowledgement
sights, to purify our hearts, to write blessings for us, and to prevent us from
the ways of misfortune. May Allah bestow peace and mercy on our master
Muhammad, his descendants and all his Companions. ‘Glory to your Lord,
the Lord of Honour and Power. (He is free) from what they (falsely) ascribe
to Him. And be peace upon the Messengers. And praise belongs to Allah, the
Lord and Cherisher of the worlds.’
And peace be upon you, respected reader, the mercy of Allah and His
blessings.
Your brother in the path of Allah
Ahmad b. Hamad al-Khailili.
Masaat, Sultanate of Oman.
29 Sha‘ban, 1407 AH.
200