Incorrect Opinions Regarding 'Uluww
The first incorrect opinion regarding this Attribute is the saying that Allah is everywhere.
- Hulooliyyah ‘Aamah – (Hulool means to occupy a space, or be around). This is like the saying of Jahm ibn Safwan (the first to reject Allah’s ‘Uluww) that Allah is like the air, i.e. all around us.
- Hulooliyyah Khaasah – the belief that Allah is in a certain person’s surroundings, or in certain places only, e.g. idol worship.
- Ittihaadiyyah ‘Aamah – to believe that Allah is everywhere, inside of everything, and there is no existence other than Him. This is the belief of the heretical sufis.
- Ittihaadiyyah Khaasah – to believe that Allah is manifest inside a specific person, e.g. the Christian’s belief in Jesus.
Muslim groups mostly fell into the first and third of those mentioned.
The second opinion is that of the mujassimah who say Allah(swt) is enclosed in a space, or is physically sitting on the Throne. As a side note here, it must be mentioned that some English books on Aqeedah, specifically some translated works of ibn Uthaymeen (rahimahullah) have incorrectly translated his works to say “sitting on the Throne” (i.e. saying jalasa instead of istiwaa) when this is not found in the Arabic. It is a mistake in the translation, may Allah (swt) forgive us for our shortcomings.
The third deviant opinion is what is held by people of kalam (and most modern day Ash’aris) that Allah cannot be described with a direction. That is, He is neither to the left of us, the right of us, under us, over us, etc. This is in direct opposition to the way of Ahlus Sunnah because they have employed detailed negation and concise affirmation. While in the Quran it is found numerous times that Allah is above us, they claim that we should begin describing Allah by saying “He is not below us, He is not to the left, He is not…, He is not…, He is not…” and this is in clear opposition to the Quranic method.
The Ash’aris argued basically that this makes it appear Allah “needs” a Throne to sit on, that having a direction necessitates having a body, and that a being characterized by direction must ‘occupy space’ (tahayyuz) and have a directional relationship vis-a-vis other objects, thus implying a created being.
These assumptions are all based in Aristotelian logic, and contradict the rules established for Allah’s Names and Attributes. The simple response is that there is no basis for their assumptions, and the implications they assume are unfounded. We affirm what Allah says, and do not question the ‘how’. It is by delving into the ‘how’ that they made these assumptions and deviated.
Read More'Uluww (Highness of Allah) – General Overview
This has 3 connotations, Allah is highest in 1) His Control, 2) His Power, and 3) His Essence.
In reality, this is something that does not need to be proved, but because of the statements of some deviant groups on this issue, it has become necessary.
The proofs regarding this issue are too many to enumerate. This post will serve to give a brief overview of some of the proofs and their categories. Some of the ayaat are not fully quoted here, as they will be quoted in full in later articles.
First is the explicit ayaat mentioning Allah’s rising over the Throne. Also many hadith indicate that the Throne is above the heavens.
There are references also to things being “raised” (rafa’a) to Him, such as good deeds, (35:10, 4:158, 3:55). Also there are examples of good deeds being lifted up to Him with the word sa’ada.
There are also proofs showing Allah is “fis-Samaa’” and this means above (67:16-17). It should be noted that fee can also mean in, however, in this context it means above. This is also the case in the hadith of the slave-girl. One proof for this is the ayah 20:71, where Fir’awn says he will crucify the people fee date-palms. Obviously this means on them and not “in” them. Another proof for this is Allah’s saying to “travel fil-’ard (in the earth).” No one takes this to mean to be actually in the earth, but upon the earth.
Many of Allah’s Names also indicate His Transcendence, such as al-’Alee, al-A’laa, Ta’aala, al-Muta’aal, al-Qaahir, and many others showing He is above everything in His Power and Essence.
Another clear proof is the incident of al-Israa’ wa al-Mi’raaj.
The scholars of the early generations also said there is ijmaa’ (scholarly consensus) on this issue. Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal also argued this point from a logical perspective by saying, “Either Allah created us in Him, or outside Him. If it was inside then this is a statement of kufr. If outside, then Allah would choose best the direction for Him to be – i.e. being above the creation.” (rough translation).
The most undeniable proof, however, may be that of the fitrah. It is ingrained in us to look up, or to point up, to raise our hands up to Allah in supplication. Allah created us upon this pure fitrah, and even non-Muslims point up when referring to Allah.
The Issue of the Qur'an Being Created
This is a subset of the issue of Allah’s Kalam. That is because the Quran is the Speech of Allah, it is uncreated. The Mu’tazilah and Ash’aris have deviated in their understanding of the Qur’an. The end result of the beleifs of both of these groups is that either the Quran is created outright, or that the Quran we have is a created expression of what Allah(swt) said ‘internally’.
This issue is important, firstly because it is necessary for us to have the correct understanding of Allah(swt), it is part of our Tawheed, and secondly because these claims basically make the Quran null and void. If one says the Quran is created, or is not the Speech of Allah, then it destroys its relevancy and perfection. Since we know only Allah is of the utmost perfection, and His Attributes are perfect, then if the Quran is created, it must have some deficiency in it. The Kalam of Allah is what we know everything by, and to believe as the Ash’aris believe is to make the Quran no longer Divine.
The Caliph Ma’mun of the Abbasids had adopted the belief that the Qur’an was created. Bishr al-Mirisi and ibn Abee Du’aad (one of the followers of Jahm ibn Safwan) convinced him to make it the theology of the state at the time. Many scholars were executed over this issue and some said that it was created in order to save their lives. It was due to the famous trial of Imam Ahmed that it is pretty much universally accepted by the masses of the Muslims that the Quran is the uncreated Speech of Allah. The Ash’aris came approximately 100 years after the time of Imam Ahmed, when it was accepted that the Quran is Allah’s Speech, and this explains their somewhat confusing stance on the issue. They could not adopt the view of the Mu’tazilah since it was now openly rejected, but at the same time, they were trying to reconcile with their principles of philosophy they held to.
Amr ibn Deenar (d. 126AH) stated, “I have met the Companions of the Prophet(saw), and those that came after them for seventy years, all of them said, ‘Allah is the Creator, and everything besides Him is created, and the Qur’an is the kalam of Allah, from Him it came, and to Him it will return.” The narrations like this are mutawatir and come from the Imams of the first generations of Islam.
The first person to claim that the Quran was created was none other than Ja’d bin Dirham.
Most of the proofs for the Quran being the speech of Allah was mentioned in the previous post. One extremely obvious proof though, that I did not post there was the first 3 ayaat of Surat ar-Rahman,
Ar-Rahmaan. He taught (you) the Quran. He created man. [55:1-3]
What more needs to be said other than the fact that Allah(swt) Himself made the distinction?
Though this issue seems old, and we might wonder what significance it has for us, it should be noted that even modern day ‘progressive Muslims’ use this exact argument to justify re-interpreting the Quran. And this is exactly what Imam Ahmed feared, and why he stood firm during his trial, rahimahullah.
Read MoreKalam (Speech)
Ahlus Sunnah
Ahlus Sunnah affirms Allah’s Kalam. He speaks whenever He wills, His Speech is heard, He speaks with words and letters, and His speech is eternal and uncreated.
And Allah spoke directly (kallama) to Musa [4:164]
And,
And when he came to it (the fire), he was called by name: “O Musa (Moses)! Verily! I am your Lord! So take off your shoes, you are in the sacred valley, Tuwa. And I have chosen you. So listen to that which is inspired to you.” [20:11-13]
And,
And when Musa (Moses) came at the time and place appointed by Us, and his Lord spoke (kallamahu) to him, he said: “O my Lord! Show me (Yourself), that I may look upon You.” Allah said: “You cannot see Me… [7:143]
And,
And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words (kalam) of Allah [9:6]
Mu’tazilah
The Mu’tazilah said His Speech is heard but it is created. About the ayaat mentioned here, they say Musa heard Allah but he heard a created speech. One way of refuting this is that if the kalam of Allah was created, that would mean that one of Allah’s Attributes had a beginning, yet Allah’s Attributes do not change with time,
He is the First (there is nothing before Him), and He is the Last (there is nothing after Him) [57:3]
Ash’aris
The Ash’aris say that Allah is continually speaking (instead of speaking when He wishes) with an internal speech that cannot be heard, has no language, and is without words/letters. It is, according to them, an internal speech of the mind.
As discussed before, they fell into saying this out of a fear of committing tashbih (anthropomorphism). The Ash’aris said basically that if His Speech is heard, then it must automatically mean sound exists, and this implies a vocal cord, tongue, lips, etc. So because they could not view the Attribute in the middle path of Ahlus Sunnah (confirming the Attribute but leaving the ‘how’ to Allah) they fell into one extreme by trying to avoid the other. This also led them to say that the Quran is the uncreated internal speech of Allah, and what we have is simply an expression of it.
It is easy to notice that they delved into a lot of concepts that are unfounded in the Quran and Sunnah. What is ironic, is that the Ash’aris accuse Ahlus Sunnah of delving too much into the Names and Attributes of Allah when we are the ones who affirm the texts and do not go beyond that!
Imam Ahmed refuted the claim of the Ash’aris by saying, “As for their claim that sound can only occur from a combination of the throat, lips, and tongue, then did not Allah say to the heavens and earth “‘Come willingly or unwillingly!’ They both said, ‘We come, willingly!’” (41:12). And did not Allah say, “And We subjected the mountains and the birds to glorify Our praises, along with Dawood” (21:79). Do these people presume that they (i.e. the mountains, heaven, earth) glorified with a throat, lips, and tongues?! And how about when a disbeliever’s limbs will testify against him….Nay, rather Allah will make them to speak, as He wishes, without any throat lips or tongues!”
If what the Ash’aris say is true, then what did Musa hear in Tuwa? Also, do they consider muted speech to be praiseworthy? One who is mute is not like one who speaks, so to deny Speech from Allah, or interpret it as they do is an extremely dangerous and blasphemous position to take. It implies that the Creator is mute, while Allah is in fact free from all attributes of imperfection.
Also, if the Quran is an internal speech and what we have is an expression, and His speech is without words/letters, then what do they say about the ayaat that the Quran is in a clear Arabic language?
Read MoreExplanation of the Use of Majaz (Metaphors) in the Quran
We need to differentiate between two things:
1) Metaphoric words (Majaaz).
2) Metaphoric sentences (not majaaz).
Metaphoric Sentences:
For example, when we say: “Zaid is a fox”, we do not mean: Zaid is an actual fox, the animal. From the context we understand that we are only giving a metaphor of how cunning Zaid is.
This is a metaphoric sentence. This exists in the Quran in abundance. For example:
“And, out of kindness, lower to them (your parents) the wing of humility …”.
Obviously, humility does not have a wing to lower. But from the context we understand: be kind to your parents, etc.
This is not Majaaz. It is not the point of dispute between people of Sunnah and people of Bid’ah.
Metaphoric words (Majaaz):
Read More