and draws excuses of wronging .

Shias, however, coincided harm and wrong so naturally that they betook them as garment, and those did wrong to them were surprised of such a turning the other cheek .

strike . They saw him spatter his limbs as an offering to God, the Exalted, demolishing legend of fear carried by Muslims’ hearts and leaving his will of urging on jihad for sake of Allah . All this does neither act upon nor rouse Wahabists’ sense .

Uninfluenced by any Shiite phenomenon, Wahabists are only influenced by describing whomever dissent their conceptions as atheists and polytheists .

More than five hundred books and booklets were publicized by Wahabists against Shias in a period of few years . A great deal of fierce verdicts, impolite utterances and scanty knowledge was covering these books .

Hitherto, they cannot endure a single positively critical study relating their ideology of faith and monotheism .

We expect their scholars to enjoy broad­mindedness as much as that enjoyed by scholars of western universities, some of whom find an exultation in ideological criticism, or even that enjoyed by scholars of the worthy ancestors who were listening to sayings for opting for the most appropriate . Those were guided by Allah, and those are the mindful .

mission of leading Muslims to such a conception, they would have retracted and started a new inceptive in structuring their belief in Allah, the Exalted . They would, likewise, have decreased their reviling at us .

Had an educated Wahabist known that his supreme jurisconsult, Abdul­Azeez Bin Baz, state that, “Allah, the Elevated, is a material corporeality existing, in a form of a human being, in a certain place in this universe, having a face, hand, leg, limbs and organs, and that His Throne is carried by animals . ” Had the well­taught Wahabist known that his scholars claimed, “This (god) shall totally terminate except His face . This fact is evidenced by His saying, (Every thing is perishable but His face) . ’” They also assert, “Scholars of Wahabism are obligatorily asked to hide Allah’s materiality from ordinary Muslims and rest upon ‘principal of circumspection’ in this regard, since within Islamic beliefs there are those peculiar to the first class scholars . Allah’s materiality is dedicate to this class . ”

Had educated Wahabists experienced such a scholastic impotence and his scholars’ contrast in hypotheses respecting monotheism, they would have been enormously overwhelmed to the degree that they might have restructed conceptions regarding Allah, the Elevated . Besides, they would have found excuses to majority of Muslims who showed abandonment from Wahabism .

This study is rendered for proving this matter . We hope Wahabists, our brothers, would be attracted to understand that their problem of monotheism is the greatest among the miscellaneous problems of Muslims .

They, however, may be engaged in finding resolution for this problem so that they will alleviate their denunciation at us, especially in season of ritual pilgrimage . Owing to verdicts of atheism and polytheism addressed at followers of other sects by Wahabists who pushed themselves, with no hesitation, towards humiliating pilgrims of God’s Holy House and visitators of tombs of the Prophet and his household, Muslims regarded their mental hardship before physical and fiscal ones during such seasons .

Volunteers for serving the Beneficent’s guests became numerous, especially during the last few years . They distributed their prizes of mistreatments, unjust verdicts and ill tones, equally on pilgrims of the various countries and nationalities of this world . Hence, each pilgrim returns home carrying a sort of that rudeness in mind . Pilgrims’ faults were not more than seeking God’s courtesies by visitating tombs of the Prophet or one of God’s favorite disciples .

Wahabists, our brothers, should understand that questions of practical polytheism are totally falling a single step behind question of hypothetical belief . A Muslim should, in the first place, improve beliefs and conceptions regarding the Lord so that he would be able of possessing criterion of measuring the others’ hypothetical and practical monotheism . Secondly, Muslims should discern the major, middle and minor polytheism .

In case a Muslim is living in problems touching the origin of believing in Allah, the Exalted, he should decipher such problems and restruct his own house before, if permissible, he provides personal inference before other Muslims . Inference

should be rendered by following good wills, positive dialect and impressive words .

Ali Al­Kurani Al­Amili

Safar, 14, 1419 .

Being of a degree higher than materialities, was commonly prevalent . Hence, sights cannot fall on Him, and allusions cannot attain Him . He is reachable by intellects and seeable by minds the visions of which are more elevated and deeper than those of eyes .

During and after Omar’s reign, conceptions of God’s seeableness and corporalism were generally prevalent . The Prophet’s household and some companions took the charge of refuting and belying such misallegations .

Like many others, Ummul­Muminin[9], Aisha, was stunned by such odd sayings far away from Islamic beliefs and contrary to the Prophet’s conveyance of Allah’s mission .

Aisha expounded upon falsity of such narratives . She declared : “Such sayings are impending lies forged against Allah, the Elevated, and His Apostle . Muslims should refute and belie such malicious accusation . ”

The following is related in Al­Bukhari’s As­Sahih (Book of hadith), part 6 page 50 :

Masruq : I asked Aisha (God may please her) whether the Prophet (peace be upon him) had seen his Lord . “Your words have made my hair chill!” said Aisha, and added, “You should know three things the talker of which is surely a liar . He is certainly a fabricator that whoever tells of Mohammed’s having seen his Lord . (Visions comprehend him not, and he comprehends all visions; and He is the Knower of subtleties, the Aware . 6 : 103), (And it is not for any mortal that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a veil; 42 : 51)

.

He is also lying that whoever tells of realizing the morrow, (And no one knows what he shall earn on the morrow; and no one knows in what land he shall die . 31 : 34) .

He is also lying that whoever tells of the Prophet’s having concealed, (O Apostle! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message . 5 : 67) . Yes indeed, the Prophet could see the Angel Gabriel twice in his actual appearance . ”

In His As­Sahih, part 8, page 166, Al­Bukhari also records :

Ashi’bi : Masruq : Aisha (God may please her) stated :

“He is fabricating that whoever tells of Mohammed’s having seen his Lord, (Visions comprehend him not, and he comprehends all visions; and He is the Knower of subtleties, the Aware . )

He is fabricating that whoever claims of realizing the future, (Say : No one in the heavens and the earth knows the unseen but Allah . 27 : 65) . ”

Similar narratives are written down in Al­Bukhari’s As­Sahih, volume 2, part 4 page 83 and Volume 3 part 6, page 50 and volume 4 page 83 .

Muslim’s As­Sahih (Book of Hadith), part 1 page 110 :

Aisha stated : “He is fabricating that whoever tells of Mohammed’s having seen his Lord . ”

The same is recorded in An­Nisa’i’s book of Tafseer ­exegesis of the Holy Quran­, part 2 .

On page 245 of the same previous reference, the following is recorded :

Abu Dherr

stated : The Prophet saw his Lord by his heart, not eye . ”

This narrative is also written down in Irshadus­Sari, part 5, 7 and 10, page 276, 359 and 356 . Ar­Razi, in his Al­Mettalibul­Aliya, volume 1, part 1 page 87, records the same .

In At­Tirmithi’s As­Sunen, part 4 page 328, the following is recorded :

Masruq : I was before Aisha when she spoke : “O Abu Aisha! He is forging a serious falsification against Allah, that whoever discusses one of three subjects . He whoever claims of Mohammed’s having seen his Lord is forging serious falsification against Allah Who says, (Visions comprehend him not, and he comprehends all visions; and He is the Knower of subtleties, the Aware . 6 : 103), (And it is not for any mortal that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a veil . 42 : 51) . ”

I, immediately, sat erect and wondered : “O mother of believers! With relaxation answer me, please . God says, (And certainly he saw him in another descent . 53 : 13), (And of a truth he saw him on the clear horizon . 81 : 23)”

She commented, “By God I swear, I was the first who asked the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) about this matter . He answered that it was Gabriel whom he had seen . He also added that saving these two occasions, he had not seen the Angel in his actual appearance . He saw him descend from the

heavens, blocking all what is between the heavens and earth due to tremendousness of his creation . ” She, then, added, “Similarly, he whoever claims of Mohammed’s having concealed any of what was revealed to him, is forging serious accusation against Allah Who says, (O Apostle! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message . 5 : 67) . He whoever claims of realizing the morrow is forging serious accusation against Allah Who says, (Say : No one in the heavens and the earth knows the unseen but Allah . 27 : 65) .

At­Tirmithi commentates :

This hadith is authentic and qualified with a rather doubtful narrator . Masruq Bin Al­Ajda is called ‘Abu Aisha’ .

At­Tabari, in his book of Tafseer, part 27, page 30, relates the same narrative . On page 200 of the same reference, a similar hadith is written down :

Ashi’bi : Aisha stated, “He whoever claims of having seen his Lord is forging a serious falsification against Allah Who says, (Visions comprehend him not, and he comprehends all visions; and He is the Knower of subtleties, the Aware . )”

Adopters of this conception claim that comprehension, in the Verse involved, stands for sight . They deny that Allah can be seen neither in this world nor in the Hereafter . Regarding the Verse, (Some faces on that day shall be bright . Looking at [waiting for] their Lord . 75 : 23­4), they allege that ‘looking’ in

the Verse stands for waiting for God’s mercy .

Ahmed, in his book of hadith, part 6, page 49, relates a similar narrative with the following addition :

Aisha said : Glorified be Allah! Your words have made my hair chill!

Al­Baghawi relates an alike narrative in part 4 page 30 of Massabihus­Sunneh .

As­Suheili, in Ar­Rawdhil­Enif, part 2, page 156 and An­Nuweiri, in Nihayetul­Ireb, part 8, page 16, hadith 295, relate the previous with the following addition :

Aisha said : “My hair is chilled . ”

As he relates a similar narrative in part 3 page 252 of his Al­Jawahirul­Hisan, At­Thalibi comments :

Al­Beihaqi opted for narratives of Aisha, Ibn Mas’ud and Abu Hureira involving that it was Gabriel, the Angel, who had been intended in the visions mentioned in the Verses, (Then he drew near, then he bowed… 53 : 8) . Shureik’s narrative, however, is repealed by Abu Dherr’s most authentic one : “O Apostle of Allah! Have you seen your Lord ? ” asked Abu Dherr . “He is brilliance . How can I see brilliance ? !” answered the Prophet .

Regarding God’s saying, (The heart was not untrue in making him see what he saw . 53 : 11), Ibn Abbas claims that Mohammed (peace be upon him) has seen his Lord with eyes of his head . Aisha denies so : “I myself asked Allah’s Apostle about these Verses . He told that Gabriel, the Angel, was the one seen . ”

Ibn Jazi, in his At­Tasihil, part 2, page 381, records :

Some claimed that the

Prophet had seen Allah, the Elevated . Aisha denied this claim .

The following is recorded in At­Thehbi’s Siyeru A’lamin­Nubela, part 2 page 166 :

Aisha (God please her) : “He whoever claims of Mohammed’s having seen his Lord, is forging serious falsification against Allah, the Elevated . The Prophet saw Gabriel twice in his actual appearance which was blocking all what is between horizons . ”

We had no single evident narrative involving the Prophet’s having seen his lord with his eyes . This question, however, is not that important since a Muslim may disregard . Regarding narratives of seeing Allah in dreams, a good number of variant acceptable reports has been related . Texts regarding seeing Allah with eyes in the Hereafter are so uninterrupted that certitude is obtained . Ad­Darqutni, Al­Beihaqi and others compiled reports regarding the topic concerned .

At­Thehbi, in his commentary on Ahmed’s book of hadith, part 6 page 2416, records :

Ibn Abi Edi : Dawud Bin Abi Hind : Ashi’bi : Masruq :

Before Aisha, I said, “God says, (And certainly he saw him in another descent . 53 : 13), (And of a truth he saw him on the clear horizon . 81 : 23)”

She commented : “I was the first who asked the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) about these Verses . He answered that it was Gabriel whom he had seen . He also added that saving these two occasions, he had not seen the Angel in his actual appearance . He saw him descend from the heavens,

blocking all what is between the heavens and earth due to tremendousness of his creation . ”

Muslim relates this report, numbered 177, to Ashi’bi . He records it in Chapter : Faith, Title : Significance of God’s saying, (And certainly he saw him in another descent . ) Al­Bukhari, relating it to Ashi’bi and Masruq, records the report in part 8 page 466 .

For At­Tirmithi, the report is numbered 3278 . In his book of Tafseer, he relates it to Sufian : Mujalid : Ashi’bi . It is, however, of authentic documentation .

Aisha’s denial, in fact, included seeing Allah in the Hereafter . At­Tabari supports this meaning; therefore, At­Thehbi and others had to find acceptable construction for Aisha’s reports particularly, and Verses and reports respecting denial of seeing Allah generally . Additionally, they forbade from debating reports respecting seeing God and the divine attributes . Besides, they denied and reckoned with deviation and atheism all those debating such subjects . Further discussion to be provided later on .

Ad­Dimiri’s Hayatul­Hawanil­Kubra, part 2, page 71 :

Aisha denied significance of the Prophet’s having seen Allah mentioned in sura of Najm . She, in truth, denied the whole question of seeing God under any circumstance . Glorified and Elevated be Allah . He is more exalted and excellent than being described by localities, demarcated by attributers, accounted by times or denoted by places and zones . For these considerations, it is impracticable to describe His Essence as identified to a certain region, or movable from a place to another

or falling in a certain place . It is related that Moses received the direct words of Allah from every side . Proving this, it is illicit to characterize Allah as occupier of a definite point and settler of a definite place . Unlike conception of the Hashawite[10] Hanbalites, His words are without letters or sounds .

Omar Bin Al­Khattab asked Ka’bul­Ahbar whether he had retained the Torah . Ka’b answered affirmatively . A man attending at that session sought Omar’s asking Ka’b to mention where God had been before he created the Throne, and from which element He, the Elevated, had created the water on which He located His Throne . “Yes, Amirul­Muminin!” answered Ka’b, “In the Wise Origin, we exposed that Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, had been anterior before creation of the Throne . He was establishing Himself on the rock of Jerusalem in ether . As He willed to create His Throne, He salivated a single spit from which deep oceans and revolved waves were originated . There, He created His Throne from a part of the rock on which He was settling . The rest of that rock was taken as a mosque of His Sacredness . ”

Ali Bin Abi Talib, who was also attending, stood erect and shaked his dresses uttering expressions of glorifying and exalting the Lord . Omar adjured him to return to his place . Ali responded . “Sink for it, you great diver! What is your commentary, Abul­Hassan! You have been always relieving troubles,” Omar addressed at Ali . “Wrong were your acquaintances!” Ali (peace be upon him) turned to Ka’b, “They distorted Book of Allah and inaugurated forging lies against Him . Woe is you, Ka’b! The rock you have intended should never accommodate Allah’s exaltation, or comprehend His prominence . The ether you have mentioned should never maintain His sides

. Had the rock and the ether been anterior, they would have had His anteriority . Allah, the Elevated, is more excellent than having an indicated place . Unlike sayings of unbelievers and surmise of the ignorant, Allah was existing when there was no place in a form unattainable by mentalities . My saying ‘was’ is a lack of His being . It is a part of what He had taught from mode of expression . Allah, the Magnified the Exalted, says, (He created man, taught him mode of expression . 55 : 3­4) Using ‘was’ for Him is a part of mode of expression He had taught so that I would speak out His arguments and excellence . Our Lord was and still potent of doing whatever he desires, aware of everything . He, then, composed what He desires without referring to an occurring idea or an intercepting confusedness . He, the Magnified the Exalted, created a light originated from nothing . Then, darkness was prompted from that light . Like creation of light, He had the capability of creating darkness from nothing . From that darkness, He created a light from which a ruby, as crammed as seven heavens and seven earths . Owing to His chiding, the ruby deliquesced for His consensus . It was transferred into water shaky till Day of Resurrection . He then created His Throne from His own light, and established it on water . The Throne has ten thousand tongues, each is praising Allah in ten thousand

totally different languages . Draperies of haze were down the Throne when settled on water . This is the significance of His saying, (And his throne was on water that he might manifest to you . 11 : 7) .

Woe is you, Ka’b! He whose spit was these oceans, as you claim, should be greatly larger than being contained by the rock of Jerusalem or the ether you have indicated to . ”

Immediately, Omar Bin Al­Khattab laughed and confessed, “This is it, indeed . This is the knowledge, not yours, Ka’b . May God terminate me before being in time Abul­Hassan is absent . ”

In addition to many others, these persuading texts lead to perceiving that existence of a trace of the Jewish culture in the question had been the motive beyond such an abundant denial and firm situation .

AL­ALBANI DISDAINS DENIAL OF ALLAH’S SEEABLENESS ADOPTED BY THE PROPHET’S COMPANIONS

The following is quoted from Al­Albani’s Al­Fatawi page 143 :

Not only was conception of Allah’s seeableness referred to by the Prophet’s tradition, but also it was asserted in the Holy Quran that is uninterruptedly related to the Prophet . Regarding the Exalted’s saying, (Some faces on that day shall be bright . Looking at [waiting for] their Lord . ), the faces intended are surely the believers’ who shall be looking at their Lord . Mutazilites and Shias invented a philosophy indicating that meaning of the Verse is looking at the Lord’s boons . Such sorts of philosophy is surely an ax destructuring the authentic traditions

.

Al­Albani and his likes, as a matter of fact, missed the fact that it is impermissible to rest upon a part of the Holy Quran and neglect others . Thus, it is essential to take in consideration the Verses, (Visions comprehend him not,) and (Nothing like a likeness of Him;), in addition to many others pertaining denying Allah’s seeableness . The next step is lining the decisive with the allegorical Verses . In this regard it is so appreciable to cite that the Verse involved is revealing a morrow situation before entering to the Paradise . This is evidenced by God’s saying, (And other faces on that day shall be gloomy, knowing that they will be made to befall them some great calamity . 75 : 25­6)

The believers’ faces shall be tending to their Lord, waiting for His mercy and bounty . The unbelievers’, on the other hand, shall be lassitude, anticipating His penalty . As a result, the Verses are lacking any signal to ocular sight at Allah’s Entity whether after or before abiding in the Paradise .

Secondly, they missed that considering disregarding narratives about Allah’s seeableness is a sort of destructuring the Prophet’s tradition, it is they who did perpetrate such a destruction since they disregarded the authentic narratives of Aisha recorded by Al­Bukhari, Muslim and others .

It is seemly to say that Verses regarding denial of Allah’s seeableness are downright and decisive . It is also improper to intersect such Verses by others the surface perspectives of which show Allah’s optical seeableness

. Allegorical Verses should be measured to the decisive, and their appearances should be passed .

Within the hadiths, there are those denying Allah’s seeableness and others admitting . Both are authentic and recorded in dependable references . They are too contrasted to be regarded . Hence, it is necessary to favor some and neglect the others . It is ill­timed to arise the misallegation that Mutazilites and Shias were the originators of such denial and regarding such a denial as destructuring the Prophet’s traditions . The entire adopters of Allah’s optical seeableness, such as Al­Albani and Bin Baz, hint at narratives of Aisha . Meanwhile, those who ruled of impracticability of Allah’s seeableness and corporeality referred to narratives of Allah’s seeableness . This matter, then, is not reckoned with destructuring of the Prophet’s traditions . In study of principals of jurisprudence, this matter is named ‘equality and preponderancy’ . One of the conclusive principal of this discipline is favoring the most suitable group to the less in case it is unworkable to combine contrasted hadiths . Preference, here, is the share of hadiths of denying Allah’s seeableness . The following are additional points of superiority of hadiths regarding denial of Allah’s seeableness :

Hadiths regarding denial of Allah’s seeableness are concordant to Quranic decisive Verses, such as, (Visions comprehend him not, and he comprehends all visions), and (Nothing like a likeness of Him;) .

Hadiths involved are concordant to origin . The origin, however, is ruling of impracticability of Allah’s optical seeableness till a decisive proof is

provided .

Hadiths of the Prophet’s household and Aisha regarding denial of Allah’s seeableness are opposing and nullifying the others . Hadiths of Allah’s seeableness, however, are neither opposing nor nullifying the others .

Unlike those proving Allah’s seeableness, hadiths of impracticability of Allah’s seeableness are concordant to the decisive ruling of intellect .

that both have nothing inciting to forging grave lies against Allah! God’s saying, (Visions comprehend him not), may refer to two meanings adopted by followers of conception of Allah’s seeableness . First, it may be accordant to the saying of ‘the Quran’s interpreter’ addressed at Ikrima, the slave, “That is His brilliance which is his brilliance . Nothing would comprehend Him when He comes into view by His brilliance . ” The second meaning is that people’s eyes cannot comprehend Him . Pursuant to the Arabic tongue, the item ‘absar’ ­visions­ includes commonly a group’s eyes . It is unfeasible to use ‘absar’ for individuals’ eyes . The item ‘basar’ ­vision­ expresses an individual’s eyes . In a like fashion, it is impracticable to use ‘basaran’ ­two visions­ for expressing an individual’s eyes . Hence, it is unacceptable to use ‘absar’ for expressing a single individual’s organs of sight . Falsity and prevarication shall be certainly imputed to us if we claim that visions can see our Lord in this world .

Claiming of the Prophet’s having seen his Lord exclusively does not propose that visions have seen the Lord in this world . How is it, ye, possessors of intellects, practical for those who deny the Prophet’s having seen his Lord exclusively, to prove that visions have seen the Lord . Perceiving this point leads to understanding that Ibn Abbas, Abu Dherr, Anas Bin Malik and their adherents had neither forged grave lies against Allah nor had they opposed a single letter of Allah’s Book

regarding this question!!

Aisha uttered the Verse, (And it is not for any mortal that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a veil;), during providing evidences on impracticability of the Prophet’s having seen his Lord . Neither Abu Dherr, Ibn Abbas, Anas Bin Malik (God please them) nor did any of their followers, in the question involved, allege that Allah communicate the Prophet in these very moments of seeing . Therefore, none could attest any sort of contrast to the Verse concerned . Those claiming the Prophet’s having seen his Lord are not opposing God’s saying, (And it is not for any mortal that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a veil;) . Those claiming God’s having communicated the Prophet at the same time of their reciprocal optical viewing, are only opposing the Verse .

In spite of his exalted standing, scholarship, god­fearing and position in Islam and knowledge, Ibn Omar seeks the reality of this question from the Quran’s interpreter and the Prophet’s cousin . “Has the Prophet (peace be upon him) seen his Lord ? ” Ibn Omar asks Ibn Abbas as he esteems his full acquaintance of this question . It was proved that Ibn Abbas could certify the Prophet’s having seen his Lord . This question, in fact, is not attained by intellects, opinions, hearts and conjecture . Such a knowledge is received through prophetic course only . This course, however, is limited to a divine book or a favorable prophet . As

much as I am to surmise, no single acquainted individual may doubt that personal inference and conjecture were the authors of Ibn Abbas’s claiming of the Prophet’s having seen his Lord . The same may be said about Abu Dherr and Anas Bin Malik .

Conclusively, we should repeat the words of Mu’ammar Bin Rashid regarding discrepancy between Aisha (God please her) and Ibn Abbas (God please him) about question of Allah’s optical seeableness . “For us, Aisha is not more knowledgeable than Ibn Abbas . ” We add that Aisha, the veracious and daughter of the veracious and dearest of God’s dearest, was educated and jurisprudent . Ibn Abbas, on the other hand, was cousin of the Prophet (peace be upon him) who supplicated God to bestow him with wisdom and knowledgeability . This is the operation of that supplication . He is named the Quran’s interpreter . Al­Faruq (God please him), as well, was wont to accept Ibn Abbas’s opinions even contrasted to others of older age and superiority in accompanying the Prophet (peace be upon him) . It is impossible to say that Ibn Abbas forged a grave lie against Allah, just because he affirmed a matter denied by Aisha (God please her) . Even in cases of misrepresentation of a Quranic Verse or a prophetic tradition, scholars should never utter such a statement . How is it then admissible to impute forging grave lies to Allah to individuals proving a matter not explicated in the Quran or through the Prophet’s traditions ?

Understand this question and make not mistakes!!

not provide any . Hence, denial is the origin till an evidence is proved . Aisha (God please her) supported her claim of denial with some Quranic Verses as testifiers . Correctness of a claim is regarded after an evidence is provided . Otherwise, denial is preferred since it does not need an evidence . How should that grand instructor have been disappointed by his knowledgeability when he misthought that the denied matter was visions’ comprehending Him in such a way that providing a single vision was involved, comprehension should be realizable!! Considering someone says, “I do not have pomegranate . ” This claim does not mean that he may have a single grain of pomegranate . God’s mercy be upon Ibn Khuzeima . He had erred . None, however, is perfect .

In addition to the previous words of Sheik Mohammed Harras, we may add the following :

Except for Abu Dherr’s question and Aisha’s asking the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), there was no single narrative recorded in references of hadith relied upon by Sunnis, our brothers, regarding the optical seeableness involved . Denial of Allah’s optical seeableness, however, was confirmed in the two narratives previously excluded . Personal inference was the proof of those who claimed the Prophet’s having seen his Lord with his own eyes . They, however, rested upon no narrative at all .

Contradiction, in fact, occurs between narratives of Abu Dherr and Aisha regarding the Prophet’s denial of his having seen his Lord from a side, and personal

inference from the other . Ibn Abbas’s narratives are so contrasted and confused that they should be ruled as ineffective . Therefore, the origin, which is denial of the question involved, is supposed except in case that an evidence is provided .

Before he denounces Aisha, Ibn Khuzeima himself had recorded narratives related by Ibn Abbas concerning denial of Allah’s seeableness . On Page 200, he writes down :

With reference to exegesis of the Verse, (And certainly he saw him in another descent . ), variant narrations were ascribed to Ibn Abbas . Some related that sight had been with the heart .

Al­Qasim Bin Mohammed Bin Ebbad Al­Muhellebi : Abdullah Bin Dawud Al­Khureibi : Al­Amesh : Ziyad Bin Hussain : Abul­Aliya :

Regarding God’s saying, (And certainly he saw him in another descent . ), Ibn Abbas stated, “He had seen Him with the heart . ”

Ismail : Abdurrezaq : Israil : Semmak : Ikrima :

Regarding God’s saying, (The heart was not untrue in making him see what he saw . ), Ibn Abbas stated, “He had seen Him with the heart . ”

The strange matter is that in the commencement of his commentary, Ibn Khuzeima overlooked Aisha’s manifest narrative concerning the Prophet’s denying seeing his Lord . Importunately, he insisted on reckoning that narrative with personal opinion and inference . Finally, he had to declare that Aisha’s relation was tradition of the Prophet . Nevertheless, he imposed Ibn Abbas’s saying as a hadith standing against Aisha’s . He ruled that Ibn Abbas’s narrative must have been

following Aisha’s . How did he realize that Ibn Abbas’s saying had been a narrative, and following Aisha’s ? Even if this is acceptable, Aisha’s narrative is such an absolute denial that it opposes and traverses the converse ones . Ibn Abbas’s narration is a partial affirmation . How is it, then, acceptable to prefer to the previous ? Furthermore, how could Ibn Khuzeima conclude a general ruling of preferring narratives of affirmation to those of denial in case of contradiction, deciding the previous as repealing the latter ? Would he, then, apply this ruling on narrations denying the Prophet’s having nominated Ali in his will and those proving this question ? As for his ruling, narratives affirming the Prophet’s having nominated Ali (peace be upon him) for succeeding him in leadership should be preferred to those denying . In addition, would Ibn Khuzeima commit himself to the claim that Ibn Abbas’s words are always preferred to Aisha’s ? In this case, he should regard his testimony that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) had nominated Ali (peace be upon him) as his successor in leadership, and ordered Muslims of declaring their fealty to him in Ghadir Khum just after the Farewell Pilgrimage[11] . And, similarly, he should overlook Aisha’s testimony that the Prophet was deceased before he had willed of anything to anybody!!

Ibn Khuzeima would never commit himself to anything! Because he was brought up and fed with conception of Allah’s optical seeableness, he is ready to engage himself in confiscatory,

inferential and seemingly contradictory affairs for proving that conception .

In his Tafseerul­Menar, part 9 page 148, Mohammed Abduh did say honorably :

Consequently, it is realizable that Ibn Abbas’s narrations contrary to Aisha’s, was only personal inference without being imputed to the Prophet . Reports of Ibn Abbas’s dedicating seeing by heart is acceptable contradiction to the authentic exegesis of Sura of Najm, imputed to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), that it was Gabriel, the Angel, whom had been seen by the Prophet in his actual appearance . Likewise, Ibn Abbas’s saying, related by Ikrima, was probably conceived from Ka’bul­Ahbar about whom Muawiya, the narrator, say : “Lies were largely uttered by Ka’bul­Ahbar . ” This saying, however, is recorded by Al­Bukhari . Ibn Isaaq, the reporter of the other narrative, is fabricator . He is trusted in reports regarding battles only, not hadiths . Hence, his report involved is valueless . In reports and conceptions, Ibn Abbas’s absolute affirmation is preponderant .

From words of Mohammed Abduh, recorded in Tafseerul­Menar, part 9 page 139, we can perceive that Aisha’s words are judged as evidential inference if inference is ascribed to her . He says :

Aisha, one of the most eloquent people of Quraish, refers to visions’ incomprehensibility as an evidence on denial of Allah’s seeableness in regard to the difference between the two . She also provides God’s saying, (And it is not for any mortal that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a veil;), as another

evidence . Scholars, however, applied these evidences to Allah’s seeableness in this world . Like this world, Allah’s visual comprehensibility is also impracticable in the Hereafter .

trend is school of extrinsic meanings . Followers of this school suspend the extrinsic meanings of the divine texts . They believe that Allah, the Exalted, has material hand, face, leg and rim . Christians and Jews adopt this trend . Ka’bul­Ahbar, Wahab Bin Munebbih and their associates took the task of publicizing this trend among Muslims . It became the formal trend adopted by the ruling regimes in the Umayid reign . Hanbalites, as well as part of the Asharists, adopted that trend . Ibn Teimiya and Wahabists attempted at attaching this trend to the worthy ancestors and Sunnis .

The fourth trend is school of commuters, vacillators and the perplexed . Models of such three categories have been rendered in our Al­Aqa’idul­Islamiya, Volume One .

The name ‘Metawila’ ­interpreters­ commonly used in Syria, Palestine and Egypt at describing the Shias, was, seemingly, originated from the corporalists who ruled of the Shias’ atheism . They also ruled of atheism of Muslims, apart from their sects, whose course was finding suitable representation for the Quranic and prophetic texts .

Although majority of Sunnis, our brothers, are ‘interpreters’, the name of ‘Metawila’, with all of its ill meanings and effects, was stuck to the Shias, the wronged . The description ‘Mitwali’ gave an idea in mentalities of the Shias’ rivals, worse than that of ‘kafir’ ­disbeliever­ .

The following is a rather detailed submission of these trends .

the most suitable way . An utterance is exposed pursuant to its real meaning unless there is a pronunciational or intellectual obstacle against appropriating . Only then, metaphorical meaning is adapted according to principals of discourse experienced by specialists .

The Arabic is highly remarkable in rhetoric and eloquence due to various expressive styles of metaphor, metonymy, allegory, simile …etc . Thus, the Prophet’s companions and their associates dealt with expressions of the Holy Quran and hadiths on this basis . They appreciated that texts, appearances of which contrast Allah’s divine exaltation, were metaphoric, listed under comparing the percipient to the materialistic so that Allah’s attributes and deeds would be evidently conceived by ordinary mentalities . They decided the unintendedness of susceptible appearances of such divine texts . Hence, metaphor should be referred to, for interpreting . In God’s saying, (The hand of Allah is above their hands . 48 : 10), neither the organic hand nor is any akin thing, had by Allah, is intended . He, the Exalted, alludes that the other party of allegiance of fealty, altogether with His propensity, prevalence and elevation, is higher than the previous . As a matter of fact, this is very natural in any language . In our daily speech, expressions of gratitude are said as an answer for those who address at you, “You have done a heartbreaking job . ” Immediately, it is understood that a heartbreaking job is a deed of an expressive value that it affected emotions . It does not mean that

due to that job spears or bullets were sent to hearts that made them breakable . Hearts, however, cannot be broken, materially .

prejudicing faithfulness . Unanimously, the entire master Muslims agreed upon the fact that it is imperative to believe in the unintendedness of the extrinsic meanings thrown by Quranic Verses respecting Allah’s attributes and ascribing material attributes to Him, the Exalted . It is inapplicable to accredit the apparent meanings of Quranic Verses to Allah, the Exalted .

The following is recorded in part 1 page 167 of the same reference :

In his Sharhul­Ahadith, Al­Mazini states :

This is among the matters obligatorily interpreted . It comprises God’s having a hand . This may lead to the Lord’s corporeality and limitedness .

In Siyeru A’lamin­Nubela, part 8 page 243, At­Thehbi states :

At­Tufi : Scholars and regardable individuals unanimously agreed on the metaphoricality of this expression, and the metonymically statement of Allah’s giving victory, aid and support to His slave . He, the Exalted, corresponds His divine Entity to instrumentalities used by His slaves . “By ­through­ Me he perceives . By me he sees . By me he strikes . By me he walks . ” This is a piece of a hadith .

For Wahabists, as it will be detailedly debated soon, they rule that interpretation ­of the Holy Quran and hadiths­ is wholly deviation ­from God’s right path­ and atheism . Correspondingly, they must have ruled of the deviation and atheism of all of those who interpreted, including Ibn Khuzeima, their master in conception of Allah’s corporeity . Bin Baz, however, advises of reviewing Ibn Khuzeima’s books .

at a friend by saying, “Deformed be your look and its like . ”, the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) addressed at him, “Seek not deformation of his look . God had surely created Adam on his look . ”

Some of the Prophet’s companions adhered to this saying claiming its concordance to the Jews’ conception of Allah’s creating Adam on His divine look . This means that mankind’s look is as same as Allah’s . We, the Shias, followed our imams (peace be upon them) who assert that the Prophet’s intendment was, “The look of the man you are deforming is as same as the look of Adam . ” Hence the pronoun in ‘his look’ refers to the addressee, not God, the Exalted .

A good number of Sunni scholars agreed with us in this question . Ibn Khuzeima, the criticizer of Aisha and the so called ‘the grand master’ who embraces fanatically conception of Allah’s optical seeableness, was one of those scholars involved .

In His At­Tawhid, page 37, Ibn Khuzeima says :

Some of the unacquainted misthought that ‘his look’ ­intended in the hadith involved­ refers to Allah . The Beneficent, our Lord, be more exalted than being intended . The pronoun ‘his’, in fact, refers to the reproached man . The Prophet (peace be upon him) intended that that reproached’s look was the same chosen by Allah to be Adam’s . As the reviler was censured by the Prophet for imputing deformation to his acquaintance’s face and those bearing the same,

this means he imputed deformation to Adam’s face since his sons’ faces are as same as his . God’s mercy be upon you, perceive this point in this form so that you should evade errors and misunderstanding, otherwise, you will be deviating the right path by adopting for conception of Allah’s corporeity that is actual deviation .

An expression more ambiguous than that reported by Abu Hureira was mentioned in another report :

Yousuf Bin Musa : Jarir : Al­Amesh : Habib Bin Abi Thabit : Atta Bin Abi Rebah : Ibn Omar :

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “Impute not deformation to faces . Sons of Adam were created on the look of the Beneficent . ”

At­Thawri reported the same wanting uninterrupted documentation .

Abu Musa Mohammed Bin Al­Muthenna : Abdurrahman Bin Mahdi : Sufian : Habib Bin Abi Thabit : Atta :

The Prophet (peace be upon him) stated, “Deformation should not be imputed to faces . Sons of Adam were created on the look of the Beneficent . ”

By this expression, a famous scholar who should not surmise knowledge, was perplexed . They misthought that attaching ‘the look’ to ‘the Beneficent’ is a sort of attaching attributes of entity . Yet, this is a big mistake and an ugly statement comparable to that of the anthropomorphists . May God protect Muslims and us against their statements!

As much as I can perceive, regarding interpreting this report, providing authenticity of communication is proved, there are three points of error . First, At­Thawri contrasted Al­Amesh in documentation .

He relate without referring to Ibn Omar . Second, Al­Amesh is fabricator . He could not receive the report directly from Habib Bin Abi Thabit . Third, Habib is also fabricator . He could not receive the report directly from Atta . Assuming authenticity of documentation of the report, it may hint at the idea that attaching ‘the look’ to ‘the beneficent’ is a sort of attaching creation to the Creator . Creatures are attached to the Beneficent since He was the Creator . Similarly, looks are attached to the Beneficent, the Creator . This is clear by God’s sayings, (This is Allah’s creation, but show Me what those besides Him have created . 31 : 11) . Allah attaches creation to Him since He was the creator .

(This will be as Allah’s she­camel for you, a sign . 7 : 73) . Allah attached the she­camel to Him . He added, (Leave her to pasture on Allah’s earth) .

(They shall say : Was not Allah’s earth spacious, so that you should have migrated therein ? 4 : 97)

(Surely the land is Allah’s; He causes such of His servants to inherit it as he pleases . 7 : 128) . Allah attached the land to Him since it was He, the Creator .

(­Allah’s nature­ The nature made by Allah in which He has made men . 30 : 30) . Allah attached that nature to Him as He made people in . God has not attached to Him two attached items; one attachment of entity

and the other is that of creation .

For evading errors, you should understand these two meanings . Considering the authenticity of communicative documentation of the report, sons of Adam were created according to the look created by the Beneficent when He, first, created and ­puffed spirit in­ Adam . Allah, the Exalted, says, (And certainly We created you, then We fashioned you . 7 : 11) .

The following narrative is a good evidence on accuracy of the interpretation we have recently rendered :

Abu Musa Mohammed Bin Al­Muthenna : Abu Amir Adul­Melik Bin Omar : Al­Mughira Bin Abdirrahman : Abuz­Zinad : Musa Bin Abi Othman : his father : Abu Hureira :

The Prophet (peace be upon him) stated, “Allah created Adam on his look . His was sixty yard long…etc . ”

Owing to its concordance to logic and our sect, we, the Shias, admit Ibn Khuzeima’s interpretation involved . Wahabists, however, adopted for hadith of ‘on the look of the Beneficent’ . They alleged that Omar, the caliph, admitted the Jews’ claim Allah’s creating Adam on ­according to­ His divine look . So, they opted for a (god) of a look of mankind!!

His ability . Since people’s acts are usually done by hands, Allah opted for this organ for promoting the significance intended .

In the same reference, volume 2 part 3 page 12, An­Nawawi states :

“O Apostle of Allah! Have you seen your Lord ? ” asked Abu Dherr . “He is brilliance . How can I see brilliance ? !” answered the Prophet . This implies that Allah’s curtain is brilliance that cannot be seen . Eyad, the judge, asserts, “It is impossible to regard Allah’s entity as a brilliance that is a corporeality . Allah, the Praised the Exalted, is excellently elevated against being so .

In the same reference, volume 4 part 7 page 6, An­Nawawi says :

The Prophet (peace be upon him) stated, “Our Lord descends to the lowest heavens every night . ” Two conceptions vex this saying . First, majority of the worthy ancestors and some of theologists claim that it is right as much as it conforms to Allah, the Exalted . Aspect of the saying is unintended . Allah is promoted against having His creatures’ qualities . Second, this saying is metaphoric .

In the same reference, volume 4, part 7, page 98, An­Nawawi records :

“…the beneficent should take with the right hand…” Al­Maziri claims that such statements are subject to customary expressions . Taking with the right hand is an expressive phrase that stands for Allah’s admissibility to the alms . Allah, the Exalted, is excellently promoted against being a corporeality .

In the same reference, volume 6 part 12 page

212, An­Nawawi writes down :

Eyad, the judge, declares :

Good conditions and sublime standing are the real meanings of being to the right of Allah .

Ibn Arafa :

Coming from the right side implies the very suitable side .

In the same reference, part 8 page 16, An­Nawawi states :

“The just shall be on rostra of brilliance to the right of Allah . Allah’s both hands are right . ”

Ibn Arafa explicates : The second expression draws attentions to the fact that ‘the right’ intended is not that limb .

In the same reference, part 8 page 44, An­Nawawi records :

Al­Mawardi states : God’s indignation, mentioned in the Prophet’s saying, stands for rage . This is by reason that indignation is not ascribed to Allah, the Exalted and Praised .

On page 132, part 17, volume 9 of the same reference, An­Nawawi records :

Regarding explaining Ibn Omar’s narrative of Allah’s corporeality, Eyad, the judge, states : We do believe in Allah, the Exalted, and His divine attributes . We do not resemble Him to anything . The Prophet’s clutching and opening his fingers is a representation of grabbing, extending and gathering creatures . It is also a representation to the grabbed and the extended; that are heavens and earths . It does not indicate to attributes of grabbing and extending, that are attributes of Allah, the Grabber, the Extender . ‘Release of Allah’s hands’ stands for His ability . Since people’s acts are usually done by hands, Allah opted for this organ for promoting the significance intended .

On page 60,

part 17, volume 9 of the same reference, An­Nawawi records :

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “Allah is more blissful for His slaves’ repentance . ” Scholars explained Allah’s bliss by His satisfaction . For assuring significance of satisfaction in receivers’ minds, expression of bliss was used .

On page 182, part 17, volume 9, An­Nawawi states :

The Prophet (peace be upon him) stated : “The hell shall not be saturated unless Allah, the Blessed the Elevated, lays His leg in . ”

This is one of the most famed hadiths of divine attributes . Scholars were of two variant opinions regarding its exegesis . First, interpretation of these words should be neglected . The extrinsic meaning, however, is not intended since there is a suitable meaning involved . This opinion is adopted by majority of the worthy ancestors and a good number of theologists . Eyad, the judge, says :

The most apparent interpretation of this hadith is that they are people who deserved and were created for the hell . It is essential to pass over the surface of the text since it is decisively evidential that limbs are impracticably ascribed to Allah, the Exalted .

On page 44, part 10 of the same reference, An­Nawawi states :

Regarding the Prophet’s saying, “Allah created Adam on his look . ”, this is one of hadiths of divine attributes . Some scholars discard stating any interpretation, claiming that they believe it but there should be a more suitable meaning since the surface is not intended . This opinion

is adopted by most of the worthy ancestors . It is, however, the most cautious and appropriate . Another opinion states that such texts should be interpreted on bases of promoting Allah, the Exalted, against such descriptions .

On page 200 of Riyadhus­Salihin, An­Nawawi records :

On Resurrection Day, believers shall be close to their Lord . This closeness expresses dignity and benevolence . It does have nothing to do with distances . Allah, the Praised, is promoted against distances .

Hearing, the Seeing . ), and the like .

The Permanent Committee of Scholastic Searches and Issuing Verdicts .

be upon him) said : “Hell keeps on demanding with more till Lord of Dignity places His foot ­precedence­ in it . ” Some discussed that ‘foot’ in this regard refers to the most evil people God had prepared to be preceded to hell .

On page 250, part 10, he records :

Ire of Allah, the Exalted, stands for His desire to penalize .

On page 269, part 10, the following is written down :

God says, (The hand of Allah is above their hands) . God named the Prophet’s hand as the hand of Allah, since it advanced others’ . Allah, the Praised the Elevated, is exaltedly promoted against having limbs and corporeal characteristics . Meaning of the Verse, however, is recognition that a covenant contracted with the Prophet (peace be upon him) is regarded as same as that contracted with Allah .

On page 388, part 10, Al­Qastalani states :

A man addressed at the Prophet (peace be upon him) that Allah holds the heavens with a single finger, and the earth with another . The Prophet (peace be upon him) laughed to excess . These characteristics are impracticable to Allah, the Exalted .

On page 391 part 10, the following is recorded :

God says, (Then He settled on the Throne . 7 : 54) . Ahlus­Sunna state that Allah, the Praised the Exalted, describes Himself with ‘on’ which is one of attributes of Entity . Mutazilites state that the preposition stands for prevalence by means of power and pertinence . The corporalists claim that it indicates settlement .

On

page 398, part 10 of the same reference, Al­Qastalani records :

The Prophet (peace be upon him) stated, “On Resurrection Day, you, tranquilly and peacefully, shall see your Lord as clear as this moon . ” This means that you shall not wrong each other on that situation since the Lord shall be seen from every side . Allah is exceedingly promoted against being having a definite space . Simile, here, is for the view, not the viewed .

God says, (Looking at [waiting for] their Lord) . Ways, conditions and distances are nonexistent during looking at the Lord .

On page 402 part 10 :

“…he keeps on supplicating till this causes God to laugh…” . The matter intended is accomplice of laughter; satisfaction .

On page 420, part 10, Al­Qastalani records :

God says, (Then He settled on the Throne) . It is wrong to explain ‘the Throne’ as a bench and ‘settled’ as an act of stability . This explanation is adopted by anthropomorphists . Allah, the Exalted, was being before the Throne when there was no space . Now, He is as same as he was being . Moveableness is a characteristic of cosmoses .

On page 435, part 10, the following is recorded :

Abu Hureira : The Prophet (peace be upon him) stated, “Our Lord, the Blessed the Elevated, descends to the lowest heavens every night . ” This means that He orders an angel of descending . Ibn Hazm interpreted that this act is done by Allah in the lowest heavens for commencing responding supplications .

Ibn Khuzeima adds, “At daybreak, He returns to the Throne . ”

Al­Qastalani tries to say that Ibn Khuzeima adopt for corporalism, as he states that Allah Himself descends and returns .

Al­Mufid; one of the grand masters of Shias . Rivals of Shias accused him of opting for corporalism . Ar­Razi communicates Al­Mufid’s opinion that there are beings self­sufficient from occupying spaces . Creator of these beings should be more willingly having this characteristic .

Ibn Hazm’s Al­Fasl, volume 2 part 2 page 167 :

The Prophet (peace be upon him) stated, “Hell keeps on demanding with more till Lord of Dignity places His foot ­precedence­ in it . ”

In this text, ‘foot’ stands for precedence . This meaning is mentioned in God’s saying, (A footing of firmness with their Lord . 10 : 2) . Hence, meaning of the hadith is that Allah should fill in hell with people who preceded others in evildoing . The same is said about the authentic hadith, “Allah created Adam on his look . ” This indicates that Allah had opted for the look according to which He created Adam .

of the Prophet’s companions recognized, by doctrinal proofs, it is impermissible to accuse trustful individuals of fabrication, especially in matters pertaining to the divine attributes . Refuting a report narrated by As­Siddiq ­Abu Bakr­ (God please him), for example, and related directly to the Prophet (peace be upon him), is regarded as belying him and judging of his invention or inadvertence . On that account, followers of the Prophet’s companions admitted and communicated such a narratives, accrediting them to Abu Bakr or Anas and, directly, to the Prophet (peace be upon him) . From this cause, it is provable, by doctrinal evidences, that paths to accusing the pious and the decent, among the Prophet’s companions, of fabrication, are totally blocked; how is it then obligatory to avoid accusing conjecture of reporters of single narratives ? Similarly, how is it obligatory to treat with surmise as same as the decent’s reporting, disregarding the fact that suspicion, in some cases, is a sin ? The divine Legislator ordered of admitting, communicating and publicizing reports of decent individuals . This does, in no means, suggest that personal surmise and conjecture should be admitted, publicized and communicated . For that reason, we are to say that whatsoever is reported by other than the decent, concerning question of the divine attributes, should be shunned and neglected . Reports of admonition and examples should be scrutinized accurately .

Second, these reports were communicated by the Prophet’s companions only after they had certainly heard from the Prophet personally . Their followers, likewise, admitted

and communicated so . During their communication, the followers had been wont to refer to the Prophet’s companions before they refer to the Prophet (peace be upon him) . They were honest . As each hadith had a definite point, they neglected no single one except those bearing expressions that may convey a meaning opposite to the intended . As an example, the following hadith is cited .

The Prophet (peace be upon him) stated : “Our Lord descends to the lowest heavens every night …”

This hadith was communicated in this form for the purpose of urging on performing prayers and worshipping rites and practices . It has an enormous effect in driving towards night worship, which is the most excellent . This great advantage would have been negative had this text been let pass . Such an advantage should not be negligible . For children and ordinary people, the hadith may hint at Allah’s practical descending . At any rate, it is an easy duty for the educated to plant pictures of glorifying and promoting Allah against practical descending . A well­grounded may use the following style, “Providing God’s descending to the lowest heavens is for making us perceive His call, this descending shall be useless since we could not perceive . The Lord, however, could have called at us from His Throne or the most elevated heavens . ”

This would make ordinary people understand nullity of practical descending . The following example can also be cited . It is futile for a man in

the furthest west of the earth to advance just few steps for making a man in the east hear his call . This advancement should be reckoned with deeds of the insane . This amount, however, is so sufficient that ordinary people would understand the nullity of practical descending . It is also conceivable that corporealities are impracticable for Allah . This leads to the fact that impracticability of moveableness of other than corporealities is as same as impracticability of descending without moveableness .

This proves that advantage of communicating such reports is great, while harm is scanty . This should, by no means, be equal to question of communicating personal surmise as truths .

Rashid Rida, this well­educated exegesist, was guided, by his intellect, to the very right! He could prove that the serious questions of beliefs should not be admitted by a single report, series of its narrators is totally unrealizable . Avoiding this perplexity, the well­educated exegesist submitted his mind to deeds of the worthy ancestors who ruled of obligation of admitting reports of a single companion, even if concerning beliefs or contrasting the Holy Quran! On that account, they admitted hadiths of Allah’s descending and seeableness although each was related by a single narrator . They issued the obligation of admitting relations of definite individuals, claiming Allah’s giving orders of admitting such narratives . Correspondingly, the ruled of obligation of denying fabrication, making mistakes and inadvertence of such individuals . Finally, they proposed denial of any contradiction between any two narratives related by

two of the Prophet’s companions .

As if he had not been acquainted of confusion, troubles and conflicts broken out between Muslims due to the variant conceptions respecting beliefs, it is noticeable how that exegesist alleviated mischances probably encountered by Muslims and, sometimes, their scholars, owing to hadiths of corporalism and anthropomorphism . Such hadiths were the direct reason beyond publicity of reports and legends of the Jews, Christians and Magi, regarding the Lord’s corporeity, appearance and descriptions . Some of such fables suppose that Allah, the short, rough­haired, breadless and youth, descends ­to the lowest heavens­ on the back of a donkey . The most pious and godly individuals went on searching for the Lord, inspecting the descriptions given, among boys . They also fabricated stories about their meeting, shaking hands and associating with the Lord . This is only a minute part of the misfortunes of corporalism and anthropomorphism opposed firmly by the Prophet’s household, Aisha and other virtuous companions of the Prophet . They confronted flamers of spark of this disaster, warned Muslims against its dangers and demanded them with refuting and belying such matters .

Viewing at his saying, “It is an easy duty for the educated to plant pictures of glorifying and promoting Allah against practical descending . ”, we perceive how that exegesist allayed removal of effects and reports of corporalism . Had his claim been true, why, then, it would have been impossible for scholars and philosophers to persuade corporalists and anthropomorphists of the other opinion ? As a matter

of fact, those people could plant such misplaced beliefs in ordinary people’s mentalities . In alike fashion, had the matter been so easily, let a well­grounded scholar plant Allah’s elevation and exaltation against corporalism in the hearts of Ibn Teimiya, Mohammed Bin Abdil­Wahab, Bin Baz and Al­Albani, and enlighten them with nullity of the practical descending .

Finally, how did this well­informed exegesist espy that when Allah, the Exalted, intended to drive Muslims towards performing prayers and night worshipping rites, He used a funny style, “Every night, I descend to the lowest heavens; therefore, I order you of worshipping at night . ” This style duped and made them bear an illusive belief about the Lord .

Reality of this matter is that Rashid Rida and his likes intend only to defend personality of Omar, the caliph, since he was the originator of Allah’s corporeity and descending . What should we do, then, if it is not serviceable to defend such an unreasoning idea the caliph had taken in from Ka’bul­Ahbar’s culture ?

purports of Quranic and prophetic texts, it is noticeable that some questions were customary inquisition to certain conceptions and judgments . Some, in fact, were purposed for defining a definite meaning personally intended . Others were the cause of decline and ignorance of their mental levels and rhetoric .

Before he departed them for good, the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) had nominated the reference they should rest upon . “I am leaving with you the two weighty things; Book of Allah and my progeny; my household . ”

Unfortunately, they did not refer to these two things after the Prophet . Consequently, various ideological problems were originated in the midst of Muslims . This was because of variety of references commenting on Quranic and prophetic texts . By the same token, surmise, conjecture, exegeses and sayings of different companions of the Prophet, or their followers, were contrasted . Soon after, contradictory hadiths, all ascribed to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), emerged . In due course, a group opted for trend of interpretation . Some scholars, of the other sect, issued verdicts of obligation of keeping silence in the face of exegeses, so that they would keep their principal religion and evade committing a mistake in such a serious question . “Read them, find not any exegesis, and commend your affair regarding these questions to Allah, the Exalted . ” This was the advice commonly provided for followers of this trend; trend of commendation .

This is the exact meaning of

commendation and abstinence from interpretation . This school became a formal trend for majority of Muslims in time of publicity of contradictory exegeses and supporting hadiths . The foremost text, respecting trend of commendation and forbiddingness of interpretation, I could distinguish was that recorded by As­Suyouti, who relates it to Malik and Sufian Bin Uyeina, in Ad­Durrul­Manthour, part 3 page 91 :

Al­Beihaqi recorded : Abdullah Bin Wahab :

We were attending at Malik when a man entered and asked about the way of the Beneficent’s settling on the Throne . For a considerable time, Malik nodded the head down and shivered . Finally, he raised his head and addressed at the man, “(The Beneficent settled on the Throne) is as exactly as He had described . It is impracticable to ask ‘how’ about Him . This word is canceled for Him . In addition, you are a heretic man!” Malik ordered of throwing that man out .

Al­Beihaqi recorded : Ahmed Bin Abil­Hawari : Sufian Bin Uyeina stated :

The exegesis of whatsoever is accounted as Allah’s describing His Entity with, is only reciting and acquiescing in it .

Al­Beihaqi recorded : Isaaq Bin Musa : Sufian Bin Uyeina stated :

The exegesis of whatsoever is accounted as Allah’s describing His Entity with, is only reciting . Saving Allah, the Exalted, and His Apostles (peace be upon them), none is admitted to interpret such matters .

At­Thehbi’s Siyeru A’lamin­Nubela, part 8 page 466 :

Mohammed Bin Isaaq As­Sagani, Luwein :

As he was asked about hadiths regarding Allah’s seeableness, Sufian Bin Uyeina answered,

“They are right as long as we could perceive from our trustful and honest ones . ”

Ahmed Bin Ibrahim Ad­Dawraqi : Ahmed Bin Nasr :

Importunately, I insisted on Sufian Bin Uyeina, seeking answers for my questions about the exegeses of the hadiths, “Allah bears the heavens on a single finger . ”, “Hearts of people are fixed between two of the Beneficent’s fingers . ”, and “Allah laughs if He is mentioned in marts . ”

“These hadiths are as they were conveyed . We recognize without commenting . ” Sufian answered .

At­Thehbi’s Siyeru A’lamin­Nubela, part 10 page 505 :

Abu Mohammed Bin Alwan : Abdurrahman Bin Ibrahim : Abdul­Mughith Bin Zuheir : Ahmed Bin Ubeidullah : Mohammed Bin Ali Al­Ashari : Abul­Hassan Ad­Darqutni : Mohammed Bin Mukhalled : Al­Abbas Ad­Dawri :

Having mentioned hadiths of Allah’s optical seeableness, the Chair, place of the two feet, laughter and previous space of the Lord, Abu Ubeid Al­Qasim Bin Selam commented, “These are authentic hadiths conveyed by hadithists and jurisprudents one another . For us, these are doubtless . If an interpretation of the way of our Lord’s laughter and place of feet is required, we should answer that we neither have an exegesis nor did we hear anyone interpret . ”

or not . The same thing occurred to the caliphs and their words, or imams of the Prophet’s household (peace be upon them) and their words .

Third, majority of followers of the Prophet’s companions depended upon interpretation or commendation . The third and fourth generations were almostly commenders that this was taken as the formal trend of hadithists facing Shias and Mutazilites, who were interpreters .

Fourth, commendation was nearly dedicated to the divine attributes and reports, such as Allah’s settling on the Throne, laughter and ire . Attributes of operations were approximately interpreted .

Fifth, it is unnecessary for commenders to leave interpretation at all . Commendation and interpretation could be opted according to the question involved .

As we have previously referred to, on page 187, part 9 of Irshadus­Sari, Malik, the master, says :

The descending mentioned in the text, implies descending of God’s mercy, affair or angels .

On page 91, part 3 of Ad­Durrul­Manthour, Malik’s relying upon commendation in question of Allah’s settling on the Throne is recorded . Question of Allah’s settling on the Throne was largely distorted and adopted by the corporalists as an evidence .

Commendation and interpretation followed one of two matters . First, recognizing the narrator, who is usually one of the Prophet’s companions, who communicate the significance of the text involved . Second, existence of an authentic hadith that is irrefutable and untranslatable on bases of reasoning .

and material significances, without mentioning the very intendment, they are ruled as general interpreters . Sheik Al­Bishri named the late commenders as particularized interpreters, since they denied material significances and identified the exact intendments of allegorical Quranic and prophetic texts .

In his missive, entirely provided in Chapter Seven, Sheik Al­Bishri says :

Such questions are classified as conjectural phenomena that are not opposite to the absolute decisive evidences referring to nonexistence of the Lord’s definite space and locale . Obligatorily, such questions are interpreted and based upon accurate predicates, admitted by evidences and legal texts, either generally without identifying the exact intendment, or particularly by identifying predicates and their intendments . The first, however, is attitude of the worthy ancestors while the latter is the late’s . ”

words of Allah and His apostle is a horrendous danger .

Reason beyond the analytical deficiency, intended by scholars, is not scarcity in scholastic levels, since most of scholars enjoyed penetrating mentalities . The reason is that narratives of practical descending, seeableness, anthropomorphism and corporeity of Allah publicly advertised by the ruling authorities, were contrary to intellects and the Holy Quran and each other . Such narratives repudiated reasonable interpretation . Owing to authenticity of such narratives, on their criteria, they had to admit and commit themselves to . The best solution they could attain had been stopping at relating these narratives and absconding from finding exegeses . They ruled of obligation of believing without inquiry .

It is, as a matter of fact, a perceptible circumstance that Sunni scholars, our brothers, admit contraposition and commit themselves to believing in it . Moreover, this question is not the only in this regard . Numerous questions received by the worthy ancestors and delivered to the generations with full admission and believing without providing any evidence or exegesis .

The principal concern beyond such an impetuous admission and every contradiction noticed in Islamic rulings and conceptions was the discrepancies arisen just after the Prophet’s decease . It was asserted by the formal situation adopted by Sunnis, our brother, when they declared the ultimate decency of the entire companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) . Contradiction is an inevitable result attained by acceding to contrasted groups . Perplexity, likewise, is an unavoidable result of committing to

partners differing with one another .

Doors to solving contradiction would have been opened before Muslims if they ­majority of this nation and ruling authorities­ had confessed of the Prophet’s companions’ having been engaged in discrepancies to the degree that they exchanged charges of atheism and killed one another . They should have conceded to the fact that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) had foretold of some companions’ being in Hell . He had also told that some of his companions would not be seen by him and would not see him because they would change to the other side just after his decease . Finally, they should have declared that Muslims, individually, should exert all efforts for scrutinizing the most virtuous and trustful individuals among the Prophet’s companions, and leaving the others’ affairs to Allah, the Exalted .

On the contrary, the Prophet’s companions were imposed on Islam in spite of their contrast . According to personal desires, they forbade Muslims from putting any question or wonderment about the Prophet’s companions .

We aim at exhibiting two matters . First, contradiction in narratives of the divine attributes is in the surface only . The factual contradiction falls in resting upon a definite individual in the entire questions of religion . Second, corporalists and anthropomorphists capitalized on silence imitated by the commenders . They alleged that the real reason beyond commendation was their abstinence from publicizing the cerebral exegeses of the divine attributes texts, that they totally had been acquainted with . This is

the worst category of distortion . It is using words for interpreting silence, and misapplying commendation for interpreting commendation .

they only declare that Allah’s organs are different from ordinary ones, since they do believe that Allah’s look is as same as humans; therefore, he should have the same limbs and organs . Later on, this shall be proved through their words .

motive adopted by the dissidents’ ascribing these two sayings to those people . ”

Concerning denial asserted by some of Shias, this is not strange . Their habit was gainsaying obvious realities and trusting evident mendacities . Shias’ supporting those individuals is not inexplicable since things usually defend their classes . They defended their associates . A faction of them went on exonerating the eminent disorderly ones whose evildoing, dissension and deviation had been too widespread to be concealed .

Had Al­Qifari taken a look at Al­Bukhari’s book of hadith besides many other references of hadith, he would have practically perceived with hands, before eyes, that saying of anthropomorphism had been come forth since Aisha’s time . Kabul­Ahbar and his party arose ideas and origin of this conception in the reign of Omar, the caliph . This means that before the birth of Husham Bin Al­Hakam’s Abavus grandfather, this conception was prevailed among Muslims . References of Sunnis, our brothers, recorded (authentic) hadiths of the Divine Throne’s cracking, fracturing and snapping due to the heavy weight of Allah, the Exalted .

Al­Heithami’s Majma’uzzawa’id; part 1 page 83 :

Omar : A woman sought the Prophet’s supplicating God to enter her to the Paradise . The Prophet glorified the Elevated and blessed Lord, and stated, “His Bench extended to the heavens and the earth . Its cracking is as same as cracking of the new saddle used by a heavy man . ”

Al­Bezar relates it with series of trustful men relied by the most authentic books of hadith .

On page

159, part 10 of the same reference, the compiler says :

Saving Abdullah Bin Khalifa Al­Hamadani, the trustful, the hadith ­previously provided­ is written down in Abu Yali’s Al­Kabeer, and ascribed to series of trustful men relied upon in the most authentic books of hadith .

On page 373, the compiler of Kenzul­Ummal, rules of authenticity of the hadith involved . Its authenticity is also asserted on page 466, part 2 of the same reference .

As­Suyouti’s Ad­Durrul­Manthour, part 1 page 328 :

Abd Bin Humeid and Ibn Abi Asim (in his As­Sunna), and Al­Bezar and Abu Yali and Ibn Jarir and Abusheik and At­Tabarani and Ibn Merdawayih and Addiya (in his Al­Mukhtara); all record the following :

Omar relates : A woman sought the Prophet’s supplicating God to enter her to the Paradise . The Prophet glorified the Exalted and Blessed Lord, and stated, “His Bench extended to the heavens and the earth . Its cracking is as same as cracking of the new saddle used by a heavy man . Less than four fingers only remains . ”

Ad­Deilami’s Firdawsul­Akhbar, part 3 page 86 :

Omar Bin Al­Khattab stated :

Allah settles on the Throne so heavily that a cracking as same as that of a new can be heard .

Al­Khatib’s Tarikhu Baghdad, part 1 page 295 :

Abdullah Bin Khalifa : Omar Bin Al­Khattab stated :

Allah settles on the Throne so heavily that a cracking as same as that of a new saddle can be heard .

Al­Khatib’s Tarikhu Baghdad, part 4 page 39 :

Jubeir Bin Mohammed Bin Jubeir Bin Mutim :

his father : his father :

“O Apostle of Allah! Souls have striven, children starved and wealths lost . Seek your Lord’s watering us with rainfall . We do seek Allah’s intercession to you and your intercession to Allah . ”, a Bedouin orated . The Prophet (peace be upon him) went on uttering ‘praised be Allah’ severally that the attendants were bewildered . Then, he added, “Woe is you! Do you realize Allah ? His divine concern is greater than anyone’s interceding in His affairs . He is aloft His heavens on His Throne . A dome covers His throne that cracks as same as a new saddle under a heavy man . ”

Ad­Deilami’s Firdawsul­Akhbar, part 1 page 219 :

Ibn Omar : Allah, the Exalted, has surely crammed in His throne . From every side of the Throne, four fingers of Him, the Beneficent, remain .

It seems that Abdullah Bin Omar made the Divine Throne four fingers larger than the Exalted Beneficent . Pursuant to authentic narratives, Adam, who is sixty or seventy arm long, was created as same as Allah’s look; therefore, each finger of their (lord) should be longer than a meter!

Abu Dawud’s book of hadith, page 418 :

“His Throne forms a dome over His heavens . It makes sounds of cracking as same as those made by a new saddle under a heavy man . ”

Ibn Bashar : “Allah is on His Throne . His Throne is on His heavens…”

The same hadith is related by Abdul­Ala and Ibnul­Muthenna and Ibn Bashar .

They referred it to Yaqub Bin Utba and Jubeir Bin Mohammed Bin Jubeir : his father : his father .

On the contrary, imams of the Prophet’s progeny related their refuting and denial of such sayings . Has it, now, become evident for Dr . Al­Qifari how corporalism found its way into Islam ?

Sheik Mohammed Zahid Al­Kawthari, the researchist in Al­Azhar, could approach the truth when he confessed that roots of corporalism and anthropomorphism had been in the Sunni reference books of hadith . Lacking enough courage to accuse the Prophet’s companions, Al­Kawthari charged responsibility of these beliefs to the corporalists among followers of the Prophet’s companions and the successive generations . In the introduction of Al­Beihaqi’s Asma’i Wes­Sifat, Al­Kawthari records :

Hadithists and narrators occupy a great standing at majority of scholars . Unfortunately, among such hadithists and narrators there are those who exaggeratively exceeded their limits and engaged themselves in fields they ignored . Hence, they introduced dishonor and harsh injury to their sects, associates and followers .

Most of those who engaged themselves in question of the divine attributes, are reckoned with the previous class . As an example, we cite Hemmad Bin Selema’s narratives respecting the divine attributes . These contained a great number of fraudulent reports communicated among classes of narrators . This man married one hundred women without obtaining a single child . This matter affected his mentality to the degree that he confused his source narratives with those falsely intrigued by Ibn Abil­Awja and Zeid Bin Hemmad, his foster­children . Narrators of Thabit Al­Benani that are related to Hemmad Bin Selema, are entirely authentic . Majority of minor narrators were

deviated by the false reports imputed to that previously eloquent supreme narrator . Readers may notice miscellaneous examples of such doubtful reports mentioned in sections dealing with monotheism in books of ordinary subjects and those of hadithists . Some spared no efforts for defending that man . Their efforts, still, went with the wind . Allah’s laws should be preferred to defending an individual against whom decisive unjustifiable accusations were targeted .

Nueim Bin Hemmad’s narrators played the same previous role . He was such an enthusiastic person that he was dragged to believing in Allah’s corporeity . The same happened to master of his master, Muqatil Bin Suleiman .

Injurious effects of such narrators can be readily seen in books of narrators who followed partisan pursuance in referring to such erroneous hadithists . The following are examples of these books :

Khusheish Bin Assram’s Kitabulistiqama .

As­Sunna books compiled by Abdullah, A­Khellal, Abusheikh, Al­Assal, Abu Bakr Bin Asim, At­Tabarani and Al­Jami .

Harb Bin Ismail As­Sirjani’s As­Sunnetu Wel­Jama’a .

Ibn Khuzeima’s At­Tawhid .

Ibn Minda’s At­Tawhid .

Al­Hakam Bin Mabid Al­Khuzai’s As­Sifat .

Othman Bin Sa’eed Ad­Darmi’s An­Naqdh .

Al­Ajuri’s Ashari’a .

Ibn Batta and Abu Nasr As­Sejzi’s Al­Ibana .

Abu Yali Al­Qadi’s Naqdhut­Tawilat .

Dhemmul­Kelam .

Al­Faruq .

All these books contained narratives disdained by the doctrine and intellect in the same time . Othman Bin Sa’eed As­Darmi As­Sejzi was the daring among corporalists who gallantly distributed such injurious ideas . He said, “Had Allah, the Exalted, desired to settle on a back of a bug, His divine propensity would have enabled him of so . How is

it, then, for an ample throne ? !”

Sheik Al­Harrani ­Ibn Teimiya­ pursued him in such a saying . In Ghawthul­Ibad, Published in Al­Halabi Publication 1351, texts referring to the purport involved are recorded . In addition, many other calamities, such as Allah’s moveableness and the like, are invented by that As­Sejzi .

Many alike books of false and dishonorable reports and ideas were publicized . Fissure became highly extensive, and catastrophe became so effective till honest trustful scholars took charge of blocking that fissure by means of narration and hypothesizing . Al­Khattabi, Abul­Hassan At­Tabari, Ibn Fawrak, Al­Huleimi, Abi Isaaq Alisfraini, Abdul­Qahir Al­Baghdadi and many others are included with the honest scholars .

Like Al­Kawthari, the fair Sunni scholars admit that hadiths of Allah’s seeableness, anthropomorphism and corporeity are entirely belonged to Hemmad Bin Selema, Nueim Bin Hemmad, Muqatil Bin Suleiman and Wahab Bin Munebbih . Those individuals had the same master; Kabul­Ahbar . They ­the fair Sunni scholars­ lack the heart to ascend a little to reach the Prophet’s companions who adopted, publicized and islamized the ill ideas of Kabul­Ahbar .

and the like . They neglected finding suitable interpretation for such questions . However, they called such attributes as communicative since they were perceived through reports of Islamic legalism .

Unlike the worthy ancestors, Mutazilites denied the divine attributes . Therefore, they were called ‘Tatilites[16]’ ­disavowers­, while the worthy ancestors were called ‘Sifatiya’ ­attributers­ . Some of the latter exceeded when they anthropomorphized the Lord . Others stopped at proving attributes indicated by ­the divine­ deeds and narratives . Hence, they became two parties . Some interpreted according to a form rather concordant to the expression used . Others vacated interpretation as a whole . “By intellects,” the latter party claimed, “We perceive that Allah, the Exalted, has no equivalent at all . ”

Decisively, Allah is neither like any of His creatures, nor are they like Him . Purports of expressions of involved texts; such as, (The Beneficent settled on the Throne . 20 : 5), (I created with My hands . 38 : 75), (And your Lord came . 89 : 21), and the like, are unattainable for us . Besides, we are not legally required to recognize the exact exegeses and interpretation of such texts . We are only required to believe that Allah has no associate and nothing is like Him . We could prove these matters in means of conviction . ”

A group of the late added the following to the belief of the worthy ancestors . “Such expressions ought to be taken as they seem and interpreted as they are, without

criticizing their interpretation or passing over the extrinsic meanings . ”

This conception, which is totally contrary to the worthy ancestors’, led them to literal anthropomorphism, indeed . Anthropomorphism was adopted by certain Jewish groups . These were groups of their scholarly who found expressions bearing such meanings during reciting the Torah .

Ashehristani’s current wording asserts that anthropomorphists became a limited sect that was exhortative for Sunni scholars . It also indicates that those group emerged in recent times surpassing the worthy ancestors’ instructions of forbiddingness of interpreting divine texts of corporeality . On that account, Ashehristani compares them to the Jews who recited the Torah since they were believing in Allah’s corporeity purely . He adduces that anthropomorphism adopted by those Muslims was mixed, not pure, because of their circumspection against the other Muslims .

This assertion coincides the following assertion of Ibn Khuldoun and others who identified history of establishment of this sect or belief that provided Allah’s materiality!!

Ibn Khuldoun’s Muqaddima, page 462 :

In numerous Verses of the holy Quran, ascribing untranslatable, evidential and illimitable exaltation to the Lord is regularly emphasized . These Verses were entirely negative and comprehensible; therefore, it was obligatory to give credence to them . A good deal of Prophet’s sayings, as well as his companions and their followers, referred to opting for the extrinsic purports of such Verses and hadiths . Other Quranic Verses, although few, referred illusively to Allah’s corporeity . Some believed and, in the same time, rejected penetrating and interpreting such Verses as they revered them

for their being words of Allah . This was the purport majority of them intended by saying, “Recite these Verses as they are . Believe that they are Allah’s . But advance not upon their interpretation or exegesis . They might be a sort of divine trial . Hence, it is obligatory to abide and comply with them . ” In the same time, heretic people were deviated by pursuing allegorical Verses . They probed deep in anthropomorphism . A group of them anthropomorphized the Divine Entity by imputing a hand, foot or face to the Lord, depending upon illusory expressions respecting so . They fell in direct corporalism and dissented Verses of illimitable divine exaltation, that are greater in number and manifestation . Intellectuality of corporealities imposes deficiency and privation . fixing upon negational style in Verses of illimitable divine exaltation, that are greater in number and manifestation, is more approving than clinging to unessential illusory appearances . Another group combined the two evidences by resting upon personal interpretation . In fact, their claim of Allah’s being an incomparable corporeal that is different from others, is seen as absconding from offensiveness of their combinatorial attitude . This claim, however, is profitless for them since it is a contrasted opinion that combined affirmation to negation in case of regarding the individual intellectuality of corporals . Providing they differentiate and deny the familiar intellectuality, they will be according us in attitude of exaltation . Then, they should reckon ‘corporeality’ with the Divine Names . Such matters

depend upon permission .

Another group adopted anthropomorphism in the divine attributes . They ruled of Allah’s having a definite locale, settling, descending, utterance and the like . This attitude proceeds straightly to chamber of corporalism . Therefore, they adopted the same saying, “Incomparable locate, settling, descending and utterance that are different from those of ordinary corporealities . ”

Like the former, this attitude collapsed . The worthy ancestors’ beliefs and creeds of believing in such texts as they are, in order that denial of their meanings should not reach their authentic and avowed entities, survived alone .

From the above, it is understandable that ideological principals and sectarian forms of corporalism were Jewish and Sunni . Shias are totally remote from this version except that proofless and false accusation against Husham Bin Al­Hakam!!

:

Majority of people agreed upon promoting Allah, the Praised the Exalted, against corporeity and occupancy . Others claimed Allah’s occupying a definite location . Those are the corporalists who disputed in some questions . Some claimed Allah’s having mankind appearance while others denied so . Regarding the earlier, Muslim anthropomorphists claimed the Lord’s being a young man, while the Jew anthropomorphists claimed His being an old man . They also disputed about the Lord’s moveableness . A group of the Karramites[17] admitted Allah’s coming, going, moving and subsiding, while others denied so . Majority of Hanbalites admit .

Al­Fakhr Ar­Razi’s Al­Metalibul­Aliya, volume 1 part 1 page 26 :

Corporalists disputed about Allah’s going and coming . The believers in His being a brilliance deny His having organs and limbs; like a head, hand or leg . Majority of Hanbalites confirm existence of such organs and limbs .

Al­Khattabi’s Me’alimus­Sunen, part 4 page 302 :

The trend followed by scholars and jurisprudents was dedicating to the extrinsic meanings of doctrinal texts respecting the divine attributes . They abstained from probing purports and interpretation since they realize their unattainability to understand such affairs . Some master hadithists erred during their commentary on hadith of Allah’s descending to the lowest heavens . “If it is claimed that our Lord descends to the lowest heavens, some may interrogate about way of descending . This may be answered that Allah descends as He wills . If the wonderment whether our Lord moves or not is put, it may be answered that He moves when

He wills and does not when He wills .

By these words, Al­Khattabi adopts school of commendation . He represents that the divine attributes should be taken as they are, without interpretation . These words of commenders prove that they were the seed from which the third school was emerged, and the hay the followers held fast . They claimed that the worthy ancestors referred to the physical demeanor of language which is, in fact, corporeality, by preserving appearances and depending exclusively on explicit indications of the divine attributes texts .

The following text of At­Thehbi shows that Al­Ghezzali had led a campaign against corporalism and corporalists .

Siyeru A’lamin­Nubela, part 17 page 558 :

This course, adopted by the worthy ancestors, was clarified by Abul­Hassan and his acquaintances . It indicates submission to Quranic and prophetic texts . Ibnul­Baqillani, Ibn Fawrak and Al­Kebbar adopted this opinion which lasted to Abul­Me’ali . In time of Sheik Abu Hamid, various discrepancies and divergence occurred to this opinion .

This saying shows that corporalism attained its climax in reign of Seljukian dynasty, on the hands of Abul­Me’ali Al­Juweini An­Nisapuri, Imamul­Haramein, who died in 478 A . H . After people of Nisapur had banished him, the Seljukians favored and assigned him as a tutor in Al­Madrasa An­Nidhamiya school in Baghdad . In his last days, Abul­Me’ali adopted this concept after he had been interpreter .

Al­Ghezzali, who succeeded him, contradicted his opinions, creating a noise by defending the interpreters . Through a considerable number of books of exegesis, it was noticeable, however, that

Al­Ghezzali aimed at pleasing the corporalists .

In Al­Aqa’idul­Islamiya, volume 2, a thorough chapter is given over to exhibiting standings of the anthropomorphists and the corporalists in reference books of the Sunnis, our brothers .

of this group claim that the Throne becomes empty during the Lord’s descending .

A group claim that the most suitable explication of such texts should be regarded and accorded to descriptions the Lord has used . He is, (Nothing is the like of his likeness), inimitable in His Entity, attributes and deeds . They claim that He descends and comes a sort of descending and coming fitting His majesty . “He descends and comes while He is still Elevated on the Throne,” they assert . Hemmad Bin Zeid says, “While He is on the Throne, the Lord approaches the creatures as He wills . ” Isaaq Bin Rahawayih expresses, “He descends and keeps up in the Throne in the same time . ” Isaaq claims that this was Ahmed Bin Hanbal’s opinion messaged to Musedded .

According to report of Abu Omar Bin Abdil­Berr, defining the Lord’s descending as a deed of self­mastery, was the opinion adopted by the hadithists . It was also adopted by majority of Ahmed’s followers . Ibn Hamid and others asserted this opinion . At­Tamimi, Ibn Kelab, Abu Yali and his followers denied falling of the optional deeds .

Two groups claim that the Lord descends but does not come . One attempted at finding suitable interpretation of this saying while the other suspended the meaning .

Two groups suspended the whole matter . One confessed of their lacking the knowledge of God’s intendment from such attributing . The other was sufficed by reciting the Quran .

Majority of Sunnis and worthy ancestors’ followers

rule of fallibility of interpretation deciding denial of the Lord’s settling and coming . Most of them, however, refute void interpretation and reckon such texts with ‘Items interpretation of which should be concealed’ . ”

indicates whatsoever is elevated, not low . The Lord is the Elevated and the Highest . He occupies the most elevated point in the heavens; the topmost of the Throne . There is nothing other than the Elevated the Highest the Praised, and the Exalted .

Ibn Teimiya’s Ar­Risaletut­Tadmuriya, page 39 :

Attributes of affirmation and negation are ascribed to Allah, the Praised . Examples of the earlier are His sayings, (The Knowing of everything . 2 : 29), (He has power on everything . 2 : 20), (He is the Hearing, the Seeing . 42 : 11) and the like . An example of the latter is His saying, (Slumber does not overtake him nor sleep . 2 : 255) . Unless it comprises affirmation, style of negation is bare from praise or perfection . This is by reason that sheer negation is not sheer . Whatsoever is not sheer, is nothingness . Nothingness is too deficient to be a style of praise or perfection . Praise and perfection are not attributed to nonexistence and nonbeing . On that account, the general negational descriptive accounts used in the Quran, comprised affirmation of praise . The same thing is said about God’s saying, (Visions comprehend him not) . In this Verse, comprehension, which is awareness, was negated exclusively . This meaning is adopted by majority of scholars . Mere seeableness is not negated since nonexistent things are not seeable . Being not seeable is not approbation . Had this been true, nonexistent things should have been submissive

to acclamation . Praise, in fact, is dedicated to point of the praised’s incomprehensibility even if he is seeable and realizable . The Lord is incomprehensibly seen when He is seeable and incomprehensibly realized when He is realizable .

Ibn Teimiya’s Ar­Risaletut­Tadmuriya, page 47 :

Answering the wonderment whether aspects of texts are their meanings or not, we are to cite the following .

Expressions of aspects are generalized and combined . Considering believing that aspects of texts reveal anthropomorphizing the creatures’ attributes and specifications, this will certainly be unintended . Neither the worthy ancestors nor did the master scholars regard this as aspect of the texts . They also refuted the claim that aspects of the Quranic and prophetic texts are atheism and wrong . Allah, the Praised the Exalted, is too knowledgeable and wise to show atheism and aberrance exclusively through aspects of texts regarding His divine attributes . Adopters of such a trend either decide the void meanings as aspects of the text, in order that this would be in need of interpretation contrasting the aspects, or refute the true meaning that is ostensibly provided, and decide its falsehood .

Ibn Teimiya’s Ar­Risaletut­Tadmuriya, page 72 :

It is inappropriate to say that an expression is interpreted, since this means that it is transferred from the predominant probability into the less . It is also unsuitable to say that interpretation of a definite text is known by Allah alone, except that the aspect involving creation exclusively is intended . Indisputably, adopters of this meaning have an interpretation violating

face of the texts . Supposing they claim such texts are not submitted to interpretation violating their aspects, or they are submitted to their manifest meanings only, they will be inconsistent . Confusedness will be decided in case they intend two different meanings, each for a certain situation of the same text . Providing they figure mere expression as their intendment from regarding aspects of texts, neglecting understanding their meanings, this will engage them in contrast whether they prove or deny interpretation . This is by reason that proving or denying an interpretation affirms perception of meanings . The previous debate shows the contrast, people are engaged in, regarding matters of proving or denying the divine attributes .

Ibn Teimiya’s Ar­Risaletut­Tadmuriya, page 55 :

It is provable that Allah, the Exalted, created the cosmos in serial stages . He created progressive independence of these stages . The upper should not be in need of the next . Atmosphere is not in need of the earth that carries it . The same thing is said about clouds that are above the earth . The heavens, that are higher than the earth, are not in need of the earth’s carrying them . The Exalted and Highest is the Lord who is the owner of everything . He is in the highest point on His creatures; how is it, then, acceptable for Him to be in need of His creatures or Throne ? How should His extreme elevation prompt such a need, which is not prompt to His creatures ?

It is affirmative that the Creator is more rightful and deserving in affairs of His creatures . If a creature is in no need for another in a certain field, such as wealth, this will be discussing that Allah shall be more deserving to such a needlessness . Authentically, the following prophetic saying is communicated : “Whenever you ask your Lord for the Paradise, you are advised to name Al­Firdaws which is the top and the middle of the Paradise . The ceiling of the Paradise is the Beneficent’s Throne . ”

The last sentence shows that the Throne is on top of orbits .

Ibn Teimiya’s Ar­Risaletut­Tadmuriya, page 75 :

Even if some impute anthropomorphism to this signification, this does not mean it is denied by intellects and audible perceptions . The obligation is not more than denying what is denied only by legal and intellectual evidences . The Quran denied onymous of ‘the like’, ‘the equivalent’, ‘the peer’ and the like . Some claim that, in the Arabic, quality is neither like, equivalent nor is peer the described . Hence, this meaning does not participate in texts . Intellects, however, do not deny term of anthropomorphism intended by the Mutazilites .

Ibn Teimiya’s Ar­Risaletut­Tadmuriya, page 90 :

The Competent is exaltedly promoted against having such organs of eating and drinking . The hand is different since it is the organ of acting and doing . Acting and doing are ascribed to Him, the Praised . These are attributes of perfection . The able is more perfect than the

disable . He, the exalted, is also exaltedly promoted against having organs and acquirements of having spouse and sons . Allah, the Praised, is also promoted exceedingly against weeping and grief since these qualities prompt feebleness and deficiency . Happiness and ire, on the other hand, are ascribed to Him, since they are attributes of perfection .

Ibn Teimiya’s Ar­Risaletut­Tadmuriya, page 95 :

Some of the divine attributes are recognized by intellectuality . Attributes of knowledgeability, competence and vitality are recognized by the same way . (Does He not know who created ? 67 : 14) . This Verse guides to the meaning involved . Unanimously, scholastic provers of the divine attributes assert that the following divine attributes are recognized, by the learned, with the intellect . They are, vitality, knowledgeability, competence, willingness . Hearing, seeing and uttering are added to these attributes . Pleasantness, satisfaction and ire can be proved by intellect, too . The Lord’s exaltation and incomparability are also recognized with the intellect . Ahmed Bin Hanbal, Abdul­Ali Al­Mekki, Abdullah Bin Sa’eed Bin Kelab and others proved this question . The Lord’s seeableness is proved by intellects . Some alleged that seeableness of every being is possibly attainable . Others claimed that seeableness of every idiosyncratic entity is possibly attainable . The latter is more adequate . The Lord’s seeableness can be proved by other means of distributing affirmation and denial . It is claimed that seeableness is exclusively depending upon existential affairs . The Anterior Necessary Aseity is more deserving than possible beings

in affairs depending upon existential affairs exclusively .

the world, was so derisive that even ordinary people would disgust . He stated that every exalted thing dispenses with what is under it . Accordingly, leaves of a tree dispense with trunks, and upper story dispense with the lower!

Fourth : For Ibn Teimiya, Allah’s descending to the lower heavens is intrinsic . He asserted, “The Lord’s descending as a deed of self­mastery, was the opinion adopted by the hadithists . . ” In addition to Ibn Batuta’s testimony, it is proved that Allah’s descending is a physical descending of a material being . Hence, Ibn Teimiya’s words of evading this idea were futile .

Fifth : Ibn Teimiya aimed at defending his belief by denying its comprising anthropomorphism . He stated that the Lord has a physical face and hand, but not like these of humans or other creatures . For him, this statement is enough to exclude circle of anthropomorphism . Cautiously, he omitted anthropomorphism by inventing another matter . He stated that texts should be regarded according to their material aspects “fitting His Glory”, not the unbecoming .

Sixth : Proceeding in a daring step towards proving anthropomorphism, Ibn Teimiya stated, “Even if some people impute anthropomorphism to this signification, this does not mean it is denied by intellects and audible perceptions . The obligation is not more than denying what is denied only by legal and intellectual evidences . ” By these words, Ibn Teimiya tries to say that Quranic and prophetic texts negate Allah’s having peers, associates, likes and equivalents . They

do not negate His being anthropomorphized . At exposing God’s saying, (Nothing like a likeness of Him;), majority of Muslims; Shias, Sunnis, philosophers and Mutazilites, negate Allah’s having a resemblant . Hence, nothing may stop in the face of negating Allah’s having an alike, since this matter is negated by texts, and Allah’s anthropomorphizing His creatures!! As long as He does not deny His being anthropomorphizing His creatures, what is the wrong, then, if we adopt so ? !

Ibn Teimiya, therewith, declares that God’s saying, (Nothing like a likeness of Him;), implies negation of His like, not resemblant . Allah does have a resemblant; Adam, and another resemblant; Ibn Teimiya!!

Seventh : Supposing the following argument is provided before Ibn Teimiya . “You definitely refer to anthropomorphism by your denying interpretation and commendation, and insist on interpretation according to aspects of texts . ” He shall certainly answer, “Majority of Sunnis and ancestors’ followers rule of fallibility of interpretation deciding denial of the Lord’s settling and coming . Most of them, however, refute void interpretation and reckon such texts with ‘Items interpretation of which should be concealed . ’

Ibn Teimiya, consequently, decides that it is not inadmissible to liken Allah, the Exalted, to His creatures . He also emphasizes that interpretation of anthropomorphism should be concealed . He exhibits that his god is existent in a certain point up the heavens we could see . That god is a physical being occupying the Throne . Nothing except air is above him while he is restricted from

beneath . That god can move and descend to the earth . Ibn Teimiya, however, is unlike Ibn Khuzeima, his master, who claims that god’s ability of ascending . Exalted and glorified be Allah against such funny statements! Later on, the other sides of Ibn Teimiya’s beliefs will be debated .

inaccurate in his religion . They confessed that they banished him out of Sejistan because he had denied Allah’s having an edge . Alas! Which team should be banished; the believers in Allah’s having an edge or those promoting Him against corpreity ? ! Many examples can be cited in this regard . At­Thehbi, our master, is a good example . Although he enjoys a considerable amount of knowledgeability and piousness, he assails Ahlus­Sunna exceedingly . Therefore, it is impermissible to rest upon him .

As­Saqaf’s Sharhul­Aqidetit­Tahawiya, page 315 :

While the heretic assert that attributes Allah has ascribed to Him should be used restrictively in referring to Him, they say that He settled on the Throne by His Essence . What is the source of that Essence they used ? In which part of the Quran or the Prophet’s traditions has this word been used ? This expression leads undeviatingly to anthropomorphism, and supports their masters’ saying that their god abides on the Throne so extensively that only a four finger distance remains .

An alike flaw occurred to Al­Khellal when he recorded the following narrative, of doubt documentation, more than fifty times in his As­Sunna, during providing the exegesis of God’s saying, (Maybe your lord will raise you to a position of great glory . 17 : 79) :

Mujahid : The Verse implies that the Lord reposes on the Throne and seats Mohammed (peace be upon him) near to him in the four finger distance space of the Throne .

Al­Hafiz At­Thehbi, who moderated only after his

youth, denied so and retreated from the ideas he had written down in his Siyeru A’lamin­Nubela, regarding those who added ‘Essence’ after mentioning Allah’s exhalation, settling and the like . He records, “We have previously mentioned that the word ‘Essence’ is superfluous since it injures minds . ”

As­Saqaf, however, was inadvertent to the fact that At­Thehbi had never negated Allah’s descending by His Essence ­by self­mastery­ .

This is clear from his words recorded in Siyeru A’lamin­Nubela, part 19, page 605 :

… Ibnuz­Zaghawani composes a poetry :

High on the elevated Throne by His Essence

Praised be Him against a saying of the aberrant and atheists

We have previously mentioned that the word ‘Essence’ is superfluous since it injures minds . Neglecting this expression is favorable .

Granting that was At­Thehbi’s word, it is inevitable to interpret it in a way becoming his beliefs . He believes that Allah, the Exalted, reposes physically on the Throne and descends materially to the lowest heavens . He only assumes that it is favorable to neglect discussing bases of his belief . He also sees that since ‘Essence’ is unacceptable expression for Muslims’ minds, it ought to be avoided, and kept within secrets of the belief and said before followers only . This is indicated by the fact that as if he approved Az­Zaghawani’s deciding atheism of the entire Muslims except anthropomorphists, At­Thehbi shows no denial against this verdict issued by that Hanbalite master, while he was providing his life account .

This is also supported by his statements recorded in Siyeru A’lamin­Nubela, part

20 page 331 :

It is obligatory to believe in the descending of Allah and it is favorable to neglect discussing its essentials . This was the worthy ancestors’ course . Claiming of descending by His Essence was only purposed for submitting the interpreters who claimed descending of His knowledgeability . We do seek Allah’s protecting us against disputing in the religion . The same thing is said about Allah’s coming and the like . We say, “He came”, and “He descends”, but we warn against claiming descending by Essence . In the same time, we do not claim descending of His knowledgeability . We only keep silent so that we may not invent heretic expressions before the Prophet (peace be upon him) .

Hence, At­Thehbi refutes the interpretation that descending falls by means other than the Essence . Meanwhile, he finds an excuse for those who claim descending by the Essence . He allege that such individuals said so just for submitting the interpreters who dispute and litigate in religious questions . This indicates that At­Thehbi adopts claim of descending by the Essence . He, at the same time, warns the anthropomorphists, his group, against claiming descending by the Essence, so that others should not be spurred against them! At­Thehbi’s attitude is evidently shown in his statement, “It is favorable to neglect discussing bases of his belief . ”

He realizes and believes in essentials of the material descending . However, neglecting such essentials is favorable . It is may be acceptable and excusable to disclose these

essentials before rivals, in cases of inescapable necessity .

This fact is also supported by his words about Kutah, whose master dismissed him because he had been claiming “descending by the Essence”, and was warmly received by the Syrian anthropomorphists .

Tethkiratul­Huffaz, part 4, page 13 :

Kutah : The Quran reciter, the master, Abu Masud Abdul­Jalil Bin Mohammed . Abu Musa Al­Madini states, “He was unique in learning in addition to manners and decency . He was one of the favorable followers of Ismail Al­Hafiz . I attended some of his sessions, and heard Abul­Qasim Al­Hafiz, in Damascus, extol him nobly, raise his standing and accredit erudition and accuracy to him .

He also was learned by Abdul­Qahir Ashebrawi, in Nisapur, and another group in Baghdad . His master, Ismail, dismissed him because he asserted that Allah “descends by His Essence”…

This is also supported by his defending and praising Al­Hafiz Abdul­Ghani, the famous corporalist .

Siyeru A’lamin­Nubela, part 21 page 463 :

In Miratuz­Zeman, Abu Muzaffar Al­Waiz records :

Al­Hafiz Abdul­Ghani used to provide his lectures after the Friday Prayer . Muhyiddin, Diyaddin and others went to the governor and complained against Abdul­Ghani claiming his adopting anthropomorphism . The two parties argued . Abdul­Ghani stated, “I do not promote Him against ill matters so excessively that I deny His actual descending . ”, “Allah was when there was no space . Today, He is not as he was . ” and “Allah possess symbols and voice . ”

The adversary party concentrated on these points . They commented, “Considering the Lord was

not as he was, this means that He has a definite space . Proving the Lord’s actual descending affirms acceptance of His moveableness . Regarding symbols and voice, masters, such as Ahmed Bin Hanbal, dedicated so to Allah’s words that are not created . ”

The two parties were engaged in noisy discrepancy . Burghush, the government asked, “You think all those are wrong and you alone is right . Do you not ? ” “Yes, I do,” affirmed Abdul­Ghani . Thus, the governor ordered of destroying his pulpit and banishing him to Balbak . Later on, he traveled to Egypt . Scholars there ruled of permissibility of killing him . They argued that he was ruining people’s beliefs and advocating corporalism . Hence, the vizier ordered of banishing him to Morocco . He died before execution of that order .

Owing to publicity of Abdul­Ghani’s importunate adherence to his anthropomorphism, scholars agreed upon deciding his atheism and heresy . They also issued the impermissibility of keeping that man among Muslims . Hence, he sought them to be granted only three days before he would be banished . They responded .

I noticed carelessness and lack of piety of Abul­Muzaffar, Ibnul­Jawzi, in his historical texts . He was inclining to Rafidites . I could see one of his writing works brimming with calamities supporting the previous allegation . He would not have been alive if his claiming jurisprudents’ deciding his atheism, had been true . In Damascus, Al­Imad, Muwaffaquddin, Abu Omar, Shamsuddin Al­Bukhari and the other Hanbalite scholars

agreed with him . Besides, the country was full of master scholars who did neither decide his apostasy nor did they declare his downright statements due to which he was suppressed . It would have been safer and better for him had he shunned such statements and followed expressions of the texts . No single text regarding such illusive statements was reported . His worst statement was deciding aberrance of the present scholars, and his being the right alone . He worded a statement filled in with evil, depravity and disadvantage . May God forgive and be merciful to the all, since they intended only to glorify and promote . The most perfect course of glorifying and promoting the Lord against ill matters was stopping at expressions of the Quran and the Prophet’s traditions . This course was adopted by the worthy ancestors (God may please them) . At any rate, Al­Hafiz Abdul­Ghani was one of the religious, learned, pious and righteous men . He enjoyed numerous merits . Finally, we seek God’s protection against caprices, prevarication, fanaticism and forging lies . We also disavow every corporalist and Tatilist .

hadiths of the divine attributes at all . Yet, these are the most remarkable questions of the religion . They would have taken initiative in interpreting such texts had they been conceivable . Hence, it became appreciable that the right is only reciting and recognizing these texts, without trying to find any other interpretation . Like the worthy ancestors, we should believe and acquiesce in such texts .

In the previous text, At­Thehbi commits a distortion so daringly that no anthropomorphist could attain . This distortion, At­Thehbi attires dress of reasoning, is clarified by the following example :

Considering there is an article of a law so ambiguous that it has two significances; extrinsic and metaphoric . An individual abstained from finding an explanation for that article claiming acquiescing in its aspect and commending its significance to the legislator . Do others dare to regard him as opting for the very extrinsic significance since he abstained from interpreting ? Of course, none dare to regard as so since that individual will certainly answer, “I am abstinent from any interpretation . None is allowed to attach any interpretation, including the extrinsic, to me . ”

At­Thehbi, however dared to say so . He states, “Hence, it became appreciable that the right is only reciting and recognizing these texts, without trying to find any other interpretation . ” He means any interpretation other than the material . Just after that, he asserts, “Like the worthy ancestors, we should believe and acquiesce in such texts . ” This indicates that we

should believe that material appearances of the texts should be embraced, and then acquiesce in essentials of the belief, like the commenders .

The entire words of the Sunni scholars flow in the same stream . “Recognize the texts as they are . ” “Pass the texts as they are . ” “Recite the texts as they are . ” “Take the texts as they are . ” “Acquiesce in the texts . ” All these words have the same meaning; Interpret not these texts and commend them to Allah, the Elevated, and His prophet . None at all ruled of opting for faces of these texts . How should, then, the anthropomorphists adopt (involving the appearances as they seem . ), and attach to the commenders among the worthy ancestors ?

It is not improbable that ‘pass’ mentioned in words of the Sunni scholars was in the origin ‘recognize’[18] . But owing to clerical errors, the word was confused . ‘Recognition’ is used for constant matters while ‘passing’ is used for the movable . Neither the early nor the late scholars used this word at all except in the item involved . For eloquence, it is inappropriate to used ‘pass’ to unchangeable matters . The word, however, is used for expressing movable things . For example; ‘pass the sheep’ means ‘let those walking sheep pass . ’ For constant things; such as texts, we use ‘recognize’ which means ‘accept’ .

The following are examples of the worthy ancestors’ words :

Al­Mizi’s Tahdibul­Kemal, part 1 page 514 :

Ahmed Bin

Nasr : I asked Sufian Bin Uyeina an interpretation for the sayings that hearts are between two of Allah’s fingers, and that Allah laughs when He is mentioned in marts . “Pass them as they are, without asking how”, answered Sufian .

At­Thehbi’s Siyeru A’lamin­Nubela, part 5 page 162 :

Al­Awzai : Az­Zuhri and Mackhul used to say, “Pass the hadiths as they are . ”

At­Thehbi’s Siyeru A’lamin­Nubela, part 5 page 337 :

Al­Awzai : He used to say, “Pass the Prophet’s traditions as they are . ”

At­Thehbi’s Tethkiratul­Huffaz, part 1 page 304 :

Al­Walid Bin Muslim : I asked Mali, Al­Awzai, At­Thawri and Al­Leith Bin Sa’d about hadiths pertaining the divine attributes . “Pass them as they are, without asking how,” they answered .

At­Thehbi’s Siyeru A’lamin­Nubela, part 7 page 274 :

Sufian was asked about hadiths pertaining the divine attributes . “Pass them as they are,” he answered . Abu Nueim stated, “Were I to skip out these hadiths totally . ” Abu Usama : Sufian said, “Had my hand been amputated before I sought a hadith . ”

The two last sayings indicate that the reason beyond adopting for commendation was anticipating being sinful in case they adopt an interpretation leads to affirming anthropomorphism .

At­Thehbi’s Siyeru A’lamin­Nubela, part 8 page 162 :

Al­Walid Bin Muslim : I asked Mali, Al­Awzai, At­Thawri and Al­Leith about hadiths pertaining the divine attributes . “Pass them as they are, without asking how,” they answered . Abu Ubeid commented, “As we could not recognize a single individual cite an interpretation to these texts, we should

also neglect so . ” This Abu Ubeid compiled a book dedicated to strange hadiths . He neglected discussing any of hadiths of the divine attributes at all . As he told that he could not recognize a single individual cite an interpretation of such texts, he abstained from interpreting . Positively, had interpretation of such texts been conceivable or fundamental, it would have been more concerned that interpretation of hadiths of secondary affairs and ethics . As scholars neglected citing any interpretation for such texts, and passed them as they were, it was perceivable that their course what the absolute right .

Abu Ubeid’s saying, “We could not recognize a single individual cite an interpretation to these texts . ”, implies denial of the claim of opting for extrinsic interpretation . This saying also denies Ibn Teimiya’s claim that Abu Ubeid did interpreted the Lord’s settlement into descending . This claim is recorded in his book of Tafseer, part 6 .

The latter wording of At­Thehbi is an attempt to decide ‘passing their texts are they are’ as same as interpreting them according to their aspects . Hence, he attempts at making the commenders adopt the faith Ibn Teimiya and he had embraced .

At­Thehbi’s Siyeru A’lamin­Nubela, part 8 page 467 :

Respecting the hadith, “Allah is astonished or laughs when He is mentioned in marts . ”, Sufian commented, “It is as it came . We accept and communicate it without asking how . ”

At­Thehbi’s Siyeru A’lamin­Nubela, part 9 page 165 :

Ahmed Bin Ibrahim Ad­Dawraqi : Waki

:

We should submit to these hadiths ­such as that of Allah’s burdening the heavens of one of His fingers­ as they are . We do not ask how or what for .

At­Thehbi’s Siyeru A’lamin­Nubela, part 15 page 86 :

Abul­Hassan compiled four books appertained to principals of the religion and bases of the worthy ancestors’ belief in the divine attributes . He records, “These texts should be passed as they are . This is my saying and belief . I should not seek an interpretation . ”

Besides, At­Thehbi, as well as the worthy ancestors, recorded tens of texts discussing this topic . All those texts indicated that trends of commendation and interpretation were the two major schools the Sunni ancestors belonged to . School of resting upon extrinsic meanings was adopted by the corporalists; the Hashawites, some of the Hanbalites and few of the Asharites .

At­Thehbi asserted that there had been three trends respecting this question .

At­Thehbi’s Siyeru A’lamin­Nubela, part 19 page 582 :

I asked him about hadiths of the divine attributes . He answered, “People litigated about them . Some interpreted . Others abstained and others believed in their extrinsic meanings . I believe in one of these three trends . ”

Likewise, Ibn Khuldoun discerned school of commendation from that of resting upon aspects of the texts . Moreover, some late scholars, such as An­Nawawi, assert that the course of Sunni ancestors was commendation and refutation of the extrinsic meanings . This is a strange matter, indeed . Commendation totally reconciles denial of extrinsic interpretations,

but it does in no means concur extrinsic interpretation . Any text is not commended to Allah if it is interpreted according to its aspect . While denial certain interpretations of a text does not injure commending to Allah .

Seyid Sharafuddin’s Abu Hureira, part 1 page 57 :

An­Nawawi, the master, asserts :

A number of scholars dispense with finding interpretations for such hadiths, claiming, “We do believe they are right, and their extrinsic meanings are not intended, and there are meanings becoming them . ” This is, in fact, trend of majority of the ancestors . It is the safest and the most secure .

that group who adopted school of Dawud Bin Ali Al­Isfahani . They opt for the extrinsic meanings of texts . They are numerous . Abul­Hussein Mohammed Bin Al­Hussein Al­Basri acceded to extrinsicism .

Corporalists, in fact, mutinied against their fathers; the extrinsicists, neglecting their principals and rules . Dawud Az­Zahir (the extrinsicist) and Ibn Hazm opt for the extrinsic meanings to definite limits after which they interpret . They are, then, interpreters . For corporalists, those two individuals are aberrant and atheists because they were not extrinsicists .

Ibn Hazm’s Al­Fasl, volume 1 part 2 page 122 :

Sayings of Allah, the Exalted, should be taken as their extrinsic meanings unless there is another text, congruity or a necessity contrasting so . It is recognized that whatsoever is existent in a place, occupies ­that place­ . These all are qualities of corporealities . Regarding so, it is proved that nearness intended in God’s saying, (And We are nearer to him than his life­vein . 50 : 16), stands for control and awareness only .

Ibn Hazm’s Al­Fasl, volume 1 part 2 page 166 :

Discussion Of The Divine Face, Hand And Eye :

Allah, the Exalted, says, (And there will endure for ever the face of your Lord, the Lord of glory and honor . 55 : 27)

Corporalists used this saying as argument for their trend . Others said that ‘face of Allah’ is His person . This is actually the right proved by clear evidences… The purport of such things; Allah’s hand, eye, face and the like, is Allah, the

Exalted, and nothing else .

Ibn Hazm’s Al­Fasl, volume 1 part 2 page 167 :

The Prophet (peace be upon him) stated, “Hell keeps on demanding with more till Lord of Dignity places His foot ­precedence­ in it . ”

In this hadith, ‘foot’ stands for precedence . This meaning is mentioned in God’s saying, (A footing of firmness with their Lord . 10 : 2) . Hence, the meaning of the hadith is that Allah should fill in hell with people who preceded others in evildoing . The same is said about the authentic hadith, “Allah created Adam on his look . ” This indicates that Allah had opted for the look on which he created Adam .

Ibn Hazm’s Al­Fasl, volume 1 part 2 page 140 :

Unanimously, Muslims agreed upon Allah’s being hearing and seeing, since this truth is emphasized in the Holy Quran . A group of Sunnis, Asharites, Jafar Bin Harb the Mutazilite, Husham Bin Al­Hakam and the corporalists claimed, “We decisively believe that Allah, the Exalted, is hearing by a means of audition, seeing by a means of sight . ” Groups of Sunnis, including Ashafii, assert that Allah, the Exalted, is hearing and seeing, but they refuted mentioning means of audition and sight, since Allah, the Elevated, has not referred to so . They believe that the Lord is hearing by His Essence and seeing by His Essence… Thus, we adopt this very saying and rule of impermissibility of claiming of means of audition and sight since this claim has not proved by

a text .

a single companion who claimed believing in extrinsic meanings of the divine attributes texts, and commending the form to Allah ?

A . Is there a single companion of the Prophet who opted for the same interpretations of the late scholars ? Would you provide one or tow names ?

Explaining God’s saying, (Then He settled on the Throne . 7 : 54), Al­Baghawi records :

Al­Kelbi and Muqatil single out that settling implies stabilizing . Abu Ubeida opted for ascending as the explanation of Allah’s settling . Mutazilites interpreted Allah’s settling into His prevalence . Ahlus­Sunna aver, “Settling on the Throne is one of Allah’s attributes without asking how . Men are mandated to believe in so and commend its explication to Allah . ”

Malik Bin Anas was asked about the exegesis of (The beneficent settled on the Throne . 20 : 5) . He had nodded his head a while before he addressed at the asker, “Settling is not unknown . Its way is not realizable . Believing in it is obligatory . Asking about it is a heresy . I can obviously notice your aberrance! Take this man out . ”

The previous was the answer of that masterful Wahabist . He answers that considering the claim there was no single Sahabi ­the Prophet’s companion­ who agrees with Wahabists’ faith of resting upon the material extrinsic aspects of the divine attributes texts, there is also no single Sahabi who agrees with school of interpretation .

On that account, the asker may rule of inaccuracy of both Wahabists

and interpreters, and, thus, commenders are exclusively the right .

Al­Albani denies the interpretation cited by Aisha, Ibn Abbas and Ibn Masud in addition to the Prophet’s household (peace be upon them) . Besides, models of interpretation cited by followers of the Prophet’s companions have been provided throughout our previous debate of the first school . We also provided Abu Sa’eed’s interpreting Allah’s descending into descending of His mercy, and Malik’s interpreting the same into descending of His matters .

Except for Muqatil, the Persian the Magus whose masters were the corporalist Jews, and Ibnul­Kelbi, whose dishonesty was unanimously proved, Al­Albani could not find any supporter of his Wahabism . Contemptibleness of this sect, who claim inheriting and raising slogan of ancestral traditions and striking the Muslim’s faces with its sword, is obviously conspicuous . We have just noticed how their master of hadithology searched in hadiths and reference books and knocked the entire doors of the Prophet’s companions and their followers, but he was too short to find out a single individual that may put up with his faith . Finally, he could find Muqatil and Ibnul­Kelbi and their likes . Are those the entire ancestors ? !

Fatawil­Albani, page 516 :

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

A . Ibn Hajar Al­Asqalani, the Asharite, states, “Faith of the worthy ancestors was perceiving the Verses according to their aspects, without interpretation or confusion . If we believe in an existent lord and lack his total attributes… only then we disbelieve in the

Lord of servants when we deny the attributes, as the commenders allege .

It is observable that the previous question about commendation of the worthy ancestors should be answered by citing opinion of one of those worthy ancestors who neglect commendation and rest upon the extrinsic aspects of the divine attributes texts . Al­Albani would have not concealed such an opinion if there had been any . The truth is that there is actually no single opinion in this field . Instead, Al­Albani fetched a testimony of one of the tenth or eleventh generations of the late scholars . Ibn Hajar died in 582; in the late sixth Hijri century . Furthermore, it is rightful for us to demand Al­Albani with the text and the reference of Ibn Hajar’s testimony . Without referring to the reference, Al­Albani confused that testimony with his own words . Next in this book, Ibn Hajar’s opinion and harsh campaign against the Hanbalite corporalists, Al­Albani’s forefathers, will be provided . Yet, Ibn Hajar’s opinion is contradictory to what has been previously provided by Al­Albani .

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

I, personally, have not delved into a deep study concerning monotheism and the divine attributes written by originator of Wahabism, Mohammed Bin Abdil­Wahab . It seems that he compiled his At­Tawhid abruptly . He records hadiths of miscellaneous subjects regarding a variety of subjects related to monotheism .

After each hadith, he fixes a brief index of ideas and notions he could attain . He listed these indices under ‘questions’ . Saving the following two items, the entire book is empty from questions regarding the divine attributes . These two items, however, are acceptably sufficient to prove materiality of his god . Allah protect us against so!!

The first item . Page 130 :

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

Al­Bukhari : Ali’s authentic narrative : “Communicate people only in the ways they realize . Do you want Allah and His Apostle to be belied ? ”

Abdurrezaq : Muammar : Ibn Tawus : his father :

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

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

The following questions are deduced from the previous :

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

2 . Exegesis of sura of Rad .

3 . Avoiding relating what the receivers ignore .

4 . Mentioning the reason beyond avoiding relating what the receivers ignore; which is that such

matters may lead to belying Allah and His Apostle, even if the ignorant receiver does not intend so .

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

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

Abu Zura An­Nasri ruled of familiarity of the report narrators .

Indisputably, Ibn Wahab and his master and Ibn Abi Hilal were familiar trustful narrators . But Marwan!! He is the grandson of Abu Sa’eed Bin Al­Mualla Al­Ansari, and the student of Amara Bin Amir Bin Amr Bin Hazm Al­Ansari . Even though, the Prophet is more knowledgeable of what he had intended . The Prophet did not refer to the interpretation of his dream . We, as well, are too short to interpret it accurately . We seek God’s protection against wading into resting upon the extrinsic material meaning of its aspect . Some virtuous scholars decided that the report was erroneously written . Ali (God please him) said, “Communicate people only in the ways they realize . Neglect what they ignore . ” Abu Hureira concealed a good number of hadiths regarding unneeded questions . He used to say, “Had I announced these hadiths, this throat would have been amputated . ”

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

At­Thehbi’s previous words are accurately intended by originator of Wahabism . Using

the title ‘Denying any amount of the divine names and attributes’ indicates issuing obligation of accepting the entire divine attributes . He also reckons denying any of them with atheism . Because a number of these divine attributes, according to their opinions, supports corporalism, he proceeds to discuss the obligation of concealing that knowledge from people except followers of his sect . He cited two narratives of Ali and Ibn Abbas as evidences of permissibility of concealing such knowledge .

In addition, he adopts At­Thehbi’s thesis about ‘banned knowledge’, and obligation of dedicating such knowledge to private scholars . “Hadiths of banned knowledge are not necessarily publicized . Saving private scholars, such hadiths should not be put in everybody’s hands . ”, just like knowledge of Jewism and Christianity dedicated to heads of rabbis and popes .

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

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

In the margins of Siyeru A’lamin­Nubela, the publisher records the following about Abu Hureira’s saying :

Al­Bukhari’s, 1 : 191­2 (part 1 page 8), records the hadith under the title : Retaining knowledge :

Ismail Bin Abi Uweis : his

brother : Ibn Abi Thib : Sa’eed Al­Miqbari :

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

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

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

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

The following commentation on Ali’s saying is recorded in the margins of Siyeru A’lamin­Nubela :

Al­Bukhari, 1 : 199 (part 1 page 41), records the saying under the title; Retaining knowledge :

Dedicating knowledge to certain people that can perceive :

Ubeidullah Bin Musa : Maruf Bin Khurbuth : Abut­Tufeil :

Ali said : …

The same saying is recorded in Kenzul­Ummal, part 10 page 247, 301 and 304 .

Ali (peace be upon him) constitutes a

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

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

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

Muammar : Hemmam Bin Munabbih : Abu Hureira :

The Prophet (peace be upon him) stated :

The Paradise and Hell disputed . “Exclusively, I am given the arrogant and the oppressors,” Hell took pride . “Well, how poor I am! I am entered only by the feeble, the humiliated and the lowest,” complained the Paradise . Immediately, Allah said, “You, the Paradise, are My mercy . By you I have mercy upon whom I opt from among My servants . You, Hell, are My torture . By you, I torment whomever I opt from among My servants . Each of you should reach its profusion . While they shall be thrown

in Hell, it will be asking for more . It shall not be fully occupied unless I fix My feet in it . Only then, it shall be filled and crowded . Allah does never wrong any of His creatures . Allah provides the Paradise with what He wills . ”

Abdurrezaq : Muammar : Ibn Tawus : his father :

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

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

Mentioning the divine attributes, here, means that the receiver was reproached by Ibn Abbas because he had disbelieved and denied that Allah has a foot to be fixed in Hell . How could that conclude so ? Probably, that man was on the Prophet’s reverent companions who denied corporalism referred to in the previous report . Hence, he left that session as a sign of objection . Ibn Abbas’s saying, however, is general . It does in no means show that the man who shaked his clothes, to reveal his sweeping objection, was the addressee in Ibn Abbas’s words . Presumably, he addressed his words at some narrators . It is impracticable that a

Sahabi or a Sahabi’s follower deserves perishing and atheism just because he stood up and shaked his clothes for nothing more than evading being responsible for a hadith he sees as false or doubtful .

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

a sign of giving credence to the previous saying of the rabbi . He recited, (And they have not honored Allah with the honor that is due to Him; and the whole earth shall be in His grasp on Day of Resurrection and the heavens rolled up in His right hand; glory be to Him, and may He be exalted above what they associate with Him . 39 : 67) .

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

The following form is adopted by another relation of Al­Bukhari; “…fixes heavens on a finger, water and dust on another and other creatures on a third . …”

In volume 2 of Al­Aqaidul­Islamiya, narrations of this misalleged fable, that claims of our Prophet’s having been tutored by one of the rabbis, are discussed in detail .

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

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

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

3 . The Prophet (peace be upon him) gave credence to the rabbi’s saying, and the Quran

supported so .

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

5 . Identifying the Lord’s two hands avowedly; heavens on the right and earths on the left .

6 . Avowed identification of the left hand .

7 . Describing the despots and tyrants .

8 . The saying, “Like a grain of a mustard­seed in the palm . ”

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

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

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

12 . Distance between the heavens .

13 . Distance between he seventh heavens and the Chair .

14 . Distance between the Chair and the water .

15 . The Throne is over the water .

16 . Allah is over the Throne .

17 . Distance between the heavens and earth .

18 . Density of each heavens is five hundred year .

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

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

The conclusion is that Allah,

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

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

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

Bin Baz’s Al­Fetawi, part 4 page 382 :

The most authentic matter upon which researchists agree, is that the Quran does not comprise metaphor realized by rhetoricians . Whatsoever is in

the Quran is but a reality in its position .

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

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

This is really a cubic quibble in meanings of aspect, nullity and applicability in Quran . If we claim, ‘extrinsic meaning of the Verse is unintended,’ this will indicate that we have negated that meaning from the Quran . Accordingly, how should a negated meaning be practical in the Quran ? Nullity stands for our wrong conception of the meaning of a Verse . It is not a thing clear­cut in the Quran . Extrinsic meanings, if negated by an expressional or intellectual presumption, are no longer extrinsic . It is expended into illusion . The factual extrinsic meanings of speech are only

the permanent and perceivable . The extrinsic meanings that are called off by presumptions, are as same as the false dawn that removes and brings darkness back just before emergence of the true dawn . Expressional and intellectual presumptions play the starring role in identifying the permanent aspect . This point is very outstanding in recognizing their errors in discerning extrinsic meanings of a text and resting upon such meanings .

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

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

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

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

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

The following question may be cited at them . Considering your claim Allah, the Exalted, is existent on the Throne, depending upon His saying, (He settled on the Throne), what should you say about His saying, (And He is with you wherever you are . 57 : 4) ? This Verse repeal your claim The Lord’s being existent in a certain point in the cosmos . It

reveals that He, the Elevated, enjoys another category of existence, different from the cosmic . Imam Ali says, “­He is­ with everything with no contact, and different from everything with no comparison . ”

They would answer with the following :

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

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

Bin Baz’s Al­Fetawi, part 2 page 89 :

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

At­Thehbi and Ibn Teimiya were masters of Bin Baz in maneuvering . He described coexistence as acquaintance and hanged it in the neck of the worthy ancestors so that none would record his name in list of interpreters . He, then, substantiated their committing the forbidden interpretation . He alleged that this interpretation was (perpetrated) for the purpose

of contradicting those who denied Allah’s exaltation, and aimed at proving His degrading!!

Successfully, he could detect an Indian scholar named ‘At­Talamneki’, and charge him of the responsibility of interpreting the Verse that opposed their sect . Bin Baz adhered to that Indian and revered him for attiring him the interpretation of the Verse .

Al­Fetawi, part 1 page 148 :

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

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

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

Soon after that, Bin Baz supported his verdict by unanimity reported by that At­Talamneki . He supposes the entire Sunni Muslims concluded that Allah, the Exalted, is a material being sitting on His Throne . Quite absolutely, this principle is as same as the Jews’ . Everybody is mandated to accept

and close their eyes before opinions of the whole scholars and thousands of references, if At­Talamneki speaks out .

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

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

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

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

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

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

identified by certain space and time ?

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

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

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

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

Shias distinctly for resting upon principal of circumspection against ruling authorities in questions appertained to Imamate and decency of the Prophet’s companions .

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

The following forecited sayings of At­Thehbi are evidentiary enough to introduce Wahabists’ factual faith . “Hadiths of banned knowledge are not necessarily publicized . Saving private scholars, such texts should not be put in everybody’s hands . ” “It is obligatory to believe in descending

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

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

Wahabists masters claim Allah’s sitting on His Throne and descending to the earth in the very same way Ibn Teimiya had done when he descended a single scale from the pulpit in Syria . This makes Allah, the Exalted, be identified by certain space and time and, as a sequence, enjoying space­time continuum . When the previous discussion is introduced before an educated Wahabist, he answers,” No! This

does not necessarily refer to anthropomorphism and corporalism . The Lord sits as it fits His glory, and descends as it fits his glory . ” Such a poor student think that as soon as he moves his tongue with ‘as it fits His glory’, that objective problem shall be totally solved or that he hit the very target! Example of such individuals is that who eats and drinks in the daylight and insists on being fasting ­ritual abstinence from drinking and eating­, because he fasts as it fits his fasting and eats as it fits his personality . Yet, nothing fitting his personality has been left! Another example is that who answers, when he is informed of his master’s consuming intoxicants, “No! Cups of wine are automatically changed into a purified drink as soon as my master touches them . ” He also answers, when he is told that his master was seen at a prostitute’s house, “No, that prostitute is automatically changed into a celestial virgin dame as soon as my master touches her . ”

Facts, however, cannot be changed by a master’s touch or Wahabists’ sayings or interpretations introduced by an At­Talamneki!!

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

Tabaqatus­Shafiiya, part 8 page 222 :

Sheik Abdus­Selam states :

Anthropomorphist Hashawites are of two categories . A category deliberate no

harm from introducing their faiths so evidently . (And they think that they have something . 58 : 18) .

any of the worthy ancestors had interpreted ‘His face’ into ‘His essence’ or ‘His prophets . ’ They denied reports registered in Al­Bukhari’s book so that falsity of their faith should not be emerged, and aberrance and atheism of Al­Bukhari should not be proved for them .

The story is, herewith, introduced totally :

Al­Albani’s Al­Fetawi, page 522 :

Q . Before I introduce my variant questions, I would like to provide this question which I could not attach with the other . Yesterday, I mentioned that Al­Bukhari, in his book of hadith, records that ‘His face’ in the Verse, (Everything is perishable except His face . ), was interpreted into ‘His property’ . As a matter of fact, I quoted this claim from a book written by Ahmed Isam and named Dirasetun Tahliliyatun Li Eqidetibni­Hajar . I still claim this man communicates this relation authentically . However, I would like to introduce before you the following implication mentioned in the forecited book, “Al­Bukhari interpreted ‘face’ mentioned in God’s saying, (Everything is perishable except His face) of sura of Qassas, into ‘His property’ or ‘What is only offered for the sake of Allah’ . Regarding the earlier interpretation, it was cited by Al­Hafiz in a narrative related by An­Nesfi . Muemmar Abu Ubeida Bin Al­Muthenna, in his Mejazul­Quran, states that ‘His face’ stands for ‘His Person’ . ”

Today, I myself referred to Fetihul­Bari Fi Sharhi Sahihil­Bukhari and other books explaining Al­Bukhari’s reference book of hadith . Surprisingly, I could not perceive any signal of that text ascribed to

Al­Bukahri . It seems that Ahmed Isam intends to state that the matter involved in situated in An­Nesfi’s narrative communicated by Al­Bukhari . Would you please provide us with your reply on this question ?

A . Our reply has been previously cited .

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

A . Well, may God reward you worthily .

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

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

Q . I also said that this statement is available in certain versions of books commentating on Al­Bukhari’s reference book of hadith .

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

Q . It seems there is a part of such a statement in Fetihul­Bari Fi Sharhi Sahihil­Bukhari . As much as I retain, I could find such an evidentiary argumentation in a certain point in the book to which a friend of mine lead me . This asserts that some versions of the book comprise this statement . I argued

that existing things are only Allah, the Exalted, and His creatures . Considering ‘face’ stands for ‘property’, what shall be perishing, then ?

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

These were words of Al­Albani, the most leading Wahabist in hadithology .

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

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

I doubted Al­Albani’s words about Al­Bukhari . While I was taking a review on Al­Bukhari’s reference book of hadith, I found what that ‘connoisseur hadithist,

the retainer and tutor of Al­Bukhari’s reference book of hadith’ had just negated and raised Al­Bukhari against, was recorded on page 17, part 6 of that reference book . Instead of a single interpretation of the Verse, there are various sorts of interpretation written there .

Al­Bukhari’s book of hadith, part 6 page 17 :

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

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

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

At­Tabari relates these very meanings to some linguists . Al­Ferra records the same .

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

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

deeds and the like . ”

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

The statement, then, is recorded in Al­Bukhari’s reference book . Revisers of that book asserted this fact . It is originally refutable to ascribe the statement to Muemmar . Al­Bukhari himself emphasized that Muemmar said that ‘His face’ stands for ‘His Person’ .

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

slap as they lacked convinced exegeses . As much as it is seemed, that problem remained unsolved because of their insistence on rejecting interpretation . The same thing has been done by Al­Albani . Hence, they acted cussedly and claimed their god’s total termination except the face . We seek Allah’s guardian against such claims!!

As­Suheili’s Ar­Rawdhul­Enif, part 2 page 179 :

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

As­Shatibi’s Alitisam, part 2 page 330 :

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

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

Al­Kashani’s Bedaius­Senaii, part 3 page 6 :

Swearing by

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

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

Al­Kashani’s Bedaius­Senaii, part 3 page 143 :

‘Face’ stands for the person . ‘Face’ mentioned in God’s saying, (Everything is perishable except His face), stands for His Person . Saying, “I guarantee so­and­so’s face,” indicates guaranteeing that person . It is provable that such organs represent

the whole body . By the same token, saying, “Your face is divorced,” is decided as a form of legal divorcement .

As­Serkhasi’s Al­Mabsout, part 8 page 133 :

Swearing By The Face Of Allah :

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

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

Ibn Babawayih’s Al­Imametu Wet­Tabsira, page 92 :

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

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

Al­Kuleini’s Al­Kafi, part 1 page 143 :

Al­Harith Bin Al­Mughira An­Nasri :

Abu Abdillah, Imam Ja’far As­Sadiq was asked about God’s saying, (Everything is perishable except His face) . He was told that dissenters claim that except for God’s face, everything shall be perished . He commented, “Praised be

Allah . They have said a critical thing . By ‘face’, God intends the characters through whom people should be advancing towards God . ”

Some attempt at escaping that perplexity by claiming that ‘perishable’ mentioned in the Verse does not stand for termination . In his Al­Mufredat, page 544, Ar­Raghib explains ‘perishable’ as terminated . He records, “…This is called termination . It is intended in God’s saying, (Everything is perishable except His face) . ”

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

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

Secondly, Muqatil’s exegesis is not accurate . The Quranic expression ‘everything’ regarding beings, is usually used for expressing perfect enduring general meaning or relative general meaning . For instance, the following ‘everything’ mentioned in God’s saying, (Nay! It is what you sought to hasten on, a blast of wind in which is a painful punishment, destroying everything by the command of its Lord; so they became such that naught could be seen except their dwellings .

46 : 24­5), cannot be explained by the perfect enduring generalization, since it is quite manifest that their dwellings were not destroyed by that wind . The meaning of God’s saying, (Do you not know that Allah has power over everything ? 2 : 106), and many similar ones, cannot be explained by the relative general meaning . It is unacceptable to exclude some things from God’s absolute power or knowledge . In the same time, we may explain the forecited Verse by the relative general meaning; by saying that ‘everything’ includes only what is enjoying existence and potentiality .

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

The Verse is dealing with termination

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

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

6 page 437 :

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

Al­Fakhr Ar­Razi’s Book of Tafseer, volume 13 part 26 page 22 :

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

It seems that Ar­Razi prefers the latter exegesis .

Al­Fakhr Ar­Razi’s Book of Tafseer, volume 13 part 26 page 24 :

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

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

Although

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

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

Taraiful­Meqal, part 2 page 231 :

Bayan Bin Saman At­Tamimi An­Nehdi claims Allah’s having the appearance of an animal, and that everything is perishable except His face, and that Allah’s soul was incarnated in Ali (peace be upon him), Mohammed Bin Al­Hanafiya, Abu Hashim and Bayan respectively . Cursed be Bayan Bin Saman .

An­Nubekhti’s Al­Farqu Beinel­Furaq, page 216 :

The immoderate Bayanites :

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

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

Sunni scholars interpreted ‘his face’ into deeds intended for Allah’s face .

Some Shiite scholars agreed to this exegesis .

Ar­Raghib’s Al­Mufredat, page 513 :

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

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

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

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

Al­Murteda’s Al­Amali, part 3 page 46 :

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

In Arabic, the word ‘face’ stands for variant meanings :

Face is that physical appearance of every animal .

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

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

Face is the solution .

Face is the direction and the side .

Face is the standing and reputation .

Face is the chief of people .

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

actually . These adjectives were added extraneously to faces . They are actually added to the sentence as a whole . Consequently, ‘His face’ mentioned in God’s saying, (Everything is perishable except His face), stands for His Person . The same thing is said about the word in God’s saying, (And there will endure for ever the [face] of your Lord, Lord of glory and honor) . As long as ‘face’ is intended to express the Lord’s Person, the attachment of (the Lord of glory and honor) is, syntactically, ascribed to ‘face’, not ‘Lord’, while in God’s saying, (Blessed be the name of your Lord, the Lord of glory and honor . 55 : 78), the attachment of (the Lord of glory and honor) is, syntactically, ascribed to ‘Lord’, not ‘name’ since the two are of different references .]Pursuant to Arabic syntax, ‘Thu’ in the earlier Verse should be ‘Thi’ if it is attached to ‘Lord’, while in the latter, it is ‘Thi’ since it is attached to ‘Lord’ . Depending on this syntactic evidence, Al­Murteda intends to say that ‘face’ and ‘Lord’, mentioned in the earlier Verse are two different words of the same reference, while ‘name’ and ‘Lord’, mentioned in the latter, are two words or two different references [

There is another probable exegesis for the Verse involved . This exegesis is related to some earlier scholars . It is that ‘face’ stands for deeds intended and offered to Allah, the Exalted, exclusively . On this account, meaning of the Verse should be

‘Regard not any associate to Allah, and call not upon any god other than Him . Every act intended and offered to other than Him is perishable and void . ’

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

Margin of Biharul­Anwar, part 4 page 6 :

There is a metaphorical expression in God’s saying, (Everything is perishable except His face) . ‘Face’ expresses person and self . The same thing is

said about God’s saying, (And there will endure the [face] of your Lord) . Syntactically, the subjunctive case used in the current Quranic text, is a clear evidence on opting for ‘person’ as the interpretation of ‘face’ . The prepositional case would be used if the extrinsic material meaning of the Verse was intended…

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

Concisely, Sharif Al­Murteda agrees with the Sunni non­corporalists on the exegesis that ‘face’ stands for the person . He also cites that the word intended should probably stand for the virtuous deeds intended to Allah exclusively .

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

At­Tebirsi’s Alihtijaj, part 2 page 190 :

… “O son of the Prophet! What is the purport of the hadith, (The reward of ‘There is no god but Allah’ is viewing at Allah’s face . ) ? ”, I asked Imam Ar­Rida . “O Abus­Selt! He is apostatizing, that whoever ascribes a material

face to Allah . ”, answered Imam Ar­Rida, and went on, “Allah’s face is His prophets, apostles and disciples (peace be upon them), by whom God, His religion and knowledge is sought . Allah, the Almighty the Exalted, says, (Everyone [Everything] on it must pass away, and there will endure for ever the [face] person of your Lord, the Lord of glory and honor . ) and (Everything is perishable except His [face]) . Thus, viewing at Allah’s prophets, apostles and disciples, in their standings, is a great reward for the believers . The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) stated, ‘He whoever bears malice against my household and progeny, shall never see me and I shall never see him on Resurrection Day . ’ He also stated, ‘Among you there are persons who shall never see me again after my mundane departure . ’ O Abus­Selt! A space cannot be attributed to Allah, the Praised the Exalted . Views and illusions cannot comprehend Him . ”

Imam As­Sadiq’s narrative, quoted from Al­Kuleini’s Al­Kafi, part 1 page 143, regarding the same subject, has been forecited .

In his Book of hadith, part 8 page 174, Al­Bukhari records that ‘face’ mentioned in the Verse involved, hints at God’s Person :

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

Allah, the Exalted calls ‘thing’ on Himself . He says, (Say : What thing is the weightiest in testimony ? Say : Allah) . Likewise, the Prophet (peace be upon him) called ‘thing’ on the

Quran . It is one of the divine attributes . Allah says, (Everything is perishable except His face) .

Al­Bukhari proposes that ‘thing’ mentioned in the Verse comprises Allah, the Exalted, and the expression of exclusion hints at a correlation between the whole sentence and the excluded thing . This means that ‘face’ stands for His Person .

A more curious matter is that Al­Bukhari, in his book of hadith, part 6 page 17, records a statement near to the Prophet’s household’s exegesis of the Verse :

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

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

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

Owing to this likelihood, we

have to undertake Al­Bukhari’s confused statement and regard that he records the exegesis of an earlier Verse under the title of a latter one .

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

The earlier narratives recorded in Al­Imametu Wet­Tabsira, page 92 and Al­Kafi, part 1 page 143, are clear proofs of actuality of this exegesis .

As­Saduq’s Kemaluddin, page 231 :

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

raise us and do whatever he wills .

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

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

matter of fact, the right thing is that exegesis is ascribed to the Jahmites and Mutazilites and their fellows who denied the divine attributes and denuded the Praised and Exalted Creator from attributes of perfection He used for Himself .

Scholars of the worthy ancestors denied such an interpretation and asserted that Allah’s settling is treated as same as the other attributes, that are confirmed for the Lord as they fit His glory, passing over distortion, denudation, modification or representation . Malik stated, “Settling is known and its way is unexplored, and believing in this is obligatory and questioning about it is heresy . ” Sunni descendants were brought up on this belief . In his Ar­Risaletul Hamawiya, Ibn Teimiya writes down, “This is the Book of Allah, from beginning to end, and this is the Prophet’s traditions, from beginning to end, and these are words of the Prophet’s companions and their followers, and these are words of the other masters . All these are filled in, either by text or extrinsic meaning, with the fact that Allah, the Praised and Exalted, is the High and the Supreme Who is over and exalted on everything, and over the Throne and over the heavens . This is proved by His saying, (To Him do ascends the good words; and the good deeds lift them up . 35 : 10), and the innumerable authentic and qualified hadiths; such as the Prophet’s ascending to his Lord, and the angels’ descending from and ascending to the Lord and the like

. ”

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

the Prophet’s companions and their virtuous followers . They are also advised to beware themes of the heretic who shunned the divine Book and the Prophet’s traditions and rested upon their ideas and intellectuals fanatically; therefore, they deviated and led to deviation .

Ibn Baz’s Al­Fetawi, part 2 page 98 :

In an article titled (For being the strongest nation), issued in No . 3383, 3/4/1408, of Al­Sharq Al­Awsat newspaper, Muhyiddin As­Safi, referring to discrepancy between the worthy ancestors and their descendants about the divine attributes, writes down, “In the Holy Quran, there are some Verses accrediting material descriptions to Allah, the Exalted . God’s sayings, (The hand of Allah is above their hands), (Everything is perishable except His face) and (The Beneficent settled on the Throne) are good examples of the forecited fact . Scholars follow one of the following two courses in comprehending such Verses . First, course of the worthy ancestors, which is proving what Allah has proved for Himself passing over denudation, modification or representation, and observing evading depriving the Divine Essence of attributes . They also averred that the extrinsic meanings of aspects of such Verses are unintended . For God’s saying, (Nothing is like the likeness of Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing), promoting Allah, the Exalted, against whatsoever may be a means of comparison to the creatures was the base on which they depend in their faith . Second, course of the worthy descendants, which is interpreting such words and resting upon metaphoric meanings . Hence, for them,

‘hand’, ‘face’ and ‘settling’ suggest aptitude, person and predominance and seizure, respectively . Convictional proofs on Allah’s being not a corporeality, were provided . Besides, God says, (Nothing like the likeness of Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing) proves so . As a matter of fact, both courses are accurate and authentically related and recorded in reference books of master scholars . ”

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

In his Ar­Risaletul Hamawiya, Sheikul­Islam Ibn Teimiya records, “In His Al­Asma’u Wes­Sifat, Abu Bakr Al­Beihaqi relates the following to Al­Awzai, with an authentic documentation :

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

people could realize that the worthy ancestors’ sect opposed such ideas .

The writer mentions that “course of the worthy descendants is interpreting such words and resting upon metaphoric meanings . Hence, for them, ‘hand’, ‘face’ and ‘settling’ suggest aptitude, person and predominance and seizure, respectively . Convictional proofs on Allah’s being not a corporal, were provided . Besides, God says, (Nothing is like the likeness of Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing) proves so . As a matter of fact, both courses are accurate and authentically related and recorded in reference books of master scholars . ” I say that these statements are not quite true . Not both courses are accurate . Course of the worthy ancestors is the only accurate and the obligatorily pursued, since it represents ensuing the divine Book and the Prophet’s traditions, and acceding to attitudes of the Prophet’s companions, their followers and their followers . By proving attributes of perfection, this course promotes Allah, the Praised the Exalted, against attributes of imperfection and non­organic, incomplete and privative substances . This is the truth, indeed . The interpretation, on the other hand, is adopted by the worthy descendant theologists . It is opposite to the right since it is arbitration of the imperfect intellects and capricious representation of Allah’s words . By adopting this, depriving Allah, the Glorified the Elevated, of attributes of perfection is engaged . Thus, interpreters escaped from anthropomorphism to fall in denudation .

Concisely, course of the worthy ancestors is the only right that is

bindingly followed and ensued . The other sect of interpreting attributes of Allah, the Glorified the Elevated, is wrong and contradictory to Allah’s Book and the Prophet’s traditions and the worthy ancestors of the nation .

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

Bin Baz’s Al­Fetawi, part 2 page 105 :

From : Abdul­Azeez Bin Abdillah Bin Baz .

To : Mohammed Bin Ahmed Sindi, the esquire .

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

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

2 . Your saying, “While I was reviewing Sa’d Sadiq’s Sira’un Beinel Haqqi Wel­Batil, …these Verses and hadiths were the argumentative evidences on God’s ­material­ Exaltation . If I were able to realize what the author and his likes should gain from publicizing such beliefs that, in most cases, call forth seditious matters, disorder and disunity… Ordinary people would heed this book and believe that Allah is existent in the heavens… Manifestly, I have quoted words of Ar­Razi, Al­Qurtubi and As­Sawi . ”

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

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

These perfect and invariable meanings were used for exhibiting attributes of the Lord whose resemblant is nonexistent . Discussion of this mater needs further debate . God willing, we intend to do so soon after arrival in Al­Madina . Besides, we intend to show you erroneous points in your book . At any rate, we advise you of reflecting upon the Holy Quran and believing that whatsoever indicated by the Quran, with regard to the divine attributes as well as the other subjects, is accurate and fitting Allah, the Praised . It is illicit to interpret, discount and commend the divine attributes . All these are acts of the heretic . Ahlus­Sunna do neither interpret, discount nor do they commend the Verses and hadiths appertained to the divine attributes . They believe that

all whatsoever indicated by meanings is a consistent right fitting Allah, the Praised, in a form quite different from any of His creatures . Allah, the Praised, says, (Say : He, Allah, is One . Allah is He on Whom all depend . He begets not, nor is He begotten . And none is like Him . 112) (Nothing like His likeness; and He is the Hearing the Seeing . ) Hereby, God denied being like His creatures and confirmed hearing and sight to Himself in a fitting way . The same is said about the rest of the divine attributes .

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

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

except His face . )

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

meaning, the known settling is the elevation . ­ It way is unexplored… Take this man out . He is heretic,” ordered Malik .

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

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

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

As much as I think, Ahmed indicated miscomprehending the Verses and commending them to Allah exclusively . This trend is followed by the descendants . This is indeed the very denudation that leads to denying the Praised and Exalted Creator . I am highly touchy to Sheikul­Islam Ibn Teimiya’s saying, “Anthropomorphists worship a pagan while Tatilites worship nothingness . ” The deviant heretics, especially in this country, claim that Allah is neither over, beneath, to

the right, to the left, in nor out of this world . These are descriptions of nonexistent things . What should be the answer of any ordinary man if he is asked to provide a definition for nonexistence ? Certainly he will answer : Nonexistence is nothingness . If he is also asked whether this nothingness is in or out this cosmos, the answer will be : This is incorrect, nothingness is neither in nor out of the cosmos . From this cause Ibn Teimiya said that Tatilites worship nonexistence .

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

Anyhow, the commenders committed a single intellectual terrorism,

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

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

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

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

1 . At­Thehbi’s Siyeru A’lamin­Nubela, part 8 page 100 :

Jafar Bin Abdillah : A man asked Malik, “O Abu Abdillah! How was the Lord’s settling mentioned in His saying, (The beneficent settled on the Throne) ? ” Malik had never been in such embarrassing moments . He nodded the head down and stroke the cane in his hand to the

ground, and became sweaty . After a while, he raised the head, threw the cane and stated, “It is impracticable to ask ‘how’ about Allah . His settling is not inconceivable . Believing in so is obligatory . Asking about so is a heresy . I think you are a heretic . Take this man out . ” Hence, he dismissed the asker .

According to Salama Bin Shabib’s narration, Malik stated, “I am afraid you are an aberrant . ”

2 . Abur­Rabi Ar­Rashidini :

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

I did not hear it from Malik directly . ”

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

6 . Eyad, the judge :

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

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

It is noticeable that there is no single narrative support Wahabists’ claim of Malik’s adopting for resting upon the extrinsic meanings of texts . Actually, these narrations refer to the opposite . In the first narration, Malik denied the general ‘how’ ascribed to Allah, the Exalted . He did not negate the way of God’s settling . He says, “‘It is impracticable to ask ‘How’ about Allah . His settling is not inconceivable . ” This means that settling for the Lord is originally out of a

method or a way . It is not a material settling the way of which is not known, as Wahabists claim . Malik’s ‘not inconceivable’ means that it is decisively provable to Allah, the Exalted, by Quranic texts . Where is, then, the evidence on their claims of material settling ?

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

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

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

Malik’s expression in the sixth narration, “His settling

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

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

Al­Mudawwanatul­Kubra, part 6 page 465 :

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

The same is recorded in Asharani’s At­Tabaqat .

Like the earliest, Malik’s answer in this narration commences with denial of the Lord’s material settling they believe in . How was it, then, possible for them to claim that, by saying, “Settling is not unfamiliar“, Malik intended at the Lord’s material settling on the Throne .

Exalted be Allah against so!

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

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

was a governmental official ­for the Umayids, about whom Malik said ‘those’­ whose mission has been publicizing narratives of corporeality falsely cited by Ka’bul­Ahbar and other Jews for broadcasting in the Islamic nation . It is also an adequate evidence on the fact that since the first Hijri century, the Umayid rulers adopted the Israelite fables and intrigued them in the Prophet’s traditions and designated officials, whether scholastic or not, for this mission . Furthermore, Malik’s previous narrative is acceptably sufficient for Malikites, as well as every decent researchist, to cease regarding all those Jewish and Umayid false narratives of anthropomorphism and corporeity .

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

As a commentary on Malik’s previous attitude, At­Thehbi says :

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

For At­Thehbi, it is Malik’s duty to correspond Al­Bukhari . While Malik was the official general juriscounsult of the whole Islamic state, Al­Bukhari was still in the flank of his tritavus or tritavi­pater . Is it then forbidden for Malik to deny and defy Al­Bukhari in

matter of regarding authenticity or falsity of prophetic texts ? In fact, Al­Bukhari should have neglected hadiths Malik had charged of falsity and Umayid­made!

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

At­Thehbi’s Tarikhul­Islam, part 32 page 62 :

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

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

and your progeny, as the formal greeting,’ added the Lord . Adam went and addressed, ‘Peace be upon you . ’ ‘Peace and God’s mercy be upon you,’ they replied . Hence, everyone should be of sixty yards long before they enter the Paradise . From Adam and on, creatures have been reduced in length . ” Ahmed, Al­Bukhari and Muslim record this hadith . It is an authentic hadith with a familiar context . Two meanings are cited for this hadith . First, Allah did not create Adam tiny like babies, and gradually, he attained the sixty yard length . Adam had his final look, which is sixty yards long, from the first moment of his life . Second, ‘his’ in ‘his look’ is belonged to Allah . This fact is evidenced by another authentic hadith saying, “Adam was created on the look of the Beneficent God . ” This, however, does not refer to anthropomorphism, since Allah opted for names and attributes of His creatures without referring to anthropomorphism . The same is said about the look involved in the hadith . In other words, ascribing the look to Allah does not necessarily lead to ruling of anthropomorphism, since union in name and in total meaning does not abide anthropomorphism of each, for God’s saying, (Nothing like the likeness of Him, and he is the Hearing, the Seeing . )

Bin Baz’s previous verdict leads directly to assuring that Adam was created on the look of Allah, and Allah enjoys the same look of

Adam . He also claims this is in no means regarded as anthropomorphism!!

Anyone can benefit this verdict by claiming that one has the same look of Adam, and Adam has the same look of one; yet, they do not look like each other!! Furthermore, a criminal can be saved by the same verdict . It is possible to claim that the picture was the same of that criminal, but it does not look like him!!

The principal problem of Wahabists is that they have to contort meanings of Arabic idioms . They are confined between two matters; either to contort meanings of Arabic terminology, or to deform their sect totally . What a miserable sect is that which shall be deformed if meanings are correct, and shall be stabilized if meanings are contorted!

the real meaning of ‘advancing’ mentioned in the hadith involved . He decides the material trotting of Allah, the Exalted .

that Allah has a material leg such as that of any of Wahabists’ scholars! Exalted be Allah against what they are imputing .

Bin Baz’s Al­Fetawi, part 5 page 371 :

Q . What is the genuine exegesis of God’s saying, (On that day, [a leg shall be revealed] and they shall be called upon to make obeisance, but they shall not be able . ) ?

A . The Prophet (peace be upon him) explained that the Verse alludes to the coming of the Lord on Resurrection Day, when He shows His leg to His believing servant so that they shall recognize and follow him .

Allah ?

Pupil : We recognize Him by His blistered foot, sir!

This is a model of those innocent pupils . He was taught that on Resurrection Day, the believers will not recognize their Lord before He shall show them His leg . He was also taught that hell will not be stuffed before Allah, the Magnificent the Glorious, shall fix His foot in . This means that hell shall be certainly blistering the Lord’s foot . Hence, the leg He will show to the believers shall be blistered!!

In such ways, those people have ruined God’s nature, of promoting the Lord against materiality, in which Allah has made sons of Muslims . Instead, they nourish them with God’s corporeity . This is actually pathetic!

AIR HAS BEEN EITHER BEFORE OR WITH THEIR GOD

Ibn Teimiya’s Majmou’etur­Resa’il, volume 2 part 4 page 95 :

Abu Ruzein Al­Aqili’s Narrative :

“O God’s messenger! Where had our Lord been before He created His creatures ? ”, asked Abu Ruzein . “He had been in gloom and encompassed by air . ”, answered the Prophet .

On this account, Ibn Teimiya and his followers believe that Allah, the Exalted, is bound from the above, too . The earth and air is under the Lord, and only air is over Him . This also indicates that air is existent either before or with Allah, the Exalted .

the previous, Allah’s corporeality shall be encircling His creatures from every side, not only from the above .

Ibn Teimiya’s Majmou’etur­Resa’il, volume 2 part 4 page 112 :

Sheikul­Islam Taqiyuddin Ahmed Bin Teimiya was asked whether the Throne is globular or not . If it is globular and Allah is encircling ­everything­ behind it, what is, then, the use of directing upward exclusively during supplication and worship ?

Three answers are cited for the forecited question :

first, it is not unacceptable to aver that there is no single reliable intellectual or doctrinal evidence on the Throne’s being globular and one of the spherical planets . Pursuant to conjecture, some stated that the Throne is the ninth planet since they believe in absolute or naturalistical nothingness of what is beyond that ninth planet . Some cited the following hadith as their evidence on the Throne’s being domal :

Jubeir Bin Mohammed Bin Jubeir Bin Mutim : His father : His father :

“O Apostle of Allah! Souls have striven, children starved and wealths lost . Seek your Lord’s watering us with rainfall . We do seek Allah’s intercession to you and your intercession to Allah,” a Bedouin orated . The Prophet (peace be upon him) went on uttering ‘praised be Allah’ severally that the attendants were bewildered . Then, he added, “Woe is you! Do you realize Allah ? His divine concern is greater than anyone’s interceding in His affairs . He is aloft His heavens on His Throne . A dome covers His throne…”

317 verdict 7351 :

Q3 . What should I reply those who ask about the place of Allah ?

A . You should answer that He is above His Throne . He, the Exalted, says, (The Beneficent settled on the Throne . )

It is necessary to clarify that the asker, in the previous question, asks about the material circumstance that encloses that material entity . Accordingly, that material entity should inexorably be confined in that space exclusively, and origin of that entity should be related with its existence in that circumstance . At any rate, the conclusion is that that material entity had no existence before being confined in that circumstance .

The juriscounsult should have rejected the form of the question originally, and informed the asker that it is impracticable to cite such questions about Allah, the Exalted . The juriscounsult, however, delineated his god as a material mass existent on the Throne . This requires declaring that the Throne, as Ibn Teimiya avers, was existent before Allah, the Exalted, or enjoyed his same eternity . He maintained that the Throne is consummatory and mendable!!

golden marks on His face .

Master of Wahabism, in the last of his At­Tawhid, decided authenticity of the narrative that ibexes are carrying the Throne of Allah, the Exalted . He ascribed the following fable to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) . “How do you surmise the distant from the heavens to you ? ”, asked the Prophet . “Well, we cannot guess,” answered the attendants . “The distance between the heavens and you, either seventy one, two or three years ­walking­ . Every next heavens is of the same distance, till the seventh above which there is an ocean . The distance between the bottom and the peak of that ocean is the same previously cited . Above that ocean, there are eight ibex, the distance from their cloven hooves and knees is the same distance between each two heavens . The distance between the bottom and the top of the Throne, which is fixed on backs of these ibex, is the same between each two heavens . Allah, the Blessed the Exalted, is above all those . ”, asserted the Prophet .

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

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

In an independent well remarkable essay titled ‘Legend of Ibexes’, Al­Kawthari, in his Al­Maqalat, page 308, clarifies falsification of

that narrative . Abdullah Bin As­Siddiq Al­Ghemari, in his Fi Sabilit­Tawfiq, displays nullity of wording of that narrative . He says, “I have already proved nullity of narrative of ibexes, by providing evidences on its doubtful documentation and refutable contents . ”

As long as they admit legend of ibexes carrying the Throne, Wahabists may admit legends of the other groups of animals adopted from the Jew corporalists and claimed, by the Muslim corporalists, of bearing the Throne .

Ad­Dimiri’s Hayatul Hayawanil Kubra, part 2 page 428 :

Orwa Bin Az­Zubeir (God pleas him) : Bearers of the Throne are four . One is having the look of a human, a bull, an eagle and a lion respectively .

Al­Jahiz’s Kitabul Hayawan, part 6 page 221 :

…This is proved by the Prophet’s giving credence to Umaya Bin Abis­Selt’s verse, “A man and a bull are under His right foot, and an eagle is under the other, and a lion is watching . ”

In the margin, it is written, “In Al­Isaba Fi Tamyizis­Sahaba, page 549, Ibn Abbas : The Prophet (peace be upon him), after listening to the previous verse, commented, “He has said the truth . These are the descriptions of bearers of the Throne . ”

In Al­Aqdul­Farid : Ibn Abbas : Before the Prophet (peace be upon him) I recited Umaya Bin Abis­Selt’s verses about bearers of the Throne . He smiled, expressing his believing in so . ”

At­Tabari’s Book of Tafseer, part 25 page 6 :

… Ka’b answered, “Our Lord is on the handsome Throne, crossing his

legs . The distance between this earth and the other is five hundred years ­walking­ . The same distance is between the earth and the following . Recite God’s saying, (The heavens may almost be rent thereat . 19 : 90) . ”

Ka’b, then, states that the heavens may almost be rent due to the Lord’s heavy weight, as well as the heavy weight of the animals bearing His Throne! It is not extraordinary for that bearer of Jewish culture and tendency, no matter he declares being Muslim or not, to cite such fables . The most extraordinary thing is Wahabists’ adopting such fables while they are claiming being the only Muslims!!

We can do nothing for stopping them against adopting their monotheism from Ka’bul­Ahbar, and shunning monotheism of their Prophet’s household .

Some of them read zealously Ka’b and his fellows’ narratives ascribed to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) or to Talmud and Jew tale­tellers; therefore, they encounter menacing troubles . On the other hand, they disgust looking at the Prophet’s household narratives, even those imputed to their grandfather, Mohammed (peace be upon him and his family) . In the same time, they decide authenticity of the Prophet’s will of adhering to the two weighty things; Allah’s Book and the Prophet’s household . Had they read traditions of the Prophet’s household, they would have certainly found answers of their menacing troubles .

Al­Kuleini’s Al­Kafi, part 1 page 93 :

Ali Bin Ibrahim : His father : Al­Hassan Bin Ali : Al­Yaqubi : some acquaintances

: Abdul­Ala (Al Sam’s slave) : Abu Abdillah (peace be upon him) related :

“O God’s messenger! I came for asking you about your Lord . You should answer me truly, otherwise I will return,” a Jew named Sabhat addressed at the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) .

The Prophet : Ask whatever you wish .

The Jew : Where is your Lord ?

The Prophet : He is in every space, and not in any specific space .

The Jew : How is He ?

The Prophet : How should I refer a condition to my Lord Who created conditions . It is impracticable to attribute created things to Allah .

The Jew : Then, how should your prophecy be proved ?

Immediately, everything, including rocks, around that Jew were made to articulate in an eloquent Arabic . “O Sabhat! This is the Apostle of Allah . ” “I have never seen such a thing!”, said the Jew surprisingly, “I do declare there is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is the apostle of Allah . ”

Nahjul­Belagha, part 2 page 116 sermon 186 :

(184)] Sermons of Nahjul­Belagha are literally quoted from Imam Ali, Nahjul Balagha, Ansariyan Publications . [

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

. Everything that is known through itself has been created, and everything that exists by virtue of other things is the effect (of a cause) . He works but not with the thinking . He is rich but not by acquisition . Time does not keep company with Him, and implements do not help Him . His Being precedes times . His Existence precedes nonexistence and His eternity precedes beginning . By His creating the senses it is known that He has no senses . By the contradictory, and by similarity between things it is known that there is nothing similar to Him . He has made light that contradictory of darkness, brightness that of gloom, dryness that of moisture and heat that of cold . He produces affection among inimical things . He fuses together diverse things, nears remote things and separates things which are joined together . He is not confined by limits, nor counted by numbers . Material parts can surround things of their own kind, and organs can point out to things similar to themselves . The word ‘munzu’ (since) disproves their eternity, the word ‘Qad’ (that denotes nearness of time of occurrence), disproves their being from ever and the words ‘Lau la’ (if it were not), keep them remote from perfection . Through them the Creator manifests Himself to inelegance, and through them He is prevented from the sight of eyes . Stillness and motion do not occur in Him . And how can that thing occur in Him which

He has Himself made to occur, and how can a thing revert to Him which He first created and how can a thing appear in Him which He brought to appearance first . If it be not so His self would become subject to diversity, His Being would become divisible (into parts) and His reality would be prevented from being deemed Eternal . If there was front for Him there would be rear also for Him . He would need re couping only if shortage could befall Him . In that case signs of the created would appear in Him, and He would become a sign (leading to other objects) instead of the signs leading to Him . The fact that he cannot have qualities of those created necessitates that He should not be affected by things which affect others . He that who does not change . The process of setting does not behoove him . He has not begotten any one lest He be regarded to have been born . He has not been begotten otherwise He would be contained within limits . He is too High to have sons . He is too purified to contact women . Imagination cannot reach Him so as to assign Him quantity . Understanding cannot think of Him so as to give him shape . Senses do not perceive Him so as to feel Him . Hands cannot touch Him so as to rub against Him . He does not change into any condition . He

does not pass from one state to another . Nights and days do not turn Him old . Light and darkness do not alter Him . It cannot be said that He has a limit or extremity, nor end nor termination; nor do things control Him so as to raise Him or lower Him, nor does anything carry Him so as to bend Him or keep Him erect . He is not inside the things nor outside them . He conveys news but not with tongue or vocal . He listens but not with the holes of the ears or the organs of hearing . He says but does not utter . He remembers but does not memorize . He determines but not by exercising His mind . He loves and approves without any weakness . He hates and feels angry without any painstaking . When he intends creating someone He says, “Be” and there he is, but not through voice that strikes (ears) call that is heard . His speech is an act of His creation . His like never existed before this . If it had been eternal, it would have been the second god . It cannot be said that He came into being after He has not been in existence because in that case the attributes of the created things would be assigned to Him, and He would have no distinction over them . Thus, the Creator and the created would become equal and the initiator and the initiated would be

on the same level . He created the (whole) creation without any example made by someone else and He did not secure the assistance of any one out of His creation for creating it . He created the earth and suspended it without being busy, retained it without support, made it stand without legs, raised it without pillars, protected it against bends and curves and defended it against crumbling . He fixed mountains on it like stumps, solidified its rocks, flowed its streams and opened wide its valleys . Whatever He made did not suffer from any flaw, and whatever He strengthened did not show any weakness . He manifests Himself over the earth with His authority and greatness . He is aware of its inside through His knowledge and understanding . He overways everything from the earth by virtue of His sublimity and dignity . Nothing from the earth that He may ask for, defies Him, nor does it oppose Him so as to overpower Him . No swift footed creature can run away from Him so as to surpass Him . He is not needy towards any propertied person so that he may feed him . All the things bow to Him and are humble before His Greatness . They cannot flee away from His authority to someone else in order to escape His benefit or His harm . There is no parallel for Him who may match Him and no one like Him so as to equal Him . He would destroy

the earth after its existence, till all that exists on it would become nonexistent . But the extinction of the world after its creation is not stranger than its first formation and invention…

is Malik’s trend . Ibn Daqiq Al­Abd followed this trend lately .

Al­Beihaqi : The most secure trend is that of believing without seeking conditions, and suspending the intended meanings saving those communicated by authentic narrators . They agreed upon nonobligation of resting upon the identified interpretation . Only then, commendation ­to Allah­ becomes safer…

Ibnul­Arabi : It is said that the heretics refute such texts while the worthy ancestors passed them as they are . A third group ruled of finding interpretation for them . The latter, however, is the most suitable for me . God’s sayings are referred to His deeds, not Essence . It is also an indication to the angel who descends with His orders and instructions . Like corporealities, descending can be through mental meanings . Providing the material meaning is adopted, it will be alluded to the angel conveyed . Supposing the mental is adopted, that is called a descending to a lower rank . It is also an accurate style of Arabic .

Ibnul­Arabi intends to say that there are two sorts of interpretation . First, the extrinsic meaning that is descending of God’s affair or angels . Second, metaphoric meaning that is the Lord’s kindness to His supplicators and responding them .

Abu Bakr Bin Fawrak records some scholars utter the text in a way inciting that the angels, not the Lord, are concerned . As an evidence on the forecited reciting, is An­Nisai’s narrative ascribed to Al­Aghar, Abu Hureira and Abu Sa’eed . The hadith, then, should be in this

form, “Allah respites till midnight . After that, He orders a declarant to announce if there is a supplicator so that he will be responded…” Othman Bin Abil­Aas relates it in the following form, “Is there a supplicator so that he will be responded ? ”

Al­Qurtubi : Only in this way, this problem should be solved . It is also not defeated by Refa’a Al­Juheni’s narrative, “Allah descends to the lowest heavens and declares that His servants should not ask but Him . ”, since this does not deny that interpretation .

Al­Beidhawi : As long as it is certified, by decisive proofs, that Allah is promoted against having corporeity or being restricted in a definite space, it is impracticable for Him to descend which hints at moveableness to a lower point . Illumination of His mercy is intended . In other words, He shifts from attribute of glorification, which requires ire and reprisal, into attribute of benevolence, which requires lenience and compassion .

Hanbalite corporalists, Ibnul­Jawzi states on page 99 :

… By their books, they offended against their sect . They slipped to level of ordinary people when they rested upon extrinsic meanings of aspect of the divine attributes texts…

Within the words of Sheik Mohammed Abi Zuhra, cited later on, Ibnul­Jawzi’s words shall be provided .

Ibnul­Jawzi rebutes corporalists’ exegeses of the allegorical Verses . He criticizes sixty false and mistranslated texts . They are bases on which Wahabists and their forefathers constructed their sect .

space . He is not influenced by a time or an age . It is impracticable to ask or say ‘where’ about Him . He is seeable not by means of meeting or any ordinary means . He was when there was no space . He made the cosmos and arranged the time . Now, He is as He was .

Page 43 :

Monotheists agreed upon denial of the Lord’s occupying a locality . A faction, like Ibn Teimiya, is excluded .

Page 53­4 :

Hadith of amulet, Ibn Teimiya cites as an evidence on Allah’s existing in a definite point, seems to be excerpted from texts of the Torah or the Bible . It is, “Our Lord, Allah, sanctified be Thy Name . Thy affair in the heavens is like Thy affair on the earth . Thy bestowal is in the heavens . ” From the hadith, “… The Throne is above all of that, and Allah is above all of that . ”, Ibn Teimiya, the dissident, understands that Allah is materially above the Throne .

Page 83 :

… Promoting Allah against having a locality is evidenced by reports and traditions and sayings of scholars… Nullity of Ibn Teimiya’s deceitful ideas . This nullity is proved by Quranic and prophetic texts…

As­Sibki’s Tabaqatus­Shafiiya, part 9 page 36 :

Heretics misallege that they are following course of the worthy ancestors, which is monotheism… How is it reasonable to believe that the worthy ancestors adopted faiths of anthropomorphism, and keep still before emergence of origins of heresy ? God says, (And

do not mix up the truth with the falsehood . )

the Exalted, is definitely promoted against so . It is correct to negate possible things from Him, too . A created corporeality is not compound of such things . ”

This statement is filled up with confusion . The writer denies existence of necessary or possible corporealities according to the form he refers to . It seems he intends at negating corporeality that is a principal in his belief in Allah, the Exalted . In order to avoid being accused of anthropomorphizing the Creator, the writer negates corporeality from creatures . Indisputably, if a corporeality is not compound of material and form, it is most surely compound of atoms . Stupidity, however, is boundless . It is not strange that such an individual achieves such a record in hideous confusion . He should have mentioned things from which corporealities are compound . I do not see him too tedious to state that corporealities are composite from infinite things . The total scholars deny such a claim . Modern sciences and decisive evidences proved nullity of such an ill claim . He, then, added, “If corporealities that are described, capable of seeing, speaking, addressing, hearing, observing, pleasing and being irate, these are proved for the Lord, the Exalted . Such attributes are ascribed to Him . We do not negate so even if you dedicate such attributes to corporealities…”

As much as we know, we cannot name anyone defining corporeality as the thing speaking, addressing, hearing, seeing, pleasing and being irate . These are specifications of lively sane

beings . We admit that corporealities can see through eyes, but ascribing corporeality to Allah, the Exalted, in this very sense is degrading Him to levels of His creatures in a way denying His godhood . Allah’s being a corporeality, in this sense, is a defect against which Allah is, obligatorily, highly promoted . Intellectually, Allah’s being a corporeality is denied since scientists of optics proved that vision occurs when light rays fall on surface of the visible object, and becomes thrown back to the eye . Accordingly, visible things necessarily have surfaces . This requires partitioning of that surfaced thing . The idea, as a whole, nullifies godhead of Allah, since corporeality, in this sense, is identical to that the writer has previously negated from Allah, the Exalted, and possible beings . Reportedly, denial of Allah’s being a corporeality is proved by God’s saying, (Visions comprehend Him not, and He comprehends all visions;) . This Verse is not contradictory to the other, (Some faces on that day shall be bright . Looking at [waiting for] their Lord . ) Condition of Seeing God, the Exalted, on Resurrection Day is unfamiliar . This is the most acceptable faith . It is possible that vision, on Resurrection Day, shall be by a sort of revealing and divine manifestation, that is in no need for an organ of vision . God’s selecting the word ‘faces’ instead of ‘eyes’ proves that that vision shall be away from processes of material organs of visions . Likewise, the word ‘bright’

expresses attaining perfect blissfulness for that divine revealing .

The writer adds, “If corporealities that are materially pointed to, are intended, the most cognizant creature did actually refer to Allah by raising his finger upward, towards the heavens…”

Intellectual intuition rules that every entity materially indicated, should be occupying a definite locality and space, and should be seeable . All these are impracticable for Allah, the Exalted . Providing Allah was in a definite space or locality, anteriority of that space or locality should be necessarily decided . Evidences on Allah’s being the only Anterior, have been decisively cited . He would have been lacking the space He occupies had He been in a definite point . This contradicts necessity of God’s Being . Likewise, had He been in a certain space, He would have been there either for a considerable period or permanently . Regarding the earlier, it is null since times are equal to each other and ascribing Him to definite times should be also equal . Dedicating definite times to Him, then, should be a sort of giving a casting vote to improbabilities . This is in case nonexistence of an extrinsic dedicating matter is concerned . If there is an extrinsic dedicating matter, the Lord’s occupying a certain space should be requiring an accessory matter . Regarding the latter, if nullity of God’s being occupying the entire times, in the same time, is not proved, it requires involvement of matters occupying spaces in points engaged by corporealities . Naturally, this is impossible .

Moreover, it was permissible to point at the Lord materially, it should be possible to point to him from every point on the earth . As the earth is globular, it would be necessary that Allah, the Exalted, was encircling it totally . Lest, it is improper to point to Him with material indicators and , consequentially, He should not be settling on His Throne, as Wahabists claim . If His Throne encompassed the seven heavens, it would be imperative for Him to decrease His corporeality when He descends to the lowest heavens and increase it during ascending . If so, He should be variable . Allah be highly promoted against sayings of the ignorant . Reported sayings adhered by Wahabists as evidences on their claims of validity of the material pointing to the Lord, are conjectural phenomena that are not contradicting ascertained matters . Such sayings should be interpreted in two ways . First, general interpretation, and commending details to Allah . This opinion is adopted by majority of the worthy ancestors . Second, opting for detailed interpretation . Majority of scholars adopted this trend .

Reports appertained to pointing to the heavens as an indication to the Lord, are tokens of His creating the heavens, or the heavens, that contain such tremendous worlds that our earth is but one of their tiny fragments, are one of appearances of His divine competence . Ascending to the Lord can be interpreted into seeking a place allocated for worshipping Him . At any rate, there are several

sorts of interpretation .

Az­Zahawi’s Al­Fajrus Sadiq, page 31 :

Wahabism and discarding intelligence :

Because intellectuality and sound reasoning contradict their faiths completely, Wahabists had to cast mentality off and adhere to extrinsic aspects of reports, even if impracticability, tyranny and deviation are the effects . Due to such an adherence to extrinsic aspects of Verses, they believe that Allah was physically settling on His Throne and lying over it . They also believed that He could have a face and two hands and could perform material descending to the lowest heavens and returning to His place . They believed that He could be pointed to . Allah be highly exalted against sayings of the wrong .

Wahabists, who decided visitators of the Prophet’s tomb as pagans, are pagans indeed . They worship a god having a corporeality of an animal, sitting on a material throne, descending to a lower grade, ascending and having physical face, hand, leg and fingers . The Right God is promoted against physical matters .

If they are disputed that intellectual proofs verify that ascribing physical matters to the Lord does indeed contradict His godhead, they will answer that such disgraced mentality cannot occupy any space in field of divinity which is in a rank exceeding mentality of mankind . Hence, they form no difference from trinitarianists who claim recognizing trinity is a matter exceeding mentalities of mankind so largely that it is illicit to think about .

It is indisputably rational that reports should be interpreted when contradicting mentality, since it is impossible to

prove both of them because the inadmissible concurrence of antinomous matters will befall . In the same way, it is impossible to deny both of them because nullity of both antinomous matters will befall . Hence, there is one way only, which is admitting one and denying the other . Shunning mentality and opting for reports is null, since it is unreasoning to depend on secondary matters for invalidating principals .

Explicating this matter, we are to say that reported tidings should be certified by mental devises . Validity of reporting affairs such as existence of an absolute creator and recognition of divine prophecy and the like, can be credited exclusively by mentality, which is principal and reliable evidence on reported things . Supporting reported matters are preceded to mental, both will be invalidated since when principals are null, branches are null sequentially . Validity of reporting is a branch of mental judgment which is deniable and voidable . Hence, preferring reported matters to mental results is nullity of the two . Inconsistency, which leads to nullity, is the effect of correcting a branch by invalidating the principal . Pursuant to the previous, it is necessary to prefer mental proofs to reported .

Relying upon the above, obligation of finding suitable interpretation to texts the extrinsic meaning of their aspects contradicts intellectuality, is clearly evident . Such texts should be interpreted in two ways . First, general interpretation, and commending details to Allah . This is the opinion adopted by majority of the worthy ancestors . Second,

opting for detailed interpretation . Majority of scholars adopted this trend . God’s settling on the Throne stands for predominance on cosmos . The Arabic tongue confirms such an interpretation . Likewise, God’s coming, mentioned in the Verse, (And your Lord comes and the angels in ranks . 89 : 22), stands for approaching of God’s affair . Regarding His saying, (To Him do ascend the good words), this means that Allah admits the good wording . Words, however, are incapable of ascending by themselves . Coming mentioned in God’s saying, (They do not wait aught but that Allah should come to them in the shadows of the clouds along with the angels . 2 : 210), implies coming of His anguish . God’s saying, (Then he drew near, then he bowed, so he was the measure of two bows or closer still), indicates that the Apostle becomes near to his Lord owing to his extraordinary compliance with Him . The measure indicated is a sort of depicting the mental things by visions of materiality . The Prophet’s statement, “Allah, the Exalted, descends to the lowest heavens every night,…” refers to descending of His mercy . Night, however, is the time usually consecrated to loneliness, adoration and worshipping . Alike interpretations are cited for the like texts .

forth in the fourth Hijri century . They were Hanbalites . They claimed their beliefs are accredited to Ahmed Bin Hanbal who had enlivened and fought for the sake of the worthy ancestors’ beliefs . In the seventh Hijri century, they re came forth . Sheikul­Islam Ibn Teimiya was extremous in advocating those beliefs . As a matter of fact, he added new matters, originated due to ideologies of his time, to the sect . In the twelfth Hijri century, Mohammed Bin Abdil­Wahab enlivened these beliefs in the Arab Peninsula . Wahabists, as well as some Muslims, have been fanatically soliciting to these beliefs . Hence, it is necessary to provide these beliefs .

Those Hanbalites discussed affairs of monotheism and connected it to shrines of the pious . They also controverted Quranic texts appertained to interpretation and anthropomorphism . This was first originated in the fourth Hijri century, and ascribed to Ahmed Bin Hanbal . However, some virtuous Hanbalite scholars argued their ascribing the beliefs to Ahmed Bin Hanbal .

Fatal combats against Asharites were occasionally broken out by those Salafites . Litigious dispute about whose party had been being the real followers of the worthy ancestors, was always arisen… The following is a scrutinizing critique to beliefs of the Salafites who ascribed this name to themselves . However, we are to discuss whether there is a relation between name and reality of its bearers .

Mohammed Abu Zuhra’s Tarikhul Methahibil Islamiya, part 1 page 232 :

They recognize attributes and affair of God, the Praised, mentioned by

Quranic or prophetic texts . They recognize God’s liking, ire, rage, satisfaction, calling, wording and descending to people in shadows of clouds . They also recognize the Lord’s settling on the Throne, having a face and a hand, without any interpretation or non­extrinsic exegeses . Without attempting to finding a suitable interpretation or condition, Ibn Teimiya saw that the worthy ancestors recognize God’s having a hand and a face, and enjoying descending and ascending and the like affairs inferred from the extrinsic meanings of aspects of Quranic texts . He claimed that had been aiming at referring to the literal, not metaphorical, phenomena . He, nevertheless, claimed being neither corporalist, nor Tatilite . He states, “Sect of the worthy ancestors is between Tatilism ­depriving the Lord of the entire attributes for attaining denying His Existence­ and anthropomorphism . They do neither compare the Lord’s attributes to these of His creatures, nor compare His Essence to His creatures’ entities . In the same time, they do not negate attributes and affairs the Lord has used for Himself or the Prophet has used through describing his Lord . They claim they opt for so in order that they would not deprive the Lord of His divine names and excellent attributes, alter words from their proper places and blaspheme God’s Names and Verses . As a matter of face, Tatilites and anthropomorphists are joining Tatilism to anthropomorphism .

Asserting the faith that Allah descends and occupies the top space and may be beneath, without a definite condition, Ibn Teimiya,

in his Al­Hamawiyatul Kubra Fi Majmu’etir Resailul Kubra, page 419, adds :

“There is no single letter, whether in Book of Allah, the Prophet’s traditions, the worthy ancestors’ statements, the Prophet’s companions’ words, the followers’ sayings or words the scholars who coincided in time of caprices and dispute, contradicts these faiths whether in meaning or in aspect . No single one from the forecited categories has been claiming Allah’s being not in the heavens, not on the Throne, not in everywhere, not for Him all spaces are equal, not being neither in nor out of this cosmos, not connected, not disconnected and not indicated by material signs . ”

On that account, Ibn Teimiya decides that course of the worthy ancestors is shunning interpretation and recognizing the literal extrinsic meanings of aspects of Quranic and prophetic texts referring to God’s being descending and ascending, and having a face and a hand and feeling affectionate and irate . Is this, by God, course of the worthy ancestors ?

As an answer, we should emphasize that in the fourth Hijri century, Hanbalites arouse the same claim . Scholars of that time argued them and proved that their beliefs would have been leading to anthropomorphism and corporalism . They could never deny so since even material indication, according to their faith, was applicable to Allah! The Hanbalite master jurisprudent and orator, Ibnul­Jawzi, undertook the mission of opposing these beliefs and asserted that course of the worthy ancestors should in no way be taking in these false principals . He also denied

accrediting that school to Ahmed .

He stated, “I could cognize some improper ideas rendered by some of our acquaintances regarding principals of Islam . They wrote a book in which they offended the sect . They were so lowly that they rested upon the material meanings of the divine attributes . As they perceived the text, ‘Allah created Adam on his look . ’, they recognized Allah’s having a ­definite­ look . They also accredited a face added to the Essence, a mouth, uvulas, dents, facial flash, hands, fingers, a palm, a little finger, a thumb, a chest, a thigh, legs and feet . Finally, they claim they had not been acquainted whether He had a head or not!! They rested upon the extrinsic meanings of aspects of the divine attributes and names texts . Heretically, they ascribed such false things to the divine attributes . They could cite no single proof neither mentally nor reportedly . They turned their faces against texts shunning the extrinsic meanings of aspects, and proving meanings inciting God’s necessary attributes . They also disregarded cancellation of the extrinsic meanings leading to attributes of contingency . They transcended limits to the degree that they overstepped attributes of Essence, in addition to attributes of acts . When they proved these meanings’ being attributes, they reject resting upon their interpretative linguistic meanings; such as ‘hand’ stands for grace and aptitude, ‘coming’ stands for forms of benevolence and compassion and ‘leg’ stands for incisiveness . On the contrary, they rested upon the familiar

extrinsic meanings . Extrinsic meanings imply the familiar descriptions of people . Extrinsic meanings of aspects are rested upon only when it is mentally possible . If not, metaphoric meanings should be adopted .

While their words evidently refer to anthropomorphism, they shunned and scorned confessing of it . They claim their being Ahlus­Sunna . A number of ordinary people ensued them . I did advise the heads and followers when I said, “O acquaintances! You are depending upon reports and traditions . While he was suffering lashes, Ahmed Bin Hanbal, the grand master, was shouting, ‘How should I say what was not said ? !’ Hence, I warn you against ascribing false things to his sect . Then, you claim resting upon the extrinsic meaning of aspects of texts . This means that the word ‘foot’ alludes to that organ . Maintaining that Allah settles by His Essence, hints at accrediting materiality to Him, the Praised . You ought not to disdain the devise of recognizing principal; intellectuality . By our minds, we recognized Allah, the Exalted, and decided His anteriority . None would have censured you had you been sufficed by reading the texts and keeping peace! The unacceptable matter is your resting upon the extrinsic meaning of aspects of texts . You should not add new things to the sect of that Salafite ­follower of the worthy ancestors­ man . ”

Ibnul­Jawzi, however, provided abundant explication and proofs on nullity of their beliefs and argumentation .

The judge Abu Yali, the famous Hanbalite jurisprudent, died

in 457, was one of the adopters of beliefs criticized and contradicted by Ibnul­Jawzi . His opinions were the basic reason beyond the harsh criticism and reproach addressed at that Hanbalite judge . A Hanbalite jurisprudent said, “Abu Yali contaminated Hanbalism in such a way that waters of the entire oceans cannot clear away . ” An alike statement is expressed by Ibnuz­Zaghawani, the Hanbalite, died in 527 . A Hanbalite scholars says, “Abu Yali’s statements of anthropomorphism are too bizarre to be understood by the exceptional intelligent . ”

Owing to the general denial, especially that declared by the master Hanbalites, these faction hid themselves during the fourth and fifth Hijri century, till Ibn Teimiya relived it so daringly and importunately .

It is important to mention that the claim of being followers of the worthy ancestors is problematic . Previously, Ibnul­Jawzi’s opinion respecting the subject has been forecited .

Linguistically, we should wonder whether expressions such as, (The hand of Allah is over their hands,) and (Everything is perishable except His face,), allude to material meanings, or they refer to other meanings fitting the Essence of Allah, the Exalted . It is quite true to interpret the hand of Allah into His might or grace, and His face into His Entity . Likewise, the Lord’s descending to the lowest heaven can be interpreted into intimacy of His judgment and approach to His servants . Language is so extensive to subsume such interpretations . Majority of theologists, jurisprudents and researchists opted for such interpretations . Indisputably, interpretation

is favored to opting for the extrinsic literal meanings of aspects of texts, and neglecting their conditions . They claim that Allah has a hand, but they neglect its trimming . Finally, they recognize that it is different from hands of contingent beings . Correspondingly, they declare there is an act of descending belonging to Allah, but they claim its being distinct from ours . Such claims are classified as committing to unknown substances purports and purposes of which are inconceivable . On the other hand, had such texts had been translated into familiar meanings admitted by language, we would have attained satisfactory results that lead to promoting the Lord against unbecoming affairs, and revealing any unreachable matters .

prosperous infallible teacher Ahmed Sheik Ali Badr’s Shamsul Haqiqeti Wed Diraya Firreddi Ela Ehlid Dhelaleti Wel Ghiwaya . The question is addressed at Sheikul­Islam Al­Bishri :

Q . What do you see about a scholar, reckoned with jurisprudents, who shows his belief in recognizing Allah’s ­material­ elevation ? Meanwhile, he claims following the worthy ancestors’ course . Few people followed him while majority of scholars deny his claims . I could hear from him personally, that the reason beyond his acceding to this sect is that he had read a statement ascribed to Ibn Teimiya, in a book written by an Indian scholar, regarding substantiating the Creator’s occupying a locality .

Moreover, this man believes in the in essence elevation of Allah, the Glorified . In other words, he believes that Allah is physically over the Throne, but in a way becoming Him . He also decides falsity of Abul­Barakat Ad­Dirdir’s saying, “­Allah be­ promoted against incarnation, occupancy, connection, disunion and ill­mindedness . ” He also decides Sheik Al­Liqai’s saying, “It is impractical to the Bearer of the divine attributes to be like this universe in having locality . ” Generally, he decides falsity of any scholar, disregarding his objective status, who may deny Allah’s having a locality . In addition to the forecited book, this scholar exhibits Al­Alusi’s Rouhul­Me’ani (Exegesis of the Holy Quran), as his evidence . Al­Alusi’s exegesis of God’s saying, (And He is the Supreme, above His servants . 6 : 18), is revealing such an indication into having a definite locality, but,

as a matter of fact, the exegesist expresses inaccuracy of this exegesis . He also cited Quranic Verses; such as (And He is the Supreme, above His servants . 6 : 61), (They fear their Lord above them . 16 : 50), (To Him do ascend the good words) and their likes, as other evidences . He also cites the deaf bondmaiden’s indication towards the heavens as a sign to Allah, when the Prophet’s asked her about the place of the Lord, as another evidence . He also refers to some books of Hijjetul­Islam Al­Ghezzali (God please him) as evidences on accuracy of his sect . Truly, Mohammed Murteda, at clarifying Al­Ghezzali’s Ihya’u Uloumiddin, hints at such points . He also mentions the hadith that the Prophet (peace be upon him) pointed to the heavens with his finger when he said, “O Allah! Be the witness . ”, in the Farewell pilgrimage . He also quotes the Karramites’ saying, “Denial of Allah’s being in one of the six directions is an assertion of His nonexistence” . As your excellency realizes, discussions about the Lord’s having locality is commonly familiar . Still, the decisive judgment in this topic is your excellency’s wording . God save you and support you as long as you are backers of Ahlus­Sunna sect .

A . To Sheikh Ahmed Ali Badr, the virtuous scholar and servant of honorable Islamic mastery in Bilsfoura :

On 22nd, of Moharram, 1325, I received your missive comprising questioning about the judgment should be issued on those who

substantiate Allah’s occupying a locality . Hence, we write the following answer . It is, however, sufficient for followers of the right and fair . God may reward you good on behalf of Muslims .

It is to notice, may God give you His support and lead you, as well as us, to paths of equity, that course of the saved party and unanimity of Sunnis is promoting Allah, the Exalted, against being likened to the contingent beings . They rule that the Lord is far away from specifications of contingency . Likewise, He is highly promoted against being occupying a locality and a space . This is evidenced by conclusive proofs . God’s being in a definite locality requires ruling of anteriority of that locality or space . Localities and spaces are part of this cosmos which is different from Allah, the Exalted . Ultimate credentials on contingency of all beings saving Allah, the Exalted, have been positively cited by both deniers and adopters of Allah’s occupying a locality . Since entities of occupying substances is impossibly existed unless there is a space comprising, while it is possible for spaces to exist without occupying substances, because of permissibility of vacuums, this will require probability of necessary beings and necessity of probable beings . Both are void . Supposing the Lord has a definite point to occupy, He, then, shall inevitably be an atom, since it is impracticable for Him to be an accident . Supposing so, He shall be either divisible or indivisible . Both

are void . Indivisible substances are the most diminutive . Allah is highly promoted against being a diminutive being . Divisible substances are compound corporealities . Complexity contradicts the intrinsic necessity . Compound substances are possible beings that lack influential cause . It is positively provable that Allah, the Exalted, is essential Aseity, Self­sufficient and Requisite by all beings . Allah be praised (Nothing like the likeness of Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing . )

Allah has disgraced some people who were deceived and mislead by the Satan . They ensued their caprices and adhered to unavailing things . This occurred only when they substantiated Allah’s occupying a locality . Allah be exaltedly promoted against such a thing . They agreed upon identifying that locality . They claimed Allah’s being occupying an elevated point . Soon afterward, they disagreed . Some believed that Allah is a corporeality touching the upper surface of the Throne . Jews and Karramites, whose atheism is indisputably decided, opted for so . Others substantiated the locality, but with promoting God against unbecoming matters . They ruled that God occupies the locality in a way different from corporealities’ occupation . Those are also deviant and lacking true faith . The legislator impermitted such a sort of accreditation to Allah . In effect, faith irreverence is uglier and more unacceptable than limb irreverence, especially for leaders and masters .

Besides many personal misbeliefs contradicting unanimity of Muslims and inadmitted by the current scholars who issued decisive scandalous verdicts that attained to

deciding atheism, Ahmed Bin Abdil­Halim Bin Abdis­Selam Bin Teimiya Al­Harrani Ad­Dimeshqi, the Hanbalite, one of scholars of the eighth Hijri century, adopted the misbelief of Allah’s occupying a locality . This man suffered miscellaneous sorts of humiliation and ignominy for such ill beliefs . Some of his partisans, however, aimed at supporting and defending him by releasing him from the accusals addressed . He accredited some statements to his master, clarifying their purports and people’s misunderstanding him . He also cited evident statements, said by his master, for refuting that accusal . He tried to prove that the man, for his honorable esteem and mastery, had not broken unanimity of Muslims .

Impotent illusory details, scholars adequately nullified, have been provided as evidences on the misbelief of Allah’s occupying a locality . They adhered to extrinsic meanings of aspects of Quranic and prophetic texts; such as God’s saying, (The Beneficent settled on the Throne), (To Him do ascend the good words;), (To Him ascend the angels and the Spirit; 70 : 4), (Are you secure of [that] in the heavens that He should not make the earth…), (He is the Supreme over His servants), the Prophet’s saying, “Our Lord descends to the lowest heavens” and the deaf bondmaiden’s indication towards the heavens as a sign to Allah, when the Prophet’s asked her about the place of the Lord . The Prophet certified her being a believing individual .

As an answer of such texts, we may say that conjectural extrinsic meanings of aspects do not injure the

persuasive decisive evidences referring to denial of Allah’s occupying a definite space or locality . Such texts should be interpreted and made becoming true meanings certified by indications and doctrinal texts . Interpretation may be of two sorts . First, general interpretation without identifying the intended meaning . This is the worthy ancestors’ course . Second, detailed interpretation by identifying the purports . This is the worthy descendants’ course .

the Prophet understood that she had intended to refer to the Creator of the heavens .

Relying upon decisive convictional evidences and inclining the conjectural, scholars could find suitable interpretative construction for the entire Quranic and prophetic texts regarding the topic involved .

It is so strange for a Muslim to shun the unanimous sayings of Muslims and their masters, and consent to deviation and heresy of the dissidents . Has such an individual not heard God’s saying, (And whoever acts hostilely to the Apostle after that guidance has become manifest to him, and follows other than the way of the believers, We will turn him to that to which he has himself turned and make him enter hell; and it is an evil resort . 4 : 115) I advise such individuals, who have been stained with such filthy things, to repent to Allah, the Exalted, and avoid ensuing steps of the Satan who enjoins obscenity and evil . I also warn them against being so obstinate that they would transgress in insisting on erroneous beliefs . The best correctness is returning to correctness . Indulging to excess in wrong is resulting in the most severest sort of torture . (Whomsoever Allah guides, he is the rightly guided one, and whomsoever he causes to err, you shall not find for him any friend to lead aright . 18 : 17)

We do implore our Lord to guide us all to the right path . On Him we do hold fast, and He is the best reliable .

God’s peace and blessings be upon Mohammed, our master, and his companions, entirely, and their virtuous followers to Day of Judgment .

The needy to God’s mercy;

Salim Al­Bishri,

servant of scholarship and Malikite mastery in Al­Azhar .

Al­Qazai comments :

Sheik Al­Bishri’s saying, “for his honorable esteem and mastery”, reveals his good impression toward plea provided by that disciple .

It is indisputable, for deep viewers in books of Ibn Teimiya and Ibnul­Qeyim, to ascertain that they believe in corporalism, anthropomorphism and Allah’s occupancy . Those two men release themselves from clinging to the terms and claim adopting for promoting the Lord against unfitting affairs . At any rate, they utter the word of promotion while they are so remote from its meanings . The current scholars of that man ­Ibn Teimiya­ are the most familiar of his personality . The pious master of Islam, Ali Bin Abdil­Kafi, who coincided in time of Ibn Teimiya, wrote various books in refutation of Ibn Teimiya’s misbeliefs . In his Ad Durretul Mudhiya Firraddi Elebni Teimiya, this pious master refuted ideas of that heretic deviant man who decides invalidity of suspended divorcement on oath, and reckons it with violation to unanimity of Muslims and forging lies against the Prophet’s companions and their followers .

The master scholar says, “Ibn Teimiya breached principals of Islamic doctrine, and repealed pillars of Islam while he was hidden under curtains of followership of the holy Book and the prophetic traditions, and proclaiming of soliciting the right and leading to the Paradise . He dissented from followership to heresy,

and gainsaid the Muslims’ unanimity . He advocated affairs of corporalism and complexity in the divine Essence . He ruled that lacking parts is not impossible . He also claimed incarnation of contingency in the Essence of Allah, the Exalted . He decided that the Quran is contingent that Allah spoke through it after it had been nothing, and that it might utter or keep peace . He also determined contingency of the Lord’s Essence according to the creatures . He surpassed exceedingly when he ruled of anteriority of this cosmos . This required the claim of eternality of creatures . He affirmed that the anterior attribute had been contingent, and the contingent creature had been anterior . No single follower of any nation or creed had ever combined these two beliefs . Hence, he was out of the seventy three parties of this nation . Hence, he depended upon no single nation or creed . All the previous can be seen as nothing if measured to the ill matters he attached to branches of the religion . ”

It is a precious essay in which Sheik Ali Bin Abdil­Kafi refuted Ibn Teimiya’s misbeliefs and exhibited the right creeds . The essay, however, was printed in Damascus .

Moreover, In his Tekmiletur Raddi Ela Nuniyatibnil Qeyim, Al­Kawthari provides adequate exhibition on this man and his faction . Allah may protect Muslims and us from following caprices .

Al­Qazai’s Furqanul Quran Beinè Sifatil Khaliqi Wè Sifatil Akwan, page 17 :

This faction was highly fond of forging false affairs and

imputing them to the supreme scholars of this nation . Since first emergence till now, followers of this faction have been agitating and falsifying nearly in every century . On the other side, there have been troops of Ahlus­Sunna defending and exposing the right in private and general sessions of dispute and argumentation, as well as writings that used the illumination of logic reasons for removing darkness of such heretic confusedness . For seekers of guidance, these writings are reckoned as unexhausted fortune and interminable treasures . One of such ceaseless inheritance is the book of Abu Bakr Ahmed Bin Hussein Bin Ali Al­Beihaqi, the trustful supreme hadithist and jurisprudent who died in 458 . In his time, unbecoming discussions about the divine names and attributes were far­reaching; therefore, he wrote his book Al­Asma’u Wes­Sifat . Tajuddin As­Sibki states, “I have never seen a written work equivalent to Al­Beihaqi’s . ” This is quite true since the writer gathers every single text upon which the heretic anthropomorphists and Hashawites rested . He features perplexity of each text and removes every problematic affair by referring to the allegorical object and attaching the fitting Quranic Verses . In addition, he records sayings of scholars preceded him . God may reward him the best on behalf of the religion and nation of Mohammed (peace be upon him) . It seems that Al­Beihaqi records this book as removing away the dishonor Ibn Khuzeima did pertain to hadithists . This man wrote a book named At­Tawhid in which he combined

and misrepresented the allegorical texts in a way unfitting believing in Allah, the Exalted, and sayings of the worthy ancestors and descendants . Fakhruddin Ar­Razi threw at him a fatal shot . Through providing the exegesis of God’s saying, (Nothing like the likeness of His;), Ar­Razi comments, “In his At­Tawhid, Mohammed Bin Isaaq Bin Khuzeima records our acquaintances’ bringing this Verse as their evidence . Ibn Khuzeima’s book is, in fact, a book of atheism . I am to comment on his wording since he was an unsound speaker and ill­minded man . ” Immediately, Ar­Razi affixes Ibn Khuzeima’s wording . Since it is such an ill wording that it is unseemly for a sane believer, who recognizes his Lord, to utter, we shun recording it here so that a feeble would not be influenced . Ar­Razi, then, comments, “This poor ignorant adopted such fables since he lacked knowledge of analogy . Scholars of monotheism talked adequately about real monotheism . Because of his being remote from recognizing realities, that man ensued words of ordinary people and took pride in his wording . We do seek the Lord’s granting us with the acceptable end result . ”

religion . As much as I am concerned, I do advise seekers of safety to hold fast to books of Abu Mansur Al­Materidi and Abul­Hassan Al­Ashari in affairs respecting principals and creeds of Islam, since these two books demonstrate the path to which Book of Allah and the Prophet’s tradition lead, without inclination, exaggeration or blemish .

In Ar­Razi’s book of exegesis of the holy Quran, part 27 pages 150­3, third edition, Ihya At­Turath Al­Arabi publication, a detailed exposition of Ar­Razi’s refuttal on Ibn Khuzeima An­Nisapuri’s claims in his At­Tawhid, is rendered . Like defects regarding God’s seeableness, already mentioned in the first chapter of this survey, Ar­Razi exhibits Ibn Khuzeima’s defects regarding definitions of semblance and analogy aimed at proving God’s corporeity . Ar­Razi pierced in such a way equivalent to Ibn Khuzeima’s ugly failing . He paraphrased the actual definition of analogy of corporealities and proved God’s being not analogous to such corporealities . In the next chapter, Ar­Razi’s thesis in negating corporalism shall be rendered . It is worthy mentioning here that supreme scholars of Wahabism guide Muslims to Ibn Khuzeima’s At­Tawhid, because of its comprising ideas of corporalism .

Al­Qazai’s Furqanul Quran Beinè Sifatil Khaliqi Wè Sifatil Akwan, page 61 :

It is necessarily provable that Allah is promoted against being compound or divisible or enjoying any quality of materiality and corporeality . This is averred by Verses of the holy Quran and addressed at hearing people and at those who give ear while they are witnesses . Ahlus­Sunna, who were unlike whimsical people

and Jews and Christians who have been affected by unsoundness of anthropomorphism and corporalism, did thoroughly adopt this course .

It is a funny thing to see Ahmed Bin Abdil­Halim Ibn Teimiya, the supporter and master of corporalists, Karramites and ignorant hadithists who misunderstand what they retain, consider Imamul­Haramein and Hujjetul­Islam Al­Ghezzali, as more heretic than Jews and Christians, because of their opting for promoting God against unfitting affairs . This is mentioned in his Al­Muwafaqa, printed in the margin of Minhajus­Sunna . At any rate, principal of promoting God against corporeity and the like material affairs, is not adopted exclusively by these two masters . As a matter of fact, it is the principal adopted by majority of Muslim scholars, since the Prophet’s companions time, up to the current, till Resurrection Day . The Prophet (peace be upon him) states, in an authentic hadith, “A party of this nation is still keeping the right, uninfluenced by dissidents or opposers, till the coming of God’s affair . ” This party forms the greatest majority of the nation . This fact is averred by some ways of narrating the previous hadith . Further discussion of danger pursuance of this man, his written works and his faction, as well as opinions of master scholars regarding his misbeliefs, shall be rendered later on .

Parable exaltation is a common metaphorical style in Arabic :

Expressive exaltation is widespread in the holy Quran and common in Arabic . It is ordinarily used for accrediting suitable qualities to the Creator and His creatures

. The following Quranic texts are examples . (And be not infirm, and be not grieving, and you shall have the upper hand . 3 : 139), (Saying; exalt not yourselves upon me . 27 : 31), (For surely if they prevail [above] you; 18 : 20), (And that do not exalt yourselves against Allah; 44 : 19), (Surely, Pharaoh exalted himself in the land . 28 : 4), (And that they might destroy whatever they gained in ascendancy; 17 : 7) and (Fear not, you are the uppermost . 20 : 68) . When the polytheists tasted temporary victory upon Muslims, one of them shouted, “Exalt Hubal ­a pagan­ . ” The Prophet ordered Muslims to reply, “Allah is more Exalted and glorified . ” Arabic poetry comprises such expressions . At any rate, a volume may not contain the entire expressions of metaphorical exaltation used in God’s Book and Arabic texts . It is quite understandable that there is a difference between exaltation of a place and exaltation of power . Spatial exaltation is a corporal accidental perfection which is definitely different from the origin essential perfection . Allah be exalted against theses of the afield .

Through rendering exegesis of God’s saying, (Everything is perishable except His face), Abu Jafar At­Tabari, according the ancestors, demonstrates that ‘face’ stands for the entity .

Al­Bukhari, through rendering exegesis of the same Verse, rules that ‘face’ stands for God’s property or deeds intended exclusively for His sake . Hence, Al­Bukhari, whose being the best of the worthy

ancestors is never suspected, asserts that ‘face’ stands for God’s property . He also interprets God’s holding creatures by their forelock, mentioned in the Verse, (There is no living creature but He holds it by its forelock . 11 : 56), into the Lord’s property and prevalence .

God says, (And Allah is Ample, Knowing) . It is familiarly known that ‘ample’ stands for material extension . However, no single scholar opted this meaning .

At­Tabari states, “From God’s saying, (Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth; 24 : 35) . No single individual from the worthy ancestors did refer to that light reflecting on walls and widespreading in air, as the intended in the Verse . Master scholars and exegesists are far away from taking in such an extrinsic odd meaning . ”

According to the authentic documentation of At­Tabari, Ibn Abbas explains the light in the forecited Verse as guidance . Anas Bin Malik opts for the same exegesis . Mujahid, however, interprets the light into superintendence . At­Tabari selects the earlier exegesis and shuns the other . He also interprets the Lord’s encircling things into awareness, willingness and prevalence . None renders the material meaning of encircling . Allah be exalted against qualities of corporealities and specifications of contingency .

Sources of the worthy ancestors’ sayings reveal the meanings becoming Allah, the Exalted, identifiably . Unidentification is communicated by illiberal researchers . Al­Bukhari’s book of hadith and Ibn Jarir At­Tabari’s book of exegesis ­of the holy Quran­ do assert what we have been

suggesting . We have only shown examples for concluding our claims . Al­Beihaqi’s Al­Asma’u Wes­Sifat is adequately enough in discussing this topic . Scholars rendered abundant explanation of the allegorical texts . We have already provided Abu Bakr Bin Al­Arabi’s narration regarding Malik’s interpreting the Lord’s descending, mentioned in the Prophet’s saying, “Allah descends to the lowest heavens;”, into descending of His mercy, not moveableness . At any rate, Malik might have not been acquainted of the other prophetic saying explaining the previous . He might have suspected the hadith documentation; therefore, he evaded citing it as an evidence . The Hadith, however, is, “Allah respites till midnight . After that, he orders a declarant of expounding whether there is…”

Thus, it is explicative that God’s descending is metaphorical expression . It is not unusual to use metaphor in documentation, not in the party . Meaning of God’s saying, (When we have recited it), indicates to Gabriel’s reciting it out of the Lord’s order . Al­Bukhari, in the hadith related to Ibn Abbas, removes perplexity of such a topic . Pursuant to an authentic narration, Ibn Abbas opted for exaltation, not material sitting, as the exegesis of God’s saying, (The Beneficent settled on the Throne . )

Moreover, we have previously demonstrated sayings of At­Tabari and At­Thehbi, referring to unanimity of scholars on denying conditions of Allah’s settling . We have also explained this point so evidently that any confusion should be eliminated .

Master scholars preceded us in this field . They wrote a good deal of

valuable, concised and elaborate, books appertained to the allegorical texts . Thus, readers should fill in their hearts with creed of promoting Allah, the Exalted, against corporeity and material phenomena .

that Ahmed had not believed in material coming and descending, mentioned in Quranic and prophetic texts . He presumed that such matters were expressions of advent of God’s marvels and competence . They claimed that it would be unfit for the Quran to practice material coming and going if it was one of the Lord’s attributes of Essence . Abu Abdillah answers that it is the reward which will appear on that day . Hence, appearance of the reward was expressed by using coming and going . Saving the most intelligent masters, who promote the Lord against unfitting affairs, none would be guided to such an answer . ”

Al­Beihaqi’s Al­Asma’u Wes­Sifat is an unparalleled book . The writer does not criticize those who claim Allah’s being in the heavens or on the Throne, resting upon texts supporting this meaning, but he deprives the Lord’s being in the heavens or on the Throne, of all meanings of materiality, unlike anthropomorphists . This is proved by his wording while he discusses the Lord’s settling on the Throne . We provided a considerable commentation there . He adjudges believers in Allah’s being materially in the heavens, as deviant . Meanwhile, he permits this saying, linguistically, if it is alluded to the Lord’s being so exalted and elevated, without referring to a definite point or locality . Doctrinally, there are some legal phenomena permitting such a saying . Since some hadiths, such as that of Abu Zurein and the ibex, reveal, to some extent, unacceptable remarks, it is precautious

not to speak of so even if promoting the Lord against unbecoming affairs is declared . Moreover, it is obligatory not to publicize such hadiths at all, for sake of blocking doors into anthropomorphism so firmly . As a matter of fact, there is no single authentic hadith regarding this topic plainly . Hadith of the deaf bondmaiden comprises a bewilderment so consequential that it is unbefitting to rest upon in topic of beliefs . Acceders to God’s saying, (Are you secure that Who is in the heavens…), as their argumentative evidence, are totally wrong . Later on, this will be proved . Statements of Al­Beihaqi and his corollaries respecting permitting claiming Allah’s being in the heavens as a signification of His exaltation and glorification, do not flow in the good of those assigning material exaltation and space to the Lord . In miscellaneous places of this book, Al­Beihaqi assures this fact . It is quite wrong to reckon such statements of Al­Beihaqi and his corollaries with evidences on substantiating the Lord’s physical exaltation . Within narrators of relations respecting the divine attributes, ascribed to Abu Haneefa, is Nueim Bin Hemmad and his maternal grandfather . Abdullah Bin Nafi Al­Assem, the doubtful narrator, is within the series of narratives ascribed to Malik, regarding this topic . Likewise, Abul­Hassan Al­Hekari, Ibn Kadesh and Al­Ashari are within series of narratives related to Ashafii, regarding the same topic involved . Those three men are notorious doubtful narrators . Some, however, were deceived by such reports . Depending upon

the previous, it is unacceptable to ascribe the faith of Allah’s being in the heavens, to the three masters of the sects .

bows or closer still . )

(Only whom your Lord will have mercy on . )

(Only whom Allah will have mercy on . )

(And Allah will send His wrath on him . )

(Allah shall pay them back their mockery . )

(And does come your Lord . )

Presumption of metaphor of the previous Quranic texts, is impossibility of intending the factual meanings that result in God’s corporeity, occupying a definite space, existing in a definite point and being encountering contingent affairs .

Metaphorical expressions should be having a presumption . Back to the earlier example, wild animals do not attend meetings usually . Occasionally, the presumption is circumstantial, that is indicated through the circumstance, not expressional, that is indicated through representation of wording; therefore, some cannot comprehend it correctly . Metaphor, sometimes, is used so commonly that it does not need a presumption . It is also named reported metaphor when it attains rank of factuality .

Keshfulirtiyab Fi Ittiba Ibni Abdil­Wahab, page 119 :

Wahabists claimed their being the only monotheists, while other Muslims are entirely polytheists . In fact, Ibn Teimiya, Mohammed Bin Abdil­Wahab and their followers abused, desecrated and raped monotheism . They ascribed unbecoming affairs to Allah, the Exalted . Allah be highly exalted and glorified against sayings of the wrong . They materialized Allah’s having the physical upper locality, settling on the Throne which is above the heavens and the earth, descending to the lowest heavens, coming, going and alike material matters . Without any interpretation, they also claimed His having a face, two hands,

fingers, palm and eyes . This is indeed a clear corporalism . They rested upon the extrinsic meanings of aspect of the divine attributes and names texts; therefore, they proved Allah’s affection, mercy, pleasingness, wrath and the like . They alleged that Allah articulates physically . Thus, they decided God as a contingent being .

Ibn Teimiya asserted the Lord’s occupying a locality, having corporeality, material settling on the Throne and physical articulation . He was the foremost in this misbelief . He wrote dependent essays in this regard . His Al­Aqidetul Hamawiya and Al­Wasitiya and many other essays are good examples . His two students; Ibnul­Qeyim Al­Jawziya and Ibn Abdil­Hadi, as well as their partisans, ensued him . Jurisprudents and master scholars of his time judged him as deviant and atheist . They asked the ruler to kill or detain him . Hence, he was banished to Egypt where he was argued commonly . He was sentenced to imprisonment . In the prison, he died after he had breached his word of repentance .

For recognizing the actual value of Ibn Teimiya, the following are sayings of the master scholar regarding his personality and beliefs .

Ahmed Bin Hajar Al­Heithami Al­Mekki, the Shafiite, writes in his Al­Jawharul Munaddham Fi Ziyaretin Nabiyyil Mukarram :

Ibn Teimiya transgressed the divine presence and violated fence of the divine excellence when he provided claims of Allah’s having a locality and a corporeality before the public .

In His Ad­Durrarul Kamina, Ibn Hajar records :

People stated various opinions about Ibn Teimiya . Some assigned

claims of corporalism to him . This was because of his writings in his Al­Aqidetul Hamawiya and Al­Wasitiya, when he claimed Allah’s having material hands, feet, leg and face . He also claimed that He is settling on the Throne physically . As he was argued that these beliefs lead to corporalism, he answered, “I do not submit to the matter that having a locality or divisibility are specifications of corporealities . ” This means that he had indeed claimed the Lord’s having a definite space .

In Ashraful Wasail Ila Fehmi Shemail, the writer records that Ibnul­Qeyim and his master, Ibn Teimiya, pronounced a funny thing when they claimed that the reason beyond recommendation of sending edges of the turban on the shoulders, was the Lord had fixed His hands between shoulder of the Prophet while he was looking at him! Therefore, the Prophet honored that position . “We have not found a single report supporting this claim . ” Al­Iraqi asserted . However, such claims are listed under misbeliefs and deviation of these two individuals . They adopted and spared no efforts in finding evidences on corporalism and anthropomorphism . In addition, they aimed at debasing Ahlus­Sunna for their denying this misbelief . Greatly exalted be Allah against sayings of the wrong and atheists . Moreover, they oversaid in this topic such catastrophic statements that ears cannot bear, and forgery, belying and fraudulence are easily decided . Deformed be their sayings and them . Ahmed, master of Hanbalism, and his reverent acquaintances are freed

from such a hideous stain . For majority, it is decided as atheism .

are contingent .

Abul­Fida, in his book of history; events of 705, records :

On that year, Taqiyuddin Ahmed Bin Teimiya was summoned to Egypt where he was publicly argued . Owing to his belief of corporalism, he was detained . Within the royal judgment against Ibn Teimiya, the following statements are mentioned, “During this period, Ibn Teimiya, the miserable, used his quill and wording for delving into questions of the Quran and the divine attributes . He spoke in ill­favored affairs, and asserted what was denied by masters of Islam . Unanimity of scholars contracted him, since he contravened savants and jurisprudents of his time and province . We have been informed that his people complied with him after he had betrayed them . We have been acquainted that they declared their misbeliefs of the Lord’s having physical articulation and corporeality . ”

Mohammed Bin Abdil­Wahab and his group did adhere to beliefs of Ibn Teimiya regarding corporalism, visitating tombs, intercession to Allah and the like . Without interpretation, son of Abdul­Wahab exceeded his master in substantiating that Allah has a definite locality, which is above, and settles on the Throne that is above the heavens and the earth, and enjoys physical corporeality, material mercy, satisfaction, wrath, right and left hand, fingers and palm .

Partisans of Mohammed Bin Abdil­Wahab claimed Allah’s occupying an upper locality, settling on the Throne, having a face, hands and eyes, descending to the lower heavens, coming, nearness and the like; all with the material meanings wanting interpretative exegeses .

The following is written

down in the fourth chapter of Al­Hadiyetus Sunniya, recorded by Mohammed Bin Abdul­Latif, the grandson of Mohammed Bin Abdil­Wahab . “Allah, the Exalted, is on His Throne as he said, (The Beneficent settled on the Throne;), and He has two hands wanting a certain condition, as he said, (When I created with My hands;) and (His hands are open . ) He also has eyes and face wanting a certain condition, as he said, (And there will endure the face of your Lord,)…” They give credence to the Prophet’s saying, “Allah descends to the lowest heavens…” and they believe that Allah shall come on Resurrection Day, as he said, (And there come your Lord and the angels . ) By the same token, they believe that Allah comes near to His creatures as he desires . He said, (We are nearer to him than his life­vein . )

In the fifth chapter of the previous book, the writer records, “We do believe that Allah settles on the Throne and exalts over His creatures . We believe that His Throne is above the heavens . Allah said, (The Beneficent settled on the Throne . ) We believe in the expression and substantiate reality of settling, without suggesting a definite condition or picture . We adopt the saying of Malik Bin Anas, master of Darul­Hijra (Al­Madina) . When he was asked about condition of the Lord’s settling, Malik answered, ‘Settling is known and its way is unexplored, and believing in this is obligatory and questioning about it is

heresy . ’”

This saying results in one of two things; either corporalism or impossibility . Both, however, are impracticable . Occurring of material settling wanting a definite condition is impossible, on criteria of mentality . Occurrence of material settling with a definite condition results in opting for corporalism . Hence, it is requisite to opt for finding interpretative exegesis or resting upon metaphorical meaning . Presumption, however, should be intellectuality . This proves that the previous statement ascribed to Malik is rarely true . The good reputation of the man makes us suspect authenticity of assigning this statement to him . Malik’s statement, ‘Settling in known’, if the material meaning of settling is intended, is impracticable according to intellectuality, since Allah’s corporeity is infeasible . It is also impossible to settle materially without being a corporeality . How is it practicable to decided asking about it as a heresy while giving credence to unknown matters is impossible ? ! If the meaning intended by Malik is believing in the settling proposed by the Lord without asking about its detailed conditions, its impracticability should be ruled for the same previous intellectual grounds . If he alludes to the metaphorical meanings only, where is the actuality of settling, then ? !

Moreover, if those faction take Malik’s words as their guidance and principals, what for did they shun his statements regarding directing towards the Prophet’s tomb and seeking his intercession to Allah, then ? Malik did instruct Al­Mansour, the caliph, to turn his face towards the Prophet’s tomb

and seek his intercession to the Lord .

Abdullah Bin Mohammed Bin Abdil­Wahab, in the second chapter of Al­Hadiyetus Saniya, states, “Our claiming of the Lord’s having a locality; which is the above, does in no means require our being corporalists, since consequences of a sect are not the sect itself . ” If the previous rule is true, it stands for the idea that adopting a certain faith does not necessarily require believing in its consequences . But, when this faith is false, its consequences shall be false, too . Falsity of consequences leads to falsity of principals . Lest, inherence is totally null . If corporeity of Allah is false, accrediting locality of exaltation to Him shall be void and null, too . We have previously provided that Ibn Teimiya, their master and guide, was decided as atheist, and sentenced to death penalty in absentia and imprisonment, because he claimed corporeity of the Lord . Mohammed Bin Abdil­Wahab, founder of their faction, followed Ibn Teimiya in claiming Allah’s having right and left hands, fingers and palm . Those are following these two so accurately and comprehensively that they would not be acquitted even if they declare freeing from corporalism .

Muhit Fi Ilml Usoul, part 2 page 182, relates so to Ahmed . Ibn Teimiya and Ibnul­Qeyim failed in their endeavors to deny metaphor . They contrasted themselves! While he decides metaphor as a sort of devil deeds, Ibnul­Qeyim, in his Al­Fawaidul Mushawiqa, contrasts himself as he proves and cites many evidences on materialization of metaphor . Sheik Al­Albani, the self­contradictor, opposes Ibn Teimiya in this regard when he upholds metaphor in the introduction of Mukhtasarul Uluw, page 23 (the margin) . On page 31 of our Al­Bisharatu Wel­Ithaf, we have referred to this contradiction .

Because of compulsion and force, the present compiler of Adwa’ul Bayan was suffering in the country he had lived in, in his final days, he had to deny metaphorical expressions of the texts . Compulsion, however, has its own rulings! At any rate, denial of this scholar is not that strong evidence to which students and seekers of the truth via individuals, not seekers of individuals via the truth, should hold fast, especially when clear proofs have been provided . Allah, however, is the guide .

It is quite strange for Ibn Teimiya to claim, on page 85 of his Al­Iman, that neither Ahmed’s followers, Malik, Ashafii nor did Abu Haneefa maintain that there are metaphorical expressions in the Quranic texts . He also claimed that division of factuality and metaphor had been originated in the fourth Hijri century, and that it might have emerged in the last of the second and the first of the third Hijri centuries!

Indeed, this is

inconstancy in identifying history . It is aimed for nothing more than deviating the readers . Masters of sects, specially Ashafii who used another term, did refer to metaphor . Muammar Bin Al­Muthenna, whose birth was in 106, did compile a book named Mejazul Quran, ­Metaphor in the Quran­ .

As­Sahih Fil Aqidetit Tahawiya, page 311 :

Corporalists provided God’s saying, (The Beneficent settled on the Throne), as their evidence on God’s being sitting on His Throne and being materially utmost . Evading stating belief of God’s material settling and physical exaltation, some say that Allah is being above in the heavens .

Indisputably, this is a clear blunder . Allah is gloriously promoted against having a space . In Arabic, the expression ‘He is in the heavens . ’, is used for glorifying . The following are detailed exposition about meanings of this Verse and its likes, quoted from Ibnul­Jawzi’s Dafu Shubehit Tashbih, page 121, in addition to our comments :

The word, ‘Throne’ mentioned in God’s saying, (He settled on the Throne), stands for the royal bench . It is commonly used in Arabic before and after Islam . It is also used occasionally in the holy Quran . The item ‘settle’ has various meanings . It may hint at equity, perfection, direction or prevalence .

As­Sahih Fil Aqidetit Tahawiya, page 324 :

Corporalists and anthropomorphists claim that deniers of God’s being in or out of the cosmos, are denying His Existence . This is a valueless mistake . They compare the Lord to corporealities . They believe that

the Lord is a thing like other things and beings that occupy a point in spaces . Some imagine that He is compact corporeality, like mankind, or loose, like air, light or gas . In spite of their denouncement, they all imagine the Lord as a corporeality conceived by mentalities whether in or out of the cosmos . Our duty is clarifying this question, resting upon Quranic and prophetic texts .

Scholars, at suggesting that Allah is neither in nor out of this cosmos, intend that He, the Praised, cannot be given descriptions of this material cosmos . Hence, He is neither connected nor disconnected to this universe . Connection and disconnection are qualities of corporealities . Allah, the Exalted is as he describes Himself, (Nothing like His likeness) . The point corporalists and anthropomorphists claim of being above the Throne and occupied by the Lord, the Praised the Exalted, should be positively a space . It would not have been possible to conceive had this point not been a space . By the same token, it would not have been described as occupied by the Lord, being above the Throne if it had not been a spatial point . Finally, it would not have been possible for them to indicate to that elevated point for referring to the Lord, if it had not been a definite point . Correspondingly, they imagine that Allah is a corporeity comparable to material beings . They conceive that He is being above the Throne that He created along with

the cosmos . Accordingly, they believe Allah had had a lower locality before He created this cosmos . He would certainly have upper, before, behind, left and right localities had He a lower one . Complex of those corporalists and anthropomorphists is that they have not submitted totally to the doctrine . Hence, they could not recognize that Allah, the Exalted, is incomprehensible and inconceivable, and that He is promoted against whatever may come to connotation and minds . Had they submitted to His extraordinary Existence and incomprehensibility, they would have been saved and joined to faith of promotion; the genuine faith of Islam .

As­Sahih Fil Aqidetit Tahawiya, page 334 :

The supreme reliable masters of Islamic scholarship and hadith pledged God’s promotion against being in or out of this cosmos . They used the following expressions in various occasions . “He is neither in nor out of this cosmos . ” “He is neither connected nor disconnected to this cosmos . ” “He is neither combined nor separated from this cosmos . ” “He is neither touching nor quitting this cosmos . ” The entire expressions, however, lead to the same purport indeed . The following are sayings of those master scholars :

1 . Al­Ghezzali, in Ihyau Uloumiddin, part 4 page 434 :

Allah, the Exalted, is holily elevated against having a space, and blessedly promoted against having measures or localities . He is neither in nor out of this cosmos . By the same token, He is neither connected not disconnected to it . He

bewildered some people’s minds so perplexedly that they denied His Existence when they were unable enough to listen and recognize Him .

2 3 . An­Nawawi and Al­Mutawalli :

In his Rawdatut Talibin, page 1064, An­Nawai records :

Al­Mutawalli says, “He is an atheist, that whoever believes in anteriority of the cosmos, contingent of the Creator, negation of constant unanimous attributes of the Anterior, connection or disconnection of the Lord . ”

An­Nawawi, however, certifies this statement; therefore, this is considered as sayings of two supreme scholars .

4 . Al­Beihaqi, in his Al­Asmau Wes­Sifat, pages 410­1, as well as Shiebul Iman, renders this faith with thorough details .

5 . Alizz Bin Abdus­Selam, in his Al­Qawaid, page 201, asserts that within faiths that are rather difficult for the public to apprehend, is God’s being neither in nor out of this cosmos, and neither connected nor disconnected to it .

6 . Abul­Muzaffar Alisferaini, in his At­Tabsiru Fiddin, page 97, revised by Al­Kawthari, Publication of Al­Anwar 1359 :

… and to apprehend that moveableness and stillness… connection and disconnection are impracticable for Allah, the Exalted, since all require an edge and end .

7 . Ibnul­Jawzi, the Hanbalite, in his Dafu Shubehit Tashbih, page 103, Publication of Darun Nawawi :

By the same token, it is illicit to claim that Allah is in or out of this cosmos, since being in or out are consequences of spatial beings .

The previous was a good number of the master scholars who assert that it is impracticable to describe Allah, the Exalted, as being in or out

of this cosmos .

As­Sahih Fil Aqidetit Tahawiya, page 339 :

The following is a literal quotation of his statements :

“The hadiths ‘Allah comes with His face’ and ‘Allah is between your hands in prayers’ do not contradict His being on His Throne, elevating His creatures . This fact is asserted by Quranic and prophetic texts, as well as traditions of the Prophet’s companions and the worthy ancestors . Still, Allah is being far ranging and comprehending the whole cosmos . He has told that His servants encounter His face whenever they turn their faces . Naturally, exalted things encounter whatever is below from every side . Hence, Allah, the Comprehensive of everything, should be fitting this affair more intensely . More details can be provided in books of Sheikul­Islam, Ibn Teimiya, specially Al­Hamawiya and Al­Wasitiya, pages 203­13, that are revised by Zeid Bin Abdil­Aziz Bin Feyad . ”

As if they are divine texts, Al­Albani, in the introductory of Mukhtasarul Uluw, page 71, attests and cites Ibn Teimiya’s statements recorded in his At­Tadmuriya­, as his evidence . “If localities are created beings, Allah, then, is not included with His creatures . If localities are what is aloft the cosmos, it is most surely that Allah is being aloft the cosmos . The same thing is said about those who substantiate that Allah is being in a certain locality . If they claim Allah’s being aloft, they will be right . But if they claim His being included with His creatures, this will be wrong . ”

Thus, they

claim existence of an area lying beyond the cosmos which is not included with the created beings . Hence, in that area, god of those faction exists!!

As­Sahih Fil Aqidetit Tahawiya, page 358 :

Corporalists and anthropomorphists are two names of the same faction . They conceive God’s being a definite corporeality . Most of them imagine the Lord’s being in a form of a man sitting on a great seat (throne) . Statements of those faction, appertained to questions of monotheism and faiths, recorded in their books are clear evidences on the previous allegation . One of the most evident witnesses is the book titled As­Sunna, and ascribed to son of Ahmed, the master founder of Hanbalism . They do prevaricate when they claim their being believing in a faith other than the forecited . Their books, wordings, speech, private orations and many other ostensible matters; these all are obvious indications on authenticity of our claims against them . For instance, although they reckon with the divine attributes, they aver the Lord’s having limbs and organs such as a hand, fingers, face, leg, feet, eye, side and the like . They ascribe qualities of contingent material beings to the Lord; such as sitting, moving, edges and localities .

being in the heavens is a sort of atheism . He also claims Allah’s being neither in a certain place nor out of space . He also claims Allah’s being neither in nor out of this cosmos . The man, then, follows trifles of Tatilites .

The bondmaiden mentioned in the question above is that who, before the Prophet, pointed to the heavens as an indication to Allah . The Prophet, however, accepted her indication . Wahabists cited this narrative as their evidence on God’s occupying an aloft locality . As­Saqaf refuted this exegesis . He only believed in authenticity of that bondmaiden’s claim of God’s being immaterially exalted . This is a true claim admitted by the entire Muslims other than corporalists . As he could not welcome this, Al­Albani accused As­Saqaf, as well as every denier of God’s materiality, of being Tatilite . The same judgment of Al­Albani’s ancestors is repeated . They decided atheism of every individual contradicting their beliefs .

At­Thehbi’s Tarikhul­Islam, part 14 page 384 :

Safwan Bin Salih : Marwan Bin Mohammed decides those who assert that Allah does not have an eye or a hand, as followers of Tatilism .

For Wahabists, it is essential to admit the Lord’s physical attributes; such as the foot, hand, eye, face and other organs, otherwise reckoning with Tatilites, who deny the divine attributes and names, is decided .

This is the ill thoroughly material utterance of these faction who, stubbornly or senselessly, confuse qualities of organs to attributes of denotation and these of deeds . Accordingly,

corporalists and anthropomorphists became quite faithful believers, while deciders of God’s being promoted against unfitting matters, who disavow ascribing material qualities to the Lord and form majority of Muslims, became Tatilites, apostates and disbelievers .

This is the very Jewish scrupulous materiality adopted by ulema of the two holy precincts, who intend, by means of spending fortunes and recruiting Indian and Syrian scholastic individuals, to make the Islamic world submit to it . This is in the twentieth century which witnessed collapse of the historical materialism .

meaning of his saying that nonexistence of naturality should be ruled when there are numerous places for a single corporeality .

Keshful Murad Fi Sharhi Tajridulitiqad, page 317 :

10 . Allah, The Exalted, Is Not Compound .

Text : As well as composition, in all its forms…

Explanation : This implies that necessity of existence requires denial of composition . This is evidenced by the fact that every compound being lacks its parts, since it shall be nonexistent unless these parts compose its being . Besides, parts of a being vary each other . Things lacking others are possible . Correspondingly, Allah, the Necessary, is possible if He lacks parts . So, necessity of existence rules of denial of composition .

Composition may be either inherent or extrinsic . The first is that composed of genus and class while the second is that composed of material and form, such as corporealities or amounts . All these things are dispelled from Allah, the Necessary . The entire compound matters lack their parts, while the Lord has no genus, class or any other material parts .

13 . Allah is not incarnating in other beings .

Text : …and incarnation…

Explanation : Necessity of Existence requires that Allah, the Exalted, does not incarnate in other beings . Majority of intellectual people agree upon this point . Some of the Christians, who claim the Lord’s incarnating in Messiah, and the Sufis, who believe in the Lord’s incarnating in corporealities of some of their spiritualists, disagree . This faith is too ridiculous to be discussed, since

the credible concept of incarnation means that a being, that is incapable of existing independently, finds a location in another on basis of fellowship . This meaning, however, is impracticable for Allah, the Exalted, since it necessitates possibility .

14 . Denial of the Lord’s combination

Text : …and combination…

Explanation : Necessity of existence contradicts combination . Previously, we have explicated that necessity of existence requires oneness . In case the Necessary Existent combines with another thing, it is most surely that thing should be possible . Thus, qualities of the possible existent will be born by the being combining it . As a result, the necessary existent will be transferring into a possible existent .

Furthermore, in case of combination, the two combined beings should be either independently existent; hence, the combination will be null, or both or one of them will be nonexistent; hence, the combination will be null, too, or the necessity will be null . Consequently, the necessary existent will be possible . This is contrast .

15 . Denial of the Lord’s occupying a locality .

Text : …and locality…

Explanation : This is one of the rulings required by the Necessary Existent . The entire corporalists disputed about this point . They believed in the Lord’s occupying a definite locality . Followers of Abu Abdillah Bin Al­Karram were engaged in discrepancy in this regard . Mohammed Bin Heitham claims the Lord’s being in an endless region atop the Throne . He also claims that the distance between the Lord and the Throne is infinite .

Some claim the finitude of that distance . Others adopted corporalists’ claim of the Lord’s being over the Throne . All the previous beliefs are valueless, since every occupant is demonstrated and suffering contingent manners . Contingent beings, however, are not necessary .

is a branch of anthropomorphism .

2 . Corporalists disagreed upon the idea whether the Lord is able of coming, going, moving and stilling . A group of Karramites refuted so, while others affirmed . Majority of Hanbalites affirmed .

3 . Adopters of Allah’s being a light, deny His having organs and limbs; such as the head, the hand and the foot . Most of Hanbalites assert the Lord’s having organs .

4 . Unanimously, corporalists opted for the Lord’s being in the highest space . This provides three probabilities . The Lord is either coping with the Throne, varying it in a limited dimension or varying it in a limitless dimension . Hence, corporalists were of three groups depending on the three previous probabilities .

5 . Corporalists agree upon the Lord’s having a limit from beneath . They, however, disagree about the other five sides . Some claim the Lord’s being limited from the entire sides . Others claim the Lord’s being limited only from beneath . Others claim the Lord’s being limitless from the upward, and limitless from the other sides .

6 . corporalists disagree whether the Lord occupies that definite space by Essence or for an idiosyncratic objective that necessitates His being in that space . This is similar to their contrariety on the idea whether Allah, the Exalted, is Knowing by His Essence, or by means of knowledge .

7 . Corporalists disagree whether the Lord’s knowledge, competence, will, hearing, seeing and articulation are equal manners of His corporeality, or each of these attributes

occupies a definite part of His corporeality, exclusively dedicated to the attribute involved .

There are a number of proofs evidencing that Allah, the Exalted, is promoted against having corporeality and definite size .

First proof : No necessary Aseity can be possible existent by essence . Every occupant is possible existent by essence; therefore, the necessary Aseity can never be occupant . The minor is logically acceptable . The major is provable since every occupant is component . Every composite is possible existence by essence . Hence, every occupant is possible existence by essence . For proving that every occupant is component, the following points are provided .

1 . There must be a difference between the right and the left of every occupant . Hence, it must be component . This means that every occupant is component . Full rendition regarding this point is cited during providing evidences on denial of atoms .

2 . Philosophers said, “Every corporeality is composed of prime matter and form . ”

3 . Every occupant shares others in having a space, and varies them in having a clear space . The common feature of occupation enjoyed by every occupant is different from the distinctive feature consecrated to occupants exclusively . It is inevitable that every occupant should be composed of that common space and the distinctive feature . Hence, every occupant is composed .

For clarifying that every composed being is possible, it is to say that every composed being lacks its definite space which is unlike it . Every composed being

lacks other matters . Every being lacking others is possible existence be essence . This results in the fact that every composed being is possible existent by essence .

Second proof : The Lord resembles other occupants, in matters of quiddity, if He is occupant . This is impracticable since the first is impracticable .

To explicate so, it is to say that if the Lord is an occupant, He will be equal to other occupants in feature of having space . This leads to one of two probabilities; either contrasting other corporealities in one of the fundamentals of quiddity, or not . The first is logically invalid since if the Lord is equal to occupants, in feature of being spaced, and contrasts them in one of the fundamentals of quiddity, then the common feature of occupation is variant from the distinctive feature and, by the same token, the Lord’s occupation is different from competency of contrasting; therefore, the second is valid .

Proving this, we say that the two previous features should be either attributes of each other, or not, or the distinctive feature is attributed while the common feature is the attribute . The first three probabilities are invalid . Hence, the fourth is only endurable . This leads to the fact that corporealities are analogous in ultimate quiddity . Nullity of the first probability is proved by the fact that providing it is true, each should be independent and idiosyncratic . This is untrue because of their being lacking others . Likewise, nullity of the

second probability is proved by the fact that should that have been true, the two features would not have been interrelated . This, however, is not a discussion of the coalescing essence . Nullity of the third probability is proved by the condition that if the distinctive feature was the essence, and the common feature was the attribute, then the distinctive feature should be either given the space exclusively, or not . If the previous is adopted, it is, then, an occupying corporeality that is, essentially, the part of quiddity of a corporeality, should be a corporeality . This is logically impracticable . If the latter is adopted, it is, then, impossible for occupants to have space, since that being is not practicable to spaces . Occupants, as a matter of fact, necessarily occupy that space . It is intellectually impracticable for the necessarily occupying matters to occur to matters that are impossibly occupying spaces .

Thusly, the three previous probabilities are null and void . Only should the fourth endure . It is that the common feature, which is the process of occupation, is the essence, and the distinctive feature is the attribute . Proving that there is only one concept for the process of occupation . This alludes to the fact that the entire occupants are similar in quitty and entity . This verifies our claim that the Lord should have been similar, in quitty and entity, to the other occupying beings had He been occupant . For the following reasons, we maintain impracticability

of that exposition .

1 . Inevitably, matters fully similar in quitty should be equal in necessities and results . Hence, corporealities, as a whole, should be either self­sufficient from the Agent, or depending totally on the Agent . The earlier is null since we have previously proved contingency of the cosmos and its necessity to the Agent . Hence, the second is active . This leads to proving the fact that every occupant is in necessity to the Agent . Hence, the Creator of everything is not an occupant .

2 . That corporeality’s exclusive knowledge, competence and godhead should be either necessary or possible . The earlier is null and void . Supposing it is true, it is necessary for the entire corporealities to enjoy these attributes since it is provable that matters of the same category should enjoy the same necessities . The latter is also void since if it is true, it is occurred by a definite specialist actor . If that actor is a corporeality, the same wording should be resaid, otherwise, it will be the required .

the Lord’s should be suffering so, too . Familiarly, this is infeasible and null .

5 . Parts of that corporeality are supposed to be fully equal in quiddity . Since some of them occur in the lower part while others occur in the upper, then it is practical for those falling in the lower to occupy the place of those of the upper . Supposing so, position of each part must have been chosen by an expert actor . For the lord of this cosmos, this is impracticable . Although this proof is very effective, philosophers do not rest upon, since it supports the ideas of separability and cicatrization of the cosmos .

Third proof : The Lord is finite if He is occupant . Every finite is possible . Necessary Existent is not possible . Hence, the occupant is not necessary existent by essence . The idea that every finite is possible is proved by a number of evidences referring to finitude of dimensions . Likewise, by citing the fact that it is supposable to believe that every amount must have been increased or decreased, we can prove that every finite is possible . Besides, it is essential to acquaint affirmation of the possibility involved . This asserts possibility of every occupant . The Necessary Existent is not possible . This arises the conclusion that no single occupant is necessary existent . By reversing so, it is to say that no single necessary existent is an occupant .

Fourth proof : The Lord is equal to

other occupants if He is occupant . Thus, He is either having the same fundamentals of other occupants, or not . Regarding the earlier, the occupant should be a genus subclassified into species . Regarding the latter, the occupant should be a species subclassified into persons .

The earlier is null . Providing its validity, the necessary existent must be composed of species, which is the common feature of occupants, and the class, which is the distinctive feature . Every composed being is possible . This will arise the contrast that the necessary existent is the possible existent .

The latter is null, too . The common feature of occupation is shared by the entire persons . The distinctive feature is dedicated to each person independently . Hence, the distinctive feature is inordinate to the quantitative nature . In addition, that feature is necessitated by the consecratory characteristic . But we have previously decided its being common among persons . This is, then, contradiction .

If the feature is independent, then each person of the occupying corporeality will be identified by an independent reason; therefore, it will not be necessary existent by essence . This confirms that every corporeality is possibly existent by essence . Whatever is not possible necessary by essence should never be a corporeality .

Fifth proof : The Lord suffers separability and laceration if He is a corporeality . As the earlier is impossible, the latter is impossible, too . Supposing the Lord is constituent, each of His parts must be continually decomposable till it

becomes simple . If so, then characteristics of the right side must not be different from these of the left, lest, He should be compound . Similarly, if equality of the two sides, in nature and quiddity, is proved, then it is positive that what is touched by a side must be touched by the other in the same manner . This implies that whatever touches the other part with one of its two faces, can validly touch with the other . This proves practicability of separation and laceration .

Impossibility of the Lord’s being separable and decomposable is proved by the thesis that inseparability of the Lord cannot be preferred to His separability unless there is a favorable extraneous reason . This shows the Lord’s lacking an extraneous reason . It is unrealizable for the necessary existent by essence to lack . Hence, the necessary existent by essence is not a corporeality .

Sixth proof : The Lord is a corporeality if He is occupier . No sane confirms the Lord’s being as minute as an atom . Corporealities are compound . Attributes of knowledge, competence and the like should either be a part of that corporeality, or the amount . Assuming the earlier is true, the Lord must be that part alone . This results in considering the Lord as minute as an atom . Considering the latter, these attributes should be either comprised by the entire parts, or distributing parts of the attributes on parts of the corporeality, or an independent part of each

attribute occurs in each part of the corporeality . The earlier is null since it is impracticable for a single attribute to occupy more than a single position . The second is impracticable since it is unworkable for knowledge, for instance, to be divisible . The latter is also impracticable since it requires that each part of the corporeality should bear the whole divine attributes . This leads to variety of lords .

It may be suggested that the previous proofs are dedicated to corporealities of humans that are divisible . Hence, each part should have an independent knowledge, competence and the like . This means a single man should be a number of knowledgeable and competent numbers .

As an answer, we say that philosophers deny claims of wholeness . They ascribe qualities of knowledge, competence and the like to souls consecratorily . Otherwise, impossibility should be supposed . Al­Ashari adopted the claim that each part of human corporealities comprises definite knowledge, competence and the like . This is positively inaccurate . It is, however, not impossible .

Ascribing so to the Lord is definitely impossible . It leads to claiming variety of gods .

Seventh proof : If the Lord is corporeality, He is either moveable or immovable . Both probabilities are impossible; therefore, the Lord is not an occupant .

If the lord of the cosmos is moveable, then there should be no blame to reckon the planets with gods . The sun, the moon and other planets can be gods unless they have three matters .

1

. They are compound .

2 . They are limited and bound .

3 . They are moveable .

Supposing these three matters do not impede godhead, it will be trivial to criticize godhead of such planets . The same is said about the divine Throne and Chair . This is the very atheism and tergiversation and denial of the Creator .

The claim that the Lord of the cosmos is a corporeality that is not submitted to transference and moveableness, is also null for a number of reasons .

First, the Lord shall be seen as the handicapped that is disable to move, if He is immovable . This is, however, a blemish which is impracticable for Allah .

Second, like other corporealities, Allah should be capable of moving if He is a corporeality .

Third, adopters of God’s being composed of parts claim His ability of moving . They ascribe processes of going and coming to Him . Once, they assert the Lord’s reposing on the Throne while His feet are on the Chair . This is indeed stillness . Once, they relate that He descends to the heavens . This is the moveableness .

. He claims the Lord can be pointed and materially demonstrated . He says, “The Lord is touching the top of the Throne, and able of moving, transference and shifting into other locations . ” The Jews adopt this faith so exceedingly that they claim the Throne’s creaking under the Lord . They also claim that a four finger distance from the two sides of the Throne is vacant while the Lord is sitting there . A number of anthropomorphists, such as Mudar, Kuhmus and Ahmed Al­Hujeimi, added that believers can hang the Lord in this world as well as in the Hereafter . Some claim the Lord’s being adjoining, not matching, the Throne . Others claim finitude of the distance between the Lord and the Throne . Others claim infinity of the distance between the Lord and the Throne . Others assert that the Lord’s occupying a definite position is unlike the corporealities’ occupying positions . The disputation with the latter depends on the articulation, not the purports . Comprehensiveness of wording relies upon regulations defined by the Islamic doctrine .

For proving our concept, there is a number of points to be cited :

First : Anteriority of the space or the location occupied by the Lord, the Exalted, should be measured as same as the Lord’s anteriority . Nevertheless, we have previously proved the Lord’s uniqueness in anteriority . This is unanimously agreed upon by the entire parties .

Second : The occupying beings are in such an exigent need for their places that their

existence is grounded on these position . Places, however, are not in need for occupiers since vacancy is realistic . The result is occupancy of the necessary existence, and necessity of the place . Both are indeed null and void .

Third : Should the Lord have occupied a definite locality, He would have been either occupying certain or the entire points . Both are null since points of a locality are equally the same . For theologists, place is the similar vacancy . Hence, relation of the Necessary Essence to these points should be equal . Then, dedicating certain points to the Lord should be reckoned with the baseless preference, unless there is an extraneous attributer . The necessary existent, in his occupancy, will be necessitating another factor if there is an extraneous attributer . Regarding the point of the Lord’s occupying the entire points of a place, we provide that this requires interaction of occupants, since some of the points of that place should be occupied by another corporeality . Necessarily, interaction of occupants is impracticable . In addition, regarding the latter, this calls for the Lord’s associating with dirt of the cosmos .

Fourth : Since The Lord is impossibly an accident, He will be a matter if He occupies a definite place . If the Lord is a matter, He will be either indivisible or divisible . Both probabilities are null . Nullity of indivisibility is proved by saying that indivisible matters are the most miniature . Allah be promoted against being miniature

. Divisibility implies that the Lord should be a compound corporeality . Previously, it has been proved that external composition contradicts the essential necessity . Furthermore, it has been proved that corporealities are contingent . Accordingly, the Necessary Existent must be contingent .

For nullifying the latter claim, some provide the following discussion .

If the Necessary Existent is a corporeality, each part of Him will bear knowledge, competence and mortality different from these born by other parts, since it is necessarily impossible for the single accident to hold two positions . Hence, each part of the claimed corporeality of the Lord will independently have attributes of perfection . This leads to variety of gods .

At any rate, this discussion implies that each single mankind is a variety of knowledgeable, competent and mortal beings, since such qualities are available in a single human being . Thence, this discussion is valueless .

Another discussion maybe rendered .

The Lord will is, in quiddity, to other occupants if He is an occupant . This necessitates anteriority or contingency of corporealities, since equal matters are concordant in affairs .

This discussion is based upon equality of corporealities or, to some extent, equality of occupants .

Another discussion is rendered .

The Lord resembles other corporealities in occupancy if He is an occupant . Hence, it is essential for the Lord to be unlike other corporealities which leads to His being composite .

Previously, we could prove imperfection of this discussion when we proved commonness and equality of accidents do not necessarily require composition .

Second concept :

Allah, the Exalted, is not a corporeality . This concept is adopted by the right people . Some of the ignorant adhered to the faith that Allah is a corporeality . Afterwards, they are engaged in discrepancies . Karramites, some of them in fact, claim affirming the Lord’s existence by alleging His being a corporeality . Others claim that the Lord is an idiosyncratic corporeality . So, we differ with the two only in ascribing a corporeality to the Lord .

Corporalists, such as Muqatil Bin Suleiman and the like, claim the Lord’s being a realistic corporeality that is composed of flesh and blood!

Others believe in the Lord’s being a light twinkling like a silvern coin, and being seven arms length . Others surpass when they claim the Lord’s having the same appearance of mankind . They assert His being youth, beardless and hair­braided, or a gray­haired old man . Allah be Exalted against sayings of the wrong .

This is nullified by the fact that the Lord will be an occupant if He is a corporeality . Previously we have provided evidences on nullity of this claim . Besides, each corporeality should be compound and contingent . The Lord will enjoy qualities of corporealities if He is a corporeality . If He enjoys the entire qualities, then concurrence of opposites will befall . If He enjoys some, this implies the baseless preference unless there is an extraneous factor . That equality represents the Lord’s Essence’s relation to these qualities as a whole, or His Essence’s prerequisite

to other factors for enjoying such qualities . By the same token, if the Lord is a corporeality, He must be finite . Hence, He must have certain amount and form . The Lord’s exclusive amount and form should be occurred by an attributer that is out of His Essence, in order that a baseless preference will not be required . This implies the Lord’s necessity for other factors, so that he will gain that exclusive form and amount…

of Fatima, daughter of the Prophet who departed the life few hours before, and whose body had not been buried yet, practiced by the ruling authorities who heaped up firewood around her house and warned that they would set it on fire while Ali, Al­Hassan and Al­Hussein, besides Fatima herself, the Prophet’s household, had been inside it . Form this occurrence and many others, Shias learned that the Islamic history is too intolerant to treat the opposition party fairly or even equitably . In a like manner, We, the Shias, do not expect governments that persecuted, chased, banished and massacred us, to praise or speak fairly about our beliefs . We anticipate they would revile at us and accuse us of every unfitting affair . Moreover, we did realize that they would fabricate rumors and vituperation too constructed to be attained by the most proficient specialists in profession of fabrication .

After all these years, we do expect our brothers, the fair scholars, to disinherit those styles of accusation and reviling at the Prophet’s progeny and their adherents . We do seek them to acquaint faiths, jurisprudence and beliefs of Shias from their own reference books . We do hope that our brothers would shun false information inscribed in reference books of those who persecuted and hated Shias, and books of those yes­men who reviled at Shias just because they heard some people revile .

that are similar to a western journalist’s report, concerning the group of bodies, associations and trends in a definite Arabic country, who writes down what he hears and some of what he externally sees, on bases of his personal backgrounds and aims . ’

Al­Ashari’s Maqalatul Islamiyin, As­Shehristani’s Al­Milelu Wen­Nihel, Ibn Hazm’s Al­Faslu Fil Milel and An­Nubekhti’s Al­Farqu Beinel Furaq are examples of such reference books .

We can only cite models of these books so that we may open the door to fortuitous criticism . Authenticity of accrediting these writing works to those scholars, should be the foremost matter to be discussed, since a number of testimonies suspects, for example, relating the book of Maqalatul Islamiyin to Abul­Hassan Al­Ashari .

When he becomes pleasant, it becomes light . Others claim bearers of the Throne are eight angles . Some said eight species…

Since his likes and he (Ahlus­Sunna) decide authenticity of hadith of ibex and its likes, Al­Ashari covers up identity of those who claim such ridiculous statements . He is used to doing so whenever he is unable to impute such rejected sayings to Shias or Mutazilites . He shelters sayers of such statements so that Allah may protect him!!

By the way, Hanbalites and Asharites have uttered calamitous sayings about bearers of the Throne . All can be viewed at exegesis of God’s saying, (The Beneficent settled on the Throne . ) They imitated the Jews and the pagans when they claimed that bearers of the divine throne are animals; tame and wild . They rested upon authentic reports . Previously, we have provided examples of these opinions .

part 1 page 214 :

Some opted for possibility of the Lord’s incarnation in corporealities . They used to revere handsome men expecting that their Lord might have incarnated in his corporeality . Majority of those who opt for the Lord’s seeableness, decide possibility of shaking hands, touching and visitating Him, the Lord . They added, “The sincere servants shall hang their Lord in this world, as well as in the Hereafter . ” Others abstained from claiming God’s seeableness in this world… They claimed the Lord’s seeableness in the Hereafter .

Those incarnationists who decide possibility of hanging the Lord in the Hereafter, are the Hashawites and groups

of Hanbalites and Asharites . The abstinent are some of Asharites and few of Hanbalites . Other Muslims do contradict so .

Ashehristani’s Al­Milelu Wen­Nihel, volume 1 part 1 page 141 :

Anthropomorphists related that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had said, “My Lord shook hands with me when he met me…He put his hands between my shoulders that I could feel coolness of His forefingers . ”

This is an indication to the hadith found in reference books of hadiths compiled by Sunnis, our brothers . The Hanbalite corporalists, Ibn Teimiya and their likes ruled the authenticity of this narrative . Imams of the Prophet’s household and their adherents did deny such a false narrative .

Maqalatul Islamiyin; Abul­Hassan Al­Ashari, part 1 page 210 :

They dispute whether the Lord occupies a definite space or not… Husham Bin Al­Hakam avers that his lord occupies a specific spatial point . He referred to that point, which is the Throne . He also asserts that his lord touches the Throne which comprises him alone… Some of false hadithists claim that the Lord shall sit His Apostle (peace be upon him) next to Him on the Throne . This means that the Throne is not filled up with Him…

Narratives of the Throne’s cracking, creaking and sundering, and the four finger vacant distance of the Throne or the Lord; all these and others are authentically documented and related by Omar, the caliph, and Abdullah, the son, as well as many others . Whatever is ascribed, by Al­Ashari, to Husham, the Shiite, is

faiths of corporalists who are contradictory to the Prophet’s household and progeny (peace be upon them) . Nowadays, corporalists are the Hashawites and Wahabists, and those who joined them; the fanatic Asharites and the adorers of Riyal!!

Maqalatul Islamiyin; Abul­Hassan Al­Ashari, part 1 page 211 :

Ahlus­Sunna and hadithists assert that Allah in not a corporeality and He resembles nothing at all . They also aver that the Lord is settling on the Throne without a certain condition, and that He is illumination… He has a face… He has two hands… He shall come on Resurrection Day and descends to the lowest heavens .

As he accredits principals to promoting Allah against unfitting affairs and denying anthropomorphism, Al­Ashari refers to Sunnis by their names . But when he mentions their beliefs of corporalism and anthropomorphism, he uses some, others and the like .

Hanbalite corporalists renounce denying the Lord’s corporeity, as Bin Baz asserts, and reject denial of anthropomorphism, as Ibn Teimiya affirms . Meanwhile, they claim their being the only Ahlus­Sunna (people of the Prophet’s traditions) whose opinions have been already attested by the worthy ancestors!!

Adam’s being created on the look of the Lord or, as to other narrative, the Beneficent . It is necessary to believe so . ”

Muqatil Bin Suleiman, as it is said, adopts the same faith . Dawud Al­Jawaribi, Nueim Bin Hemmad Al­Misri and many other hadithist claim of Allah’s bearing a look and organs…

Ashehristani’s Al­Milelu Wen­Nihel, volume 1 part 2 page 139 :

A group of exaggerative Shias, such as Hushamites, and Hashawite hadithists, such as Kuhmus and Ahmed Al­Hujeimi, declare anthropomorphizing the Lord . They claim that their god has a certain look with organs and limbs that are either physical or mental . They also claim their god’s moveableness and descending .

As a matter of fact, Muqatil Bin Suleiman is Nasibite ­notorious foe of the Prophet’s household and their followers­ . He was died in 150 A . H .

In his Al­Mujruhin, part 3 page 14, Ibn Hebban records :

Muqatil Bin Suleiman Al­Khurasani . The bondservant of the Azds… He was wont to receive instructions of Jews and Christians regarding knowledge of the Holy Quran . He was anthropomorphist . He anthropomorphizes the Lord to His creatures . Moreover, he forges lies against hadiths .

Though Muqatil is a nefarious corporalist, the author of Al­Milelu Wen­Nihel imputes corporalism to this man indirectly . On the other side, he imputes it to a group of Shias so directly and positively .

Mohammed Bin An­Numan, to whom corporalism is imputed, is the master scholar and juriscounsult of Shias, whom is called Sheik Al­Mufid . He is one of

descendants of Saeed Bin Jubeir and the teacher of Sharif Al­Murteda and Sharif Ar­Redi . His death was on 413 A . H .

Despite the fact that written works of Sheik Al­Mufid, especially in fields of beliefs, jurisprudence and history, are too abundant and famous to be disregarded, author of Al­Milelu Wen­Nihel, could not refer to any text, since all these books did not comprise a single letter of what he claimed .

Husham Bin Al­Hakam was one of disciples of Imam As­Sadiq (peace be upon him) . He was such a skillful eloquent and expert arguer in fields of monotheism, prophecy and Shism, that reference books of Shias, as well as others, refer respectfully to narratives of his discussions and argumentation . In the year 200, Husham was dead . Opposing anthropomorphists and corporalists is a doubtless matter for Shism . It is said that Al­Jahiz was the originator of the false claim of Husham’s opting for corporalism .

Disreputable confusion of author of Al­Milelu Wen­Nihel is so evident . In addition to lack of documentation, the author reckoned Kuhmus and Al­Juheimi with Shias! He confused Shias with their direct opponents, and made them rest upon beliefs of their foes! He alleges that Shias admit hadith of ‘creating Adam on look of Allah’! While Imams of Shias (peace be upon them) warn their followers against such hadiths and clarified their distortion, the author of Al­Milelu Wen­Nihel impute corporalism to Shias because they, as he misalleges, decide authenticity of the forecited hadith of the ‘look’!!

Abul­Hassan Al­Ashari, part 1 page 31 :

Rafidites, followers of imamate, disputed in their opinions of corporalism . They are six parties . Hushamites claim that their god is a corporeality that is a shining illumination . They also state that their god has been being when there was no space . Spaces were originated owing to his moving .

We have neither seen such Shias nor did we hear of them in a reliable book all over history!! Writers of books of Islamic sects, in fact, level disastrous charges against Shias, without referring to any documentation or reference .

part 1 page 31 :

The second party of Rafidites claim their god’s being neither an aspect nor resemblant to corporealities . Depending on their claim of their god’s being a corporeality, they prove his existence . They also do not substantiate that the Creator is compound of parts and fractions .

There is one faith only adopted by Shias since time of Ali (peace be upon him) up to now . We do never claim God’s being a corporeality . We assert that He, the Exalted, is a thing unlike other things . By averring so, we are free from the two edges; edge of Tatilism and that of anthropomorphism . For Shias, it is erroneous to express that Allah is a corporeality unlike other corporealities . Only meaning of this statement should be correct when the sayer intends to say that the Lord is an unparalleled thing .

part 1 page 31 :

The third party of Rafidites are those

who claim their god’s having a human’s look . They reject regarding him as a corporeality . The fourth party are Hushamites who claim their god’s having a human’s look . They deny his being constituent of flesh and blood, but they decide him as a shining illumination . They assign senses to him .

We have neither seen, nor heard, or read in a reliable reference book, of existence of such parties among Shias . Likewise, there is no single authentic reference book reveals existence of such individuals . These rumors are nothing but falsities of books of Islamic sects, forged by the authors or by the agents of the ruling authorities who ascribed such writings to such authors dishonestly .

part 1 page 31 :

The fifth party are those who claim their god’s being pure light and sheer illumination . They contradicted the god’s having a human’s look .

We have neither seen, nor heard, or read in a reliable reference book, of existence of such parties among Shias, if the ordinary illumination and light is intended . But if the light of the heavens and the earth that is unexampled is intended, the holy Quran proves so obviously, and the entire Muslims believe of its existence .

part 1 page 31 :

The sixth party are those who deny their god’s being a corporeality, an aspect or a thing that has resemblant . They adopted the same ideas of Mutazilites and Kharijites .

This statement is not different from that cited for the second party, according to his

division . It seems that authors of books of Islamic sects are similar to correspondents who are fond of prolonging their reports by repeating their words or (adding illusory groups and parties . )

Everybody confesses that Shism preceded Kharijites and Mutazilites; how is it, then, practicable for a foremost sect to cull faiths of a following one ?

Maqalatul Islamiyin; Abul­Hassan Al­Ashari, part 1 page 35 :

Rafidites divided into two groups in respect with question of bearers of the Throne . Yunisites, followers of Younus Bin Abdirrahman Al­Qummi the servant of Al Yaqtin, claim that bearers of the Throne do carry the Creator . Another party claim that those bearers carry the Throne since it is impracticable for Allah to be carried .

Correspondingly, Bin Baz, who asserts that bearers of the Throne do carry Entity of Allah, the Exalted, should answer us clearly whether he has been Shiite, since he carries the same (misalleged) faiths!

part 1 page 59 :

Rafidites disagree with each other in the topic of the Lord’s corporeality . Some declare that meaning of the tall, spacious and deep corporeality of the Lord is His existence . As long as the Creator is being an existent thing, He should be corporeality . Others say that the Creator is not a corporeality since corporealities are composite beings .

Al­Miqrizi’s Al­Mawaidu Wel Hikem, part 2 page 348

Jawlaqites are followers of Husham Bin Salim Al­Jawlaqi . They are Rafidites as well . One of the ugliest claims of that man is his saying that Allah, the Exalted, is

having a look of humans, and that His upper part is hollow while the lower is full .

It is quite clear for inspectors of reference books of Shias, that such parties and sayings are thoroughly nonexistent in Shiite heritage . They are sayings of their opposers . Similarly, the Prophet’s household and scholars of this sect had led a sweeping campaign against corporalism and anthropomorphism . Antagonists accused the Prophet’s progeny and their adherents of opinions and deeds they, themselves, had perpetrated . Opinions of corporalism were dominantly widespreading among Nasibites; the direct enemies of the Prophet’s household (peace be upon them) . Fair researchers can assuredly aver that corporalism exists wherever there is a Nasibite . However, there are always those against the rule . By the same token, Promoting the Lord against unbecoming affairs exists wherever there is an adherent to the Prophet’s household .

In brief words, there are two eminent problems that are unanswerable by authors of books dealing with the Islamic sects and parties . First, those authors did not refer to reference books form which they quoted these beliefs, sayings and names . Second, they rested upon policy of censuring the opposition parties when they falsely ascribed the strange and unceremonious beliefs to them, by citing fabricated names . On the other hand, they covered up names of the real sayers and embracers of such beliefs as they were loyal to the ruling authorities or masters of their sects . These problems are enough to disregard such reference books .

Mohammed Bin An­Numan, who refutes the material placement of some creatures even ? How should he then admit this placement for the Lord, the Creator ?

the ignorant of such rites, if they are striking on their knees ­or thighs­ as a sign of showing sorrow for a definite concern . Intelligence, as well as god­fearing­ of opponents of Shism attained its climax when they could find a (persuasive) interpretation of this rite . They averred that Shias show their grief because prophecy had not been given to Ali!! Hence, they say, “The Honest betrayed”!!!

They aver such a forgery and insist on it, while they do realize that Shias are the best sect in glorifying the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) . Shias believe of the Prophet’s being seal of prophets . They also believe that Gabriel, the angel, is sinless . Shias narrate that Ali (peace be upon him) addressed at a man who praised him exaggeratively, “Woe is you! I am only a slave among Mohammed’s slaves . ” He also said, “Whenever wars were at their most vigorous hours, we were wont to seek the Prophet’s protection . ”

certain sect . We do decide that, initially, Muslims have the right to refer to any of the sects the rulings of which are authentically recounted and recorded in identified books . Besides, it is rightful and not illicit for every Muslim individual to shift to any other sect .

Second, like any other Islamic sect, it is authoritatively lawful to refer to sect of Jafarism, that is familiarly known as the Imamite Ithnasharite Shism, in practicing worshipping rites and transactions . Muslims ought to have full acquaintance of such a matter . They are also advised to strip the unrightful fanaticism to certain sects . Religion and decree of Allah, the Exalted, have never been consecrated or dedicated to a certain sect . The entire scholars are admissible elicitors that are accepted by the Lord . It is licit for the unauthorized to rest upon verdicts, rulings and jurisprudence of the admissible eliciting scholars, whether in ritual or transactional affairs .

”, the Prophet’s companions used to address at Ali .

Ibn Edi and Ibn Asakir relates the following hadith to Abu Sa’eed : “Ali is the best of men . ”

Ibn Edi : Ibn Abbas : When God revealed the Verse, (Those who believe and do good, surely they are the best of men . ), the Prophet addressed at Ali, “It is your adherents and you who shall be pleased and satisfied on Resurrection Day . ”

Ibn Merdawayih : Ali : The Prophet (peace be upon him) addressed at me, “Have you not heard God’s saying, (Those who believe and do good, surely they are the best of men . ) ? They are your adherents and you . My meeting with you all shall be on the divine pool when nations shall be come forth for judgment . You shall be called ‘the bright faced the shining . ’”

We lack enough space to discuss documentation of such hadiths . It is sufficient to hint at the fact that hadithists affirm that no individual attained forms of praise addressed by the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) at Ali (peace be upon him) . An­Nisai’s Khassaisu Ali Bin Abi Talib is quite abundant in this regard .

One of the wonders of history is that no single individual, among companions of the Prophet, suffered ten percent of the endeavors of screening standings and merits Ali (peace be upon him) had suffered on the hands of the Nasibite state and its officials, who issued the

decision of imposing cursing and reviling at Ali during Friday prayers all over the Islamic state, for about seven decades . Nevertheless, such considerable hadiths relating merits of Ali and his adherents could endure in reference books of Sunnis, our brothers .

Quite truthful was that who said, “What can I say about a man whose opponents hid his merits for their enviously, and adherents hid them for their cautiously . Between these two, merits too abundant to be endured by hearts, emerged . ” Another veracious individual said, “We do not know what to do with Ali Bin Abi Talib . We will miss our mundane affairs if we cherish him . And we will miss the Paradisiacal affairs if we hate him . ”

maybe; therefore, they support the writer with a considerable number of titles and hundreds of Shiite reference books . Hence, by joining these efforts, this (objective) encyclopedia regarding beliefs and sect of Shism came forth .

Because of variety in styles used in the book, and existence of linguistic defects the source of which cannot be a (Qifari) Saudi Arabian’s, we could decide that a group contributed in sending forth the book .

We, however, should rule on appearances . We do hope this study would provide considerable information and analysis due to fertility of its reference books . As long as origin of this book was discussed by experienced professors, it should be fitting the academic certificate it gained .

Our expectations should increase when we read the writer’s good tidings carried in his introductory of the book . On pages 14 and 16, part 1, he records :

As much as it is necessary to refer to definite points in this introduction, I should admit that since the first steps of my journey with Shias and their books, I pledged my self not to view in books that indirectly refer to them . I favored to deal with the Shiite books directly so that my survey would not deviate its course . I did my best to be as objective as possible, within the frame required by topics appertained to beliefs . The straightforward objectivity is nothing other than referring to their books directly and honestly, and opting for their reliable reference books and documents, and exerting

all efforts for singling out narratives authenticated by them or prevalent in their books… Through providing their beliefs, I do commit myself to resting upon their reliable reference books . At random, I do not neglect what other books suggest in the topic involved . It is very useful to cite the two opinions before readers, so that they would compare… A many difficulties I encountered during preparing this survey . First, unlike these of Sunnis, the Shias’ reference books are not indexed in any order; therefore, I had to spend many hours in reviewing such references . Once, I had to review the thorough pages of Biharul­Anwar, the multivolumed, Ussoulul Kafi and Wesailushia, so that I might inspect the narrative I needed . Sometimes I had to review the total chapter or even hundreds of pages for obtaining so .

Well then, the writer has promised us of resting upon reference books of the Shias in communicating their opinions . As long as he had to recite hundreds of narratives, let us hear what he tells us about their ‘corporalism’ :

Principals of sect of the Imamite Ithnasharite Shism . Survey and critique, part 2 page 527 :

Chapter Three : Shias’ Tenet Of The Lord’s Names And Attributes .

In this regard, Shias are engaged in four errors .

First error : Exaggeration in substantiating the Lord . This is called corporalism .

Second error : Depriving the Lord of the names and attributes .

Third error : Accrediting the divine names and attributes to their imams .

Fourth error :

Distorting the Quranic Verses for depriving the Lord of the names and attributes .

Following, each of these errors will be discussed independently and reference books involved will be referred .

First theme : Exaggeration in substantiating the Lord . (Corporalism) .

The Jews were known of their adopting for faith of corporalism . Rafidites were the principal Islamic faction who embraced this misbelief . Ar­Razi stated, “Majority of the Jews are anthropomorphists . Rafidites, such as Husham Bin Al­Hakam, Husham Bin Salim Al­Jawaliqi, Younus Bin Abdirrahman Al­Qummi and Abu Jafar Al­Ahwal, were the foremost bearers of this belief among Muslims . (Refer to Itiqadatu Furaqil Muslimine Wel Mushrikin, page 97 . ) All of the previous individuals are the precedent masters and the authentic narrators of Ithnasharism . (Refer to Muhsin Al­Amin’s Ayanush Shia, part 1 page 106 . ) Sheikul­Islam, Ibn Teimiya, identified the foremost individual who get embroiled in this forgery, “Husham Bin Al­Hakam was the first man in Islam who claimed Allah’s being a corporeality . ” (Refer to Minhajus Sunna, part 1 page 20 . )

In his Meqalatul Islamiyin, Al­Ashari emphasize that the headmost Shias were corporalists . Later on, corporalism, as a faith, was prevalent among followers of this sect . He records their sayings regarding this topic . Finally he confesses that some of the late Shias shifted into faith of depriving the Lord of the divine names and attributes ­Tatilism­ . (Meqalatul Islamiyin, part 1 page 106­9 . ) Depending on the previous, the Ithnasharites’ tending to Tatilism occurred in

an early period . Later on, we shall provide sayings identifying this date . (The second theme) .

Writers of books of the Islamic sects record numerous nasty statements of anthropomorphism and corporalism, ascribed to Husham Bin Al­Hakam and his partisans . Abdul­Qahir Al­Baghdadi says, “Husham Bin Al­Hakam claims that his god is a corporeality having a definite edge and extremity, and being tall, wide and deep . His tallness is same as his width . ” (Al­Farqu Beinel Furaq, page 65 . ) He also records, “Husham Bin Salim Al­Jawaliqi is extremist in corporeality and anthropomorphism . He claims his god’s having the same look of humans . He also alleges that his god enjoys the five senses enjoyed by mankind . ” (Ibid . pages 68­9 . ) He also writes down that Younus Bin Abdirrahman Al­Qummi is extremist in anthropomorphism, too . He gives examples on that extremity . (Ibid . page 70) . Ibn Hazm records, “Husham claims that his god is seven ordinary span height . (Al­Fasl, part 5 page 40 . )

While the writer promises resting upon the reference books of Shias exclusively, he totally refers to books of their opponents . Nevertheless, he cites Ayanush Shia within his references . Having referred to the position in Ayanush Shia the writer had suggested, we could not find the evidence he rested upon .

It seems referring to reference books of Shias, gives the opposite meaning! The writer rests upon reference books of the Shias’ die­hard opponents . This is quite contrary

to his promise!

The innumerable Shiite reference books suffocated with statements and faiths of promoting the Lord against unfitting matters, are listed in the end of that writer’s book . What for, then, does he shun ? These books comprise one hundred titles and questions, at least, respecting denial of anthropomorphism and corporeality, by Quranic and prophetic narrations besides theological studies . Was the professor unable to see any of these ? !

The first volume of the two volumed Ussoulul Kafi the professor claims of reviewing thoroughly, is titled as follows :

Title : Monotheism .

Chapter : Contingency of the cosmos and substantiating existence of the contingent .

Chapter : General claim of God’s being a thing .

Chapter : God is recognized by His notifications only .

Chapter : Least of knowledge .

Chapter : The Worshipped .

Chapter : Cosmos and space .

Chapter : Accreditation .

Chapter : Warning against asking about conditions of the Lord .

Chapter : Nullity of God’s seeableness .

Chapter : Warning against accrediting claimed attributes to the Lord, other than what He uses for Himself .

Chapter : Warning against claims of having corporeity and look .

Chapter : Attributes of Entity .

Chapter : Additional information .

Chapter : The Lord’s will is attribute of operation . The other attributes of operation .

Chapter : Contingency of the Names .

Chapter : Meanings and derivation of the Names .

Chapter : Difference between purports of the divine Names and names of creatures .

Chapter : Interpretation of ‘Samad’ .

Chapter : Moveableness and action .

Chapter : The divine Throne and Chair .

Chapter : The divine

Spirit .

Chapter : Combination of monotheism .

Chapter : Miscellaneous exceptional questions .

The Professor did see all this . On other pages of his book, he uncovers the secret that he did attentively overlook reference books of Shias, for the matter that their opponents are more acquainted and faithful in providing their faiths .

Principals of sect of the Imamite Ithnasharite Shism . Survey and critique, part 2 page 531 :

It is may be said that the previous sayings ascribed to Husham Bin Al­Hakam and his followers should not be taken as an evidence since they are quoted from books of the Shias’ opponents . Books of followers of the different sects of Islam, did assign such sayings to such heretic individuals abundantly . They are, however, more reliable and authentic than Rafidites . All these prove that Rafidites were the origin of leading this heresy to Muslims . Readers who passed by the Shias’ denial of such affairs may take in consideration the fact that ascribing corporalism to Shias was instituted by their opponents and nonexisted in reference books of Shias themselves . The factuality is contradictory to this cogitating .

of Saudi Arabia . He can also pick up the nationality and the geographical province he opts for .

Thus and so, promise of the professor elapsed . For him, the actual meaning of referring to Shias’ reference books in quoting their faiths means nothing other than quoting the inaccurate charges against them, and judging through them .

We do seek the Lord’s help only in this regard . Let’s take another look at objectivity of the professor in field of investigation and citing evidences . On part 1 page 14, he assures, “I did my best to be as objective as possible, within the frame required by topics appertained to beliefs . ” On page 57, he asserts, “Scientific course and objectivity require resting upon the involved individuals in field of referring to their opinions . ”

As a model of this objectivity, we provide the following theme recorded by the professor on page 535, part 2 :

Second Theme : Tatilism of Shias .

During the last years of the third century, changes occurred on this sect . They were influenced by the Mutazilites’ course of depriving the Lord of the divine attributes and names that are asserted by Quranic and prophetic texts . In the fourth century, they adopted course of Tatilism in a stronger way . Depending upon faiths of Mutazilism, Al­Mufid, Al­Musawi ­the named Sharif Al­Murteda­ and Abu Jafar At­Tusi wrote down several books about this faith . (Minhajus Sunna, part 1 page 229) .

Majority of their writings were literally quoted from books of Mutazilism

. By the same token, their exegeses of Quranic texts regarding the divine attributes, fatalism and the like are literally excerpted from books of Mutazilism . (Minhajus Sunna, part 1 page 356) .

Readers of the late books of Shias can scarcely feel a difference from books of Mutazilism, specially in questions of the divine names and attributes . They claim that intellectuality is their foundation in this regard . The late master Shias adopted questions contrived by Mutazilites, regarding creation of the Quran, denial of the Lords’ seeableness in the Hereafter and denial of the divine attributes . The seditious matters stemmed by Mutazilites are as same as those asserted by the late masters of Shism .

Page 537, part 3 :

A number of their narratives ascribe negative attributes of the Lord of the worlds, when they denied the diligent divine attributes . In more than seventy narratives, Ibn Babawayih claims, “Time, place, condition, movement and changing should not be assigned to Allah, the Exalted . Besides, qualities of corporealities should not be accredited to the Lord Who is not a material, a corporeality or a demeanor . ” (Refer to Ibn Babawayih’s At­Tawhid, page 57 . )

Masters of Shism ensued this deviating course of depriving the Lord of the divine attributed asserted by Quranic and prophetic texts, and ascribing negative attributes to Him .

Page 537, part 3 :

Through reliable authentic narratives, it is proved that Ali (God please him) and imams of the Prophet’s progeny declared the Lord’s having attributes . This is commonly recorded

in books of scholars . (Refer to Minhajus Sunna, part 2 page 44 . )

The professor decides Shias as corporalists till the fourth century . Thereafter, they shifted into Tatilism when they did not accredit (qualities of corporealities) to the Lord, the Exalted .

Previously, it has been clear that the professor rests upon sayings of the Shias’ opponents in question of their faith of corporalism, claiming their being more faithful than the group involved . Now, what should his evidence be in charging them of Tatilism ?

He cited nothing more than names of the master scholars of Shism as his evidence on their opting for Tatilism . He cannot refer to any saying of those scholars . Hence, he says, “In the fourth century, they adopted course of Tatilism in a stronger way . Depending upon faiths of Mutazilism, Al­Mufid, Al­Musawi ­the named Sharif Al­Murteda­ and Abu Jafar At­Tusi wrote down several books about this faith . ”

We do address at Dr . Al­Qifari whether it is accurate to evidence a matter by mentioning names only . How should the reverent academic professors in a respectful university, who investigated this thesis, admit such a thing ? Ordinary Bedouins and abiders of deserts ­Qifar­ will not accept so .

The professor should have cited sayings of those men so that readers would recognize their Tatilism or corporalism, and they would not accuse the professor of issuing unattested judges and absconding principals of the theme, and keeping them hidden in his own chest!

We would like to inform the

professor of the fact that Sheik Al­Mufid was dead in 413, his disciple Sharif Al­Murteda in 436 and At­Tusi in 460 . According of the claim that those individuals were Tatilists, this should bring us to believe that Tatilism was adopted by Shias in the fifth, not the fourth, century!

Besides, the professor asserts that he has reviewed the Shias’ narratives related to the Prophet and the immaculate progeny, written down in Ibn Babawayih’s At­Tawhid . He claims, “In more than seventy narratives, Ibn Babawayih claims, ‘Time, place, condition, movement and changing should not be assigned to Allah, the Exalted . ’” This Ibn Babawayih is Mohammed Bin Al­Hussein As­Saduq, whose death was in 281 . Hence, history of Shias’ Tatilism retreats to the third century and related, by authentic narratives, to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) . Where is, then, corporalism Shias adopted till the fourth or fifth century when Al­Mufid, Al­Musawi ­the named Sharif Al­Murteda­ and Abu Jafar At­Tusi recorded faith of Tatilism in their books ?

Now has the truth become established! The professor unburdens himself to the fact that As­Saduq’s At­Tawhid, is filled up with the Prophet’s statements regarding promoting the Lord against unfitting affairs . Hence, he confesses that Shias were neither corporalists nor Tatilists . Only those corporalists who decide promoting the Lord against unfitting affairs, as Tatilism, and decide denial of God’s having corpreity, as deviation and atheism; only those individuals claim the Shias’ being corporalists .

The simplest right of readers of that professor’s work is

that he should have mentioned even a single narration of these seventy, in order that the claimed Tatilism and atheism of Shias would be emerged, specially after the claim that the Shias did distort all these seventy narrations that falsely comprise denial of the proved divine attributes . This means that Shias, unlike Wahabists, did not rest upon the extrinsic meanings of aspect of the divine attributes texts .

We see our duty be explaining the accusal of Tatilism Al­Qifari and Wahabists used as a cane for striking faces of those who oppose them, and avoid resting upon the extrinsic meanings of aspects of the divine attributes texts . For Wahabists, the forbidden interpretation, Tatilism and atheism are befallen when claiming that ‘hand of Allah’, mentioned in God’s saying, (The hand of Allah is above their hands), stands for the Lord’s competence . Reckoning with the faithful believers is decided only when claiming the Lord’s having a material realistic hand, is adopted .

Even if it is claimed that meanings of ‘eye of Allah’, ‘hand of Allah’, ‘side of Allah’ and the like idioms are not recognized; therefore, these are commended to Allah and His Apostle, then, Wahabists will issue the same verdict, which is deciding deviation, Tatilism and commendation . Such decisions can be avoided only when the extrinsic meanings of such expressions are adopted .

For Wahabists, all the commenders and the interpreters are decided as deviate Tatilists since they deprive the Lord of the attributes, materiality and conditions! They also decide atheism of such individuals

for their denial of the material attributes mentioned in the Quranic texts!! Thus, saving Wahabists and corporalists, there is no real Muslim at all!!

Like their corporalist grandfathers, Wahabists commit the exaggerative mistake of ascribing physical existence to the Lord, the Exalted, and deciding their opposers as deviate and atheists . They commit another exaggerative mistake when they forbid from seeking intercession of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) and the virtuous disciples, and rule of illegality of visitating their tombs . They regard such lawful processes as polytheism, deviation and atheism .

The common party between Wahabism and corporalism is that followers of the both are partisans of materiality . They neither conceive nor believe in other faiths . The western materialists are little inflexible .

Finally, Dr . Al­Qifari charge the Prophet’s household of ‘Teimism’ and Wahabism . He was sufficed by Ibn Teimiya’s saying without referring to any evidence . He records, “It is proved that Ali (God please him) and imams of the Prophet’s progeny declared the Lord’s having attributes . This is commonly recorded in books of scholars . ” Lacking any evidence, Ibn Teimiya records this claim in his books frequently .

Ibn Teimiya’s Majmu’etur Resail, part 1 page 115 :

Imamites contradict the Prophet’s household in their principals . None of the Prophet’s household, such as Ali Bin Al­Hussein, Abu Jafar Al­Baqir and Jafar Bin Mohammed, deny God’s seeableness .

Readers are rightful to inquire an example from these commonly recorded evidences Ibn Teimiya, followed by his son Dr . Al­Qifari,

claims . Definitely, his stuff and he could not find a single indication to this topic in sayings of imams of the Prophet’s household, in the entire books and references they had referred to . Nevertheless, they insist on their master’s claim wanting evidences .

Like promise of referring to reference books of Shias for providing their opinions, the professor’s promise of objectivity and erudition went with the wind .

We do refer this to the Lord exclusively . Folding this thesis, let us move to the third promise of the professor . He promised of being honest in referring to reference books of Shias . The professor has previously stated, “The straightforward objectivity is nothing other than referring to their books directly and honestly, and opting for their reliable reference books and documents, and exerting all efforts for singling out the narratives authenticated by them or prevalent in their books…”

Al­Qummi records :

Abu Basir : I asked Abu Abdullah whether the believers shall see their Lord on Resurrection Day or not . He answered affirmatively . (Refer to Ibn Babawayih’s At­Tawhid, page 117 and Biharul­Anwar, part 4 page 44 and Al­Kishi’s book of narrators, page 450 sequence 848 . )

The professor is quite objective in this regard . He claims existence of a narration, related to Imam Jafar As­Sadiq, in which it is affirmed that believers can see their Lord on Resurrection Day, while Shias deny so in their beliefs, and claim their being followers of the Prophet’s household!

This is null, since our professor is not honest in referring to these books . He incises a part of the narration so that it will accord his claim . Thus and so, his honest objectivity has gone away and been shifted into a western objectivity, for instance .

The following is the entire narration :

As­Saduq’s At­Tawhid, page 117 :

… Abu Basir : I asked Abu Abdillah (peace be upon him) whether the believers shall see their Lord, the Excellent the Glorified, on Resurrection Day or not . “Yes, they shall . Besides, they could see him before that,” answered Abu Abdillah . “When was that ? ” I questioned . “It was when he asked them, ‘Am I not your Lord ? ’, and they submitted . ” After a while, imam As­Sadiq added, “The true believers can see Him in this world, before Resurrection Day . Can you not see Him now ? ”

I sought his

permitting me publicizing this among people, but he discommended so . He commented, “I anticipate that the unlettered may deny so due to their ignoring the actual meaning we are referring to . Then, they may charge us of anthropomorphism which is atheism . Heart sight is different from eyesight . Allah be excellently exalted against sayings of anthropomorphists, the atheists . ”

This honorable narration proves the Lord’s seeableness by hearts and minds . It avers that such a sort of vision has been occurring in this world since the Lord’s taking Adam’s progeny’s covenant of confessing His godhood . In the Hereafter, this intellective sight shall be more evident and obvious . Hence, this narration denies the claim of the Lord’s material seeableness . It reckons so to anthropomorphism, which is atheism .

See how the professor quotes the first line only and withholds the others . This is aimed at ascribing the claim of God’s material seeableness to Imam Jafar As­Sadiq (peace be upon him) .

Such an error can be evaded by an ordinary grocer Muslim, not an honored first class professor in a university like University of Mohammed Bin Saud . By committing such an error, the premier Degree of Honor, given by the university elapses . As an introduction to the book involved, the statement, “This thesis has been granted the premier Degree of Honor,” has been recorded .

Personally, had I been the dean of the college such an erroneous student is one of its members, I would certainly have canceled the

Degree of Honor given to him, and banned publicizing such a thesis, and offer apology to the party misjudged by that scholastic student . By doing so, value of my university would have been preserved . The dean and instructors of Al­Qifari can never do so, since they lack the competence to apply such decisions . The standing of Al­Qifari may be exalted because he did well in the field of censuring and reviling at Shias, in an academic way .

Earlier, I conceived that Al­Qifari’s book would be too interesting to avoid, because it will be an objective work . Unfortunately, now I see it be too ineffective to spend any time in continuing on it . A single falsity is too sufficient to regard .

There are, however, two questions regarding this topic, recorded in Al­Qifari’s book .

First all, the writer charges us of adopting faiths of the Jews, Magi and pagans .

On page 87 part 1, he records :

Shism is successor of the ancient Asian beliefs :

Some added that Shism has been the home of the ancient Asian beliefs, such as Buddhism and the like . Ahmed Amin records, “Under shades of Shism, beliefs of spiritualism, corporalism, incarnationism and the like embraced by Brahminists, philosophers and Magi before Islam, were enlivened . A number of orientalists aver that a majority of the non­Islamic beliefs could find their way to Shism . Through Magianism, Manu, Buddhism and other pre­Islamic faiths of Asia, these beliefs were copied in Shism . ”

It seems that our professor changed

into modernism and secularism when he rests upon Ahmed Amin, the secularist Egyptian, and orientalists to whom, as he conceive, objectivity is ascribed for nothing other than standing against Shias . By imitating sayings of secularists and orientalists about Shism, Al­Qifar imitates another Wahabist that wrote a book the title of which stands for proving that Shias are equal to the Jews .

As an answer, we do provide the fact that narratives of Kabul­Ahbar and his faction are still nesting and embedding in reference books of our brothers, not ours . Besides, these narrations have been ceaselessly printed in the modernest technologies of typography, and provided as lessons in institutes and universities . Kabul­Ahbar and his faction were abiding in the chateaux of caliphs, not in the Prophet’s household’s houses . More information about these facts can be easily obtained by reviewing our books titled Al­Aqidetul­Islamiya, volume 2 and Tadwinul Quran .

Regarding influence of Magianism and Asian beliefs in Shism, we do assert that many centuries before their embracing Shism and participating in compiling books of the sect, the Magus were Sunnis that they compiled the most celebrity Sunni reference books respecting their hadithology, beliefs and jurisprudence .

Supposing they were influenced by Magianism and the ancient Asian beliefs, Persian Muslims would have communicated so to Sunnism, that they have been masters of its different sects and hadithology, before they shifted into Shism .

Sons of those Persian Sunnis should have been influenced by their Sunni, not Magian, fathers’ beliefs, unless this influence comprised some of the

earlier Magianism that they, inevitably, communicated it to Sunnism .

Is it true that this professor ignores the fact that there is no single sect enjoys Arabism of Shism ? ! While founders of his sect, about which he disputes us, and compilers of his reference books, by whom he contests, are thoroughly Persian . Ninety percent of the master compilers of Sunni reference books are Persian . All the (Imams) who are Hanbalite corporalists and adopters of the faith of God’s having material attributes, Wahabists do provide their evidences, are either Jews or Persian .

It seems, likewise, that the professor ignores the fact that a number of the Shiite Persian scholars, he reviles at, are offspring of the masters he reverences . The compiler of Biharul Anwar encyclopedia, Al­Majlisi, died in 1111 A . H, is the descendant of Abu Nueim Alisfahani, the Sunni scholar died in 435 . Many centuries later, the offspring of Ibn Jizi, Ibn Khuzeima, Al­Juweini, Muslim, An­Nisai, At­Tirmithi, Ibn Madga, Abu Dawud, Al­Hakim, Abu Haneefa and hundreds of the Persian scholars, embraced Shism . Some of them became master scholars of the sect .

Then, who should be charged of being influenced by the Magianism and the ancient Asian beliefs; is it the Sunni forefathers and their culture, or the Shiite progeny ?

As a matter of fact, decent researchists should not adopt baseless judgment . Ideas and beliefs should be scrutinized independently . It is also essential to inspect whether such an idea or belief has a ground in Quranic or

prophetic texts, or not . Likewise, it is necessary to note whether intellectuality admits such a belief or not . If there is a doctrinal text supporting the idea involved, then, it will be inappropriate to regard whether this belief is existed at another sect or religion, or not . It is also irrelevant to regard whether people admit or reject so . We should look upon the saying, “We are followers of evidence . We turn whenever it turns . ”

Secondly, notion about the most reliable reference books of the Shias .

On page 368 part 1, he records :

Jafar An­Najafi ­died in 1227­ master of Imamite Shism and the chief juriscounsult, reveals, in his Keshful­Ghitta, how it is proper to rest upon narratives recorded in the four major reference books of Shism and the other three books . He states, “It is improper to rest upon knowledge recorded in these books while each is contrary to the other . Besides, these books comprise narratives thoroughly fabricated, such as relations of corporeality, anthropomorphism, anteriority of the cosmos and actuality of space and time . On the other hand, compilers of these four reference books assert, in introductories of their books, that they record what is authentic only . We answer that it is necessary to dedicate such assertion as to definite topics, or find suitable interpretation for them or opt for shifting into adhering to what they committed themselves to in the introductory . ”

The following is a gravest objection . They claim that these

four reference books are based upon principals supervised by the imams . The book titled Ussoulul Kafi was compiled in the Minor Disappearance age when it was possible to attain the imam’s opinion in any narrative . However, they allege that their Mahdi admitted the forecited book by saying, “It is sufficient for our Shias . ” Besides, the compiler of Men La Yahdaruhul Faqih did attain more than twenty years of the Minor Disappearance age .

the Shiite researcher can freely and accurately deal with any narrative found in Ussoulul Kafi or any other reliable reference book, and can adjudge uncertainty or even inaccuracy of that narrative, that he would repeal . This would not prejudice his faithful believing or belongness to Shism . While Sunnis are forbidden from adjudging so . If a Sunni does, he shall inevitably be ruled as mutinous, Rafidite or antagonist to the Prophet’s companions!

The professor and his likes should also understand that a compiler’s testimony for authenticity of his book, is a personal question that may prejudice his partisans and him . This fact is emphasized in books of hadith . Therefore, it is quite rightful for inferrers to inspect, scrutinize and criticize contents of that book . Researchist may and may not be influenced by judgments of the compilers . Apart from inference of the compilers, the absolute argumentation should be the researchist’s inference .

Al­Qifar should have conceived the point accentuated by Jafar Al­Jenahi’s saying, “It is improper to rest upon knowledge recorded in these books while each is contrary to the other . ”

He suggests that it is improper for inferrers to rest totally upon claims of compilers of such reference books, since each of them had his own inference and reached a definite conclusion depending upon personal factors and grounds . Inferrers should depend upon their personal competencies in jurisprudence, hadithology and adjudging authenticity, or inaccuracy, of narrators .

This same rulings should have been applied on the most reliable reference books of

Sunnis, our brothers . The compilers’ testimonies of authenticity of their books should not be considered as an evidence on accuracy of contents of such books . For instance, Al­Bukhari’s book of hadith is full of contradictory and conflicting narratives that it is impossible to rest upon . Hence, it is the inferrers’ task to opt for the authentic and disregard the doubtful . Perpetually, ordinary people refer to scholars and experts in deciding the authentic and the doubtful reports .

This is the natural manner of followers of any belief . This is also the sound scientific course determined by intellectuality and logic . The finding that a nation should confine their members’ mentalities and lock the door to investigating and scrutinizing their prophet’s reported traditions, and devote to six, or even sixty, books only, is not more than an Abbasid heresy and constitutional law .

Unfortunately, our brothers are still adhering to this intellectual interdiction, because they anticipate that if door of scientific research and free investigation is opened, their corporalism and false beliefs shall be under feet . They may decide the obligation of acting upon verdicts of Nasir Al­Albani, the Wahabist, if they succumb to opening the door to scientific research and free investigation .

We cannot stop them from restricting such a confinement . But they should not look upon the others as unlettered nomads . They should not regard the scientific freedom, adopted by Shiite scholars, as blemish and field of imputing insults and an evidence on nullity of their reference books

and narrations . Owing to his deficiency in perspective, Al­Qifari provided words of the master researchists falsely .

Regarding his ‘gravest objection’ which is the wonderment why these books had been compiled away from the imams, to whom narratives are ascribed, while they were reachable, this wonder reveals the insufficient expert of the wonderer in field of history and recording of hadith . This perplexity should be addressed at recorders of the Sunnis’ six most reliable reference books of hadith and the other references, since their (imams), and for one hundred years, intercepted people from recording the Prophet’s traditions, and only then they recorded reports of the narrators admitted by the ruling authorities exclusively .

Till 260 A . H, when Imam Al­Mahdi disappeared, our imams were among us . They have been the Lord’s argumentation on Muslims . This fact is asserted by the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) . Shias referred to them in questions respecting evaluation of authenticity of hadiths, and in jurisprudence . Since the reign of Ali (peace be upon him) up to the third Hijri century, narrators and scholars had been recording traditions of the imams incessantly . After that date, a number of scholars compiled principals of these reports in encyclopedic books . Hence the four most reliable reference books of Shism have been received directly from the imams (peace be upon them) . These traditions are uninterruptedly connected to our imams’ grandfather, the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) . This documentation is called

‘the golden series’ . This golden series is reverenced by the entire Muslims . Ahmed Bin Hanbal, the master scholar, praised this series by saying, “If this documentation is recited before an insane, he will certainly regain his intellectuality . ”

In the margin of Musnedu Zaid Bin Ali, page 440 :

Compiler of Tarikhu Nisapur, records the following :

Pushing his way in the mart, Ali Ar­Rida, son of Musa Al­Kadim Bin Jafar As­Sadiq, was under an umbrella on a reddish mule when Abu Zaraa and Abu Muslim At­Tusi, the master scholars, intercepted his way and asked, “O glorious master and son of the master imams! We adjure you by your immaculate forefathers and patrician ascendants, to reveal your noble face and relate a saying mentioned by your fathers and ascribed to your forefather so that we will relate to you . ”

He ordered his servants to stop and revealed his face to people whose eyes were shiny for their looking at their imam . He had two locks inclining to his shoulders . As people, apart from their classes, saw him, they began to weep and scream . Some threw themselves down, wallowing in dust . Others went on kissing legs of his pack animal . It was highly noise there when the master scholars, especially Abu Zaraa and Mohammed Bin Aslem At­Tusi, shouted at people to be quiet so that they would listen to the efficacious words of the imam .

Ali Ar­Rida spoke :

My father, Musa Al­Kadim related to me that his father, Jafar As­Sadiq,

related that his father, Mohammed Al­Baqir, related that his father, Zeinul­Abidin related that his father, the martyr of Kerbala, related that his father, Ali Al­Murteda, related that master beloved and dearest, the Apostle of Allah, related that Gabriel, the angel, related that Lord of Excellence said, “The statement, ‘There is no god but Allah’ is my fortress . He that utters it, will enter My fortress . And he that gains entry to My fortress, shall be secured from My anguish . ’”

Immediately, the imam returned under the umbrella and continued his movement . There were twenty thousand men writing his statement . Ahmed Bin Hanbal comments, “If this documentation is recited before an insane, he will certainly regain his intellectuality . ”

and their Mutazilite and Asharite likes .

While the caliph, Harun, was hiding behind a screen for listening, Jafar Al­Barmeki was holding sessions of disputation between followers of the different religions and sects . Husham was the most remarkable and famous in such sessions for his éclat and deduction . Some of his argumentation on masters of other religions are recorded .

Because of antagonism against the Prophet’s progeny, Ar­Rashid’s vizier could use his Magian shrewdness for provoking Husham on defending Imamate during one of these session . Hence, the caliph aimed at killing him . But he could escape . Till his death, he attempted at evading the caliph and his authorities .

In his Muroujut­Theheb, Al­Masudi refers to this incident .

On page 379 part 3, he writes :

Yahya Bin Khalid held sessions at which theologists, whether Muslims or of other religions, used to debate in their beliefs . Yahya said to them, “You have overstated about denial and materialization of the divine attributes… Is imamate mandated by the Lord or is it submitted to people’s own opinions ? …etc .

We are to mention Sharif Al­Murteda’s defending Husham before we move to rending models of that man’s disputation that are acceptably sufficient to prove his innocence from charges recorded in books of the Islamic sects .

Sharif Al­Murteda’s Ashafi, page 83 :

As much as it is conceivable, Husham’s saying, “He is a corporeality unlike ordinary corporealities”, is the main incentive beyond accusation of his adopting for corporalism . Indisputably, the forecited statement does by no means refer to

anthropomorphizing, repeal a principal nor does it deny a branch . It is a statement of a rhetorical question . Majority of our acquaintances assert that this statement was within a longer one Husham addressed at the Mutazilite who had claimed the Anterior Lord’s being a thing unlike ordinary things . The whole statement is, “Supposing your claiming the Anterior Lord’s being a thing unlike ordinary things, you should say then He is a corporeality unlike ordinary corporealities . ” It is not necessary that opinions used in refuting a belief, are actually adopted by the refuter . It is so applicable that Husham might aimed at discerning their answer, or showing their inadequacy to introduce an answer for such a claim . Many other probabilities can be regarded in this topic .

Reports relating Husham’s regarding the faith that Allah is a corporeality that enjoys the entire qualities of ordinary corporealities, and his narrating the hadith of the Lord’s measures, are exclusively arisen by Al­Jahiz who relates them to An­Naddam . The latest is a doubtful narrator whose accounts are untrue .

Generally, faiths should be taken from embracers, masters and trustful reporters . It is impracticable to refer to claims of the rivals since this will make the matter worse and more calamitous . Thus, reports and documentations will not be trusted, especially in fields of providing faiths of a sect .

If Husham was actually bearing faith of corporalism, this would have been common and well known . For instance, faiths of Al­Khawarzmi and his

followers are well known .

Imam As­Sadiq addressed at Husham, “As long as you, Husham, defend us, you shall be backed by the Sacred Spirit . ” He also addressed at Husham, the young, when he preceded and sit him next to his place, while master Shias were attendant there, “This is our supporter, by the heart, the hand and the tongue . ” Imam As­Sadiq also said, “Husham Bin Al­Hakam is the pioneer of our rights, and our spokesman . He is advocating our truthfulness and defending nullity of our antagonists . He that follows him and his affair, shall be following us . And he whoever opposes and denies him, shall be opposing and denying us . ” Finally, the imam was used to guiding and urging people on referring to Husham in questions of arguing the opponents . These are adequate proofs on wrongfulness and nothingness of the previous claims against Husham . Hence, it is nonsense to perceive that Husham might have said that his lord is seven arms length .

Moreover, it is most surely that such claims against Husham are seen as reviling at Imam As­Sadiq (peace be upon him) and ascribing him as bearing the same faiths, since the imam, as we have previously introduced, did praise and support Husham . Thus, Imam As­Sadiq should have denied, banished and censured Husham for bearing such horribly forlorn faiths if only that had been pure .

Husham’s book regarding contingence of the cosmos is also forged against him . We have not seen

such a book . We also have not had a written document or an authentic report asserting so .

In his Al­Milelu Wen­Nihel, part 1 page 185, Ashehristani records :

Husham Bin Al­Hakam is a deep scholar in questions of principals of the religion . It is impractical to scorn his decisive disputation against Mutazilites . As a matter of fact, this man is more excellent than his disputation and more exalted than anthropomorphism ascribed to him . He overcame Al­Allaf when he stated, “You claim of Allah’s being knowing by His knowledge, and his knowledge is His Essence . Thus, He should share the contingent beings in being knowing by a knowledge, and He should oppose them in His knowledge being His Essence . Then, why do you not claim the Lord’s being a corporeality unlike the corporealities, a feature unlike features and a component unlike the components ? ”

Just after describing Husham in such an admirable way, Ashehristani claims Husham’s claiming Ali’s godhood! This is really strange! Finally, Husham is nobler than claiming such a faith .

It is also really strange that a Wahabist researcher reviles at Husham for his uttering that Allah is a corporeality unlike ordinary corporealities, when this is the faith of Wahabism indeed! Bin Baz and Ibn Teimiya, as it has been previously introduced, did evade the idea of denying God’s being a corporeality . Hence, Wahabists should have claimed Husham Bin Al­Hakam’s being one of them, because of his previous saying! Nevertheless, readers shall soon give credence to Husham’s being

released from such faiths of anthropomorphism and God’s occupying a certain space .

do you not submit to Islam, then ?

Al­Mubith : Far is that!

big crowd of Christians associated by about one hundred monks in black, putting caps . The master was Bureiha, the grand Catholic . They encompassed his shop . A chair was prepared for the grand Catholic while the capped priests and monks were inclining against their canes . “Saving you, no other theologist could escape my challenge and prevalence in arguing about Christianity . Today, I am to argue with you about Islam,” spoke Bureiha . Husham smiled, “O Bureiha! Do you want me to show you miracles as those shown by the Messiah ? I am not the Messiah, and I will never attain his resemblance or approach him in any way . He is a perfect, excellent and elevated spirit . His miracles are obvious, and his portents are efficacious . ” Later on, Bureiha confessed that he had been admired by Husham’s words .

“This is the proper place of argumentation,” Husham suggested .

Hence, Bureiha asked : well, what is the lineage linking your prophet to the Messiah .

Husham : He is the cousin of his maternal grandfather . The Messiah is the offspring of Isaac, while Mohammed is the offspring of Ishmael .

Bureiha : How could you limit his father’s lineage ?

Husham : I can tell you of the lineage we regard, and I can tell of that you regard .

“I will overcome if he regards the lineage we believe in,” Bureiha said to himself .

Bureiha : Well, mention the lineage we regard .

Husham : You claim of his being anterior, and

a part of an anterior . Then, who is the father and who is the son ?

Bureiha : The son is that who descended to the earth .

Husham : No, the father is that who descended to the earth .

Bureiha : The son is the messenger of the father .

Husham : The father is wiser than the son, since he is the creator .

Bureiha : Creation is the father’s and the son’s .

Husham : Supposing they have been associates in creation, what for, then, did they not descend together ?

Bureiha : How should they associate in a matter when they are the identical thing ? They only differ in names .

Husham : They only similar in names .

Bureiha : This is nonsense .

Husham : This is reality .

Bureiha : The son is connected to the father .

Husham : The son is disconnected to the father .

Bureiha : This is contradictory to people’s faith .

Husham : Providing people’s faith is taken in consideration, you are defeated, then . People do believed that the father had been in being a long while before the son came to existence .

Bureiha : I do not mean this .

Husham : What for, then, have you provided people’s faith as your evidence while you reject it on yourself ?

Bureiha : The father and the sons are only names of the Anterior .

Husham : Are these two names as anterior as the father and the son ?

Bureiha : No, names are contingent .

Husham : Well, you have substituted the father for the

son, and the son for the father . If the son, not the father, is the maker of these names, he will be the father . If the father, not the son, is the maker of these names, he will be the father, and there will be no son, since the son is the father .

Bureiha : The son is the name of the spirit when descended to the earth .

Husham : Supposing the spirit did not descend to the earth, what should the name be then ?

Bureiha : The name is ‘the son’, whether the spirit descended or not .

Husham : Then, this spirit had two different names before descending to the earth ?

Bureiha : All is the identical . It is only one spirit .

you will be trying to find its answer . The next morning you will be lead straightly to me . ” “Do not avoid this question . It may be the way to overcoming,” the monks suggested . “Well, what is it, man of wisdom ? ” Bureiha asked .

Husham : You see that the son knows completely what the father has, do you not ?

Bureiha : Yes, indeed .

Husham : You see that the father knows completely what the son had, do you not ?

Bureiha : Yes, indeed .

Husham : You see that the son is competent to bear whatsoever the father bears, do you not ?

Bureiha : Yes, indeed .

Husham : You do see that the father is competent to bear whatsoever the son bears, do you not ?

Bureiha : Yes, indeed .

Husham : Then, how is it acceptable that one of them is the son of the other while both are enjoying the identical competencies ? Similarly, how should one wrong the other ?

Bureiha : They both have no injustice at all .

Husham : If so, it is just that the son should be the father of the father, and the father should be the son of the son . Think of it, Bureiha!

Hence, the Christians went back damning the time at which they saw Husham and his acquaintances .

Bureiha’s maid asked him an explanation for the depression he had . He told her of his situation with Husham . “Woe is you! Do you intend to support the right or the

wrong ? ”, she asked . “The right, of course,” Bureiha answered . “Then, you should turn to the right whenever it was . Beware disputation . Disputation is doubt . Doubt is evil . People of evil shall be in hell,” she advised .

Bureiha opted for her saying and decided to see Husham again .

Next morning, Husham was alone when Bureiha came to him and asked, “O Husham! Is there a definite person whose sayings you revere and refer to and obey ? ”

Husham : Yes, Bureiha!

Bureiha : What are his specifications ?

Husham : The racial or the religious ?

Bureiha : Both .

Husham : Regarding the racial, he is the head of the Arab, the choice of Quraish, the select of Hashemites . He is, lineally, the most favorable . Quraish is the best of the Arab . Hashemites are the best of Quraish . The best of Hashemites is their celebrity, chief and master . Sons of the master are preferred to others . He is the son of the master .

Bureiha : What about his religion ?

Husham : The jurisprudence or the material qualities ?

Bureiha : The material qualities .

Husham : He is so sinless that he does never defies, and so generous that he is never niggardly, and so courageous that he is never coward, and so intelligent that he does never omit any of the knowledge he receives . He is the observant of what is imposed on him, the descendant of the prophets’ progeny and the compiler of the

prophets’ knowledge . He possesses himself when enraged, and gives the due and supports when satisfied . He acts fairly to the adherent and the antagonist . He does never outdo with his opponents . He does never block advantage of his advocate, and acts as exactly as the Divine Book instructs, and makes miracle things . He is one of people of purity . He relates sayings of the immaculate imams . None could ever repeal his argumentation . He did never ignore a question . He adjudges in every field, and clears every blackness .

Bureiha : You have just counted peculiarities of the Messiah, and remarked his evidences and marvels . Yet, personality is different from qualities, and description depends upon the described . We will believe if the descriptions are found in the described .

Husham : You shall certainly be guided if you believe, and you shall never be censured if you follow the right . O Bureiha! The entire argumentations God has instituted upon the earlier, are the same instituted upon the middle and the late . Hence, argumentations, faiths and beliefs shall never be elapsing .

Bureiha : This is very alike to the right, and very near to the truth . It is indeed the quality of the wise who verify the true argumentation in a way repealing the heresy .

Husham : Yes, indeed .

Later on, Husham, Bureiha and his bond began their journey to Al­Madina for meeting Abu Abdillah (peace be upon him) . First, they met Musa Bin

Jafar (peace be upon him) before whom Husham related the whole story . Subsequently, imam Musa Bin Jafar asked, “O Bureiha! How about your knowledge of your Book ? ”

Bureiha : I am surely knowledgeable in this regard .

Imam : How about its interpretation .

Bureiha : I am the most trustful in interpretation of the Book .

Hence, imam Musa Bin Jafar went on reciting the Bible . “The Messiah was reciting in this very way . None else did recite . You are the very man I have been looking for fifty years . ”

Bureiha and his maid embraced Islam in a distinguishable way .

Husham, Bureiha and the maid saw Abu Abdillah (peace be upon him) afterwards . As Husham related the story of Bureiha and his conversation with Musa (peace be upon him), imam recited God’s saying, (Offspring, one of the other, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing) . “How have you, the sacrificed, obtained the Torah, the Bible and the prophets’ books ? ”, Bureiha asked . “We have them in inheritance . We recite and utter them as the prophets recited and uttered . Allah does never elect a representative who should say, ‘I do not know’ about any question . ”

Bureiha adhered to Abu Abdillah (peace be upon him) and to his son, Musa (peace be upon him) till his death . Imam Musa Bin Jafar performed the ritual bathing, coffining and burying of Bureiha, and said, “This is among the Disciples of the Messiah . He does respect God’s rights .

”

Most of Bureiha’s acquaintances hoped had they been like him .

Consequently, it is essential to affirm existence of the maker due to existence of the made, and their being made exhibits their indigence for the maker . This results in proving that the maker is not like the made . Specifications of the made, such as their extrinsic structure and composition, their being after nonexistence and their changeability in size, color and strength, do assert their want to their Maker .

The miscreant : As you have proved His existence, you have demarcated Him .

Abu Abdillah : I have not demarcated . I only prove His existence when there is nothing stands between proving and denial .

The miscreant : What about His saying, (The Beneficent settled on the Throne) ?

Abu Abdillah : He characterizes Himself by this expression . He is prevalent over the Throne and abstracted from His creatures . The Throne is not a place dedicated to Him . We believe that He is the bearer and the holder of the Throne . We repeat His statement, (His Chair is as large as the heavens and the earth . ) Hence, we prove existence of the Throne and the Chair, but We do deny that the Throne and the Chair are containing Him . We also deny that the Lord, the Powerful and Glorified, is in need for a space or any created thing . We do affirm that His creatures are in need of Him .

The miscreant : What is the difference, then, between raising or lowering the hands towards the heavens or

the earth ?

Abu Abdillah : There is no difference according to the Lord’s knowledge, comprehension and competence . However, He, the Powerful the Glorified, ordered his devotees and servants of raising their hands upward, towards the Heavens since He made it source of subsistence . Hence, we do affirm what is affirmed by the Quran and the Prophet who says, “Raise your hands to Allah, the Powerful the Glorified . ” This fact is unanimously agreed upon by the entire sects of Muslims .

The miscreant : Is it practicable that there are more than one creator for this cosmos ?

Abu Abdillah : If there were two creators, they, both, should be either anterior and powerful, or both be weak, or one should be weak while the other powerful . Regarding the earliest probability, what for do they not challenge on having the godhead singularly ? If one is powerful and the other is not, then it is provable that there is one creator, since the other is weak .

Furthermore, if there were two creators, they should be accordant in definite, not all, matters . As we notice this orderly creation and current planets and consequence of night, day, sun and moon; these all referred to ultimate coincidence of affairs of creation . Finally, this shows that the Maker if One .

Husham Bin Al­Hakam :

As Abul­Awja was before Imam As­Sadiq (peace be upon him), he was asked, “O Abul­Awja! Are you made or not ?

Abul­Awja : No, I am not made .

Imam As­Sadiq : How should

your figures be if you were made ?

As he could not find an answer, Abul­Awja went out .

Husham Bin Al­Hakam :

Abu Shakir Ad­Deisani, the miscreant, addressed at Abu Abdillah, “O Jafar Bin Mohammed! Lead me to my god . ” There was a child having an egg in the hand . Abu Abdillah asked the child to give him that egg . Then, he commented, “O Deisani! In my hand is a covert fortress with a packed crust . Under this crust, there is another one, but lank . A liquid golden yellow and a dissolved silvern are under that lank crust . Neither the liquid golden yellow fuses with the dissolved silvern, nor does the dissolved silvern coalesce the liquid golden yellow . Hence, each is on its manner . No sound thing can go into it to tell of its soundness, and no rotten thing can go there to tell of its putridity . It is unknown whether it was created for the male or the female . It bursts colors like these of a peacock . Do you see there must have been a maker of such a thing ? ”

The man nodded his head for a considerable time before he declared, “I admit there is no god but Allah, lonelily without any associate, and I do admit Mohammed is His servant and apostle, and you are the imam and God’s argumentation on His creatures . I do declare my repentance…”

Husham Bin Al­Hakam :

An Egyptian miscreant decided to see Abu Abdillah (peace

be upon him) for disputation since he had heard of his knowledgeability . As he could not meet the imam in Al­Madina, he continued his way to Mecca . We were with the imam when that Egyptian miscreant met him during the time of the ritual Circumambulation . After greeting, Abu Abdillah asked about his name .

The miscreant : Abdul Melik (servant of the king) .

The imam : What is your nickname ?

The Miscreant : Abu Abdillah (father of the slave of God) .

?

The miscreant : No, I cannot .

The imam : Have you seen what is beyond the east and the west ?

The miscreant : No, I have not .

The imam : What a strange man you are! You have not attained the furthest east or west, and you have not descended under the earth, and you have not ascended to the heavens to know what creatures there are, and, meanwhile, you deny all! Is it practicable for the sane to deny what they ignore ?

The miscreant : indeed, none addressed such wording at me .

The imam : Hence, you doubt so . Maybe yes, maybe not .

The miscreant : Maybe!

The imam : O man! The ignorant have no argumentation on the knowing . Similarly, the illiterate have no argumentation on the literate . O you Egyptian brother! Try to understand me . Do you not see the sun, the moon, the day and the night come one into the other without difference in disposition ? Do you not see them go and return orderly . They are bound . They lack any other place to go in . If they were able to go, why would they be returning . If they were not bound, what for would they not interchange their roles or places . They are, by God, bound . O Egyptian brother! You believe it is the nemesis which arranges all these things . Then, what for is it incompetent to stop what is going on or release what is bound ? See

how the heavens is uplifted, and the earth is ballast . The heavens should never fall on the earth, and the earth should never incline on what is beneath . By God, it is the Creator the Maker who holds them .

(Husham : ) Hence, that miscreant believed and succumbed to the imam who order me of instructing that man .

Alihtijaj, part 2 page 142 :

Husham Bin Al­Hakam : Ibnu Abil­Awja, Abu Shakir Ad­Deisani, Abdul­Melik Al­Basri and Ibnul­Muqaffa met at the Holy House of God for mocking the pilgrims and reviling at the Holy Quran . Ibn Abil­Awja suggested that each should find faultfinding in a quarter of the Holy Quran so that, the next year, they should repeal the Quran entirely . They agreed upon meeting in the same place . They assured that faultfinding of the Quran should result in repealing Mohammed’s prophecy which leads to nullity of Islam . This would prove those four person’s being the right .

The next year, they met in the same place . Ibn Abul­Awja confessed, “Since our last meeting, I have been thinking of the Verse, (Then when they despaired of him, they retired, conferring privately together . 12 : 80) I could not find any fault in the rhetoric and meaningfulness of this Verse; therefore I could not see another Verse . ”

Abdul­Melik spoke, “Since our last meeting, I have been thinking of the Verse, (O people! A parable is set forth, therefore listen to it; surely those whom you call upon besides Allah cannot

create a fly, though they should all gather for it, and should the fly snatch away anything form them, they could not take it back for it; weak are the invoker and the invoked . 22 : 73) I could not say anything about this Verse . ”

Abu Shakir spoke, “Since our last meeting, I have been thinking of God’s saying, (If there had been in them any gods except Allah, they would both have certainly been in a state of disorder . 21 : 22) I could not say anything about this Verse . ”

Ibnul­Muqaffa spoke, “Since our last meeting, I have been thinking of God’s saying, (And it was said : O earth! Swallow down your water, and O cloud! Clear away . And the water was made to abate and the affair was decided, and the ark rested on the Judi, and it was said : Away with the unjust people . 11 : 44) I could neither conceive it, nor could I say anything about it . ”

Meanwhile, Jafar Bin Mohammed As­Sadiq passed by them and recited God’s saying, (Say : if men and jinn should combine together to bring the like of this Quran, they could not bring the like of it, though some of them were aiders of others . 17 : 88)

They looked at each other and confessed, “If Islam is an actuality, Mohammed’s succession shall be in the hands of none other than Jafar Bin Mohammed . We have never seen such a person . We revere

him whenever we see . Besides, we feel embarrassed when we meet him” Hence, they escaped after they had declared their submission .

I do .

­ What is its function ?

­ I hear sounds with it .

­ Do you have hands ?

­ Yes, I do .

­ What is their function ?

­ I use them for seizing things, and discerning the flimsy from the dense .

­ Do you have legs ?

­ Yes, I do .

­ What is their function ?

­ I use them for moving from a place to another .

­ Do you have a mouth ?

­ Yes, I do .

­ What is its function ?

­ I taste the different drinks and food .

­ Do you have a heart ?

­ Yes, I do .

­ What is its function ?

­ I use it for sensing whatsoever comes to the other organs .

­ What for should this occur while the other organs are sound and cogent ?

­ O son! If the other senses or organs doubt anything, they will refer to the heart for noticing . Function of the heart, then, is asserting the true and eradicating the doubted .

­ This means that God made the heart for guiding the other organs to the true, does it not ?

­ Yes, it does .

­ This means that the heart is inevitably necessary for eradicating doubts of the other organs, does it not ?

­ Yes, it does .

­ O Abu Marwan! God, the Blessed the Exalted, did not leave your organs before He selected a leader whose mission is affirming the true and denying the doubted . How is it practicable for Him to leave all these beings subsisting in their perplexity, suspicion

and discrepancy, without selecting for them a leader to whom they should refer in states of suspicion and perplexity, like He had done when He selected a leader to whom the other organs should refer in states of doubt and perplexity ?

For a considerable while, Amr could not find an answer . He, then, glanced at me and asked, “You are Husham, are you not ? ” “No, I am not,” I answered . “You are one of his disciples, are you not ? ” he asked . “No, I am not,” I answered . “Where are you from, then ? ” he re asked . “From Kufa,” I answered . “It is indeed you, Husham . ” He asserted and embraced me . He sat me next to him without uttering a single letter till I left .

the professor eludes resting upon a single reference book from those three hundred . Moreover, he claims that As­Saduq ­died in 281 A . H­ relates more than seventy narrations, in his At­Tawhid, referring to Shias’ adopting for Tatilism . At any rate, this academic professor could not cite any of these (seventy) narrations .

As a matter of fact, As­Saduq’s At­Tawhid can be seen as one of the most excellent ancient reference books of Islam in this regard . From those (seventy) narrations, we are to cite ten only .

As­Saduq’s At­Tawhid, page 107 :

Abu Abdillah : His fathers (peace be upon them all) :

As he passed by a man raising his hands to the heavens as he was supplicating God, the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) addressed at him, “You may put down you sight . You shall never see Him . ”

Similarly, the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) passed by a man extending his hands upward while he was supplicating God . He said to him, “Relax your hands . You shall never reach him . ”

… Assim Bin Hameed : Before Abu Abdillah (peace be upon him), I mentioned their narrations about God’s seeableness . He commented, “The sun is a single part of the seventy parts of light of the Chair . The Chair is a single part of the seventy parts of light of the Throne . The Throne is a single part of the seventy parts of light of the Curtain . The Curtain

is a single part of the seventy parts of light of the Screen . Supposing they are truthful, let them face the sun with their sights .

… Ibn Abi Nasr : Abul­Hassan Ar­Rida (peace be upon him) : The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) :

When I was taken to the heavens, Gabriel attained a place he had never attained before . There, my Lord showed me a part of His Excellency illumination .

As­Saduq’s At­Tawhid, page 113 :

Ibrahim Bin Mohammed al­Khezzaz and Mohammed Bin Al­Hussein :

Before Abul­Hassan Ar­Rida (peace be upon him), we mentioned the narrative that the Prophet had seen his Lord in a look of a thirty year old young man whose legs were in a green place . “Husham Bin Salim and the Taqi and Al­Meithami claim that the upper part of the Lord is hollow, while the lower is compact,” I added .

Immediately the imam prostrated himself down and stated, “Praised be Thee . They have neither recognized nor monothesized Thee . Therefore, the ascribed to Thee such descriptions . Praised be Thee . Should they recognized Thee, they would refer to Thee only what Thou hast referred to Thy Essence . Praised be Thee . How dare they to anthropomorphize Thee . O my God! I should not use for Thee except the attributes Thou hast used for Thy Essence . Nor should I anthropomorphize Thee . Thou art source of every wealth . Make me not with the unjust people . ”

After a while, the imam turned

to us and advised, “You should regard Allah as unlike anything your minds may surmise . We, Mohammed’s progeny, are the middle category . The exaggerative will not attain us, and the late will never precede us . ”

He, then, addressed at me, “O Mohammed! When he saw Excellency of his Lord, the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) was as same as a thirty year old young man’s look . O Mohammed! My Lord be more exalted and glorified than being bearing creatures’ descriptions . ”

“I be your sacrifice!” I said, “Whose legs were in a green place ? ” “That was Mohammed (peace be upon him and his family),” answered the imam, “When he perceived his Lord by heart, He was made in an illumination like that of the divine Curtains till he discerns what is there . God’s illumination is of different colors . Some are green, red, white and the like . O Mohammed! We dedicate our sayings to only what is affirmed by the divine Book and the Prophet’s traditions . ”

As­Saduq’s At­Tawhid, page 398 :

Hafs Bin Gheyath : The best of Jafars, Jafar Bin Mohammed : The opener of knowledges of the earlier and the late, Mohammed Bin Ali : The master of the reverent, Ali Bin Al­Hussein : The master of the martyrs, Al­Hussein Bin Ali : The master of the prophets’ successors, Ali Bin Abi Talib :

The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) was sitting in the mosque when a Jew came and

asked, “O Mohammed! What are you soliciting to ? ”

The Prophet : I am soliciting to admitting there is non god but Allah, and I am the apostle of Allah .

The Jew : O Mohammed! Tell me how that lord you are soliciting to his monotheism and claiming of your being his apostle, is .

The Prophet : O Jew! My Lord is not submitted to conditions . He is the Creator and the Maker of conditions .

The Jew : Where is he then ?

The Prophet : My Lord is not submitted to spaces . He is the Creator and the Maker of space .

The Jew : Have you seen him, Mohammed ?

The Prophet : He cannot be seen by eyes, and cannot be comprehended by allusions .

The Jew : How should we know of his existence ?

The Prophet : We should know so by His signs and portents .

The Jew : Does he bear the Throne, or does the Throne bear him ?

The Prophet : O Jew! My Lord is neither a corporeality to occupy a thing nor is He an space to be occupied by things .

The Jew : How are his mandates issued ?

The Prophet : They are issued by creating articulation in the spaces .

The Jew : O Mohammed! Are the entire creatures his ?

The Prophet : Yes, they are .

The Jew : On which criteria had he elected some of them for conveying his message ?

The Prophet : On criteria of their precedence to submitting to His godhood .

The Jew :

How have you, then, claimed your being the best of those elected ?

The Prophet : Because I was the foremost in submitting to my Lord’s godhead .

The Jew : Well, tell me if your lord acts injustice .

The Prophet : No, He does not .

The Jew : Why not ?

The Prophet : Because He realizes offensiveness of injustice, and because He does not need it .

The Jew : Have Verses regarding this concern, been revealed to you ?

The Prophet : Yes, He has . He says, (Your Lord is not unjust to His servants . 3 : 182), (Allah does not wrong people in any amount, but people wrong each other . 10 : 44), (Allah does not want injustice to peoples . 3 : 108) and (Allah does not want injustice to the servants . 40 : 31) .

The Jews : O Mohammed! You have claimed your lord’s evading injustice . How had he, then, drowned people of Noah while children were among them ?

The Prophet : O Jew! For forty years, the Prophet occluded women of Noah’s people from giving births . Hence, no child was among them when they were drowned . Allah should never punish the progeny for their fathers’ sins . My Lord be highly exalted against injustice and wrong .

The Jew : If your lord does never wrong anybody, how shall he, then, eternalize in agony incessantly those who disobeyed Him for a number of days ?

The Prophet : The Lord eternalizes as to the disobedient’s intention . He

eternalizes in agony for ever those whom He does know that they shall be keeping on disobeying Him if they are given an eternal life in this world . Intentions, however, are worse than deeds . By the same token, Allah eternalizes in the Paradise those whom He does know that they shall be keeping on obeying Him as they are given an eternal life in this world . The intention, here, is better than the deed . Due to intention, people of the Paradise are eternalized there, and people of hell are eternalized there . Allah, the Powerful the Glorified, says, (Everyone acts according to his manner; but your Lord best knows who is best guided to the ­straight­ path . 17 : 84)

The Jew : O Mohammed! In the Torah, I recite that every prophet should have a successor from his nation . Who is your successor, then ?

The Prophet : O Jew! My successor is Ali Bin Abi Talib . In the Torah, his name is ‘Ilia’, and in the Bible ‘Heidar’ . He is the best of my people and the most knowledgeable of my Lord . For me, his standing is as same as Aaron’s to Moses except that there will be no prophet after me . As I am master of the prophets, he is master of the prophets’ successors .

The Jew : I do admit there is no god but Allah, and you are the apostle of Allah, and Ali Bin Abi Talib is your successor, indeed .

By God I swear, I did notice your entire answers in the Torah . I have also inspected characteristics of you, as well as your successor, in the Torah . Your successor shall be wronged and martyred . He is the father of your two sons and grandsons, Shubbar and Shubeir . They are masters of the youth of the Paradise .

was being when there were no places occupying Him, or bearers that lift Him by their power . He was not being after He had not existed . Allusions are too perplexed to choose a condition of the Creator of conditions of things . He is permanent without a place . He does never perish for changeability of times . He does not turn into other things .

He is the remote from being attained by surmise of hearts, and the exalted from being a thing or a model . He is the unique, the knowing of the unseen . Significations of creatures are negated for Him, and their hiddens are not hidden for him . He is recognized without a certain condition . He cannot be comprehended by senses, or measured to people . Visions cannot comprehend Him, and ideas cannot arrive at Him, and minds cannot estimate Him, and allusions cannot get Him . Whatsoever estimated by minds and exampled is finite .

That who is not incarnating in things to say He is being, and not remote from them to say He is alien, and not out of them to ask about His space, and not sticking to them, and not departing them . He is in the entire things without a certain condition . He is nearer to us than veins, and the furthest in likening . How is it possible, then, to compare Him with ghosts, or to describe Him with the most eloquent tongues ?

He has not created things on eternal

grounds, or origins previously originated . But He created His creatures in the best making, and made His made things in the best picture . Praised be Him, whose oneness is in His elevation . Nothing can stand against Him . He has no benefit by obedience of any of His creatures . Ready is His response to the supplicators . The angels in the heavens and the earth are submitted to Him . He spoke to Moses thoroughly without organs or means or labium or uvula . Praised and exalted be Him against having descriptions . He that claim of the Lord’s finitude, is ignoring the Creator the Adored…

As­Saduq’s At­Tawhid, page 254 :

Abu Muammar As­Sadani : A man came to Ali Bin Abi Talib and said :

­ O Amirul­Muminin! I began to doubt the Book of Allah .

­ Woe is you! How dare you to doubt the Book of Allah ?

­ I found it contradictory . How should I then not doubt it .

­ Book of Allah is wholly accordant . But you have not been given an intellectuality sound enough to benefit . Now, you may lead me to positions you have doubted .

­ Allah says, (So today We forsake them, as they neglected the meeting of today . 7 : 51) And says, (They have forsaken Allah; so He has forsaken them . 9 : 67) And says, (And your Lord is not forgetful . 19 : 64)

Hence, once He tells He will forget, and another He tells He will never forget

. How is that Amirul­Muminin ?

­ What else ?

­ Allah says, (They shall not speak except he whom the Beneficent God permits and who speaks the right thing . 78 : 38) And says, (They would say : By Allah, our Lord, we were not polytheists . 6 : 23) And says, (Then on the resurrection day some of you shall deny others, and some of you shall curse others . 29 : 25) And says, (That most surely is the truth; the contending one with another of the inmates of the fire . 38 : 64) And says, (He will say : Do not quarrel in my presence, and indeed I gave you the threatening beforehand . 50 : 28) And says, (On that day We will set a seal upon their mouths, and their hands shall speak to us, and their feet shall bear witness of what they earned . 36 : 65)

Hence, once He tells they will not speak except those permitted by the Beneficent God, and another He tells they will never utter while He communicates their saying, “By God, our Lord, we were not polytheists . ” On another occasion, He tells they will contend with each other . How is that Amirul­Muminin ? How should I not doubt when I conceive so ?

­ What is else ?

­ Well, Allah, the Powerful the Glorified, says, (Some faces on that day shall be bright, looking at their Lord . ) And says, (Visions comprehend him not, and He comprehends all visions,

and He is the Aware the Cognizant . ) And says, (And certainly he saw him in another descent, at the farthest lot­tree . ) And says, (On that day, shall no intercession avail except of him whom the Beneficent God allows and whose word he is pleased with . He knows what is before them and what is behind them, while they do not comprehend Him in knowledge . 20 : 109­10)

Knowledge does comprehend whatever is comprehended by visions . How is that, Amirul­Muminin ? How should I not doubt what I am receiving ?

­ What else …

Listen . Regarding God’s saying, (Some faces on that day shall be bright, looking at their Lord), this shall occur after the Lord completes the judgment . God’s disciples shall be taken to a river called ‘Al­Hayawan’ (the fresh life), where they bathe and drink . Immediately, their faces shall be bright as every mote or dot shall be removed from them . Then, they shall be taken to the Paradise . On that situation, they shall look upon their Lord’s rewards . The angels greet them, “Peace be upon you . Enjoy and enter it for good . ” They will be ascertained of their abiding in the Paradise, and they will be waiting for their Lord’s promises . This is God’s saying, (Looking at their Lord . ) ‘Looking at the Lord’ stands for ‘looking at His rewards . ’

Regarding his saying, (Visions comprehend Him not), this means that allusions cannot perceive Him, while He

comprehends visions and perceives them since He is the Aware, the Cognizant . That is a sort of Praise, our Lord, the Blessed the Exalted, has used for Himself . Moses (peace be upon him) asked his Lord a calamitous question, “My Lord! Show me Thyself, so that I may look upon Thee . ”

Allah, the Blessed the Exalted, answered, “You cannot bear to see me, but look at the mountain, if it remains firm in its place, then will you see me . ” Hence, our Lord made some of His signs and manifested His glory to the mountain that was immediately broken up and crumbled . Moses fell down in a swoon . Then, Allah enlivened and pardoned him . Moses expressed, “Glory be to Thee . I turned to Thee, and I am the first of the believers . ” This means that he believed, before others, that Allah cannot be seen .

The intended in God’s saying, (And certainly he saw him in another descent), is Mohammed (peace be upon him and his family) . He was at the furthest lot­tree that none should pass . God’s saying, (The eye did not turn aside, nor did it exceed the limit . Certainly he was of the greatest signs of his Lord), alludes to the Prophet’s seeing Gabriel in his actual look twice . Gabriel’s look is tremendously great since he is one of the divine spirits that none but Allah, the Lord of the worlds, can comprehend their creation and quality .

At­Tebirsi,

in his Alihtijaj, part 1 page 358­62, relates the same with little difference :

A miscreant came to Ali (peace be upon him) and said, “I would embraced your religion unless I found the difference and contradiction in the Quran . ” “What is that contradiction ? ” Ali asked . …

The same is recorded in Al­Majlisi’s Biharul Anwar, part 4 page 32 .

As­Saduq’s At­Tawhid, page 99 :

My father : Ali Bin Ibrahim : His father : Al­Abbas Bin Amr : Husham Bin Al­Hakam :

A miscreant asked Abu Abdillah (peace be upon him) about God’s substance . Abu Abdillah answered, “He is a thing unlike ordinary things . Ascribing ‘thing’ to Him is made only for affirming His existence, and proving His being a Being . However, He is neither a corporeality nor an aspect . ”

As­Saduq’s At­Tawhid, page 176 :

Ibrahim Bin Abi Mahmud :

“O son of Allah’s Apostle! What do you suggest about the saying they relate to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), that he said, ‘Every night, Allah, the Blessed the Exalted, descends to the lowest heavens . ’ ? ” I asked Ar­Rida (peace be upon him) . “Cursed be the distorters,” said the imam, “By God I swear, the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) did never utter so . He only said, ‘Except the Friday night which is wholly considered, in the last third of every night, Allah, the Blessed the Exalted, gives His order to an angel to descend to the lowest heaven and

declare whether there is a supplicator to be responded, or a repentant to be admitted, or a seeker of forgiveness to be forgiven . He also urges seekers of good to hurry up, and seekers of evil to stop . This lasts to the dawn when he returns to his place in the heavens . ’ This is what my father related to his father to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) . ”

upon him and his family) . ”

At­Thalibi (died in 875) . Dar Al­Kutub Al­Ilmiya, Beirut .

12 Al­Kafi : Al­Kuleini (died in 329) . Dar Al­Kutub Al­Islamiya, Tehran . First edition, 1388 .

13 Al­Mabsout : Shamsuddin As­Serkhasi (died in 483) . Dar Al­Marifa Publication, Beirut .

14 Al­Majruhin : At­Tamimi, Mohammed Bin Hebban (died in 354) . Al­Baz Publication, Mecca .

15 Al­Mawaidh Welitibar : Al­Miqrizi (died in 845) . Al­Halabi and co . Publication, Cairo .

16 Al­Mettalibul Aliya : Al­Fakhr Ar­Razi (died in 606) . Dar Al­Kitab Al­Arabi, Beirut . Revised by : Ahmed Hijazi As­Saqqa . First edition, 1407 .

17 Al­Milelu Wen­Nihel In the margin of Ashehristani’s Al­Fasl (died in 548) . Dar Sadir, Beirut . First edition, Egypt, 1317 . Al­Halabi and co . Publication, Egypt . 1968 .

18 Al­Mudawwanetul Kubra : Malik Bin Anas (died in 179) . As­Saada Publication, Egypt . First edition .

19 Al­Musned : Ahmed Bin Hanbal (died in 241) . Beirut .

20 Al­Mussannef : As­Sanani, Abdurrazaq (died in 211) . Dar Al­Kutub As­Salafiya Publication, Cairo . 1409 .

21 Alihtijaj : At­Tebirsi (died in 548) . Najaf Publication, Iraq .

22 Alitissam : Ashatibi (died in 790) . Dar Al­Marifa, Lebanon . (Introduced by Rashid Rida)

23 An­Nihaya : Ibnul­Atheer . Revised by Mahmud Mohammed At­Tenahi . Ismailian Publication, Qom .

24 Ar­Rawdul­Enif : As­Suheili (died in 581) . Dar Al­Fikr Publication, Beirut . 1409­1989 .

25 Ar­Rihla : Ibn Batuta . Dar Ihya At­Turath Al­Arabi Publication, Beirut . 1388­1968 .

26 Ar­Risaletut Tadmuriya : Ibn Teimiya (died in 728) . Al­Mektab Al­Islami Publication, Beirut . 1391 .

27 As­Sahih : Al­Bukhari, Mohammed

Bin Ismael (died in 256) . Dar Al­Fikr Publication, Beirut .

28 As­Sahih : An­Nisapuri, Muslim Bin Al­Hajjaj (died in 261) . Dar Al­Fikr Publication, Beirut .

29 As­Sahihu Fil Aqidetit Tahawiya : Hassan As­Saqaf . Dar Al­Imam An­Nawawi Publication, Amman . First edition, 1416 .

30 As­Sihah : Al­Jawahiri (died in 393) . Dar Al­Ilm Lilmelayin Publication, Beirut .

31 As­Sunen : As­Sejistani, Abu Dawud Suleiman Bin Al­Ashath (died in 275) .

32 As­Sunen : At­Tirmithi, Mohammed Bin Isa (died in 297) . Dar Al­Fikr Publication, Beirut .

33 Ashafi : Sharif Al­Murteda (died in 436) . As­Sadiq Foundation, Tehran .

34 At­Tafseer : An­Nisai (died in 303) . Al­Kutub At­Theqafiya Foundation, Beirut .

35 At­Tafseer : At­Tabari (died in 310) . Dar Al­Marifa, Beirut . Bulaq Publication, Egypt .

36 At­Tafseerul Kabir : Ibn Teimiya (died in 728) . Dar Al­Kutub Al­Ilmiya Publication, Lebanon . 1408­1988 .

37 At­Tarikh : Ibn Khuldoun (died in 808) . Dar Ihya At­Turath Al­Arabi Publication, Beirut .

38 At­Tasihilu Ila Uloumit Tanzil : Ibn Jizzi (died in 741) . Dar Al­Kutub Al­Ilmiya Publication, Beirut .

39 At­Tawhid : As­Saduq (381) . Jamietul Muderrisin Publication, Qom .

40 At­Tawhid : Ibn Khuzeima . Al­Kulliyat Al­Azhariya Library . Revised by : Sheik Khalil Al­Harras .

41 Bedaiu Senai : Abu Bakr Al­Kahsani (died in 587) . Al­Habibiya Library, Pakistan .

42 Biharul Anwar : Al­Majlisi (died in 1111) . Al­Wafa Foundation, Beirut .

43 Fetawi Bin Baz : Abdul­Aziz Bin Baz . General administration of publication and translation . Second edition, 1411 .

44 Fetawi Lejnetul Ifta Al­Wahabiya : Ahmed Abdurrezaq Ad­Darwish . General administration of

searches management, Riyadh, 1411 .

45 Fetawil Albani : Sheik Al­Albani . At­Turath Al­Islami Library, Cairo . First edition, 1414 .

46 Fetihul Bari Fi Sharhi Sahihil Bukhari : Ibn Hajar (died in 852) . Dar Ihya At­Turath Al­Arabi Publication, Beirut . Fourth edition, 1408­1988 .

47 Firdawsul Akhbar : Ibn Shirawayih Ad­Deilami . Dar Al­Kitab Al­Arabi, Lebanon .

48 Hayatul Hayawanil Kubra : Al­Dimiri (died in 808), Al­Babi Al­Halabi sons Publication, Egypt .

49 Irshadus Sari : Al­Qastalani (died in 923) . Dar Ihya At­Turath Al­Arabi Publication, Beirut .

50 Kemaluddin : As­Saduq (died in 381) . Jamaetul Muderrisin Publication, Qom . Third edition, 1416 .

51 Kenzul Ummal : Al­Mutteqi Al­Hindi (died in 975) . Ar­Risala Foundation, Saudi Arabia .

52 Keshful Murad : Allama Al­Hilli (died in 726) . Jamaetul Muderrisin Publication, Qom . 1416 .

53 Keshfulirtiyab En Atba Abdil­Wahab : Sayid Mohammed Al­Amin (died in 1957) . Dar Al­Kitabu Al­Islami, Beirut . 1410 .

54 Kitabul Ein : Al­Ferahidi, Al­Khalil (died in 175) . Iranian Version . Dar Al­Hijra Foundation .

55 Majma’uzzawaid : Al­Heithami, Nouruddin (died in 807) . Dar Al­Kutub Al­Ilmiya, Beirut .

56 Meaalimus Sunen : Al­Khattabi As­Sebti (died in 388) . Dar Al­Kutub Al­Ilmiya, Beirut .

57 Meqalatul Islamiyin : Al­Ashari (died in 324) . Revised by : Helmut Ritter, Germany . 1400 .

58 Mufredatu Gharibil Quran : Ar­Raghib Alisfahani (died in 502) . Tehran Publication .

59 Musnedu Zaid : Zaid Bin Ali (516) . Dar Al­Marifa Publication, Beirut .

60 Nahjul Belagha : Ali Bin Abi Talib’s words (martyred in 40) . Revised by : Mohammed Abduh .

Dar Al­Marifa Publication, Beirut .

61 Nihayetul Ireb Fi Funounul Adab : Ahmed Bin Abdil­Wahab An­Nuweiri (died in 733) . Ministry of National Guidance, Egypt . Dar Al­Kutub Al­Misriya Publication .

62 Riyadus Salihin : An­Nawawi (died in 671) . Dar Al­Kitab Al­Arabi Publication, Beirut . Revised by : Ridwan Mohammed .

63 Sharhu Sahihi Muslim : An­Nawawi (died in 676) . Dar Al­Kitab Al­Arabi, Beirut; Lebanon . 1407 .

64 Sharhul Mawaqif : Al­Jirjani (died in 812) . First edition . As­Saada Publication, Egypt . 1325 .

65 Shawahidul Haqq Filistighatha Bi Seyyidil Khalq : An­Nebhani (died in 1350), Ishiq Library, Istanbul .

66 Siyeru Alamin Nubela : At­Thehbi (died in 748) . Ar­Risala Publication, Beirut .

67 Tabaqat Ashafiiya : As­Sibki (died in 771) . Ihya Al­Kutub Al­Arabiya Publication, Cairo .

68 Tafseer Al­Keshaf : Mahmud Bin Omar Az­Zamakhshari (died in 528) . Egyptian Publication .

69 Tafseerul­Menar : Sheik Mohammed Abduh and Sheik Rashid Rida (died in 1354) . Dar Al­Marifa, Beirut .

70 Tahthibul Kemal : Yousuf Al­Mizzi (died in 748) . Ar­Risala Foundation, Beirut .

71 Tarikhu Baghdad : Al­Khatib Al­Baghdadi (died in 463) . Al­Maktaba As­Salafiya Publication, Al­Madina .

72 Tarikhul Islam : At­Thehbi (died in 748) . Dar Al­Kitab Al­Arabi Publication, Beirut . Revised by : Omar Tadmuri . Second edition, 1411 .

73 Tarikhul Islam : Dr . Hassan Ibrahim . Dar Al­Andalus Publication, Beirut . Seventh edition, 1964 .

74 Tarikhul Methahibil Islamiya : Abu Zuhra (died in 1415) . Dar Al­Fikr Al­Arabi Publication and Al­Madani Publication, Egypt .

75 Tethkiratul Huffaz : Shamsuddin At­Thehbi (died in 748) . Dar Ihya

At­Turath Al­Arabi Publication, Beirut .

76 Ussoulu Methebi Shia : Dr . Nasir Al­Qifari . Second edition, 1415 ­1994 .

attributes .

[17] Karramism is an Islamic theologian faction, founded by Mohammed Bin Karram .

[18] In Arabic, the two words; ‘recognize’ and ‘pass’ differ in a single similar letter only .

[19] Jahmism is an Islamic theologian faction .