Discussion on Deobandis

mohammadyunus

Junior Member
this was bound to be. You mention deobandi, so i had to remind you that as you know deobandis are ahle sunnah wal jamaat following the hanafi madhab and maturidi aqeedah.
the salafis are ahle hadith.

The reason why Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah are guided is they place Quran as the primary source of all guidance.
Then Sunnah and then Hadith follows. Then you have Ijma of Sahabah. And Lastly the tool to extract rulings and solutions from these sources we have Qiyas.

The misguidance of the Salafis/Ahl e Hadith is you take Hadith (Not Sunnah) as the Primary source and others and then comes Quran. you don't even make mention of Ijma and Qiyas.

This rejection of Ijma is the reason why your methodology resembles the Shias. The Shias reject the Ijma of the Sahaba. The first Ijma of the Shahaba is on the KHILAFAT OF ABU BAKR.

The methodology of ijtihad adopted by Sahabah can be ascertained from the Hadith of Muadh ibn Jabal Mu’adh ibn Jabal states that when the Prophet (PBUH) sent him to Yemen, he asked: “what will you do if a matter is referred to you for judgement?” Mu’adh said: “I will judge according to the Book of Allah.” The Prophet asked: “what if you find no solution in the Book of Allah?” Mu’adh said: “Then I will judge by the Sunnah of the Prophet.” The Prophet asked: “And what if you do not find it in the Sunnah of the Prophet?” Mu’adh said: “Then I will make Ijtihad to formulate my own judgement.” The Prophet patted Mu’adh’s chest and said “Praise be to Allah who has guided the messenger of His Prophet to that which pleases Him and His Prophet.”

This Sahabi will raise and bear the Flag of the Ulema of This Ummah on the day of Qiyamah.

(just so that readers may know)

(regarding your queries, i am in touch with markaz ulema and will get back to you)
 

Itqan Ullah

Time is Running!!
Asslamaliekum warahmatullahi wabrakatu,

The reason why Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah are guided is they place Quran as the primary source of all guidance.
Then Sunnah and then Hadith follows. Then you have Ijma of Sahabah. And Lastly the tool to extract rulings and solutions from these sources we have Qiyas.

After you get the answer to the Question Inshallah please judge if it going the same way you said ^ or totally reversed.
 

thariq2005

Praise be to Allah!
this was bound to be. You mention deobandi, so i had to remind you that as you know deobandis are ahle sunnah wal jamaat following the hanafi madhab and maturidi aqeedah.
the salafis are ahle hadith.

The reason why Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah are guided is they place Quran as the primary source of all guidance.
Then Sunnah and then Hadith follows. Then you have Ijma of Sahabah. And Lastly the tool to extract rulings and solutions from these sources we have Qiyas.

The misguidance of the Salafis/Ahl e Hadith is you take Hadith (Not Sunnah) as the Primary source and others and then comes Quran. you don't even make mention of Ijma and Qiyas.

This rejection of Ijma is the reason why your methodology resembles the Shias. The Shias reject the Ijma of the Sahaba. The first Ijma of the Shahaba is on the KHILAFAT OF ABU BAKR.

The methodology of ijtihad adopted by Sahabah can be ascertained from the Hadith of Muadh ibn Jabal Mu�adh ibn Jabal states that when the Prophet (PBUH) sent him to Yemen, he asked: �what will you do if a matter is referred to you for judgement?� Mu�adh said: �I will judge according to the Book of Allah.� The Prophet asked: �what if you find no solution in the Book of Allah?� Mu�adh said: �Then I will judge by the Sunnah of the Prophet.� The Prophet asked: �And what if you do not find it in the Sunnah of the Prophet?� Mu�adh said: �Then I will make Ijtihad to formulate my own judgement.� The Prophet patted Mu�adh�s chest and said �Praise be to Allah who has guided the messenger of His Prophet to that which pleases Him and His Prophet.�

This Sahabi will raise and bear the Flag of the Ulema of This Ummah on the day of Qiyamah.
[/I]

I am sorry to say but you need to verify the source you are getting your 'facts' from. The scholars I take knowledge from would be considered 'Salafi', yet I only know off them to emphasise on Ijma` and they are very strict in following the Qur'an & Sunnah according to the understanding of the Salaf.

An example of the Asha`irah deviating from the Ijma` of the Sahabah and the Salaf is that the Salaf affirmed the Dhahir (apparent meaning) of the attributes of Allah, whilst the Asha`irah deviated from Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l Jama`ah by doing Ta'weel/Tafwidh in the attributes of Allah.

I gave you the example of the statements of the Salaf as to how they affirmed the Dhahir of the `Uluww of Allah. The problem with the Deobandis, as I mentioned before, is that they want to attach themselves to the Salaf in Fiqh but distance away from the Salaf in `Aqidah.

Take note of the words of the great Mufassir, al-Qurtubi (who is an Ash`ari scholars by the way). He said commenting on the verse of Istiwa in Surah al-A`raf (verse 54), after discussing the madh-hab of the Mutakallimun (the people of Kalam, like the Ash`aris, Mu`tazilis) and their negation of Allah being above the Creation, he said:

كان السلف الأول رضي الله عنهم لا يقولون بنفي الجهة ولا ينطقون بذلك ، بل نطقوا هم والكافة بإثباتها لله تعالى كما نطق كتابه وأخبرت رسله . ولم ينكر أحد من السلف الصالح أنه استوى على عرشه حقيقة . وخص العرش بذلك لأنه أعظم مخلوقاته ، وإنما جهلوا كيفية الاستواء فإنه لا تعلم حقيقته . قال مالك رحمه الله : الاستواء معلوم - يعني في اللغة - والكيف مجهول ، والسؤال عن هذا بدعة


"...and the Salaf of the very first times - may Allaah be pleased with them all - never used to negate direction (al-jihah) for Allaah and nor did they used to express this (negation). Rather, they, and all of the others, used to speak with its affirmation for Allaah, the Most High just as His Book has spoken about it and just as His Messengers informed of it. And not a single one of the Salaf denied that his ascending (istawaa) the Throne was real and true (haqeeqah) (as opposed to metaphorical, majaaz). And Allaah specified the Throne with istawaa because that is the greatest of all His creation. However they assumed ignorance only of the exact nature (kaifiyyah) of istiwaa, for the true nature of that is not known. Imaam Maalik said, 'Istiwaa is known...', meaning in the language, '...its true nature is unknown and asking about it is an innovation�"

These are the words of your very own classical Ash`ari scholars who admitted the truth regarding the `Aqidah of the Salaf.

So, it is pretty clear as to who is rejecting the Ijma` of the Sahabah here.
 

Hard Rock Moslem

I'm your brother
Brother mohammadyunus,

Brother Thariq had explained well, yet you seem not understanding. The Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him) took 13 years to guide Quraish on aqidah alone. Probably you need more time to open your mind and consider all arguments before you jump into conclusion. As you mentioned that you belong to Hanafi, have you wondered why Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be merciful to him) is not an Ashari's?
 

mohammadyunus

Junior Member
Brother mohammadyunus,

Brother Thariq had explained well, yet you seem not understanding. The Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him) took 13 years to guide Quraish on aqidah alone. Probably you need more time to open your mind and consider all arguments before you jump into conclusion. As you mentioned that you belong to Hanafi, have you wondered why Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be merciful to him) is not an Ashari's?

the same way that none of the sahabas were hanafis or maliki or hanbali or shaafi. Maulana Abul Hasan Ashari was after the time of imam Abu Hanifa.
 

mohammadyunus

Junior Member
I am sorry to say but you need to verify the source you are getting your 'facts' from. The scholars I take knowledge from would be considered 'Salafi', yet I only know off them to emphasise on Ijma` and they are very strict in following the Qur'an & Sunnah according to the understanding of the Salaf.

An example of the Asha`irah deviating from the Ijma` of the Sahabah and the Salaf is that the Salaf affirmed the Dhahir (apparent meaning) of the attributes of Allah, whilst the Asha`irah deviated from Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l Jama`ah by doing Ta'weel/Tafwidh in the attributes of Allah.

I gave you the example of the statements of the Salaf as to how they affirmed the Dhahir of the `Uluww of Allah. The problem with the Deobandis, as I mentioned before, is that they want to attach themselves to the Salaf in Fiqh but distance away from the Salaf in `Aqidah.

Take note of the words of the great Mufassir, al-Qurtubi (who is an Ash`ari scholars by the way). He said commenting on the verse of Istiwa in Surah al-A`raf (verse 54), after discussing the madh-hab of the Mutakallimun (the people of Kalam, like the Ash`aris, Mu`tazilis) and their negation of Allah being above the Creation, he said:

كان السلف الأول رضي الله عنهم لا يقولون بنفي الجهة ولا ينطقون بذلك ، بل نطقوا هم والكافة بإثباتها لله تعالى كما نطق كتابه وأخبرت رسله . ولم ينكر أحد من السلف الصالح أنه استوى على عرشه حقيقة . وخص العرش بذلك لأنه أعظم مخلوقاته ، وإنما جهلوا كيفية الاستواء فإنه لا تعلم حقيقته . قال مالك رحمه الله : الاستواء معلوم - يعني في اللغة - والكيف مجهول ، والسؤال عن هذا بدعة


"...and the Salaf of the very first times - may Allaah be pleased with them all - never used to negate direction (al-jihah) for Allaah and nor did they used to express this (negation). Rather, they, and all of the others, used to speak with its affirmation for Allaah, the Most High just as His Book has spoken about it and just as His Messengers informed of it. And not a single one of the Salaf denied that his ascending (istawaa) the Throne was real and true (haqeeqah) (as opposed to metaphorical, majaaz). And Allaah specified the Throne with istawaa because that is the greatest of all His creation. However they assumed ignorance only of the exact nature (kaifiyyah) of istiwaa, for the true nature of that is not known. Imaam Maalik said, 'Istiwaa is known...', meaning in the language, '...its true nature is unknown and asking about it is an innovation�"

These are the words of your very own classical Ash`ari scholars who admitted the truth regarding the `Aqidah of the Salaf.

So, it is pretty clear as to who is rejecting the Ijma` of the Sahabah here.

Your claim is false and your translation of al Qurtubi is distorted
 

mohammadyunus

Junior Member
I am sorry to say but you need to verify the source you are getting your 'facts' from. The scholars I take knowledge from would be considered 'Salafi', yet I only know off them to emphasise on Ijma` and they are very strict in following the Qur'an & Sunnah according to the understanding of the Salaf.

An example of the Asha`irah deviating from the Ijma` of the Sahabah and the Salaf is that the Salaf affirmed the Dhahir (apparent meaning) of the attributes of Allah, whilst the Asha`irah deviated from Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l Jama`ah by doing Ta'weel/Tafwidh in the attributes of Allah.

I gave you the example of the statements of the Salaf as to how they affirmed the Dhahir of the `Uluww of Allah. The problem with the Deobandis, as I mentioned before, is that they want to attach themselves to the Salaf in Fiqh but distance away from the Salaf in `Aqidah.

Take note of the words of the great Mufassir, al-Qurtubi (who is an Ash`ari scholars by the way). He said commenting on the verse of Istiwa in Surah al-A`raf (verse 54), after discussing the madh-hab of the Mutakallimun (the people of Kalam, like the Ash`aris, Mu`tazilis) and their negation of Allah being above the Creation, he said:

كان السلف الأول رضي الله عنهم لا يقولون بنفي الجهة ولا ينطقون بذلك ، بل نطقوا هم والكافة بإثباتها لله تعالى كما نطق كتابه وأخبرت رسله . ولم ينكر أحد من السلف الصالح أنه استوى على عرشه حقيقة . وخص العرش بذلك لأنه أعظم مخلوقاته ، وإنما جهلوا كيفية الاستواء فإنه لا تعلم حقيقته . قال مالك رحمه الله : الاستواء معلوم - يعني في اللغة - والكيف مجهول ، والسؤال عن هذا بدعة


"...and the Salaf of the very first times - may Allaah be pleased with them all - never used to negate direction (al-jihah) for Allaah and nor did they used to express this (negation). Rather, they, and all of the others, used to speak with its affirmation for Allaah, the Most High just as His Book has spoken about it and just as His Messengers informed of it. And not a single one of the Salaf denied that his ascending (istawaa) the Throne was real and true (haqeeqah) (as opposed to metaphorical, majaaz). And Allaah specified the Throne with istawaa because that is the greatest of all His creation. However they assumed ignorance only of the exact nature (kaifiyyah) of istiwaa, for the true nature of that is not known. Imaam Maalik said, 'Istiwaa is known...', meaning in the language, '...its true nature is unknown and asking about it is an innovation�"

These are the words of your very own classical Ash`ari scholars who admitted the truth regarding the `Aqidah of the Salaf.

So, it is pretty clear as to who is rejecting the Ijma` of the Sahabah here.

A more accurate interpretation of the tafsir of Imam Al-Qurtubi [d. 671H] was provided on marifah . net as follows:


Regarding God’s statement (may He be exalted): “He then established Himself over the Throne”

This is the theological issue of “establishment” (al-istiwā’). The scholars have spoken at length regarding this issue. We have shown the various positions of the scholars in the book The Radiant Explanation of God’s Most Beautiful Names and Lofty Attributes , where we made mention of fourteen opinions.

Most of both the early and latter-day scholars have held that if it is obligatory to affirm the transcendence (tanzīh) of the Originator (ta’āla) from the limitations of direction (jiha) and spatial confinement (taḥayyuz), then - according to the generality of early scholars and the foremost latter-day scholars - the need to affirm His transcendency (may He be blessed and exalted) of direction (jiha) necessarily follows as a corollary; for according to these scholars, He is not attributed with moving in an ‘upwards’ direction, since, in their view, specifying for Him a direction logically necessitates that He be situated in a place (makān) or within spatial confines (ḥayyiz), both of which logically necessitate that that which is spatially confined be capable of movement and stillness as well as change (taghayyur) and occurrence in time (ḥudūth). This is the opinion of the scholastic theologians (al-mutakallimīn). And the early salaf (May Allah be pleased with them all) did not speak in negation of a direction for Allah nor did they affirm it [a direction]. Rather, what they and the rest did was to affirm it [al-istiwā’] in the manner that it was affirmed in Allah’s book and in the manner in which His Messengers informed of it. Nor did any of the pious predecessors ever deny that He established Himself over the Throne in reality. He specifically mentioned the Throne because of its stature as the greatest of his creations. Rather, they did not know the modality (kayfiyya) of His establishment (al-istiwā’), for its reality (ḥaqīqa) cannot be known. Mālik (may God be merciful towards him) said: “The ‘establishment’ (al-istiwā’) is known,” -- meaning, lexically -- “and the ‘how’ (kayf) is unknown (majhūl), and inquiring about it [al-istiwā’] is a blameworthy innovation (bid’ah)” . And thus spoke Umm Salama (may God be pleased with her). In sum, this amount of discussion suffices. Whoever wishes to go further in this matter should have recourse to the relevant sections in the works of the specialized scholars.

“Establishment” (al-istiwā’) in the language of the Arabs means rising above (‘uluww) and settlement (istiqrār). Al-Jawharī says, “‘It was beyond having any crookedness’; and ‘he established himself upon the back of his riding animal’, meaning settled himself thereupon; and ‘he rose up to the sky’, meaning aspired; and ‘he became established’, meaning he overpowered and conquered. He said: ‘Bishr became established over Iraq without recourse to sword or the spilling of blood’, and ‘the man became established’, meaning the days of his youth ended. ‘A thing is established’ if it is straight, symmetrical or well-balanced (i’tadala). Abū ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-Barr reports from Abū ‘Ubayda that the latter commented upon God Most High’s statement, ‘The All-Merciful became established on the throne’ saying “was elevated above” (‘alā). And, as a poet said, ‘For you granted them water in the desolate desert, as the star of Canopus circled around and then settled’, meaning ascended and rose high.

Therefore, I say: the “elevation” (‘uluww) of God Most High and His “being raised high” (irtifā) is an expression of the exaltedness (‘uluww) of His Glory (majd), His Attributes, and His Sovereignty; meaning, there is none that is above Him or vies with him in His Majesty, nor is there anyone who shares with Him His Highness (‘uluww); rather, He is the Most High without any qualification, may He be most praised.


The accuracy of the above interpretation in comparison to what was quoted from the pseudo salafi above is confirmed by what we find Imam al-Qurtubi writes elsewhere in his tafsir regarding the belief of the salaf. The following passage from his tafsir of 3:7 [translation again courtesy of marifah . net] explains what he really believes without leaving any room for doubt:


اختلف في جواز ذلك بناء على الاختلاف في جواز تأويلاتها ، وقد عرف أن مذهب السلف ترك التعرض لتأويلاتها مع قطعهم باستحالة ظواهرها فيقولون أمروها كما جاءت ، وذهب بعضهم إلى إبداء تأويلاتها ، وحملها على ما يصح حمله في اللسان عليها من غير قطع بتعيين محتمل منها

There is a difference of opinion concerning that (action) based upon the difference of opinion in the permissibility of (various) ta’wīls (interpretations) of the mutashābih. And it is known that the madhhab of the Salaf (pious predecessors) was to leave the undertaking of interpreting them while being certain that the literal meaning (ẓawāhir) was impossible. So they would say, “Let it pass as it came!” And some of them (the Salaf) took the madhhab of manifesting its interpretations by interpreting it with meanings consistent with the (Arabic) tongue without definitively confirming a specific possible meaning.

And elsewhere Imam Al-Qurtubi also says:


الجامع لأحكام القرآن
الجزء 18 من الطبعة >> سورة الملك >> الآية: 16 {أأمنتم من في السماء أن يخسف بكم الأرض فإذا هي تمور}.

والأخبار في هذا الباب كثيرة صحيحة منتشرة، مشيرة إلى العلو لا يدفعها إلا ملحد أو جاهل معاند. والمراد بها توقيره وتنزيهه عن السفل والتحت. ووصفه بالعلو والعظمة لا بالأماكن والجهات والحدود لأنها صفات الأجسام

“The hadiths on this subject are numerous, sound, and widely known, and indicate the exaltedness of Allah, being undeniable by anyone except an atheist or obstinate ignoramus. Their meaning is to dignify Allah and exalt Him above all that is base and low, to characterize Him by exaltedness and greatness, not by being in places, particular directions, or within limits, for these are the qualities of physical bodies.”
 

mohammadyunus

Junior Member
Another quote which the salafis falsely claim proves that Imam Al-Qurtubi admitted that the salaf affirmed Jiha as can be seen on the Saheefah website:





Read what al-Qurtubi states in al-Asna: وأظهر هذه الأقوال ـ وإن كنت لا أقول به ولا أختاره ـ ماتظاهرت عليه الآي والأخبار أن الله سبحانه على عرشه كما أخبر في كتابه
وعلى لسان نبيه بلا كيف ،بائن من جميع خلقه هذا جملة مذهب السلف الصالح فيما نقل عنهم الثقات حسب ماتقدم - The most correct of the beliefs (adhar al-aqwal), although I do not subscribe to it nor do I prefer it, is what is manifest in the verses and traditions, and (the statements of) the noble and the excellent ones, that Allah Subhanahu is upon His Throne, as He informed in His Books, without kayf, separate from His creation. This is basically the Madhab of the Salaf al-Salih. A comment on the translation:





The most correct of the beliefs (adhar al-aqwal), although A better translation should be:

'The most apparent [adhar] of these views, although......'


Next, there is no mention in the salafs' statement that 'Allah Subhanahu is upon His Throne, as He informed in His Books, without kayf, separate from His creation' that they believed that Allah is actually in a direction so this quote is irrelevant!

All we can conclude from the quote provided is that Imam Al-Qurtubi prefers the stricter Ash`ari view in dislike of the term "ba'in" (separate) in case one were to incorrectly come to the conclusion that it meant to suggest direction on the opposite side.

But what the salaf meant by such terminology is not to suggest that Allah is in a place or direction as the salafis falsely claim.


....The self appointed representatives of the salaf have produced quotations taken from Imam al-Bukhari's [196-256H] Khalq Af'al al-Ibad from the salaf which were made in response to the extinct Jahmiyya sect who believed that Allah was in every place intermixed in creation / every-where believing that these statements confirm their belief that Allah is in a sensory direction or place, sitting on the throne. The truth is, however, otherwise....

In fact, such statements simply affirm that Allah is not inside creation, but rather, distinct from it, not part of or mixed with it. This is confirmed by what we have witnessed from the tongues of the Imams close to their own time as shall be demonstrated, insha'Allah.


Imam al-Khattabi [319 H-388 H] in A'lamul Hadith pg. 1474 explains the meaning of the statement 'Allah is above the throne' saying:

وليس معنى قول المسلمين "إن الله على العرش" هو أنه تعالى مماس له, أو متمكن فيه, أو متحيز في جهة من جهاته. ولكنه بائن من جميع خلقه



“And the statement of the Muslims, Allah is ‘alal ‘arsh (upon the throne) does not mean that He is touching it or is in the place above it, or that He is located in a direction from it. But He is separate / distinct from all of His creations” It was mentioned in relation to this statement: 'observe how he said that Allah is distinct or separate “baa’in” from His creation after he negated Allah being in a place or in a direction from the throne. This shows that their understanding of distinctness and separateness meant that they believed that Allah was totally OTHER than His creation and that the laws of physics did not apply to Him in the first place. Hence, the dissimilarity of Allah to the creation is the type of "separateness" and "distinctness" we as Ahl al-Sunnah affirm.'


Imam al-Bayhaqi [384 – 458 H]in his Asma' wal-Sifat (Kawthari ed. p. 396-397; Hashidi ed. 2:280) states in relation to the statement of the Muslims, 'Allah established Himself over the throne':


The meaning of what the Muslims say whereby Allah "established Himself over the Throne" is not that He is in contact with it, nor that He is fixed there (mutamakkin fih), nor that He is circumscribed (mutahayyiz) by any of its directions (jihaat). However, He is separate / distinct (ba'in) from all of His creation. It is but a report whose terms are ordained and so we say it, at the same time denying any modality (takyif) for it, for {There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All Seeing} (42:11) Imam Al-Bayhaqi also says further down (Kawthari ed. p. 426-427; Hashidi ed. 2:334-336):

From `Ali ibn al-Hasan ibn Shaqiq: "I heard `Abd Allah ibn al- Mubarak say, 'We know our Lord to be above (fawq) seven heavens, {He established Himself over His Throne}, distinct (ba'in) from His creation, and we do not say as the Jahmiyya said, that He is right here' - and he pointed to the ground (hahuna fil-ard)."

By the term "distinct" he means, as he explained directly afterwards, to negate the claim of the Jahmiyya; *not to suggest direction on the opposite side*. He means what the Law said in absolute terms, and Allah knows best.
[translation courtesy of Sh. Gibril] Imam Ibn Furak [330-406H] stated:


Know that when we say that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, is above (fawqa) what He has created that does not mean that He is above in terms of a physical place, or that He has risen above physical places by a certain distance and He supervises these places by applying Himself to something from them. Rather, our saying that He is above them carries two senses; one of them means.........The second sense is that He is above them meaning He is distinct (mubāyin) of His creation. Imam al-Baqillani [338 - 403H] said in at-Tamhid (pp.300-301):


And if someone says: Where is He? It is said to him: Asking where (al-ayn) is asking about place (al-makaan) and He is not one that a place (makaan) is permitted to enclose (yahwee), and nor [one that] places can encompass. Except that we say: Indeed He is Above His Throne, [but] not with the meaning of a body [being as such] through contact and adjacency, Exalted is He above that with a Lofty Exaltation. Notice how the Imam answers the question 'Where is He?' with the reply that 'He is Above His throne' whilst denying He is in a place or location.

Sidi Abu Adam has also discussed this as follows (with minor alteration): some of the Salaf used the expression “above the ˆarsh” as a figure of speech to mean “not inside creation,” not to mean that Allah is located above it, or is something that can be pointed at. It is simply meant to negate inside-ness and not at all meant to affirm outside-ness, or a direction or location outside. In other words, “outside” here simply means “not inside” and nothing else. Al-Maturidi mentions this explicitly (in his tafsir) as one of the Salaf's sayings regarding “istawa ˆala-l-ˆArsh” i.e. that it means that Allah is not in a place/location/direction, because there is nothing [of creation] beyond the ˆArsh. This is no doubt very far from later mindsets and linguistic customs!

This idea that there is nothing of place / location / direction beyond the 'arsh is not something new from him. He refers to Imam Al-Maturidi Hazm a well known anti-Ash'arite saying as such:

Truly, the meaning of His saying, exalted is He, ‘He made istiwā on the Throne’ is that He acted in some way on the Throne; namely, He ended His creation with it, for there is nothing after the Throne which is the end of creation; there is nothing after it, neither space, nor void. Anybody who denies that the creation has a finite limit in distance and time and space joins the materialists and leaves Islam. 3
Nothing can be in space except what is a body or an accident [what occurs in a substance like heat, color and so on] in a body; there is no other possibility for neither reason nor imagination can conceive of another possibility at all. Since it is concluded that Allāh is neither a body nor an accident, it is concluded that He cannot occupy space absolutely. And Allāh is our help.4 All of this confirms that it is an incorrect distortion of the statements of the salaf to deduce from them that they believed God was in a sensory direction, location or place, sitting on His throne.
 

mohammadyunus

Junior Member
Imam al Qurtubi said:

"For Allah (swt) existed and was Self-Sufficient*(qâ’im bi dhâtihi)*before He created any object, including the Throne. Then He created objects, not out of need for them, but to show His power and wisdom, and in order that His existence be known as well as His Oneness, absolute might, and all-encompassing knowledge in all the acts He decrees. [Among these objects] He created for Himself a Throne over which He elevated Himself in the way that He wished, without contact with the Throne*(min ghayri an sâra lahu mumâssan)*and without the Throne becoming a place*(makân)*for Him. In this respect it is also said: “He is now exactly as He was before He created place and time.”
[Al-Qurtubi,*al-Jami‘ li Ahkam al-Qur’an*(verse 17:79)]
 
Top