Three Theological Treatises

...[it is] impossible, not due to any deficiency in the essence of Divine Power itself, but because of the impossibility of anything contradicting the Pre-eternal Will and the Eternal Prior Knowledge. For this reason, He said: “And you will never find in the way of Allah any change” Quran 33:62. Indeed, it does not change because of its necessity; and its necessity arises because it proceeds from a Pre-eternal, Necessary Will. The result of what is Necessary is itself necessary, and its opposite is impossible—even if it is not impossible in its own essence, it is impossible by virtue of something else This refers to the theological concept of "al-muhal li-ghayrihi": something possible in theory but impossible because it would contradict God's known decree. This is because it would lead to Eternal Knowledge turning into ignorance, and it would prevent the execution of the Pre-eternal Will.

If this relationship between God Almighty and the Throne al-'Arsh: often interpreted as the locus of Divine command or the highest point of the created heavens in governing the kingdom through its mediation is established—as it is intellectually possible—then is it an actual reality? This is something in which the observer may hesitate. We may suspect its existence with the kind of "suspicion" original: "zann," referring to speculative or probabilistic knowledge rather than absolute certainty that arises regarding the meaning itself.

The first issue here is the suspicion regarding whether a specific meaning is what was intended by a word in its own right even when the meaning itself is valid and possible. There is a difference between these two types of suspicion. When either of these suspicions strikes the soul and stirs in the breast, it does not fall under one's immediate choice or the soul's ability to control; one cannot simply choose not to have a suspicion. Investigation has necessary causes that cannot be pushed away, and "God does not charge a soul beyond its capacity" Quran 2:286.

However, the scholar has two duties regarding this: First, he must not allow his soul to settle into it with absolute certainty while remaining unaware of the possibility of error. He should not judge within himself based on his suspicion with a definitive judgment. Second, if he speaks of it, he must not state categorically that "the meaning of Establishment al-Istawa: the "rising over" or "settling" of God on the Throne mentioned in the Quran is such-and-such" or "the meaning of Aboveness al-Fawq: God's attribute of being "above" His creation is such-and-such." For to do so is to judge that which he does not know, and God Almighty has said: “And do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge” Quran 17:36. Instead, he should say: "I only suspect it is thus." In doing so, he remains truthful in reporting his own internal thoughts and does not pass judgment on God’s attributes or His intent in His speech; rather, he passes judgment only on himself and the results of his own mind.

If it is asked: Is it permissible to mention this suspicion to all people and talk about what his mind contains? And likewise, if he were certain of it, would he be allowed to speak of it?

We say: Speaking of it occurs in four ways. It is either with oneself, with someone of equal insight, with someone who is prepared for insight through intelligence, discernment, and a singular devotion to seeking the knowledge of God, or with the common folk al-'ammi: those without specialized training in theology or spiritual disciplines.

If the scholar is certain, he may speak of it to himself, to his equal in insight, or to the sincere seeker who is prepared for it—one who is free from worldly inclinations, desires, sectarian fanaticism, and the urge to show off their knowledge or gain status by discussing it with the masses. It is acceptable to speak with someone of these qualities because the discerning person, thirsty for true knowledge and not for any other purpose, finds the outward literalisms of the texts problematic in his heart. It may even lead him into corrupt interpretations because of his intense desire to flee from the literal meanings The author suggests that a literal reading of "God sitting on a throne" might lead an intelligent person to despair or error, so they require a deeper explanation. Withholding knowledge from those who deserve it is an injustice, just as spreading it to those who are not ready for it is an injustice.

As for the common man, one should not speak of it to him. The impact on a commoner—or anyone lacking the aforementioned qualities—is exactly like the analogy we gave of solid, heavy food given to those who cannot stomach it.

As for things that are merely suspected (opinions), the scholar speaks of them to himself by necessity, for the mind cannot help but talk to itself about doubts or certainties; one has no power to escape this. There is no doubt, however, that one is forbidden from speaking of such suspicions to the common folk; indeed, this is even more prohibited than sharing certainties. As for speaking of suspicions with those of his own rank in knowledge or those prepared for it, there is room for debate. It could be argued that it is permissible, as he is doing no more than saying "I suspect it is so," which is a truthful statement. Yet, it could also be argued that it is forbidden, as he is capable of remaining silent, and in speaking, he is manipulating the description of God’s attributes or the intent of His word. This contains a great danger. Permission for such a thing would need to be known via a sacred text, consensus, or an analogy to a text, yet nothing of the sort has been transmitted. Rather, God Almighty said...