Three Theological Treatises

Right Column

...and it [the report] was heard for the sake of glorification, which is the best of acts of worship. If we were to abandon this report, this great benefit would be lost, and there would be no way to establish it. There is nothing in it [the report] except the ambiguity of the word "descent" original: "nuzul," referring to the Prophetic tradition stating God "descends" to the lowest heaven for a child or a commoner who acts like a child. The duty of the discerning person is to plant in the heart of the commoner the concept of transcendence tanzih: the theological concept that God is completely unlike His creation and free from physical qualities and sanctification original: "taqdis" regarding the form of "descent."

He should say to him: "If His descent to the lowest heaven were so that He might hear our call and speech, yet we hear nothing, then what is the benefit in His descent?" He could have heard our call while He was upon the Throne or the highest heaven. By this amount of reasoning, the commoner knows that the literal, physical meaning of "descent" is false.

and his calling

An example of this is a person in the East who wishes to make someone in the West hear him and call out to him; so, he steps a few paces toward the West and begins calling him, knowing all the while that the person cannot hear him. His moving of his feet would be futile, a vain act like that of the ignorant. How could such a thing settle in the heart of a rational person?

Rather, every commoner is compelled by this much logic to be certain of the [impossibility of the] physical form of descent. How could it be otherwise, when he already knows the impossibility of God having a body, the impossibility of movement for non-bodies, and the impossibility of descending without physical movement?

So, if the benefit in transmitting these great reports remains while the harm is slight, then how can this compare to the mere narration of "suspicions" zann: speculative or probabilistic interpretations rather than certain knowledge that arise in the soul? This is the path of the tug-of-war between the methods of independent reasoning ijtihad: the process of making a legal or theological decision by personal interpretation of the sources regarding the permissibility of mentioning a speculative interpretation versus the prohibition of it.

A third perspective may also be mentioned: to look at the circumstances of the questioner and the listener. If it is known that mentioning an interpretation will benefit him, then do so; if it is known it will harm him, leave it. If one suspects one of the two outcomes, then his suspicion is treated like knowledge regarding the permissibility of mentioning it. How many a person is there whose desire is not stirred at all to know these deeper meanings, and the literal meanings do not cause confusion in his soul? Mentioning a figurative interpretation to such a person is only confusing. Yet, how many a person is there in whose soul the literal meaning causes confusion...

Left Column

...to the point that his belief in the Messenger—may God’s prayers be upon him—almost turns sour, and he begins to doubt his ambiguous words. In such a case, mentioning the speculative possibility—or even just a possibility that is not certain—regarding what the word might mean is more beneficial for him. There is no harm in mentioning it to him, for it is a medicine for him, even if it might be an ailment for someone else.

However, it should not be mentioned from the tops of the pulpits original: "minbar", because that stirs up dormant inclinations in the majority of listeners who were otherwise heedless of it and free from its complications. Because the time of the Early Generations Salaf: the first three generations of Muslims, traditionally viewed as the most pious and correct in belief was a time of tranquility for the hearts, they went to extremes in refraining from figurative interpretation ta'wil out of fear of stirring these inclinations and confusing the hearts regarding their Creator. In that era, interpretation was that which stirred up strife and cast these doubts into hearts while people were perfectly fine without it.

But now, the mention of these matters has spread in some lands. Therefore, the excuse for disclosing some of that—in the hope of removing false delusions from the hearts—is more evident, and its acceptance by the recipient is more appropriate.

If it is asked: "You have distinguished between 'certain' and 'speculative' interpretation; how then is certainty achieved regarding the correctness of an interpretation?"

We say: either from the perspective that the meaning is certainly established for God Almighty—such as "superiority of rank"—or that the word can only mean one of two things, and one of them has been proven false, thereby necessitating the second.

An example is the saying of the Almighty: "And He is the Subduer, above His servants" Quran 6:18. If it appears in the linguistic usage that "above" original: "fawq" only allows for "superiority of place" or "superiority of rank," and "superiority of place" has been proven false by the knowledge of God's sanctification, nothing remains but "superiority of rank." This is as it is said: "The master is above the slave," "The husband is above the wife," and "The Sultan is above the minister." God is "above" His servants in this sense. This is like a certain interpretation regarding the word "above," as it is not used in the Arabic language except in these two senses.

As for the phrasing of "settling" istiwa: often translated as 'rising over' or 'establishing' "towards the heaven" or "upon the Throne," its linguistic conceptualization is not limited to such a narrow scope. When a word fluctuates between three defined meanings that are free from falsehood and one meaning that is false, we may hesitate on one of the two permissible meanings without through "suspicion" zann. This concludes the investigation into refraining from interpretation and diving into it.