Three Theological Treatises

...which indicates the truthfulness of the Messenger; rather, it is the evidence identifying the rulings of religious obligation Taklif: the legal and moral responsibility of a person to follow divine commands. Therefore, the seeker of knowledge and the questioner did not deserve anything but this severity.

Look at the truth of his Referring to the Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab intuition and his realization that such questioning was a "knocking on the door of discord." He saw that this would spread in the "End of Days," which is the season of trials and their breeding ground, as promised by the Messenger of God. Look at his severity when he said: "Had I been given authority over what I have been given authority over, I would have struck his neck." Such were those who witnessed the Revelation and the Descent [of the Quran] and were privy to the secrets and realities of religion. Indeed, the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—said of one of them: "Why did you not search?" Referring to a situation where a companion acted without deep inquiry and said of the second: "God only commanded knowledge."

And at the door was Ibn Jarwan Likely a reference to Subaygh ibn ‘Isl, whom Umar punished for questioning ambiguous verses; "Ibn Jarwan" may be a transcription variation, the one asking such a question. Yet, those after them—infatuated with dialectical theology Kalam: speculative theology focusing on logic and debate and argumentation—claim that if they possessed all that is on earth, they would not have reached the status of even a handful or half a handful of what the companions achieved. They claim that the "truth" and "correct path" lies in accepting these questions, diving into the answers, and opening this door. Such a person then believes himself to be a researcher in the mold of Umar and Ali, while considering them the companions to have been in error. Far from it! How far he is from attainment! He is like those who compare angels to blacksmiths.

Rather, he has cast stones of argument against the Rightly Guided Imams and the Pious Ancestors. Thus, it is known with certainty that this [dialectical approach] is an innovation original: "bid’ah" because it contradicts the practice original: "sunnah" of the Ancestors. This is not the same as the jurists’ deep study of legal contradictions and branches; for that, even if it was newly developed, does not contradict the practice of the Ancestors. While it is reported that they discouraged diving into [speculative theology], their own deep involvement in the issues of inheritance laws Fara'id: the Islamic science of calculating inheritance shows the permissibility of deep study in legal matters.

As for the newly invented arts of argumentation, they are a blameworthy innovation according to the people of true attainment. We mentioned the reason for this in the book The Foundations of Creeds within the larger work The Revival of the Religious Sciences original: "Ihya' 'Ulum al-Din", the masterpiece of Imam al-Ghazali. However, their debates, when the intent was to cooperate in searching for the sources of the Law and the methods of legal rulings, follow the practice of the Ancestors. They used to consult and debate on legal matters as a whole, as was done in the issue of the grandfather’s inheritance, the inheritance of the mother alongside the husband and father, and other matters.

Yes, if they invented [new] terms and expressions to draw attention to their correct objectives, there is no harm. There is no fault in the expressions themselves; rather, they are permissible for whoever perceives them and uses them, provided he intends to facilitate understanding rather than mere proclamation, and to compel [the truth] rather than mere inquiry. Otherwise, it is a blameworthy innovation, contrary to the transmitted Sunnah.

Chapter Three: On Various Sections and Useful Questions in This Art

If a questioner says: "What prompted the Messenger of God to use these ambiguous terms, which suggest [physicality], when he could have done without them? Did he not know that they might suggest anthropomorphism Tashbih: the act of likening God to His creation, obscure the truth, and lead people to believe falsehoods regarding the essence and attributes of God? Far be it from the station of Prophethood that this should be hidden from him! Or did he know, but not care about the ignorance of the ignorant and the misguidance of the straying? This is even more remote and hideous, for he was sent as a clear Lawgiver, not one who obscures or speaks in riddles."

This is an issue that weighs heavily on hearts, even leading some people to have bad thoughts about him. They say: "If he were a prophet, he would have known God; and if he had known Him, he would not have described Him with that which is impossible for His essence and attributes." Another group, believing in the literal meanings, said: "If it were not the truth, he would not have mentioned it so absolutely; he would have turned from these ambiguous words to others, or coupled them with what would remove the ambiguity."

It is fitting, then, to resolve this great difficulty and its impact on the hearts—that which scratches a resentment in the chest. The answer to this difficulty is clear to the people of insight. Its explanation is that these words were not "gathered" by the Messenger of God—peace and blessings be upon him—nor did he mention them all at once. Rather, they were gathered by those inclined toward anthropomorphism. Long ago, it was said that the act of "gathering" [disparate quotes] is what creates the effect of ambiguity and the confusion of understanding.