Three Theological Treatises

...what is not for us to treat as isolated fragments; rather, these are words alluded to by the Messenger of God throughout his life at widely separated intervals. If one limits themselves to what is found in the Quran and the frequently transmitted reports Mutawatir: reports passed down by such a large number of people that they are considered certain and beyond doubt, they return to a few, countable words. Even when authentic reports are added, they remain few. They only appear numerous because of the irregular, remote, and weak narrations that are not permissible to consider. Furthermore, regarding the traditions you see reported by reliable narrators, they are isolated words. The Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—only mentioned them alongside contextual clues, signs, and symbols The author argues that the Prophet's original speech had "extra-linguistic" context (tone, setting, gestures) that ruled out literalism that remove any illusion of anthropomorphism Tashbih: the error of attributing human or physical characteristics to God.

Those who were present and witnessed him understood this. However, when the words are transmitted stripped of those context clues, the confusion appears. The greatest context clue in removing confusion is a prior knowledge of God’s holiness Taqdis: the theological principle that God is utterly transcendent and unlike created things, knowing He is far above the literal meanings of these outward appearances. For whoever has this prior knowledge, it serves as a deep-rooted treasure within their soul, accompanying everything they hear. Through it, the confusion is utterly erased without a doubt.

This can be understood through examples. First: The Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—named the Kaaba the "House of God." The use of this term by children or those close to them in understanding might suggest that the Kaaba is His home, His dwelling, or His place of rest. However, even the common folk Al-’Awamm: laypeople without deep theological training who believe that He is in the heavens or that He is established upon the Throne referring to the 'Arsh find this confusion taking hold of them in a way they do not doubt. If it were asked of them, "What prompted the Messenger of God to use this term?"—which deludes the listener into imagining that the Kaaba is His residence and home—we would respond to them:

They would say: This only causes confusion for

children and the foolish. As for those who have repeatedly heard that God is established upon the Throne, they do not doubt upon hearing this word that it is not intended to mean the House is His residence or shelter. Rather, they know instinctively that what is intended by this "attachment" the grammatical attachment of 'House' to 'God' is a type of honor Tashrif: an honorary attribution, like calling a mosque "God's House" to show its sanctity, not residency or some other meaning besides the literal definition of a house being attached to its owner and inhabitant. Since their belief is that He is upon the Throne, that belief acts as a "context clue" providing certain knowledge that calling the Kaaba "His House" does not mean it is His shelter.

This only causes confusion for those who have not previously attained this foundational belief. Similarly, the Messenger of God addressed these words to a group who already possessed the knowledge of God's holiness and the rejection of anthropomorphism; they knew He is transcendent above physicality and its accidental qualities. This prior knowledge was a definitive context clue that removed confusion, leaving no room for doubt—even if it were permissible for some of them to hesitate in the specific interpretation or the exact meaning intended among the various possibilities that the word might carry and that befit the Majesty of God.

A second example: A jurist might use the word "image" Sura: can mean a literal picture/form, or a conceptual "description/case" in his speech in front of a child or a commoner, saying: "The form of this legal issue is such-and-such," or "The form of this incident is such-and-such," or "I have depicted this issue in a most beautiful form." The child or commoner who does not understand the meaning of a "legal issue" might imagine that the issue is something tangible, and that in this "form" there is a nose, a mouth, and two eyes, based on what they know and what is famous to them regarding the common meaning of the word "image."

But as for the person who knows the reality of a legal issue—that it consists of bits of knowledge organized in a specific sequence—is it conceivable that they would imagine the issue having an eye, a nose, a mouth, or a form of the same genus as physical bodies? Far from it! Rather, their knowledge that the legal issue is transcendent above physicality and its attributes is sufficient for them. Likewise...