Wahabists rest upon principal of circumspection against Muslims. They conceal attributes of their god. Meanwhile, they reproach Shias distinctly for resting upon principal of circumspection against ruling authorities in questions appertained to Imamate and decency of the Prophet's companions.

Any research on Wahabism leads to one of two matters; either scholars of Wahabism are languid, or they are resting upon principal of circumspection against introducing their god under lights. It is seeming that Mohammed Bin Abdil­Wahab and some of his contemporary students; Bin Baz and Al­Albani, and their ancestors; At­Thehbi and Ibn Teimiya and the Hanbalite corporalists; all those precisely conceive resting upon extrinsic meanings, which necessarily leads to anthropomorphism. In the same time, they defend themselves against Muslims by denying such necessary result. Their words and private lessons introduces anthropomorphism so evidently. Ibn Teimiya expresses this meaning by saying, "…Items interpretation of which should be concealed." He also claim negation of Allah's peer, like and equivalent was exclusively stated by the Quran and the Prophet's traditions. Allah's having a resemblant was not negated or denied; therefore, it is neither rationally nor legally unacceptable to claim such a matter. Occasionally, Wahabists' faith regarding their god came forth so clearly through slips of tongues and certain deeds. On the pulpit of Damascus, Ibn Teimiya, once, committed such a slip.

The following forecited sayings of At­Thehbi are evidentiary enough to introduce Wahabists' factual faith. "Hadiths of banned knowledge are not necessarily publicized. Saving private scholars, such texts should not be put in everybody's hands." "It is obligatory to believe in descending of Allah and it is favorable to neglect discussing its 

essentials." This 'it is favorable' is a jurisprudential terminological term stands for permissibility of doing and favorableness of neglecting. This indicates that At­Thehbi is responsive and adherent to essentials of anthropomorphism, his sect, but he prefers no to discus so, evading citing an evidentiary fact­finding for the adopters of Allah's absolute promotion against being resembled or anthropomorphized. Ordinary Wahabists are too simple to realize meanings of interpretation, commendation, actuality and metaphor. They know nothing more than praising their sect and considering it sect of monotheism and the worthy ancestors of Islamic nation.

Scholarly and educated Wahabists assume that resting upon the extrinsic material meanings of aspects of the divine attributes texts, has been the only sect adopted by the public and the worthy ancestors of the Islamic nation. This is a natural consequence of the condensed instructions they have been receiving during their study and through the variant mass media. Nearly none of them realizes the real meaning and the essentials of resting upon extrinsic meanings of aspects of texts.

Wahabists masters claim Allah's sitting on His Throne and descending to the earth in the very same way Ibn Teimiya had done when he descended a single scale from the pulpit in Syria. This makes Allah, the Exalted, be identified by certain space and time and, as a sequence, enjoying space­time continuum. When the previous discussion is introduced before an educated Wahabist, he answers," No! This does not necessarily refer to anthropomorphism and corporalism. The Lord sits as it fits His glory, and descends as it fits his glory." Such a poor student think that as soon as he moves his tongue with 'as it fits His glory', that objective problem shall be totally solved or that he hit the very target! Example of such individuals is that who eats and drinks in the daylight and insists on being fasting ­ritual abstinence from drinking and eating­, because he fasts as it fits his fasting and eats as it fits his personality. Yet, nothing fitting his personality has been left! Another example is that who answers, when he is informed of his master's consuming intoxicants, "No! Cups of wine are automatically changed into a purified drink as soon as my master touches them." He also answers, when he is told that his master was seen at a prostitute's house, "No, that prostitute is automatically changed into a celestial virgin dame as soon as my master touches her."

Facts, however, cannot be changed by a master's touch or Wahabists' sayings or interpretations introduced by an At­Talamneki!!

The following text of As­Sibki shows that principal of circumspection was familiarly known at ancestors of Wahabists, and that some Sunni scholars of promotionism ­promoting and exalting Allah against sayings of anthropomorphism and corporalism­ cited the reasons beyond adopting such a principal. 

Tabaqatus­Shafiiya, part 8 page 222:

Sheik Abdus­Selam states:

Anthropomorphist Hashawites are of two categories. A category deliberate no harm from introducing their faiths so evidently. (And they think that they have something. 58:18). 

One of distinctive phenomena of the Quran is blocking the way in the face of ideological and doctrinal deflection. In the Quran, there is a single Verse sufficient enough to reveal falsity of their faith of resting upon the extrinsic meanings of aspects of texts regarding the divine attributes. It is God's saying, (Everything is perishable saving His face. 28:88). What should Wahabists and anthropomorphists, their forefathers, argue about this Verse? Should they pursue majority of Muslims who stress that 'His face' is metaphoric which stands for 'his essence' or 'his prophets and their disciples'? Or should they importunately insist on claiming the statement's proposing physical face, and claiming that Allah, the Exalted, will be terminated totally except His face?! Glory and exaltation be to Allah against their imputation.

On this very point, ship of Wahabists and anthropomorphists break down, and all its engines stand still. Although they are stormed and drowned to the chins, they keep up their insistence on their controversy, challenging the result, whatever it shall be. We seek God's guardian against their sayings.

They said, "Termination will affect Allah, the Exalted, totally except His face. For solving this problem, they repeated the same, "He terminates in a form fitting His glory, and perishes in a form fitting his glory."

Keeping on path of transgression, they denied that any of the worthy ancestors had interpreted 'His face' into 'His essence' or 'His prophets.' They denied reports registered in Al­Bukhari's book so that falsity of their faith should not be emerged, and aberrance and atheism of Al­Bukhari should not be proved for them.

The story is, herewith, introduced totally:

Al­Albani's Al­Fetawi, page 522:

Q. Before I introduce my variant questions, I would like to provide this question which I could not attach with the other. Yesterday, I mentioned that Al­Bukhari, in his book of hadith, records that 'His face' in the Verse, (Everything is perishable except His face.), was interpreted into 'His property'. As a matter of fact, I quoted this claim from a book written by Ahmed Isam and named Dirasetun Tahliliyatun Li Eqidetibni­Hajar. I still claim this man communicates this relation authentically. However, I would like to introduce before you the following implication mentioned in the forecited book, 

"Al­Bukhari interpreted 'face' mentioned in God's saying, (Everything is perishable except His face) of sura of Qassas, into 'His property' or 'What is only offered for the sake of Allah'. Regarding the earlier interpretation, it was cited by Al­Hafiz in a narrative related by An­Nesfi. Muemmar Abu Ubeida Bin Al­Muthenna, in his Mejazul­Quran, states that 'His face' stands for 'His Person'."

Today, I myself referred to Fetihul­Bari Fi Sharhi Sahihil­Bukhari and other books explaining Al­Bukhari's reference book of hadith. Surprisingly, I could not perceive any signal of that text ascribed to Al­Bukahri. It seems that Ahmed Isam intends to state that the matter involved in situated in An­Nesfi's narrative communicated by Al­Bukhari. Would you please provide us with your reply on this question?

A. Our reply has been previously cited.

Q. I only intend to explicate so in order that I should not impute such words to Al­Bukhari.

A. Well, may God reward you worthily.

Q. You have heard me raise doubt to the matter that Al­Bukhari might say such statement that the meaning of 'face' in God's saying, (And there will endure for ever the [face] of your Lord, the Lord of glory and honor.), is property.

A. O brother! A believer Muslim should never state such words!

Q. I also said that this statement is available in certain versions of books commentating on Al­Bukhari's reference book of hadith.

A. Then, the answer is already provided. May God reward you worthily for your wording about emphasis that Al­Bukhari's reference book is barren from such an interpretation which is core of Tatilism ­denuding the Lord from His entire divine attributes, for ruling of nonexistence.­

Q. It seems there is a part of such a statement in Fetihul­Bari Fi Sharhi Sahihil­Bukhari. As much as I retain, I could find such an evidentiary argumentation in a certain point in the book to which a friend of mine lead me. This asserts that some versions of the book comprise this statement. I argued that existing things are only Allah, the Exalted, and His creatures. Considering 'face' stands for 'property', what shall be perishing, then?

A. O brother! Invalidity of this matter needs an evidentiary argument. The most important thing, however, is saving Al­Bukhari from claims of interpreting the Verse. Al­Bukhari is a head master in hadithology and theology. Thanks to God, his faith is following the worthy ancestors. 

These were words of Al­Albani, the most leading Wahabist in hadithology.

It is noticeable that it is not problematic for Sheik Al­Albani to rest upon the extrinsic physical meaning of 'face' mentioned in God's saying, (Everything is perishable except His face). He undertakes that everything, including his god's hand, foot, side and every organ, is perishable except the face.

For Al­Albani, this horrible saying and disastrous calamity, which is refuted even by the Jew and Christian corporalists a part of whom is still kept by Al­Albani in Syria, is not the problem. He states that the real problem is saving Al­Bukhari, his acquaintance, from claim of interpreting the divine attributes, since, as Ibn Teimiya expresses, this deed is deemed unlawful and reckoned as the most dangerous ill sayings of the heretic and atheists. Al­Albani describes it as 'core of Tatilism and aberrance', and 'a believer Muslim should never state such words!' Al­Bukhari, however, is a believer Muslim.

I doubted Al­Albani's words about Al­Bukhari. While I was taking a review on Al­Bukhari's reference book of hadith, I found what that 'connoisseur hadithist, the retainer and tutor of Al­Bukhari's reference book of hadith' had just negated and raised Al­Bukhari against, was recorded on page 17, part 6 of that reference book. Instead of a single interpretation of the Verse, there are various sorts of interpretation written there.

Al­Bukhari's book of hadith, part 6 page 17:

'His face' mentioned in God's saying, (Everything is perishable except His face.), stands of His property. Some interpreted into 'what is intended for the sake of Allah.'…

Ibn Hajar's Fetihul­Bari Fi Sharhi Sahihil­Bukhari, part 9 page 410:

'Face' mentioned in God's saying, (Everything is perishable except His face.), in sura of Qassas, is interpreted into 'His property' or 'What is offered only for the sake of Allah'. Regarding the earlier interpretation, it was cited by Al­Hafiz in a narrative related by An­Nesfi. Muemmar Abu Ubeida Bin Al­Muthenna, in his Mejazul­Quran, states that 'His face' stands for 'His Person'.

At­Tabari relates these very meanings to some linguists. Al­Ferra records the same.

Ibnut­Tin: Abu Ubeida states: 'Face' stands for God's glory. Some mention God's Person. The Arabic saying 'God may honor your face' means 'God honor you.'.

At­Tabari relates the interpretation of 'face' into 'what is offered only for the sake of God' to some linguists. The same is related by Ibn Abi Hatem to Khassif to Mujahid and Sufian At­Thawri. Both said, "God's face implies what is intended only for the sake of Allah; like virtuous deeds and the like."

Different opinions, depending upon the sect, were introduced for these questions. Some permitted accrediting the expression 'thing' to Allah. They assert that the exception in the Verse involved is connected ­to the previous sentence­. Hence, 'face' stands for 'person'. The Arab, however, used to use the most dignified part for expressing the whole substance. Others impermitted ascribing the expression 'thing' to Allah. They claim exception in the Verse is separated. This makes meaning of the Verse be the following, "But Allah is not perishable." Others claim 'face' stands for 'what is done only for the sake of Allah'.

The statement, then, is recorded in Al­Bukhari's reference book. Revisers of that book asserted this fact. It is originally refutable to ascribe the statement to Muemmar. Al­Bukhari himself emphasized that Muemmar said that 'His face' stands for 'His Person'.

From this cause, we do suggest to Al­Albani, Bin Baz and the somewhat fair Wahabists to opt for interpretation so that they would not be having to decided termination of their god to the neck, saving the face, and aberrance or atheism of Al­Bukhari for committing the offense of interpreting the divine attributes. Will they accept our suggestion?! 

As a matter of fact, corporalists faced problem of this Verse many epochs before. When they rested upon the material meaning of 'face' mentioned in God's saying, (Everything is perishable except his face.), they received a striking slap as they lacked convinced exegeses. As much as it is seemed, that problem remained unsolved because of their insistence on rejecting interpretation. The same thing has been done by Al­Albani. Hence, they acted cussedly and claimed their god's total termination except the face. We seek Allah's guardian against such claims!!

As­Suheili's Ar­Rawdhul­Enif, part 2 page 179:

Al­Ashari states: 'Face' mentioned in God's saying, (There shall remain only the face of your Lord.), is treated as same as the eye and hand that are exclusive attributes of Allah, the Exalted, and are neither realized by intellects nor by reported tenet.

As­Shatibi's Alitisam, part 2 page 330:

Corporalists claimed that including the essence of the Creator, every thing is perishable saving His face. They cited God's saying, (Everything is perishable except his face.), as their evidence. 

One of the disadvantages of their ill exegesis of the Verse, is that Hanbalite jurisprudents has not discussed swearing by Allah's face. I reviewed a considerable number of references of Hanbalite jurisprudence, but I could not grasp a single item concerning this topic. For Hanbalite corporalists, swearing by a part of Allah is not given the formal appearance of ritual swearing. Hanafites, on the other hand, discuss this topic and rule of legality of swearing by God's face since it is a metaphorical expression of His Person. "Oath would be invalid if its speaker was a corporalist," they add.

Al­Kashani's Bedaius­Senaii, part 3 page 6:

Swearing by face of Allah is decided as legal oath. Ibn Suma'a relates this to Abu Yousuf who relates it to Abu Haneefa. 'Face' attached to Allah is an expression intending His Person. The Glorified the Exalted says, (Everything is perishable except His face). 'Face' stands for 'person'. Allah also says, (And there will endure for ever the [face] of your Lord, the Lord of glory and honor). Similarly, 'face' stands for 'person'. Al­Hassan Bin Ziyad: Abu Haneefa: "Swearing by Allah's face is not reckoned with oaths." Ibn Shuja: "This form is not within people's oaths. It is the vile's."

Abu Haneefa's verdict of excluding swearing by Allah's face from circle of oaths, is nearer to his ideology. He turned to antagonizing the Prophet's household and tending to corporalism after he had been a Zaidite ­a follower of Zaid Bin Ali Bin Al­Hussein­. He, however, declared his repentance before the Abbasid ruler who admitted and designated him as the supervisor of the large new built mosque of Baghdad. Proximately, antagonizing the Prophet' household and welcoming corporalism are concurrent matters. At any rate, it is unacceptable to overlook the earlier narrative of Abu Haneefa's students.

Al­Kashani's Bedaius­Senaii, part 3 page 143:

'Face' stands for the person. 'Face' mentioned in God's saying, (Everything is perishable except His face), stands for His Person. Saying, "I guarantee so­and­so's face," indicates guaranteeing that person. It is provable that such organs represent the whole body. By the same token, saying, "Your face is divorced," is decided as a form of legal divorcement.

As­Serkhasi's Al­Mabsout, part 8 page 133:

Swearing By The Face Of Allah:

Abu Yousuf and Mohammed decided this expression as a legal oath, since 'face' stands for the person. God, the Exalted, says, (And there endure the face of your Lord;). Al­Hassan decides that 'face' mentioned in the previous Verse stands for God's Person. Abu Shuja relates that Abu Haneefa reckons such an oath to the vile; the ignorant who intend ordinary faces. This proves disregarding that expression as a legal oath. 

Abu Shuja's describing the swearers by God's face as ignorant, testifies that corporalism was widespread during Abu Haneefa's time; early the second Hijri century. Numerous narratives of the Prophet's household (peace be upon them) show that corporalism was widespread in the first century as well. Imam Mohammed Al­Baqir refuted their dissidents' exegesis of the Verse.

Ibn Babawayih's Al­Imametu Wet­Tabsira, page 92:

Abu Hamza: Abu Ja'far (peace be upon him):

God says, (Everything is perishable except His face). How is it rectified that everything perishes, but the face exclusively endures? Allah is more majestic than being described.

Al­Kuleini's Al­Kafi, part 1 page 143:

Al­Harith Bin Al­Mughira An­Nasri:

Abu Abdillah, Imam Ja'far As­Sadiq was asked about God's saying, (Everything is perishable except His face). He was told that dissenters claim that except for God's face, everything shall be perished. He commented, "Praised be Allah. They have said a critical thing. By 'face', God intends the characters through whom people should be advancing towards God."

Some attempt at escaping that perplexity by claiming that 'perishable' mentioned in the Verse does not stand for termination. In his Al­Mufredat, page 544, Ar­Raghib explains 'perishable' as terminated. He records, "…This is called termination. It is intended in God's saying, (Everything is perishable except His face)."

Muqatil Bin Suleiman, one of masters of corporalists, aimed at solving the Verse perplexity by restricting the broad generality of the Verse; 'Everything'. However, this was useless for Wahabists.

Am­Mizi's Tahdibul­Kemal part 28 page 437:

Mekki Bin Ibrahim: Yahya Bin Shibl: "What for do you ignore Muqatil?", Ebbad Bin Kutheir asked. "My people hated him," I answered. "Do not hate him. None more knowledgeable than him in field of Quranic and prophetic texts, is enduring," asserted Ebbad.

Yahya Bin Shibl: A young man cited the following question before Muqatil Bin Suleiman: "What is your opinion regarding God's saying, (Everything is perishable except His face)?" "This is Jahmite!", spoke Muqatil. "What is Jahmite?", asked the young and added, "If you have an information about this, you should say it, otherwise, you may confess of your unfamiliarity." "Woe is you!", Muqatil said, "Jahm had neither pilgrimaged to this House nor had he attended at the scholars' sessions. He was only given an eloquent tongue. 

Regarding your question, God intends only the souled substances. About Queen of Sheba, He says, (And she has been given everything. 27:23), while she was given nothing more than royalty of her kingdom. The same thing is cited about God's saying, (And granted him means of access to everything. 18:84). That man was given nothing more than restricted royalty. God has showed, in detail, what is described by 'everything'."

Unfortunately, this exegesis is useless for Wahabists, since it is reckoned with interpretation which is deemed forbidden according to Wahabism. They should adopt for the extrinsic general meaning of 'everything'. This means that they should refer to the whole beings including Allah, the Exalted. We seek Allah's protecting us against such matters! They would be conceding the base upon which they founded their Wahabism if they take in Muqatil's exegesis. Nevertheless, Muqatil himself conceded the base upon which he founded his trend, when he was encircled by the impending questions of that asker.

Secondly, Muqatil's exegesis is not accurate. The Quranic expression 'everything' regarding beings, is usually used for expressing perfect enduring general meaning or relative general meaning. For instance, the following 'everything' mentioned in God's saying, (Nay! It is what you sought to hasten on, a blast of wind in which is a painful punishment, destroying everything by the command of its Lord; so they became such that naught could be seen except their dwellings. 46:24­5), cannot be explained by the perfect enduring generalization, since it is quite manifest that their dwellings were not destroyed by that wind. The meaning of God's saying, (Do you not know that Allah has power over everything? 2:106), and many similar ones, cannot be explained by the relative general meaning. It is unacceptable to exclude some things from God's absolute power or knowledge. In the same time, we may explain the forecited Verse by the relative general meaning; by saying that 'everything' includes only what is enjoying existence and potentiality.

Back to the Verse engaged. It is unacceptable to explain God's saying, (Everything is perishable except His face), by the relative general meaning intended by Muqatil, since, if perishability is dedicated to souled beings only, it will comprise Allah, the Elevated, for His being a ­divinely­ souled Being. Then, why is it only His face, not other organs and limbs, that is excluded. In addition, Muqatil and his pupils opted for the relative general meaning of 'everything' for finding a solution for that perplexity they were facing. They should have interpreted 'His face' of the same Verse into 'His Person' so that the total perplexity should be null! The factual general meaning is extrinsic, and, as they claim, the material meaning is also extrinsic. Why was it lawful to interpret one of them, while it is unlawful to do the same thing with the other?

The Verse is dealing with termination of this world before Resurrection Day. Occasion or discernment and subject of the Verse imposes the factual general 

meaning and, in turns, leads to nullity of excluding anything other than that excluded by Allah, the Exalted. It also imposes that Allah, the Exalted, is out of the Verse subject since it deals with termination of creatures, not the Creator. This conclusion allows to interpret 'His face' into 'certain creatures' or 'His Person' since the exception of the Verse is interrupted ­the excluded substance is of the same species of the general matter from which it was excluded­.

Muqatil, the inheritor of the Jew corporalists, proved his lack to harmonize between his dialect and the Verse. He failed to seize out the enduring general meaning of 'everything' and restricting its meaning to the souled creatures. 

Unlike the corporalists who opted for the physical face, Sunni scholars interpreted 'His face' mentioned in the Verse involved into 'His Person'. Some Shiite scholars agreed upon this interpretation.

Ashatibi's Alitisam, part 2 page 303:

This proves that there are definite linguistic idioms unknown by some Arab individuals. Hence, it is obligatory to ask about such items… The closest opinion to the fact is that the meaning is 'bearer of the face'. The Arab say, "I did so for so­and­so's face." This means "I did it for him." Therefore, the meaning of the Verse is 'Everything is perishable except Him.'

Al­Fakhr Ar­Razi's Book of Tafseer, volume 3 part 6 page 437:

(Except His face) proposes 'except Him'. The word 'face' is usually used for expressing the person.

Al­Fakhr Ar­Razi's Book of Tafseer, volume 13 part 26 page 22:

Various opinions were cited as the exegesis of God's saying, (Everything is perishable except His face). Some interpreted 'perishability' into termination. Thus, the meaning should be that Allah, the Exalted, will terminate everything but Him. Others interpreted 'perishability' into eradicating benefits, by means of death or keeping parts cut apart. This meaning is usually used by the Arab. A third party cited possibility of individual perishing as the meaning of 'perishability'. They claim that saving Him, everything is possibly existent, and what is possibly existent is perishable. It seems that Ar­Razi prefers the latter exegesis.

Al­Fakhr Ar­Razi's Book of Tafseer, volume 13 part 26 page 24:

Corporalists brought this Verse as an evidence on their faith, from two sides. First, they claim that the Verse is evidently expressive in proving Allah's face. This results in corporalism. Second, the word 'to' in (And to Him you shall be brought back), is used for conclusion of purposes. This befalls to corporals only. 

As an answer of this claim, we cite the following: Had this claim been correct, the entire organs of the Lord should have been terminated except His face. Some of the Rafidite anthropomorphists, like Bayan Bin Saman, commit themselves to this saying. At any rate, no single sane admits so.

Although it is categorically recorded in dependable references that the Hanbalite and Asharite corporalists committed to the previous saying, Ar­Razi evaded recording so and rested on Bayan Bin Saman. I noticed that the modern corporalists, like Al­Albani, Bin Baz and their followers adopt this ill exegesis.

In reference books of Shias, Bayan Bin Saman, Ar­Razi imputes to Shias, is incarnationist, atheist and accursed. His father and he claimed godhood.

Taraiful­Meqal, part 2 page 231:

Bayan Bin Saman At­Tamimi An­Nehdi claims Allah's having the appearance of an animal, and that everything is perishable except His face, and that Allah's soul was incarnated in Ali (peace be upon him), Mohammed Bin Al­Hanafiya, Abu Hashim and Bayan respectively. Cursed be Bayan Bin Saman.

An­Nubekhti's Al­Farqu Beinel­Furaq, page 216:

The immoderate Bayanites:

They claim that Imamate was Mohammed Bin Al­Hanafiya's, Abu Hashim Abdullah Bin Mohammed's and Bayan Bin Saman's respectively. They had various opinions about their head, Bayan. Some claimed his prophesy and repealing Mohammed's religion. Some claimed his godhood. This sect is apostate and excluded from all the other Islamic sects since they claimed godhood of Bayan, their head.

Ar­Razi, however, is not blamed for clinging Bayan Bin Saman to Shias. Tens of atheists and accursed individuals were imposed on our sect. Furthermore, they have been encumbering us with flaws and blunders of such persons. Meanwhile, our reference books, besides cursing such individuals, are crying with innocence.

Sunni scholars interpreted 'his face' into deeds intended for Allah's face. Some Shiite scholars agreed to this exegesis.

Ar­Raghib's Al­Mufredat, page 513:

Exegesis of (And there will endure the face of your Lord;).

Some interpreted 'the face' into God's Person. Others interpreted it into pursuing the course of Allah by offering good deeds'. Regarding God's sayings, (Whither you turn, thither is Allah's [face]. 2:115), (Everything is perishable except his [face]), (Who desire Allah's [face]. 30:38) and (We only feed you for the [face] of Allah. 76:9), 'face' mentioned is stood for God's Person. On that 

account, meanings of the Verses should be 'everything is perishable except His Person' and so on.

As this interpretation was provided before Abu Abdillah, son of Ar­Rida, he said, "Praised be Allah. They have said a critical thing. By 'face', God intends the characters through whom people should be advancing towards God." The meaning of the Verse should be 'everything from the servants' deeds is perishable and void except what is intended for the sake of Allah…

In fact, Abu Abdillah, previously mentioned, is Abu Abdillah Ja'far Bin Mohammed As­Sadiq (peace be upon him). He is not son of Ar­Rida. It seems that Ar­Raghib was attracted by the forecited narrative recorded in Al­Kafi. Allah's being out of the Verse subject, and correlation of exclusion ­the excluded substance of the same species of the general matter involved­ cited in the Verse were the two matters that incited Ar­Raghib on preferring this interpretation.

Sharif Al­Murteda's Al­Amali, part 3 page 46:

For citing exegeses of God's saying, (Everything is perishable Except His [face]), (We only feed you for Allah's [face]), (There will only endure the [face] of your lord), and the other Verses in which 'face' is mentioned, we provide the following:

In Arabic, the word 'face' stands for variant meanings:

Face is that physical appearance of every animal.

Face is the headmost of everything. God says, (And a party of the followers of the Book say: Avow belief in that which has been revealed to those who believe in the [face] first part of the day. 3:72)

Face is the intention of a deed. God says, (And who has a better religion than he who submit [his face] himself to Allah. 4:125), and says, (Then set your face upright to the religion. 10:105).

Face is the solution.

Face is the direction and the side.

Face is the standing and reputation.

Face is the chief of people.

Face is the self and the person. God says, (Some faces on that day shall be bright. Looking to their Lord. And other faces on that day shall be gloomy. Knowing that there will be made to befall them some great calamity). God also says, (Other faces on that day shall be happy. Well­pleased because of their striving. 8:88). It is inappropriate to attach brightness, gloominess, knowledge, 

happiness and pleasingness to faces actually. These adjectives were added extraneously to faces. They are actually added to the sentence as a whole. Consequently, 'His face' mentioned in God's saying, (Everything is perishable except His face), stands for His Person. The same thing is said about the word in God's saying, (And there will endure for ever the [face] of your Lord, Lord of glory and honor). As long as 'face' is intended to express the Lord's Person, the attachment of (the Lord of glory and honor) is, syntactically, ascribed to 'face', not 'Lord', while in God's saying, (Blessed be the name of your Lord, the Lord of glory and honor. 55:78), the attachment of (the Lord of glory and honor) is, syntactically, ascribed to 'Lord', not 'name' since the two are of different references. *

There is another probable exegesis for the Verse involved. This exegesis is related to some earlier scholars. It is that 'face' stands for deeds intended and offered to Allah, the Exalted, exclusively. On this account, meaning of the Verse should be 'Regard not any associate to Allah, and call not upon any god other than Him. Every act intended and offered to other than Him is perishable and void.'

How is it acceptable for corporalists to rest upon the extrinsic meaning of this Verse and its likes? This will certainly be leading to Allah's full termination excepting His face. This faith is showing atheism and naiveté of its bearer. God's sayings, (We only feed you for Allah's [face]), (The [face] of His Highest Lord. 92:20) and (who desire the [face] of Allah), are interpreted that these deeds are done for the sake of Allah, intending His rewards, contiguity and standing. God's saying, (thither is Allah's [face]), is probably intending Allah's Person on meanings of awareness and knowledgeability, not on incarnate meaning. It is also probable that 'face' stands for God's satisfaction, reward and contiguity. Furthermore, it is probable that 'face' implies localities. Hence, the attachment shall be referring to God's royalty, creation, origination and making. The first attachment is Allah's saying, (Allah's is the east and the west, Whither you turn, thither is Allah's [face]), refers to the fact that the entire directions are totally controlled and possessed by Allah, the Exalted. Thanks to God, this is clear and evident.

Margin of Biharul­Anwar, part 4 page 6: 

____________

* Pursuant to Arabic syntax,'Thu' in the earlier Verse should be 'Thi' if it is attached to 'Lord', while in the letter, it is 'Thi' since it is attached to 'Lord'. Depending on this syntactic evidence, Al-Murteda intends to say that 'face' and 'Lord', mentioned in the earlier Verse are two different words of the same reference, while 'name' and 'Lord', mentioned in the letter, are two words or two different references. 

There is a metaphorical expression in God's saying, (Everything is perishable except His face). 'Face' expresses person and self. The same thing is said about God's saying, (And there will endure the [face] of your Lord). Syntactically, the subjunctive case used in the current Quranic text, is a clear evidence on opting for 'person' as the interpretation of 'face'. The prepositional case would be used if the extrinsic material meaning of the Verse was intended…

Another exegesis is cited. Some interpret 'face' into 'virtuous deeds intended for the sake of Allah, and for seeking His contiguity and favors. Hence, the Lord informs us that everything shall be terminated saving His religion which is the only way to Him, and the only way by which His favors and satisfaction are obtained.

Concisely, Sharif Al­Murteda agrees with the Sunni non­corporalists on the exegesis that 'face' stands for the person. He also cites that the word intended should probably stand for the virtuous deeds intended to Allah exclusively.

Various narratives regarding dedicating signification of 'face' mentioned in the Verse involved, as well as looking at the Lord's face in the Hereafter, to the prophets and their disciples (peace be upon them all), since they are bearers of the Lord's divine knowledge and doctrines. Thus, they are indeed the face from whom Allah is proceeded.

At­Tebirsi's Alihtijaj, part 2 page 190:

… "O son of the Prophet! What is the purport of the hadith, (The reward of 'There is no god but Allah' is viewing at Allah's face.)?", I asked Imam Ar­Rida. "O Abus­Selt! He is apostatizing, that whoever ascribes a material face to Allah.", answered Imam Ar­Rida, and went on, "Allah's face is His prophets, apostles and disciples (peace be upon them), by whom God, His religion and knowledge is sought. Allah, the Almighty the Exalted, says, (Everyone [Everything] on it must pass away, and there will endure for ever the [face] person of your Lord, the Lord of glory and honor.) and (Everything is perishable except His [face]). Thus, viewing at Allah's prophets, apostles and disciples, in their standings, is a great reward for the believers. The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) stated, 'He whoever bears malice against my household and progeny, shall never see me and I shall never see him on Resurrection Day.' He also stated, 'Among you there are persons who shall never see me again after my mundane departure.' O Abus­Selt! A space cannot be attributed to Allah, the Praised the Exalted. Views and illusions cannot comprehend Him."

Imam As­Sadiq's narrative, quoted from Al­Kuleini's Al­Kafi, part 1 page 143, regarding the same subject, has been forecited.

In his Book of hadith, part 8 page 174, Al­Bukhari records that 'face' mentioned in the Verse involved, hints at God's Person: 

God's Saying, (Say: What Thing Is The Weightiest In Testimony?)

Allah, the Exalted calls 'thing' on Himself. He says, (Say: What thing is the weightiest in testimony? Say: Allah). Likewise, the Prophet (peace be upon him) called 'thing' on the Quran. It is one of the divine attributes. Allah says, (Everything is perishable except His face).

Al­Bukhari proposes that 'thing' mentioned in the Verse comprises Allah, the Exalted, and the expression of exclusion hints at a correlation between the whole sentence and the excluded thing. This means that 'face' stands for His Person.

A more curious matter is that Al­Bukhari, in his book of hadith, part 6 page 17, records a statement near to the Prophet's household's exegesis of the Verse:

'Face' included in the Verse, (Everything is perishable except His face), alludes to God's possession. Some cited deeds intended for God's sake as the exegesis of 'face' involved. Mujahid says: God's face is the argumentative news.

Probably, a manuscript error has occurred to Al­Bukhari's previous words. Yet, the entire versions of Al­Bukhari's book of hadith record the same 'argumentative news' which is very close to 'prophets and disciples' in writing. It seems that the origin is 'prophets and disciples', since this is the very exegesis pointed out by the Prophet's household.

A likelihood has been cited because Al­Bukhari presents Mujahid's exegesis under the title of exegesis of God's saying, (Everything is perishable except His face) which is Verse 88 of sura of Qassas, while he might intend to refer to Verse 66 of the same , since the latter comprises the word 'news' which is confused with 'prophets'. Regarding so, Mujahid would be recording a matter out of our debate.

Owing to this likelihood, we have to undertake Al­Bukhari's confused statement and regard that he records the exegesis of an earlier Verse under the title of a latter one.

Finally, it is acceptable to expose that the Verse concerned deals with the various generations of this earth before Resurrection Day. Hence, the meaning should be that everything shall be perishing in this world before Resurrection Day except Allah's disciples, who will endure till the last moments of this earth, when he, the Exalted, shall raise His argumentative disciple from the earth and the 'divine scream' shall be befalling. From this cause, the Verse pertains all what is perishable and what is consistent in social lives and origination of generations. This will cite a difference between perishability mentioned here and termination intended in God's saying, (Everyone [everything] on it must pass away). 

The earlier narratives recorded in Al­Imametu Wet­Tabsira, page 92 and Al­Kafi, part 1 page 143, are clear proofs of actuality of this exegesis.

As­Saduq's Kemaluddin, page 231:

Abu Hamza: Regarding God's saying, (Everything is perishable except His face), Imam Abu Ja'far stated, "Is it acceptable that everything shall be perishing, and God's face shall be the only enduring thing? Allah is more glorified than being described. The real meaning of the Verse is that everything shall be perishing except God's religion. We are the direction from whom Allah is approached. As long as Allah has a matter to do with His servants, His argumentative disciples are endured. Otherwise, God will raise us and do whatever he wills.

Personally, this is the only reasonable exegesis of the Verse. It is absolutely impossible that God's Essence is included in perishability, that it needs an exclusion to express. Depending on so, we have to dedicate created things to 'everything' mentioned in the Verse. On that account, the excluded should be God's prophets and argumentative disciples (peace be upon them).

In many other narratives; such as the previous, it is emphasized that prophets and Imams (peace be upon them) are intended in 'Allah's face' frequently recorded in the holy Quran. It is also recorded that looking at those individuals is the accurate interpretation of looking at the Lord's face mentioned in various prophetic texts.. Finally, this meaning does in no means oppose the previous meaning of the prophets and argumentative disciples' being the Lord's face. 

Ibn Baz's Al­Fetawi, part 2 page 94:

Praised be Allah. Blessings and peace be upon Allah's apostle and his household and companions. Lately, I inspected reply of Sheik Ahmed Mahmud Duhloub, issued in Al­Belagh Magazine, No. 637, regarding a question about the exegesis of God's saying, (He settled on the Throne). Within his reply, Sheik Duhloub referred pointing out that 'settle' implies 'seize and have in possession', to the worthy ancestors.

Since this reference is a candid mistake, I just intend to attract attentions to this point so that readers shall not reckon that sentence with the master scholars' sayings. As a matter of fact, the right thing is that exegesis is ascribed to the Jahmites and Mutazilites and their fellows who denied the divine attributes and denuded the Praised and Exalted Creator from attributes of perfection He used for Himself.

Scholars of the worthy ancestors denied such an interpretation and asserted that Allah's settling is treated as same as the other attributes, that are confirmed for the Lord as they fit His glory, passing over distortion, denudation, modification or representation. Malik stated, "Settling is known and 

its way is unexplored, and believing in this is obligatory and questioning about it is heresy." Sunni descendants were brought up on this belief. In his Ar­Risaletul Hamawiya, Ibn Teimiya writes down, 

"This is the Book of Allah, from beginning to end, and this is the Prophet's traditions, from beginning to end, and these are words of the Prophet's companions and their followers, and these are words of the other masters. All these are filled in, either by text or extrinsic meaning, with the fact that Allah, the Praised and Exalted, is the High and the Supreme Who is over and exalted on everything, and over the Throne and over the heavens. This is proved by His saying, (To Him do ascends the good words; and the good deeds lift them up. 35:10), and the innumerable authentic and qualified hadiths; such as the Prophet's ascending to his Lord, and the angels' descending from and ascending to the Lord and the like."

Depending on our current debate, it is now quite clear for readers that what is falsely imputed to the worthy ancestors, by Ahmed Mahmud Duhloub, has been such a calamitous mistake and indubitable prevarication that it is impermissible to regard. The worthy ancestors' words respecting this topic is positively familiar and continuously reported. This meaning is clarified by Sheikul­Islam Ibn Teimiya, by contending that Allah's settling is highness on the Throne, and believing in so is obligatory, and the way of that elevation is exclusively known by Allah, the Praised. This meaning is related to Ummu Salama, Ummul­Muminin, and Rabia Bin Abi Abdirrahman, Malik's master. It is really the indisputable right. Unquestionably, Ahlus­Sunna adopted this opinion. The same thing is said about the other divine attributes; hearing, viewing, satisfaction, ire, hand, foot, fingers, uttering, will and the like. It is averred that such attributes are linguistically known; therefore, it is obligatory to believe in even the way is unfamiliar for us and quite familiar by Allah, the Praised, exclusively. It is also imperative to believe in perfection of the divine attributes in such a way that He is not like any of His creatures. Hence, Allah's hand, fingers, satisfaction are different from ours. He, the Praised, says, (Nothing like the likeness of Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing). Believers, however, are required to adhere to what was told by Allah and His Prophet, and what was pursued by the worthy ancestors; the Prophet's companions and their virtuous followers. They are also advised to beware themes of the heretic who shunned the divine Book and the Prophet's traditions and rested upon their ideas and intellectuals fanatically; therefore, they deviated and led to deviation.

Ibn Baz's Al­Fetawi, part 2 page 98:

In an article titled (For being the strongest nation), issued in No. 3383, 3/4/1408, of Al­Sharq Al­Awsat newspaper, Muhyiddin As­Safi, referring to discrepancy between the worthy ancestors and their descendants about the divine attributes, writes down, "In the Holy Quran, there are some Verses accrediting material descriptions to Allah, the Exalted. God's sayings, (The hand 

of Allah is above their hands), (Everything is perishable except His face) and (The Beneficent settled on the Throne) are good examples of the forecited fact. Scholars follow one of the following two courses in comprehending such Verses. First, course of the worthy ancestors, which is proving what Allah has proved for Himself passing over denudation, modification or representation, and observing evading depriving the Divine Essence of attributes. They also averred that the extrinsic meanings of aspects of such Verses are unintended. For God's saying, (Nothing is like the likeness of Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing), promoting Allah, the Exalted, against whatsoever may be a means of comparison to the creatures was the base on which they depend in their faith. Second, course of the worthy descendants, which is interpreting such words and resting upon metaphoric meanings. Hence, for them, 'hand', 'face' and 'settling' suggest aptitude, person and predominance and seizure, respectively. Convictional proofs on Allah's being not a corporeality, were provided. Besides, God says, (Nothing like the likeness of Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing) proves so. As a matter of fact, both courses are accurate and authentically related and recorded in reference books of master scholars."

May God pardon him and us, the writer of the previous article has made a mistake when he says, "They also averred that the extrinsic meanings of aspects of such Verses are unintended." The worthy ancestors and their ever followers prove and believe in veracity of attributes of perfection that Allah and His Prophet (peace be upon him) proved for Himself, as they fit His glory, passing over distortion, denudation, modification, representation, interpretation or commendation.

In his Ar­Risaletul Hamawiya, Sheikul­Islam Ibn Teimiya records, "In His Al­Asma'u Wes­Sifat, Abu Bakr Al­Beihaqi relates the following to Al­Awzai, with an authentic documentation:

'The Prophet's companions' followers and we were wont to maintain that Allah, the Exalted, is atop His Throne. We also believed in the divine attributes related to the Prophet's traditions.'

Al­Awzai, one of the four most remarkable scholars of the followers of the Prophet's companions' followers age, relates commonness of maintaining that Allah, the Exalted, is atop His Throne and that He has audible attributes. This saying was declared after emergence of Jahm, the denier of Allah's being atop His Throne and having attributes, so that people could realize that the worthy ancestors' sect opposed such ideas.

The writer mentions that "course of the worthy descendants is interpreting such words and resting upon metaphoric meanings. Hence, for them, 'hand', 'face' and 'settling' suggest aptitude, person and predominance and seizure, respectively. Convictional proofs on Allah's being not a corporal, were provided. Besides, God says, (Nothing is like the likeness of Him, and He is the 

Hearing, the Seeing) proves so. As a matter of fact, both courses are accurate and authentically related and recorded in reference books of master scholars." I say that these statements are not quite true. Not both courses are accurate. Course of the worthy ancestors is the only accurate and the obligatorily pursued, since it represents ensuing the divine Book and the Prophet's traditions, and acceding to attitudes of the Prophet's companions, their followers and their followers. By proving attributes of perfection, this course promotes Allah, the Praised the Exalted, against attributes of imperfection and non­organic, incomplete and privative substances. This is the truth, indeed. The interpretation, on the other hand, is adopted by the worthy descendant theologists. It is opposite to the right since it is arbitration of the imperfect intellects and capricious representation of Allah's words. By adopting this, depriving Allah, the Glorified the Elevated, of attributes of perfection is engaged. Thus, interpreters escaped from anthropomorphism to fall in denudation.

Concisely, course of the worthy ancestors is the only right that is bindingly followed and ensued. The other sect of interpreting attributes of Allah, the Glorified the Elevated, is wrong and contradictory to Allah's Book and the Prophet's traditions and the worthy ancestors of the nation.

The writer's claim Allah's being not a corporeality, is unproved since neither the divine Book nor did the Prophet's traditions assert nor deny this matter. In this case, the most apropos procedure is suspending such matters. Intellects are out of process of specifying the divine attributes. This process is consecratory. It is suspended on Quranic and prophetic texts.

Bin Baz's Al­Fetawi, part 2 page 105:

From: Abdul­Azeez Bin Abdillah Bin Baz.

To: Mohammed Bin Ahmed Sindi, the esquire.

Having received your prolonged missive, I noted the following points included:

1. The claim Allah is greatly promoted against occupying a space or being encompassed by a definite space.

2. Your saying, "While I was reviewing Sa'd Sadiq's Sira'un Beinel Haqqi Wel­Batil, …these Verses and hadiths were the argumentative evidences on God's ­material­ Exaltation. If I were able to realize what the author and his likes should gain from publicizing such beliefs that, in most cases, call forth seditious matters, disorder and disunity… Ordinary people would heed this book and believe that Allah is existent in the heavens… Manifestly, I have quoted words of Ar­Razi, Al­Qurtubi and As­Sawi."

From your words, it is clear that you lack knowledge in belief of the divine names and attributes. You also crave to a special critique and such a 

confidential care that shows you the accurate belief. You, God may bless you, should understand that Sunnis, including the Prophet's companions and their followers, have been unanimously supporting the fact that Allah is in the heavens, atop the Throne, and that hands are raised towards Him. These facts are proved through Quranic and authentic prophetic texts. They also have unanimously proved that Allah, the Praised, is too self­sufficient to be in need for a throne or alike matters. Ahlus­Sunna asserted similar things about other divine attributes. Malik, for instance, says, "Meanings are realized according to requirements of the Arabic in which Allah addressed at His servants. The way is unknown."

These perfect and invariable meanings were used for exhibiting attributes of the Lord whose resemblant is nonexistent. Discussion of this mater needs further debate. God willing, we intend to do so soon after arrival in Al­Madina. Besides, we intend to show you erroneous points in your book. At any rate, we advise you of reflecting upon the Holy Quran and believing that whatsoever indicated by the Quran, with regard to the divine attributes as well as the other subjects, is accurate and fitting Allah, the Praised. It is illicit to interpret, discount and commend the divine attributes. All these are acts of the heretic. Ahlus­Sunna do neither interpret, discount nor do they commend the Verses and hadiths appertained to the divine attributes. They believe that all whatsoever indicated by meanings is a consistent right fitting Allah, the Praised, in a form quite different from any of His creatures. Allah, the Praised, says, (Say: He, Allah, is One. Allah is He on Whom all depend. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And none is like Him. 112) (Nothing like His likeness; and He is the Hearing the Seeing.) Hereby, God denied being like His creatures and confirmed hearing and sight to Himself in a fitting way. The same is said about the rest of the divine attributes.

We also advise you of reviewing the two replications of Sheikhul­Islam Ibn Teimiya, to people of Hemah and Tadmur. These two answers, Al­Hamawiya particularly, carry a remarkable virtue and a detail rendition regarding the Sunnis' opinions and presentation of their words. In the reply involved, there is sufficient replication on wording of the heretic. You are advised to see Ibnul­Qeyim's Al­Eqidetun Nuniya and Mukhtassarus Sawaiq. Besides careful revision and demonstration of evidences inferred from the Quran, hadith and opinions of the worthy ancestors, exposition and clarification found in these two books may be not noticed in others.

Nothing new can be beheld in Bin Baz's previous words which were as same as Ibn Teimiya's. Truly, one matter could be conceived from the above. Both the supreme juriscounsult master and his industrious disciple rested upon God's having a material face as they passed by God's saying, (Everything is perishable except His face.) 

Only had there been enough space to show models of Ibnul­Qeyim's Al­Eqidetun Nuniya of which that respectful juriscounsult advises for taking in monotheism. In that poor so called poem, Ibnul­Qeyim composes six thousand lines of the worst wording ever used in Arabic poetry. He confused monotheism so complicatedly that he disciplined the Muslim scholars' objective cogency to death. 

Wahabists ensued their master, Ibn Teimiya, in citing Malik's statement about the exegesis of God's saying, (The Beneficent settled on the Throne), as their evidence on decorum of their faith. Bin Baz and Al­Albani have been used to using this statement.

Bin Baz's Al­Fetawi, part 2 page 171:

He, the Praised, is over His creatures and settling on His Throne in such a way fitting His glory and magnificence. On the contrary of claims of the heretic Jahmites and their likes, who cited 'seize' as the interpretation of 'settle', the flawless meaning is that adopted by the worthy ancestors, which is that Allah arose on His Throne. This is evidenced by Malik's answering the question about way of God's settling remarked in God's saying, (The Beneficent settled on the Throne). Malik said, "Settling is known and its way is unexplored, and believing in this is obligatory and questioning about it is heresy."

Bin Baz's Al­Fetawi, part 2 page 518:

"O Malik! (The Beneficent settled on the Throne), how His settling was?", a man asked. "Settling is familiar. ­Inversely to the commended meaning, the known settling is the elevation.­ It way is unexplored… Take this man out. He is heretic," ordered Malik.

Considering Malik's verdict has been operative, what should the ruling of Omar's demonstrating that Allah, the Exalted, reposes on the Throne which cracks and creaks, squeaks or grate owing to the Lord's heavy weight, be?

Second, as Ahmed or another said, "Pass these texts as they are.", was Malik (God please him) adopting this belief when he provided that answer and decided heresy of that asker? The asker, however, was not heretic when he asked about meaning of God's saying. He became heretic just after he had asked about the way of God's settling. The forecited saying of Malik represents completely course of the worthy ancestors and their ever followers. Malik stated that linguistic meanings of such texts are known, while methods and ways are thoroughly not. None other than the Owner, can recognize the way of the Essence and the attributes. Meanwhile, settling, hearing and sight are realizable matters. 

As much as I think, Ahmed indicated miscomprehending the Verses and commending them to Allah exclusively. This trend is followed by the descendants. This is indeed the very denudation that leads to denying the Praised and Exalted Creator. I am highly touchy to Sheikul­Islam Ibn Teimiya's saying, "Anthropomorphists worship a pagan while Tatilites worship nothingness." The deviant heretics, especially in this country, claim that Allah is neither over, beneath, to the right, to the left, in nor out of this world. These are descriptions of nonexistent things. What should be the answer of any ordinary man if he is asked to provide a definition for nonexistence? Certainly he will answer: Nonexistence is nothingness. If he is also asked whether this nothingness is in or out this cosmos, the answer will be: This is incorrect, nothingness is neither in nor out of the cosmos. From this cause Ibn Teimiya said that Tatilites worship nonexistence.

We, hereby, concise the forecited prolonged essay of Bin Baz, by citing the following instructions and commentaries: Allah, the Exalted, is a corporeality. Corporealities are the only things existing in or beyond nature. Allah's settling on the Throne is a material matter. It is not valid to ask how; otherwise you shall be decided as atheist whom should be dismissed or killed. Besides, such procedures should not be regarded as intellectual terrorism since Malik had followed them. We, however, should refer to him in interpreting the divine attributes and religious terrorism. As a matter of face, we disagree to his heretic verdict of permissibility of visitating the Prophet's tomb!! Say not that Omar, the caliph, had represented God's reposal on His Throne as a man's sitting on a new made chair which cracks, creaks, squeaks or grates due to heavy weight!! This interpretation is legal for Omar, but illegal for others!!

Anyhow, the commenders committed a single intellectual terrorism, while Wahabists have been committing three ill deeds; two are reckoned with the intellectual terrorism and one to commendation. Commenders confessed of ignoring the Lord's way of settling on the Throne, and deemed forbidden asking about so. Wahabists confined people between two options; either to rest upon the extrinsic material settling as the very meaning involved, or to be lined up with Jahmites, Tatilites, deviants and atheists. After responding to the easier option; the previous, they will rule of your dissidence for your exposing Allah's corporeality concealment of which He has ordered, if you disregard commending that meaning to Allah. See how the forbidden commendation became obligatory after forcing on resting upon the material exegesis! Wahabists have been committing intellectual terrorism by forcing on resting upon the material exegesis, and another one by forcing on commending the physical settling and forcing on abstaining from asking about the way!!

A commender says: Do not open the door to questions and evade entering this place. 

A Wahabist says: Jump from that high place, but evade falling to the ground!!

It was not proved that Malik had adopted the notion Wahabists held fast on.

1. At­Thehbi's Siyeru A'lamin­Nubela, part 8 page 100:

Jafar Bin Abdillah: A man asked Malik, "O Abu Abdillah! How was the Lord's settling mentioned in His saying, (The beneficent settled on the Throne)?" Malik had never been in such embarrassing moments. He nodded the head down and stroke the cane in his hand to the ground, and became sweaty. After a while, he raised the head, threw the cane and stated, "It is impracticable to ask 'how' about Allah. His settling is not inconceivable. Believing in so is obligatory. Asking about so is a heresy. I think you are a heretic. Take this man out." Hence, he dismissed the asker.

According to Salama Bin Shabib's narration, Malik stated, "I am afraid you are an aberrant."

2. Abur­Rabi Ar­Rashidini:

Ibn Wahab: We were attending at Malik when a man asked, "O Abu Abdillah! (The Beneficent settled on the Throne), how was that settling?" Malik nodded the dead down and became sweaty. After a while, he raised his head and said, "The Beneficent settled on the Throne as he describes Himself. It is impracticable to ask 'how' about Him. 'How' is invalidated for Him. You are an ill heretic. Take him out."

3. Mohammed Bin Amr Qamshard An­Nisapuri:

Yahya Bin Yahya: We were attending at Malik when a man asked… The same previous narrative with the following addition, "Settling is not inconceivable."

4, 5. At­Thehbi's Siyeru A'lamin­Nubela, part 8 page 105:

Ibn Edi: Mohammed Bin Harun Bin Hassan: Salih Bin Yaqub: Habib Bin Abi Habib:

Malik stated, "Affairs of our Lord, the Blessed the Exalted, are descended. He is everlasting and unchanging." Yahya Bin Bukeir commented, "This is a qualified saying, but I did not hear it from Malik directly."

Salih is unknown for me. Habib is so familiar. The most well known narrative related to Malik is that of Al­Walid Bin Muslim who asked about texts of the divine attributes. Malik answered, "Pass them as they are, without exegesis." Subject to authenticity of Habib's narrative, Malik had two sayings in the question concerned.

6. Eyad, the judge:

Abu Talib Al­Mekki: Malik (God please him) was the most distant from theologists. He was also opposite of the Iraqis. 

Sufian Bin Uyeina: A man asked Malik, "O Abu Abdillah! (The Beneficent settled on the Throne), how was that settling?" Malik could say nothing and became sweaty. After a while, he said, "His settling is familiar. It is impracticable to ask 'How' about Him. Asking about this is heresy. Believing in it is obligatory. I see you but a deviant. Take him out."

It is noticeable that there is no single narrative support Wahabists' claim of Malik's adopting for resting upon the extrinsic meanings of texts. Actually, these narrations refer to the opposite. In the first narration, Malik denied the general 'how' ascribed to Allah, the Exalted. He did not negate the way of God's settling. He says, "'It is impracticable to ask 'How' about Allah. His settling is not inconceivable." This means that settling for the Lord is originally out of a method or a way. It is not a material settling the way of which is not known, as Wahabists claim. Malik's 'not inconceivable' means that it is decisively provable to Allah, the Exalted, by Quranic texts. Where is, then, the evidence on their claims of material settling?

The second and third narrations support the first. Malik said, "The Beneficent settled on the Throne as he describes Himself. It is impracticable to ask 'how' about Him. 'How' is invalidated for Him." As a matter of face, the expression, "It is impracticable to ask 'how' about Him" is usually used in reports of Ahlul­Beit for negating materiality misalleged to Allah, the Elevated. The expression is also used for promoting God against such unfitting matters.

In the fourth narrative, Malik interpreted the Lord's descending into descending of His affairs. He says, "Affairs of our Lord, the Blessed the Exalted, are descended. He is everlasting and unchanging." For Wahabists, interpretation is a heresy, denudation, deviation and atheism. Therefore, pursuant to rulings of their sect, they should rule of heresy, denudation, deviation and atheism of Malik so that he may be free from being their ceiling!

The fifth narrative is pure commendation that does not stand for any sort of resting upon extrinsic or intrinsic meanings. At­Thehbi himself declares so, "…asked about texts of the divine attributes. Malik answered, "Pass them as they are, without exegesis."

Malik's expression in the sixth narration, "His settling is familiar. It is impracticable to ask 'How' about Him", shows denial of inquiring the way of settling. This means that he denies the Lord's material settling adopted by Wahabists. The word 'for him' shows that he denies ways of the Lord's settling or the absolute 'how' accredited to Him. Malik's saying 'familiar' insinuates that this matter is provable by Quranic texts.

How is it, then, adequate for them to claim Malik's acceding to their sect? What for are they taking Malik as their ceiling? What for do they delude Muslims that Malik is one of them and with them and they, nearly, would be about to issue his membership to their club!! 

Al­Mudawwanatul­Kubra, part 6 page 465:

Malik nodded the head down, sweated and thought for a considerable time when he was asked about God's settling in His saying, (The Beneficent settled on the Throne). After a while, he answered, "It is impracticable to ask 'how' about Him. His settling is not unfamiliar. Believing in so is obligatory and asking about it is a heresy. I see you a heretic. Take him out." Hence, the asker was dismissed.

The same is recorded in Asharani's At­Tabaqat.

Like the earliest, Malik's answer in this narration commences with denial of the Lord's material settling they believe in. How was it, then, possible for them to claim that, by saying, "Settling is not unfamiliar", Malik intended at the Lord's material settling on the Throne. Exalted be Allah against so!

Our claim is also supported by Ashafii's words recorded in As­Sibki's Tabaqatus­Shafiiya, part 9 page 40: Ashafii: As I asked him about monotheism, Malik answered, "It is absolutely inapplicable to think that the Prophet (peace be upon him), who trained his nation how to cleanse after defecation, had not taught them monotheism. Once, he (peace be upon him) said, 'I have been ordered of fighting people till they say there is no god but Allah.'… He did not say that believing in Allah's occupying an elevated space, is within monotheism." 

Siyeru A'lamin­Nubela, part 8 page 103:

Abu Ahmed Bin Edi: Ahmed Bin Ali Al­Medaini: Isaaq Bin Ibrahim Bin Jabir: Abu Zeid Bin Abil­Ghamr: Abul­Qasim:

Before Malik, I provided these narratives respecting God's creating Adam on His look, showing His leg, taking His hand in hell for picking up whomever He desires and the like. Malik denied so sharply, and warned us against communicating such narratives. The attendants asserted that some scholars had been publicizing such narratives. "Who were they?", asked Malik. "They are Ibn Ajlan and Abuz­Zinad, his master.", they answered. "Ibn Ajlan has been neither acquainted of such affairs nor has he been a scholar. Abuz­Zinad has been uninterruptedly working for those!", declared Malik.

This is an abundant text comprising remarkable information. Malik intended to say that Abuz­Zinad, the principal originator of such narratives, had been doubtful since he was a governmental official ­for the Umayids, about whom Malik said 'those'­ whose mission has been publicizing narratives of corporeality falsely cited by Ka'bul­Ahbar and other Jews for broadcasting in the Islamic nation. It is also an adequate evidence on the fact that since the first Hijri 

century, the Umayid rulers adopted the Israelite fables and intrigued them in the Prophet's traditions and designated officials, whether scholastic or not, for this mission. Furthermore, Malik's previous narrative is acceptably sufficient for Malikites, as well as every decent researchist, to cease regarding all those Jewish and Umayid false narratives of anthropomorphism and corporeity.

All the above, and those whom were hearted with anthropomorphism and corporalism, such as At­Thehbi, attempted at forging Malik's decisive and clear­cut attitude for their good, and aimed at humiliating him by ruling of his ignorance for his shortcoming of viewing those 'numerous authentic hadiths' opposing his situation!!

As a commentary on Malik's previous attitude, At­Thehbi says:

Malik is freed from blame for his denying such affairs. However, these texts were not provable for him. The two compilers of books of hadith are also pardoned for recording the two first texts, the documentation of which have been provably authentic. The third, I know nothing about! For At­Thehbi, it is Malik's duty to correspond Al­Bukhari. While Malik was the official general juriscounsult of the whole Islamic state, Al­Bukhari was still in the flank of his tritavus or tritavi­pater. Is it then forbidden for Malik to deny and defy Al­Bukhari in matter of regarding authenticity or falsity of prophetic texts? In fact, Al­Bukhari should have neglected hadiths Malik had charged of falsity and Umayid­made!

Moreover, Malik's next text proclaims that four outstanding opinions were adopted by Malik all over his lifetime. First, nullity of increase and decrease of believing. Second, claiming the Quran's being created. Third, denial of Allah's seeableness, even in the Hereafter. Four, indecency of some of the Prophet's famous companions. Thereupon, they alleged that he retracted just before his decease!

At­Thehbi's Tarikhul­Islam, part 32 page 62:

In his final disease, Malik ordered him of the following: Regard increase and decrease of faithfulness. Regard the Quran's being not created. Regard God's seeableness in the Hereafter. Regard decency of the Prophet's companions.

In addition to many others, this narrative asserts that these four opinions were not regarded by Malik. It is rightful for researchists to doubt the claim of his retracting at his final disease. 

Bin Baz's Al­Fetawi, part 4 page 368 verdict 2331: Q1. Abu Hureira: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "Allah created Adam on his look; sixty arms long." Is this authentic?

A. The actual text of the hadith is, "… Allah created Adam on his look. His length was sixty arms. He, then, asked him to go and greet that group of lying angels and listen to their replication. 'They will answer you with a statement that should be taken, by you and your progeny, as the formal greeting,' added the Lord. Adam went and addressed, 'Peace be upon you.' 'Peace and God's mercy be upon you,' they replied. Hence, everyone should be of sixty yards long before they enter the Paradise. From Adam and on, creatures have been reduced in length." Ahmed, Al­Bukhari and Muslim record this hadith. It is an authentic hadith with a familiar context. Two meanings are cited for this hadith. First, Allah did not create Adam tiny like babies, and gradually, he attained the sixty yard length. Adam had his final look, which is sixty yards long, from the first moment of his life. Second, 'his' in 'his look' is belonged to Allah. This fact is evidenced by another authentic hadith saying, "Adam was created on the look of the Beneficent God." This, however, does not refer to anthropomorphism, since Allah opted for names and attributes of His creatures without referring to anthropomorphism. The same is said about the look involved in the hadith. In other words, ascribing the look to Allah does not necessarily lead to ruling of anthropomorphism, since union in name and in total meaning does not abide anthropomorphism of each, for God's saying, (Nothing like the likeness of Him, and he is the Hearing, the Seeing.)

Bin Baz's previous verdict leads directly to assuring that Adam was created on the look of Allah, and Allah enjoys the same look of Adam. He also claims this is in no means regarded as anthropomorphism!!

Anyone can benefit this verdict by claiming that one has the same look of Adam, and Adam has the same look of one; yet, they do not look like each other!! Furthermore, a criminal can be saved by the same verdict. It is possible to claim that the picture was the same of that criminal, but it does not look like him!!

The principal problem of Wahabists is that they have to contort meanings of Arabic idioms. They are confined between two matters; either to contort meanings of Arabic terminology, or to deform their sect totally. What a miserable sect is that which shall be deformed if meanings are correct, and shall be stabilized if meanings are contorted!

Al­Albani's Al­Fetawi, page 506:

Q. Do you prove attribute of trotting to Allah, the Exalted?

A. Like coming and descending, trotting is an attribute that we lack a base for denying.

Bin Baz's Al­Fetawi, part 5 page 374:

In a qudsi hadith ­Sayings of the Lord in other than the divine Books­, God says, "I advance him an arm that whomever advances me a span. I advance him a fathom that whomever advances me an arm. I come trotting for that whomever comes to me walking." Interpreting such hadiths and evading resting upon the extrinsic meanings of their aspects, are means of the heretic Jahmites and Mutazilites.

Bin Baz, therewith, forbids from referring to mental vicinity as the real meaning of 'advancing' mentioned in the hadith involved. He decides the material trotting of Allah, the Exalted.

Bin Baz's Al­Fetawi, part 4 and 5 page 130 and 71:

Through explaining God's saying, (On that day, [a leg shall be revealed] and they shall be called upon to make obeisance, but they shall not be able. 68:42), the Prophet (peace be upon him) asserted that when the Lord shall come on Resurrection Day, He will show his leg to His believing servants. This is the sign between Him and them. Hence, as soon as they see His leg, they will recognize and follow him. This is one of Allah's unparalleled attributes fitting His glory and magnificence. The same is said about the other divine attributes proved by texts; such as hands, foot, eye and the like. The other attributes; such as ire, affection, abhorrence and the like, are involved in elevation and fitting Allah, the Glorified the Exalted, provided that they are indicated through the Glorious Book of Allah and the Prophet's traditions. Interpretation and evading resting upon the extrinsic meanings of aspects of such texts, is the sect of the heretic Jahmites and Mutazilites and their fellows. It is a defective sect denied and discharged by Sunnis who warned against people of such heretic factions.

This scholar hints at forbiddingness of opting for metaphor and metonymy of the expression 'leg', and insisting on referring to its extrinsic meaning. This means that Allah has a material leg such as that of any of Wahabists' scholars! Exalted be Allah against what they are imputing.

Bin Baz's Al­Fetawi, part 5 page 371: 

Q. What is the genuine exegesis of God's saying, (On that day, [a leg shall be revealed] and they shall be called upon to make obeisance, but they shall not be able.)?

A. The Prophet (peace be upon him) explained that the Verse alludes to the coming of the Lord on Resurrection Day, when He shows His leg to His believing servant so that they shall recognize and follow him. 

Like question of God's trotting Sheik Bin Baz has asserted, Al­Albani was cautious whether Allah, the Exalted, has ears or He is earless; therefore, he suspended his reply. Opting for cautiousness in principals of their beliefs is greatly better than it in these funny details.

Al­Albani's Al­Fetawi, page 344:

Q. What is Ahlus­Sunna's attitude from attribute of the ear ascribed to Allah?

A. They do neither prove nor deny. They prove only what is asserted by texts, without adaptation. Followers of the worthy ancestors are freed from such an adaptation. This means they are freed from anthropomorphism since they opted for promoting God against unfitting descriptions. Eye is one of His attributes that is fitting His magnificence and glory.

Wahabists imposed their course of corporalism on culture of Saudi Arabia. They broadcast the false and confused narratives dealing with God's corporeity. They went on repeating narratives of God's descending and showing His leg at every occasion and circumstance, till they made people conceive the material descending and leg. People also were deceived that God, the Exalted, shall fix His foot in hell till it screams 'Qat, Qat…etc." Even books of schools and educational institutes were filled in with such fables. Innocent pupils and children of Muslims have been brought up on such a false faith, thinking of it as a principal part of Islamic faith. The following joke was related by a Saudi Arabian:

Teacher: How should we recognize Allah?

Pupil: We recognize Him by His blistered foot, sir!

This is a model of those innocent pupils. He was taught that on Resurrection Day, the believers will not recognize their Lord before He shall show them His leg. He was also taught that hell will not be stuffed before Allah, the Magnificent the Glorious, shall fix His foot in. This means that hell shall be certainly blistering the Lord's foot. Hence, the leg He will show to the believers shall be blistered!! 

In such ways, those people have ruined God's nature, of promoting the Lord against materiality, in which Allah has made sons of Muslims. Instead, they nourish them with God's corporeity. This is actually pathetic! 

Ibn Teimiya's Majmou'etur­Resa'il, volume 2 part 4 page 95:

Abu Ruzein Al­Aqili's Narrative:

"O God's messenger! Where had our Lord been before He created His creatures?", asked Abu Ruzein. "He had been in gloom and encompassed by air.", answered the Prophet.

On this account, Ibn Teimiya and his followers believe that Allah, the Exalted, is bound from the above, too. The earth and air is under the Lord, and only air is over Him. This also indicates that air is existent either before or with Allah, the Exalted.

Ibn Teimiya wrote a book in which he aimed at proving that the Throne is flat, since Allah, the Exalted, shall be globular if His Throne is globular. Providing the previous, Allah's corporeality shall be encircling His creatures from every side, not only from the above.

Ibn Teimiya's Majmou'etur­Resa'il, volume 2 part 4 page 112:

Sheikul­Islam Taqiyuddin Ahmed Bin Teimiya was asked whether the Throne is globular or not. If it is globular and Allah is encircling ­everything­ behind it, what is, then, the use of directing upward exclusively during supplication and worship?

Three answers are cited for the forecited question:

first, it is not unacceptable to aver that there is no single reliable intellectual or doctrinal evidence on the Throne's being globular and one of the spherical planets. Pursuant to conjecture, some stated that the Throne is the ninth planet since they believe in absolute or naturalistical nothingness of what is beyond that ninth planet. Some cited the following hadith as their evidence on the Throne's being domal:

Jubeir Bin Mohammed Bin Jubeir Bin Mutim: His father: His father:

"O Apostle of Allah! Souls have striven, children starved and wealths lost. Seek your Lord's watering us with rainfall. We do seek Allah's intercession to you and your intercession to Allah," a Bedouin orated. The Prophet (peace be upon him) went on uttering 'praised be Allah' severally that the attendants were bewildered. Then, he added, "Woe is you! Do you realize Allah? His divine 

concern is greater than anyone's interceding in His affairs. He is aloft His heavens on His Throne. A dome covers His throne…" 

Bin Baz's Al­Fatawi, part 1 page 317 verdict 7351:

Q3. What should I reply those who ask about the place of Allah?

A. You should answer that He is above His Throne. He, the Exalted, says, (The Beneficent settled on the Throne.)

It is necessary to clarify that the asker, in the previous question, asks about the material circumstance that encloses that material entity. Accordingly, that material entity should inexorably be confined in that space exclusively, and origin of that entity should be related with its existence in that circumstance. At any rate, the conclusion is that that material entity had no existence before being confined in that circumstance.

The juriscounsult should have rejected the form of the question originally, and informed the asker that it is impracticable to cite such questions about Allah, the Exalted. The juriscounsult, however, delineated his god as a material mass existent on the Throne. This requires declaring that the Throne, as Ibn Teimiya avers, was existent before Allah, the Exalted, or enjoyed his same eternity. He maintained that the Throne is consummatory and mendable!!

Wahabists' most learned hadithist, Sheik Nasiruddin Al­Albani, ruled of authenticity of Ummut­Tufeil's narrative. That was in his commentary on Ibn Abi Asim's narration, numbered 471. In this narrative, Ummut­Tufeil claims she heard the Prophet (peace be upon him) declare that he had seen his Lord in dreams. The Lord looked like a young haired man whose feet are in a green place, putting two golden sandals, and there were golden marks on His face.

Master of Wahabism, in the last of his At­Tawhid, decided authenticity of the narrative that ibexes are carrying the Throne of Allah, the Exalted. He ascribed the following fable to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). "How do you surmise the distant from the heavens to you?", asked the Prophet. "Well, we cannot guess," answered the attendants. "The distance between the heavens and you, either seventy one, two or three years ­walking­. Every next heavens is of the same distance, till the seventh above which there is an ocean. The distance between the bottom and the peak 

of that ocean is the same previously cited. Above that ocean, there are eight ibex, the distance from their cloven hooves and knees is the same distance between each two heavens. The distance between the bottom and the top of the Throne, which is fixed on backs of these ibex, is the same between each two heavens. Allah, the Blessed the Exalted, is above all those.", asserted the Prophet.

It seems that suspect of number of the years taken as a measurement, was expounded by the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), not the narrator, because Mohammed Bin Abdil­Wahab did not clarify so.

In the Margin of Ibnul­Jawzi's Daf'u Shubehit­Tashbih Bi Ekuffit-Tanzih, page 259, As-Saqqaf commentates:

In an independent well remarkable essay titled 'Legend of Ibexes', Al­Kawthari, in his Al­Maqalat, page 308, clarifies falsification of that narrative. Abdullah Bin As­Siddiq Al­Ghemari, in his Fi Sabilit­Tawfiq, displays nullity of wording of that narrative. He says, "I have already proved nullity of narrative of ibexes, by providing evidences on its doubtful documentation and refutable contents."

As long as they admit legend of ibexes carrying the Throne, Wahabists may admit legends of the other groups of animals adopted from the Jew corporalists and claimed, by the Muslim corporalists, of bearing the Throne.

Ad-Dimiri's Hayatul Hayawanil Kubra, part 2 page 428:

Orwa Bin Az-Zubeir (God please him): Bearers of the Throne are four. One is having the look of a human, a bull, an eagle and a lion respectively.

Al-Jahiz's Kitabul Hayawan, part 6 page 221:

…This is proved by the Prophet's giving credence to Umaya Bin Abis­Selt's verse, "A man and a bull are under His right foot, and an eagle is under the other, and a lion is watching."

In the margin, it is written, "In Al­Isaba Fi Tamyizis­Sahaba, page 549, Ibn Abbas: The Prophet (peace be upon him), after listening to the previous verse, commented, "He has said the truth. These are the descriptions of bearers of the Throne."

In Al­Aqdul­Farid: Ibn Abbas: Before the Prophet (peace be upon him) I recited Umaya Bin Abis­Selt's verses about bearers of the Throne. He smiled, expressing his believing in so."

At­Tabari's Book of Tafseer, part 25 page 6:

… Ka'b answered, "Our Lord is on the handsome Throne, crossing his legs. The distance between this earth and the other is five hundred years ­walking­. 

The same distance is between the earth and the following. Recite God's saying, (The heavens may almost be rent thereat. 19:90)."

Ka'b, then, states that the heavens may almost be rent due to the Lord's heavy weight, as well as the heavy weight of the animals bearing His Throne! It is not extraordinary for that bearer of Jewish culture and tendency, no matter he declares being Muslim or not, to cite such fables. The most extraordinary thing is Wahabists' adopting such fables while they are claiming being the only Muslims!!

We can do nothing for stopping them against adopting their monotheism from Ka'bul­Ahbar, and shunning monotheism of their Prophet's household.

Some of them read zealously Ka'b and his fellows' narratives ascribed to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) or to Talmud and Jew tale­tellers; therefore, they encounter menacing troubles. On the other hand, they disgust looking at the Prophet's household narratives, even those imputed to their grandfather, Mohammed (peace be upon him and his family). In the same time, they decide authenticity of the Prophet's will of adhering to the two weighty things; Allah's Book and the Prophet's household. Had they read traditions of the Prophet's household, they would have certainly found answers of their menacing troubles. Al­Kuleini's Al­Kafi, part 1 page 93:

Ali Bin Ibrahim: His father: Al­Hassan Bin Ali: Al­Yaqubi: some acquaintances: Abdul­Ala (Al Sam's slave): Abu Abdillah (peace be upon him) related:

"O God's messenger! I came for asking you about your Lord. You should answer me truly, otherwise I will return," a Jew named Sabhat addressed at the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family).

The Prophet: Ask whatever you wish.

The Jew: Where is your Lord?

The Prophet: He is in every space, and not in any specific space.

The Jew: How is He?

The Prophet: How should I refer a condition to my Lord Who created conditions. It is impracticable to attribute created things to Allah.

The Jew: Then, how should your prophecy be proved?

Immediately, everything, including rocks, around that Jew were made to articulate in an eloquent Arabic. "O Sabhat! This is the Apostle of Allah." "I have never seen such a thing!", said the Jew surprisingly, "I do declare there is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is the apostle of Allah." 

Nahjul­Belagha, part 2 page 116 sermon 186:

(184)*

About Oneness of Allah. This sermon contains principles of knowledge which no other sermon contains.

He who assigns to Him (different) conditions does not believe in His oneness, nor does he who likens Him grasp His reality. He who illustrates Him does not signify Him. He who pints at Him and imagines Him does not mean Him. Everything that is known through itself has been created, and everything that exists by virtue of other things is the effect (of a cause). He works but not with the thinking. He is rich but not by acquisition. Time does not keep company with Him, and implements do not help Him. His Being precedes times. His Existence precedes nonexistence and His eternity precedes beginning. By His creating the senses it is known that He has no senses. By the contradictory, and by similarity between things it is known that there is nothing similar to Him. He has made light that contradictory of darkness, brightness that of gloom, dryness that of moisture and heat that of cold. He produces affection among inimical things. He fuses together diverse things, nears remote things and separates things which are joined together. He is not confined by limits, nor counted by numbers. Material parts can surround things of their own kind, and organs can point out to things similar to themselves. The word 'munzu' (since) disproves their eternity, the word 'Qad' (that denotes nearness of time of occurrence), disproves their being from ever and the words 'Lau la' (if it were not), keep them remote from perfection. Through them the Creator manifests Himself to inelegance, and through them He is prevented from the sight of eyes. Stillness and motion do not occur in Him. And how can that thing occur in Him which He has Himself made to occur, and how can a thing revert to Him which He first created and how can a thing appear in Him which He brought to appearance first. If it be not so His self would become subject to diversity, His Being would become divisible (into parts) and His reality would be prevented from being deemed Eternal. If there was front for Him there would be rear also for Him. He would need re couping only if shortage could befall Him. In that case signs of the created would appear in Him, and He would become a sign (leading to other objects) instead of the signs leading to Him. The fact that he cannot have qualities of those created necessitates that He should not be affected by things which affect others. He that who does not change. The process of setting does not behoove him. He has not begotten any one lest He be regarded to have been born. He has not been begotten otherwise He would be contained within limits. He is too High to have sons. 

____________

* Sermons of Nahjul-Belagha are literally quoted from Imam Ali, Nahjul Balagha, Ansariyan Publicatioins. 

He is too purified to contact women. Imagination cannot reach Him so as to assign Him quantity. Understanding cannot think of Him so as to give him shape. Senses do not perceive Him so as to feel Him. Hands cannot touch Him so as to rub against Him. He does not change into any condition. He does not pass from one state to another. Nights and days do not turn Him old. Light and darkness do not alter Him. It cannot be said that He has a limit or extremity, nor end nor termination; nor do things control Him so as to raise Him or lower Him, nor does anything carry Him so as to bend Him or keep Him erect. He is not inside the things nor outside them. He conveys news but not with tongue or vocal. He listens but not with the holes of the ears or the organs of hearing. He says but does not utter. He remembers but does not memorize. He determines but not by exercising His mind. He loves and approves without any weakness. He hates and feels angry without any painstaking. When he intends creating someone He says, "Be" and there he is, but not through voice that strikes (ears) call that is heard. His speech is an act of His creation. His like never existed before this. If it had been eternal, it would have been the second god. It cannot be said that He came into being after He has not been in existence because in that case the attributes of the created things would be assigned to Him, and He would have no distinction over them. Thus, the Creator and the created would become equal and the initiator and the initiated would be on the same level. He created the (whole) creation without any example made by someone else and He did not secure the assistance of any one out of His creation for creating it. He created the earth and suspended it without being busy, retained it without support, made it stand without legs, raised it without pillars, protected it against bends and curves and defended it against crumbling. He fixed mountains on it like stumps, solidified its rocks, flowed its streams and opened wide its valleys. Whatever He made did not suffer from any flaw, and whatever He strengthened did not show any weakness. He manifests Himself over the earth with His authority and greatness. He is aware of its inside through His knowledge and understanding. He overways everything from the earth by virtue of His sublimity and dignity. Nothing from the earth that He may ask for, defies Him, nor does it oppose Him so as to overpower Him. No swift footed creature can run away from Him so as to surpass Him. He is not needy towards any propertied person so that he may feed him. All the things bow to Him and are humble before His Greatness. They cannot flee away from His authority to someone else in order to escape His benefit or His harm. There is no parallel for Him who may match Him and no one like Him so as to equal Him. He would destroy the earth after its existence, till all that exists on it would become nonexistent. But the extinction of the world after its creation is not stranger than its first formation and invention…