What do the Ahlus Sunnah say regarding Mu’āwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān?

Bismillāh-ir-Rahmān-ir-Rahīm, Wal-Hamdu lillaāhi Rabb-il-‘Ālamīn. Was-Salātu Was-Salāmu ‘alā Sayyidinā Muhammadin Khātimin-Nabiyyīna wa Imām-il-Mursalīn.

One thing I will mention here, since a lot of Ash’arīs (associated with AICP and others influenced by them) are under the impression that Imām Abul Hasan al-Ash’arī called Sayyidinā Mu’āwiyah Radiallāhu ‘Anhu and Sayyidatinā ‘Āishah Radiallāhu ‘Anhā a rebel and a fāsiq (Major Sinner). That is not true, Shaykh ‘Abdullāh al-Hararī attributes that position to Imām al-Ash’arī, but that is a fabrication.

The AICP and Ninowites (Some of the followers of Muhammad ibn Yahyā an-Ninowy, however, I haven’t heard Shaykh Yahyā promote any such views himself) are only causing more fitnah by giving opinions contrary to the Jumhūr of Ahlus Sunnah. Imām at-Taftazānī mentions in his Sharh that he doesn’t know of any Sunni scholar in the entire history of Islām who cursed or allowed cursing Mu’āwiyah (Radiallāhu ‘Anhu).

Imām Abū al-Hasan al-Ash’arī said in his Maqālāt: 

“The position of Ahlus Sunnah is that ‘Alī (May Allāh be pleased with Him) was correct in the differences that existed between him and Mu’āwiyah (May Allāh be pleased with Him), and that these differences did not occur due to selfish desires or caprice but rather through each excercising their Ijtihād. Mu’āwiyah (MayAllāh be pleased with Him) erred, and thus has the reward of his Ijtihād, and he was not sinful for his error.”

The belief of Ahlus Sunnah is clear and has been codified. We don’t need to turn to AICP or Ninowites for it, as Ahlus Sunnah are complete without them.

‘Aqīdatut Tahāwiyyah:

“We love the companions of God’s Messenger ﷺ. We are not, however, extreme in our love for any one of them. Nor do we disassociate from any of them. We loathe those who loathe them, and we only mention their merits. Loving them is essential to religion, faith, and spiritual excellence, and hating them amounts to infidelity, hypocrisy and extremism.” It further says, “Whoever speaks well of the companions of the Messenger of God ﷺ, his chaste wives, and his purified progeny is absolved of hypocrisy.”

Imām Ibn Daqīq al-‘Īd said:

“What has been related regarding the conflicts between the Companions and their disagreement, some of it is fabricated and lies and should not be given any notice. That which is true is to be interpreted in the best possible way because the praise of Allāh for them has been revealed. The doubtful or imagined cannot invalidate the firmly established and well-known.”

Imām Mālik ibn Anas said:

“Whoever reviles any of the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ – Abū Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthmān, Mu’āwiyah or ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ās – is killed if he says that they were subject to misguidance or disbelief. If he reviles them in another way as people curse each other, he is given a severe punishment.”

Note: It is not Imām Mālik’s position that the ones who curse the Sahābah are to be executed. They are to be punished by the Ijtihād of the Qādhī.

Lastly, the last chapter of Qādhī Iyādh’s ash-Shifā mentions the ruling against those who curse the Companions (any single companion): “they are to be disciplined”.

Legitimate Islamic Learning: Being People of Isnad

By Ustadh Abu Aaliyah

One cannot worship God with loving submission, save with sound sacred knowledge or ‘ilm. The Golden Rule in this regard was stated by Imam al-Bukhari in these terms:al-‘ilmu qabla’l-qawli wa’l-‘aml – ‘Knowledge comes before speech and action.’1 If we don’t possess sound knowledge, we may make something a part of the religion which should never be part of it – effectively introducing an innovation or bid‘ah into Islam. One hadith says: ‘Whoever does an act that we haven’t instructed, it shall be rejected.’ [Muslim, no.1718] The Qur’an itself says: Do they have partners who have made lawful for them in religion that which God has given no permission for? [42:21]

What follows are six points that summarise, God-willing, the issue of what constitutes legitimate Islamic learning:

1. The crux of how one seeks sacred knowledge is best expressed by a famous maxim: ‘Indeed this knowledge is religion, so look from whom you take your religion.’2 The upshot is that one avoids learning religion from those who are not Imams; or people not schooled, qualified or authorised in the traditional sciences: be it in theology, law, hadith, Qur’anic recital (tajwid), or any other discipline.

2. This qualification/authorisation (‘ijazah) must be part of an unbroken chain (isnad) of learning extending back to the Prophet, peace be upon him. One hadith says: ‘This knowledge will be carried by the trustworthy ones of every generation: they will expel from it the distortions of the extremists, the fabrications of the liars, and the mistaken interpretations of the ignorant.’ [Bayhaqi, Sunan, 10:209] If one takes knowledge from those outside of this unbroken chain, there is no telling what deviation can be passed-off as “the real deal” – as is all too often the case in these times.

3. To believe that the truths of Islam existed amongst the salaf; the pious predecessors, but then “sahih” or “authentic” Islam was lost or neglected for the next thousand years or so; until recently when it was rediscovered, is nothing but a dangerous myth which flies in the face of what God proclaimed in the Qur’an: Indeed, it was We who sent down the Remembrance, and of a surety We will preserve it. [15:9] Consider also these following hadiths: ‘My ummah shall never unite upon misguidance.’ [Al-Tirmidhi, no.2255] And: ‘There shall never cease to be a group of my ummah unmistakably upon the truth.’ [Al-Tirmidhi, no.2230; Muslim, no.1920] Also the hadith cited earlier: ‘This knowledge will be carried by the trustworthy ones of every generation.’ [Bayhaqi, Sunan, 10:209]

What these proof-texts collectively tell us is that God has promised that knowledge of Islam shall always be kept intact and be transmitted from one generation of scholars to the next, in an unbroken chain. While it is true that individual scholars can and do err; and while it is true that individual scholars can and do espouse aberrant (shadhdh) opinions that are excluded from the umbrella of legitimate scholarly differences; it is utterly preposterous to believe that many truths and sunnahs were unknown, lost or neglected by the entire scholarly community for many centuries (even a millenium), only to be revived or rediscovered by certain scholars in our time! Such a belief could only be held by one whose heart is plagued either with ignorance (jahalah), innovation (bid‘ah), hypocrisy (nifaq), deviation (zandaqah) or disbelief (kufr). And we seek refuge in God from such things.

4. In terms of fiqh (Islamic law and rulings; or to use its modern equivalent, “positive law”) the unbroken chain now only exists in the four remaining Sunni schools of law or madhhabs: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i and Hanbali. To the question as to why a person cannot follow other Imams or schools of fiqh besides these four, Ibn Rajab says: ‘It is said [in reply]: We have already alerted you to the reason for preventing this, which is that the schools of other than these [four] were not widely diffused, nor fully codified. At times views are ascribed to them which they never said, or their pronouncements are understood in ways they never intended. There is no [expert in] these schools to defend them or point out where such slips and errors lie – contrary to the case of the well-known madhhabs.’3 Hence it is from these four madhhabs and their relied-upon (mu‘tamad) manuals and teachers that fiqh must be taken.

5. As to a murajji‘, a “comparatist” (a highly-versed jurist qualified to evaluate the views of the mujtahid Imams and to then select the ruling he deems to be the ‘strongest’), al-Dhahabi wrote: ‘There is no doubt, one who has an intimate familiarity with fiqh, and whose knowledge is copious and intentions are sound, should not rigidly cling to one specific madhhab in all that it states. For maybe another madhhab has stronger proofs in a certain issue, or evidence may emerge by which the proof is established to him. In such a case, he must not follow his Imam, but must act by what the proof necessitates; following another mujtahid Imam whose view agrees with the evidence – doing so not out of pursuing whims and desires. However, he must not to give a fatwa to the public, except in accordance with the madhhab of his Imam.’4

6. Ibn al-Qayyim was asked about someone who possessed Sahih al-Bukhari, or Sahih Muslim, or one of the Sunans, and whether he may act on the hadiths in them, without first consulting a scholar. He replied thus: ‘The correct view in the matter is that there is some detail: If the textual indication in the hadith (dalalat al-hadith) is obvious and clear to whoever hears it, and allows for no other plausable reading, he should act on it and give fatwa according to it: he doesn’t need the approval of any jurist or Imam. The saying of the Prophet, peace be upon him, is proof in itself, no matter who it opposes. But if the indication is vague, or the intent is unclear, then it is unlawful for him to act on it or to give a fatwa based upon what he thinks it means, until he asks a scholar and gets clarity about the meaning of the hadith … This applies to one who is qualified, but has some shortcomings in his knowledge of fiqh, the principles of the legalists, and the Arabic language. If he isn’t of those who are qualified, his duty is simply to act on what God says: So ask the people of knowledge if you do not know. [16:43]‘5

Much more can be said about the subject, but what has preceeded should suffice. The sum and substance being that fiqh authority and orthodoxy resides in the four Sunni schools of law. The current ‘do-it-yourself’ fiqh culture which actively encourages the lay people, or those unschooled in fiqh, to dabble in the sacred texts and to ‘weigh-up’ the proofs (or the equally absurd ‘the-hadith-is-clear’ syndrome), are unwitting pawns who only serve to plunge this fragile ummah into even further religious anarchy. Such a methodology is to be seen for what it truly is: dal mudill: ’misguided and misguiding!’ Those holding such mistaken notions must correct them.

1. Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari (Damascus: Dar Ibn Kathir, 2002), 29.

2. Muslim b. al-Hajjaj, Sahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1991), 14.

3. Al-Radd ala man Ittabaah Ghayra’l-Madhahib al-Arbaah (Makkah: Dar al-‘Alam al-Fuwa’id, 1997), 33-4.

4. Siyar A‘lam al-Nubala (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risalah, 1998), 8:93-4.

5. I‘lam al-Muwaqqi‘in (Jeddah: Dar Ibn al-Jawzi, 2002) 6:164.

Source: The Humble “I”

A debate with a Quranist

Quranists reject the religious authority of Hadīth (Prophetic traditions), as they consider it inconsistent with the Quran. This in contrast to the ‘Aqīdah (Creed) of Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jamā’ah (People of the Prophetic Way and the Majority of Scholars) who consider hadīth essential for the Islamic faith.

Quranist: Why do you follow Sunnah/Hadeeth? Quran is enough for us and we don’t need Sunnah/Hadeeth.

Me: Before we continue, have you read the Qur’ān? Do you know Arabic?

Quranist: Yes, I have read the Quran twice in English translation; it was translated by someone who also doesn’t believe in Hadeeth/Sunnah.

Me: Your contention is that, “Quran is enough for us and we don’t need Sunnah or Hadeeth.” Although, it’s quite amusing to see you using the two terms – Sunnah and Hadīth – interchangeably, when technically they’re not the same.

You have only read the Qur’ān twice, in English interpretation (and not “translation” as you like to call it) when the Qur’ān was revealed in Arabic, yet you trust someone else’s interpretation for it; and that someone doesn’t believe in Hadīth or Sunnah like you.

Firstly, there is no such thing as Quranic interpretation, without the use of Sunnah or Hadīth. Qur’ān wasn’t compiled in a mushaf during the time of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, but the compilation took place after He ﷺ had passed away. Qur’ān was memorised by thousands of companions (May Allah be pleased with them all), just like they also memorised the words and actions of the Prophet ﷺ. But you see no problem in taking the Qur’ān from them but you don’t accept when they narrate about what they heard and saw from Him ﷺ.

Secondly, even the Qur’ān tells us to follow the Prophet ﷺ, but you Quranists are too arrogant to follow “just another man”.

“And We revealed to you (O Muhammad ﷺ) the Dhikr that you may explain to the people what was sent down to them and that they might give thought.”
[Sūrah Nahl 16, verse 44]

This explanation is nothing other than the Sunnah, which teaches us how to pray, give Zakāh, fast the month of Ramadhān, perform Hajj, etc. The rules of the Qur’ān are general: It asks repeatedly to perform Salāh, give Zakāh, perform Hajj, but it never specified the number of Rak’ahs for prayers, or the amount for Zakah or how to perform Hajj, etc. If this is unknown, it’d imply that the religion is incomplete, which actually goes against the Qur’ān itself and therefore a heresy; Quranists shouldn’t align themselves with orthodox Islām.

Thirdly, you claim that Qur’ān is clear without one having to resort to Hadīth or the Sunnah, but the Qur’ān itself says, interpretation of which states:

“It is He who sent down to you, [O Muhammad ﷺ], the Book, in it are verses [that are] precise – they are the foundation of the Book – and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allāh. But those firm in knowledge say, “We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord.” And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.”
[Sūrah Āli-‘Imrān 3, verse 7]

So the Qur’ān itself is refuting your false notion. Some verses in the Qur’ān are not clear except for the people of knowledge. And who are those people of knowledge? Well, they have to be those to whom it was explained (The Sahābah, may Allāh be pleased with them all). Who explained it to them?! It had to be the Prophet ﷺ. Proof for that can be found in the Qur’ān itself:

“And We revealed to you (O Muhammad) the message that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them and that they might give thought.”
[Sūrah Nahl 16, verse 44]

The Prophet ﷺ explained it to His companions, who explained it to those who followed them, and those followers explained it to those who followed them…with a sound chain which exists till now and will continue InshāAllāh.

“And even if We had sent down to you, [O Muhammad], a written scripture on a page and they touched it with their hands, the disbelievers would say, “This is not but obvious magic.””
[Sūrah al-An’ām 6, verse 7]

Fourthly, you asked me to name you ten Sunnahs that we must follow. Well, you don’t believe in Sunnah or Hadīth, so you please tell me from the Qur’ān;

– How to pray and what exactly to recite therein?
– Is the Ādhān mentioned in the Qur’ān?
– How people should get married and what exactly are the conditions for it and the – rights for men and women?
– How do we perform Hajj?
– How much of our wealth is to be given in Zakāh and what exactly is included in the wealth?

Just answer these for now, I’ll be grateful J

Quranist: AND I will say that I’m MUSLIM, submitter to GOD all day long, go live in Mecca, I don’t know why you people live here to be honest.

Me: How do you submit to Allāh? He commands us to “Obey Allāh and Obey His Messenger”, but you Quranists do the exact opposite; you follow your desires and logical fallacies and put the Sunnah of Muhammad ﷺ aside. He commands us to pray, but you don’t know how to because it is not even mentioned in the Qur’ān. This can go on and on  but I think I have made my point here.

To conclude, I see nothing but incoherence, ignorance, arrogance and inconsistencies in the version of Islam you propagate, or I simply don’t understand you; more likely to be the first.

By the way, as for me not living here and living in Mecca, do you have proof from the Qur’ān for that? 🙂

May Allāh guide us all to the Haqq.

There are 73+ sects, but which sect is the ‘right’ sect?

When you find the Ummah being divided into many sects, hold onto As-Sawād al-A`dham, that is, the majority of Islamic scholars; and you will not find those scholars to be other than Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jamā’ah (People of the Prophetic way and The Majority of Scholars).

In the past 1400 years, Ahl as-Sunnah have always been the majority and they are those who keep on the right path of Rasūllullah ﷺ and His Companions. Prophet ﷺ said:

“My Ummah will not unite upon error.” [Reported by at-Tirmidhī and Hākim – Sahīh]

It’s important we understand this because all the heretical sects believe that “true essence of Islam had become lost through the centuries and they are the revivers in these times.”

I won’t mention any names, but stay away from those who don’t believe in the finality of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ by believing there was another messenger or prophet after Him ﷺ; those who don’t accept the caliphate of Abū Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmān; those who think Islam has become lost over centuries and we need to go back to the “Qur’ān and Sunnah” (as if people were not following that already).

To sum up, you’ll find the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah following one of the four schools of jurisprudence (Hanafī, Mālikī, Shāfi’ī and Hanbalī) and one of the three schools of creed (Ash’arī and Māturīdī).

May Allāh guide us to as-Sirāt al-Mustaqīm (The Straight Path).

Acts that make a person misguided (exit the sphere of Islam)

According to Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbī al-Mālikī (martyred in year 741 A.H.) – the person given the most credit for summarizing the various views in the Mālikī school and also outside of the Mālikī school – these acts are:

1) Negating that God has Lordship over His creation.

2) Negating that God is one in His Entity, attributes, and actions.

3) Worshiping another entity along with God (Shirk – Polytheism).

4) Changing one’s religion to other than Islām after having learned about Islām and understanding it. (God has said that “Whoever seeks other than Islām as a religion, it will not be accepted from him”).

5) Claiming that God can become manifest in His creation (e.g. take the form of a man, concept of Hulool).

6) Believing in reincarnation.

7) Negating any one of God’s known attributes. Included in this is claiming that the Universe was created by other than Him or that He was born from something else. Included in this also is claiming that the Universe had no beginning in time.

8) Claiming that one has sat alongside with God literally speaking or claiming that one has ascended to visit Him literally speaking.

9) Claiming that a person after the time of Prophet Muhammad ibn`Abdullah ﷺ is a real prophet from God (and that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is not the last prophet). Included in this is claiming that one has received revelation from God (like a prophet).

10) Stating that it is possible that the prophets lied to us.

11) Claiming that the message of Islām is only for Arabs (or only for another chosen group).

12) Claiming that one will enter Paradise (literally) while still in this world.

13) Claiming that the punishment and reward in the next life is only confined to being metaphorical.

14) Calling all of the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ (all together) disbelievers.

15) Denying any of the necessarily known and obvious parts of the religion (e.g. claiming that formal prayer, fasting in Ramadan, Zakat, and Hajj is not obligatory).

16) Claiming that there is no need to worship God externally any more after becoming spiritually advanced. For example, claiming that the formal prayer is no longer obligatory after one has reached some high spiritual station with God.

17) Denying any part of the Qur’an left by Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

18) Intentionally adding to (inserting one’s own words into) or changing any part of the Qur’an left by the Prophet ﷺ [Included in this is fabricating obligatory tenets of belief or obligatory acts of worship which have no basis in the primary texts].

19) Claiming that others besides God could produce the Qur’an.

20) Claiming that the latter scholars/saints (e.g. Imām Mālik, Imām ash-Shāfi`ī, Shaykh ‘Abdul Qādir Jilānī, etc.) were better than the prophets.

{al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyyah by Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi: page 323, lines 7-18}

Did the Maliki Jurist Ibn Abi Zayd Believe Allah is Literally Above the Throne?

Answered by Shaykh Rami Nsour al-Mālikī

Question: Assalamu alaykum wa rahmatullah

After studying for a while and increasing my understanding in many issues, one issue still causes me confusion, and that is the issue of Allah and the ‘Arsh. I accept the verses of the Qur’an as they are about this matter and do not even translate them but accept them “bi la kayf”. However, I came across a translation of Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani’s Risalah. In that translation it mentions on page 18: “He is upon His glorious throne by His essence, yet is in every place by His knowledge.”

The main confusion I have is over the expression “bi dhatihi”. Why did the Shaykh mention this in this way. As far as I know, no verse of the Qur’an or Hadith uses this expression. I have asked two scholars about this issue but neither of them explained it. Also, I feel a bit uncomfortable about asking as Imam Malik censured a questioner for asking about the ‘Arsh. I just want an explanation of why al-Qayrawani used this expression. I only know a tiny bit of Arabic so I cannot access the Arabic commentaries.

Answer: This is a very good question and one that is essential for all serious seekers of knowledge to know what the scholars have said about this. The line that you are referring to from the Beliefs portion of the Risala of Ibn Abi Zayd is one that has caused numerous discussion among scholars and students from past and present. The line, in most available copies reads, “And He [Allah] is above the Throne al majeed bi dhatihi.” I have left untranslated the words “al majeed bi dhatihi” because that is where there must be a discussion.

Allah is Not Contained by a Direction

The main problem in the line is that it could lead someone to believe that Allah is in a direction, which goes against the belief of Ahlus Sunna wal jama’ah. Imam Al Tahawiyy says in his widely accepted book on the beliefs of Islam, “He [Allah] is not contained by the six directions” [Al-Tahawiyy, Aqidatul Tahawiyya]. Some of the Maliki scholars, such as Sidi Ahmed Zarruq, have said that the line in the Risala that indicates Allah being in a direction (above the Throne) is something that was added in by deviant people and it was not part of the original manuscript [Zarruq, Sharh al Risala]. This is one explanation for the line that is given by the commentators of the Risala.

Metaphorical Aboveness

If we are to assume that Ibn Abi Zayd actually wrote the line, then the explanation given by the Maliki scholars is that he meant “above” in a metaphorical sense and not a literal sense. In other words, that Allah is above the need of the throne or that He is above it in grandness. They say that Ibn Abi Zayd could not have meant it in a literal sense because that would make him from the people that believe Allah to be in a particular direction, which is a deviant belief. We know that Allah does not resemble creation and that directions are a part of creation. One of the most basic principles of belief is that “Everything that you can conceive, Allah is different than that.”

Why Would Ibn Abi Zayd Use the Word “Above”?

Sidi Ahmed Zarruq, may Allah be pleased with him, said that one of the explanations of why Ibn Abi Zayd would say that Allah is “above” His Throne is that there were people at in his time that believed Allah to be on earth. These people were the Abidiyoon, also known as the Isma’ilis, and were deviant in many aspects of their belief and practice including believing that one of their rulers was God. Therefore, Ibn Abi Zayd was using this line to teach people that Allah is not on earth and he is above, in a way similar to the slave woman who was asked where Allah was [Zarruq, Sharh al Risala].

“Al Majeed bi dhatihi.” Honorable Owner or Honorable Throne?

Another issue with the line is understanding where the adjective of the word honorable (majeed) is linked to. If we say that Honorable is an adjective to the word Throne, then the line would read as, “And He is above the Honorable Throne in His essence.” This would be a very strong statement indicating that Allah, in His Essence, is above the Throne and we would have to go through our list of explanations for the use of this phrase. But, if we look at the word Honorable as an adjective for Allah, the line would read as, “And He, Honorable is His essence, is above His throne,” and it would not be as easily interpreted that Allah is literally above the throne. To decide on what it is an adjective for, we can look at the ayah in 85:15 where Allah uses “majeed” to describe Himself and not the throne. Since Ibn Abi Zayd was using many verses and Hadiths in his section on creed, we would use the verse from the Quran as a guide to understand the grammar of the text’s line.

Above in the Quran

One thing to note is that although the line in the Risala uses the preposition “fawq” in Arabic to describe Allah in relation to the Throne, nowhere in the Quran do we find this preposition used with the Throne. In the Quran, all the verses that speak about the Throne use the preposition “ala.” So, if one is to stay true to the texts of the Quran and Hadith, saying “fawq al arsh” is not acceptable. Many people that believe Allah to be in a direction use the line of Ibn Abi Zayd as a proof. The response should be that we use the verse as it is and say “ala”. Then, we have to understand that the prepositions can have literal and metaphorical interpretations.

One place where the preposition “fawq” is used is in the verse 48:10 but it is not in relation to the Throne. The people that believe Allah to be in a direction say that this preposition of “fawq” (above) is metaphorical, yet when they read the preposition “ala” for the throne, they say it is literal and that Allah is literally on His throne. They have contradicted themselves by allowing metaphorical interpretation sometimes and other times not. Contradiction is a sign of falsehood as truth does not contradict itself (Quran 4:82).

One last thing I would like for those who believe Allah to be in a direction to ponder on is the nature of our universe. When a person stands upon the earth and says that Allah is in a direction and points up, that up is the down of the person on the other side of the earth. So, if Allah is up for you, does that mean that He is below the person on the other side of the Earth? Allah is exalted above what people falsely ascribe to Him.

Rami Nsour

Source: http://seekersguidance.org/ans-blog/2013/05/09/did-the-maliki-jurist-ibn-abi-zayd-believe-allah-is-literally-above-the-throne/

How do we understand the attributes of God?

We know and we believe, that there is nothing like unto God; His essence is not like our essence and His attributes are not like our attributes; yet He is the All-Hearing, All-Knowing, All-Seeing. He does not need eyes to see, ears to hear, a tongue to speak; He is not in need of an organ, like us. Because He is nothing like His creation, He is free from such imperfections.

Just like He is the All-Hearing and All-Seeing without an ear or an eye, similarly “He, The Most-Merciful, is established over the Throne – Ar-Rahmanu ‘Alal ‘Arsh istawa'” without occupying a place and directionality (the six directions do not contain Him), because He is not a body or a particle. He is as He ever was before the creation of the Heavens and the Earth. We consign the meaning and modality of these attributes to God, who knows what we know not.

This is our ‘Aqeedah (Creed) as conveyed to us by the majority of rightly guided scholars of this religion.