What is time?
Time is the measured by movement. Aristotle, Ibn Sina, and al-Kindi agreed with this. Aristotle and Ibn Sina both held this view.
Time is not the same everywhere. It changes depending on movement. A day on Earth is measured by the Earth’s movement around its axis, but on other planets, days are measured differently. So, time is not fixed and can vary from one place to another.
Some people ask if it is allowed to say that time exists in relation to Allah.
Ibn Taymiyyah said that time is the measure of movement, and since Allah carries out actions, the sequence of His actions can be referred to as time. Movement can mean moving from one place to another, or it can mean simply doing something after not doing it before. Philosophers call this movement. Since Allah does whatever He wills, the sequence of His actions can be described as what some call eternal time.
Some may ask if believing in eternal time means time is a partner with Allah.
The answer is no. Time is not something that exists on its own in the real world. It is just a concept that helps people understand what happened before and what happened after. All knowledge, including time, exists in the mind and is created by Allah. Every created thing is an accident, but not every accident is created, as Allah’s acts are new yet uncreated.
Ibn Taymiyyah’s view on time is that it is a mental construct with no independent existence outside the mind. It is created in the mind as the measure of motion and is created in the external world because the motions of created bodies are created, except for the acts of Allah, which are uncreated. Specific time is the measure of a specific motion, while the genus of time is the general measure of motions, which is eternal and perpetual. Time does not exist on its own but depends on motion and external things.
Second, the general nature of time, whether measured by the movement of created bodies or by Allah’s movement, is created in the minds of creatures but uncreated in Allah’s knowledge.
Therefore, saying that time or its general nature is completely uncreated is incorrect. This statement needs clarification because time is eternal in one way and contingent in another, just as it is created in one way and uncreated in another. Since time is only a mental construct with no independent existence, this is a key point in understanding the discussion.
There are three kinds of time.
- The first is specific time, like time on Earth, which is created because the movement of Earth is created.
- The second is the kind of time, meaning the general idea of different times happening one after another. This kind of time has no beginning, but it only exists in the mind, not in reality.
- The third is the time related to the actions of Allah. Since Allah has always been doing what He wills, His actions follow one another. The knowledge of these actions exists in Allah, and since His actions and knowledge are not created, this kind of time is not created either.
First kind of time, specific time tied to created motion, created
Ibn Taymiyyah said that the prophets told of “the creation of the celestial spheres, and the creation of time, which is the measure of their motion”, and he then said that the “six days” of creation are not the same as the days that are measured by the sun’s rising and setting.
“والرسل أخبرت بخلق الأفلاك، وخلق الزمان الذي هو مقدار حركتها … فلا ريب أن تلك الأيام التي خلقت فيها السموات والأرض غير هذه الأيام، وغير الزمان الذي هو مقدار حركة هذه الأفلاك.”
“The messengers informed of the creation of the the planets and stars, and the creation of time, which is the measure of their motion … So there is no doubt that those days in which the heavens and the earth were created are not these days, and not the time that is the measure of the motion of these spheres.”
Majmuʿ al Fatawa 18/235
He also said, when refuting the false claim that “Allah is time”, that “time is the measure of motion”.
“ولا يتوهم عاقل: أن الله هو الزمان، فإن الزمان مقدار الحركة.”
“No sane person imagines that Allah is (actually) time, for time is the measure of motion.”
Majmuʿ al Fatawa 2/492
Second kind of time, the general notion of “before and after”, not an external thing
In al Mabahith al Mashriqiyyah, al Razi speaks about “before” and “after” as an added relation, and he says clearly that this relation has no existence except in the mind.
“إضافة التقدم والتأخر مما لا وجود لها إلا في الذهن.”
“The relation of ‘before’ and ‘after’ has no existence except in the mind.”
In the same discussion, he mentions the position that “time has no existence externally, but only in the mind”.
“اللهم إلا أن يقال الزمان لا وجود له في الخارج بل في الذهن.”
“Unless it is said that time has no existence externally, but rather in the mind.”
Al Mabahith al Mashriqiyyah 1/551
As for “this kind of time has no beginning”, al Razi also records an argument for that view. He says, in meaning, “if time began, then there would be time before it”, and from that they conclude that time, as a whole, has no beginning and no end.
“زعموا أن الزمان لا يمكن أن يكون له بداية ونهاية … فإذاً الزمان ليست لكليته بداية وكذلك أيضاً ليست لكليته نهاية … فبَعدَ الزمان زمانٌ فإذاً ليست لمطلق الزمان نهاية.”
“They claimed that time cannot have a beginning or an end … so time as a whole has no beginning, and likewise no end … for after time there is time, so time in absolute terms has no end.”
Third kind of time, “time related to the actions of Allah”, and whether it is created
Ibn Taymiyyah affirms ongoing, successive actions in this form: “He has never ceased to be speaking, speaking when He wills”, and he explains that some mean by “eternal” the eternity of the kind, meaning that the type of speech never began, even though particular speech occurs when He wills.
“والثاني: أنه لم يزل متكلمًا يتكلم إذا شاء … فيريدون نوع الكلام؛ إذ لم يزل يتكلم إذا شاء.”
“The second is that He has never ceased to be speaking, speaking when He wills … they mean the type of speech, since He has never ceased to speak when He wills.”
Majmuʿ al Fatawa 6/162
Makaan (Place)
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah distinguishes between hayyiz (space) and makān (place). In common usage, space is different from place. Hayyiz (space) is a non-existent concept and only a mental estimation of makān wujūdī (real place), while place refers to either real things or a surface that contains extramental things. Direction is also a mental concept, as it depends on both an object that has an orientation and something it is oriented toward. The presence of something mutahayyiz (spatial) in a space does not mean it exists in ‘adam (absolute nothingness). Rather, it means that nothing else exists alongside it—no darkness, no light, absolutely nothing.
Every place has a hadd (boundary), so an infinite place does not exist. This is unlike time, which continues through successive moments, while place does not. The mind may imagine infinite places for things, but these do not exist outside the mind. The belief that place exists as an imperceptible jawhar (substance) comes from Platonic philosophy, which philosophers agree is only a concept in the mind. According to Ahl al-Sunnah, nothing exists outside the mind unless it can be perceived by the senses, and non-existent space does not meet this condition.
The world exists in a space in the sense that space is a non-existent concept. The surface of the world is perceived as spatial in this way.Since space has no distinct parts, it cannot be defined by jihāt (direction) or pointed to. It is impossible to indicate absolute non-existence, as indication can only be toward something that exists. The existent occupies what is called space, in such a way that nothing else exists alongside it.
Those who argue against makaan usually ask “Where was allah ﷻ before creation” This question is a category error because you can’t affirm a makaan if only one thing exists, it’s like me asking you “where are you?” but you can’t name anything else that exists… What would the answer be??
There is none because it’s fallacious, or it’s like asking how much does blue weigh?
What sense does it make to affirm that we will be able to see Allah ﷻ with our own eyes (As the prophet ﷺ mentions in Bukhari 7435) yet he has no place, the deniers of the sifaat claim to prioritise intellect yet they make the most unintelligent claims that not even weak minded people would ever utter
To trap the deniers of the sifaat, ask them whether Allah ﷻ exists inside of you or outside of you, if they say outside then they have affirmed a limit between them and Allah ﷻ and they definitely won’t say he’s inside them because this is kufr. Or they might say this is a category error, and if this is the case
You could prove jiha and makaan by simply using the night journey where the prophet ﷺ was taken from heaven to heaven up until he was taken to Allah . If allah ﷻ exists without a place as they say, then where did the prophet ﷺ go and why is he going up if he has no direction.
May allah ﷻ keep us free from their nonsensical innovated creed
This belief that Allah ﷻ exists without a makaan can actually be taken back to some of the Mutazila, and Abu Hasan Al Ashari is the one who mentions this in Maqalat Al Islamiyeen.
Translation: And some of the Mutazila said: Al-Bari’ (the Creator) is not in a makān (place), but He is as He has always been, and this is the statement of Hisham al-Fuwati, ‘Ubad ibn Sulayman, Abu Zufar, and others from the Mu’tazilah.
The Mu’tazilah also said regarding the statement of Allah, Exalted and Glorified (5:30): “Al-Rahman ‘ala al-‘arsh istawa”, it means: istawla (He conquered or dominated).
Maqalat Al Islamiyeen by Abu Hasan Al Ashari Pg 218
Sharh on Imam Tahawi’s statement of Allah ﷻ not being encompassed by six directions
The Saying of Imam at-Tahawi رحمه الله
لا تحويه الجهات الست كسائر المبتدعات
A Correct Translation of this would be: The six directions do not encompass, or surround Him as [is the case with] all created things. The universe must stop somewhere and have a boundary; otherwise, claiming it to be infinite is atheism and kufr. The six directions apply only within the universe’s boundaries, as they are relative to whatever is within them.
Hammād Bin Zayd (d.179H) affirms Makaan for Allah ﷻ and defines nuzool as Allah ﷻ drawing closer to creation however he wills, not that Allah enters his creation as the deniers claim we believe.
Bishr Bin Al-Sarriyy asked Hammad Bin Zayd (d.179H): “Õ Abā Ismā’īl, the hadith that has come, ‘Allah descends to the lowest heaven…’, does He move from place to place? Hammad went silent upon receiving that question, then replied, “He is in his place (Makan), and he draws near to his creation how he wills’
Dar at-Ta’arud al-‘Aql wan-Naql By Ibn Taymiyyah (2/24-25)
Imām Al-Fuḍayl Ibn ʿIyāḍ (d.187AH) said: If a Jahmī says to you, ʿI disbelieve in a Lord who leaves from His makān (place).ʾ Then reply back: ʿI believe in a Lord who does whatever He wills.
This is recorded in: Al-Ibānah Al-Kubrā (2/475) Khalq Afal Al-Ibād (2/36)
Imam Kirmani (d.280AH) the student of Imam Ahmad says that those who deny Makaan are enemies of Allah ﷻ and they are heretics.
Imam Harb al-Kirmānī (d.280AH) (the student of imam ahmad) said: The Jahmiyyah are the enemies of Allah, and they are the ones who claim that the Qur’an is created, that Allah did not speak to Mūsā, That He will not be seen in the Akhirah, that there is no known place (Makan) for Allah and that He is not upon a Throne, nor a kursi and many other things I even hate to narrate. And they are Kuffār Zanādiqah, enemies of Allah, so be aware of them
Kitāb as-Sunnah by Imam Kirmani Pg 64
Imām Ibn Baṭṭah Al-ʿUkbarī Al-Ḥanbalī affirms that Allah ﷻ is in the highest of places.
Imām Ibn Battah Al-‘Ukbari Al-Hanbali (d.387 AH) said: However we say: Our Exalted Lord is in the highest of places [Amakin], and the highest of highs, He rose over His Throne above His heavens, and His knowledge encompasses all His creation. He knows what is far just as He knows what is near, and He knows what is hidden just as He knows what is apparent, as He described Himself, saying: “And with Him are the keys of the unseen; none knows them except Him. And He knows what is on the land and in the sea. Not a leaf falls but that He knows it. And no grain is there within the darknesses of the earth and no moist or dry [thing] but that it is [written] in a clear record. – Qur’an 6:59
Al-Ibānah Al-Kubra by Ibn Battah (2/442-443)
Mujahid ibn Jabr (104AH) said: Between the seven heavens and the throne are seventy thousand veils, and Prophet Musa did not stop approaching until there was only one veil between him and Allah. Then, when he saw his MAKAN (place), and he heard the cracking of the pen, Musa aleyhi salam said. “O my Lord! Show yourself to me so that I may look upon you” (Surat Al-‘Araf, aya 143). – Graded: Sahih
Kitab Asma Wa Sifaat by Al Bayhaqi Pg 294
Imām Abū Aḥmad Al-Karajī Al-Qaṣṣab (d. 360 AH) affirms a Makaan for Allah ﷻ
Imām Abū Ahmad Al-Karaji Al-Qaşşab (d. 360 AH) said: And His saying: But if they are arrogant – then those who are near your Lord [the angels] exalt Him by night and by day, and they do not become weary. – Qur’an 41:38] is a response to the Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilah, and those who negate makan (place) and hadd (boundary) for Allah and claim that He is not in Himself fi As-Sama’ (above the heaven) alone without the earth. He has said: “Those who are near your Lord” and they are the angels. No one doubts that they are fi As-Sama’ (above the heaven), and if they are with Him, then He – glorified and exalted is He – is above it with a hadd (boundary) that He knows by Himself, even if His creation is incapable of comprehending it.
Nukat Al-Qur’an by Al Qassab (4/79-80)
Imam Ibn Qutaydah (276AH) said: The Most High, and He is the Most High, and He is in the exalted place, and that hearts at the remembrance of Allah are exalted towards Him, and the hands are raised in supplication to Him
Ta’weel Mukhtalaf al-Hadeeth by Ibn Qutaybah Pg 394
Imām Aḥmad (رحمه الله) [d. 241 AH] says the Jahmiyyah have compared allah ﷻ to an idol because they say he can’t speak nor can he move from makaan to makaan.
Imam Ahmad said: You (The Jahmiyyah) have greatly wronged Allah when you claimed that He does not speak, for you have likened Him to the idols that are worshipped besides Allah, because the idols do not speak, nor do they utter words, nor do they move, and they do not move from one place to another.
Footenote: This, with the clarification that the attribute of al-ithyan (coming) and al-muji’ (arrival) are affirmed for Allah, in a manner that befits Him, glory be to Him. Some of the scholars affirm al-harakah (movement) as it followers from affirming al-muji’, and success is from Allah. And look into the word al-harakah: Sharh Hadith al nuzūl by Ibn Taymiyyah (445-459)
Al-Rad ‘ala l-Zanadiqa wal-Jahmiya by Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal Pg 271-272
Ibn Taymiyyah explains that terms like al-jihah (direction), al-ḥayyiz (space), and al-makān (place) are ambiguous and can mean different things, depending on the context. If these terms are used to refer to something existent within creation, such as Allah being confined inside the heavens or encompassed by creation, this is false and not the belief of ahl al-ithbāt (the people of affirmation), ahl al-‘ilm (the people of knowledge), or ahl al-sunnah.
Such claims reflect ignorance and misguidance, similar to the error of those who deny Allah’s attributes.
On the other hand, if these terms refer to something non-existent, such as what lies above creation being described as a “place,” “direction,” or “space,” then the meaning becomes that Allah alone exists there, without anything else.
Allah ﷻ is not within the heavens, nor is He contained or limited by His creation. Instead, He is distinct and elevated above everything that exists.
Ibn Taymiyyah said: And these people speak with the terms jihah (direction), hayyiz (space), and makan (place). By these terms, they sometimes mean something non existent, and sometimes something existent. For this reason, the people of affirmation from ahl al hadith and the Salafiyyah of all the sects, some of them use the term jihah, and some of them refrain from using it. These are two statements among the followers of Ahmad, al Shafiʿi, Malik, Abu Hanifah, and others from ahl al hadith and ahl al ra’y.
Similarly, regarding the term makan (place), some of them use it, and some of them prohibit its use.
As for the term mutahayyiz (occupying space), some of them negate it, while most do not use it or negate it, because these are ambiguous terms that can imply truth or falsehood.
If this is the case, then it is said: If someone says, “Allah is in a jihah, hayyiz, or makan,” and by this he means something existent other than Allah, then that is from His creation and His created beings. So when they say: “Allah is above His heavens, over His Throne, distinct (bā’in) from His creation,” it is impossible for Him to be confined or encompassed by anything existent other than Him, whether it is called makan, jihah, hayyiz, or anything else.
It is also impossible for Him to be in need of anything from His creation, neither the Throne nor anything else. Rather, by His power, He bears the Throne and its bearers. For the One who is distinct (bā’in) from the creation and elevated (ʿāli) above it, it is impossible for Him to be inside anything from it.
And if it is said: “He is in the heavens,” then the meaning is that He is in al ʿuluw (highness), while at the same time He is above everything. He is not inside the interiors of the heavens, for al sama means al ʿuluw (highness), and everything elevated is sama. It is said: sama, yasmu, sumuww, meaning, “it rose,” and yaʿlu, ʿuluw, meaning, “it ascended.” This term applies to everything that rises; it is not restricted to certain types except by context.
Dar at-Ta’arud al-‘Aql wan-Naql – Ibn Taymiyyah (7/15-17)
Ibn Taymiyyah is addresses the ambiguity of terms like jihah (direction), hayyiz (space), and taḥayyuz (space) in theological discussions about Allah. He explains that these terms can have different meanings: sometimes referring to something existent (real) and at other times to something non-existent (conceptual).
If someone claims that Allah being in a jihah would mean He is in an existent place, Ibn Taymiyyah rejects this, affirming that Allah is distinct (bā’in) from creation and not contained within any created space.
However, if jihah is used conceptually, referring to “beyond creation,” this does not compromise Allah’s transcendence.
Similarly, he clarifies the term taḥayyuz: if it means being contained by something else, Allah is not mutaḥayyiz, as nothing contains Him. However, if it means being separate and distinct from creation, then this applies to Allah, as He is above and beyond His creation without residing within it or being united with it.
So when a group says, ‘Allah is in a jihah (direction) or hayyiz (space),’ and another group says, ‘Allah is not in a jihah (direction) or hayyiz (space),’ each group must be asked about its intended meaning, for the terms jihah (direction) and hayyiz (space) are ambiguous and equivocal. They say: There exists nothing except the Khaliq (Creator) and the makhluq (created), and Allah, Taala, is munazzah (exalted and transcendent), distinct (bain) from His creation. For indeed, He, Subhanahu, created the creatures distinct from Himself, separate from Him, external to His dhat (essence).
There is nothing from His dhat in His makhluqat (creatures), nor is there anything from His creatures in His dhat. If He were not distinct (mubayin) from them, He would either be intertwined with them, residing within them, or occupying them, and Allah, Taala, is munazzah (exalted) from that.
And if He were neither distinct from them nor mixed with them, He would be non-existent, and Allah, Taala is exalted from that (this is the belief of the ashairah and maturidiyyah). The Jahmiyyah, who deny the sifat, sometimes say that which necessitates al-hulul (dwelling in creation) and al-ittihad (connected to creation), or they explicitly state this. At other times, they say that which necessitates denial and tatil (negation). Thus, their deniers worship nothing, while their affirmers worship everything.
It is also said: If there exists nothing except the Creator and the created, then the Creator is distinct (bain) from the created. So when someone says, ‘He is in a jihah (direction) or not in a jihah (direction),’ it is said to him: Is the jihah (direction) something existent or non-existent?
If it is something existent, and there is no existent except the Creator and the created, and the Creator is distinct (bain) from the created, then the Lord cannot be in a created, existent jihah (direction).
And if the jihah (direction) is something non-existent, such that what lies beyond the world is called a jihah, then when the Creator is distinct from the world, and what is beyond the world is referred to as a jihah that is named but not something existent, then Allah is in a non-existent jihah in this regard. However, there is no difference between saying, ‘He is in something non-existent’ and saying, ‘He is not in anything other than Himself,’ for the non-existent is not something, by the consensus of all rational minds.
Majmu Al Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah (6/38-40)
