The wording of Imam Mālik’s report

The narrations vary slightly but all carry the same sense:

• “Al-istiwāʾ is known, and the kayf is unknown; believing in it is obligatory; asking about it is bidʿah.”
• “Al-Raḥmān rose over the Throne as He described Himself; one does not say ‘how,’ and the ‘how’ is removed.”
• “Al-istiwāʾ is not unknown, and the kayf is not comprehended; belief in it is obligatory; asking about it is a bidʿah.”

What We Gather From Each Variation

“Al-istiwāʾ (minhu) maʿlūm / ghayr majhūl” (known / not unknown)

• Maher ameer says Imam Mālik is not merely saying “it is known that the word appears in the Qurʾān.” The questioner already quoted the verse (“al-Raḥmān ʿalā al-ʿArsh istawā”), then asked “how did He rise?”
• Saying “maʿlūm / ghayr majhūl” therefore must mean: its meaning is known in the language and intelligible to the believer (in a way befitting Allah), not that we only know its occurrence in scripture.
• Had Imam Mālik meant “it is known merely by mention,” he would have said “al-istiwāʾ madhkūr” (mentioned). Instead, “maʿlūm / ghayr majhūl” speaks to cognitive grasp of meaning, not bare citation.

“Al-kayf majhūl / ghayr maʿqūl” (the how is unknown / not comprehended)

• Maher ameer says denying knowledge of the kayf does not deny the attribute itself. Unknown ≠ non-existent.
• In Arabic, calling someone “majhūl” (unknown) never means “non-existent.” You only deny knowledge after affirming a reality to be inquired about.
• “Ghayr maʿqūl” means it is “not grasped by minds.” It is an epistemic negation, not an ontological negation.
• Therefore, Imam Mālik simultaneously affirms the reality of the attribute and bars access to its modality.

“Al-kayf marfūʿ” (the how is lifted)

• This wording, shows removal of the “how” from our remit: we do not delve into it, we do not posit it, and we do not ask about it.
• Again, this is a procedural bar on probing the modality, not a denial of the attribute’s reality or meaning.

Clarifying “al-istiwāʾ is known” and “the kayf is unknown”

• “Known” does not mean “only known to occur in the Qur’ān.” The questioner already quoted the verse. Rather, its meaning is known in the Arabic language (e.g., rising/establishing in a manner befitting Allah), while the “how” is beyond us.
• “Kayf unknown/ not comprehended” negates our knowledge of the modality, not the reality of the attribute. Denying knowledge ≠ denying existence. (Like saying, “So-and-so is unknown to me” does not mean “he does not exist.”)

Reply to the objector’s reinterpretation of “Kayf”

The Objector (Sa’eed Foudah):

• Redefined kayf in a technical, philosophical sense (a fixed configuration implying possibility, change, and transformation).
• Reads that technical definition back into the athar, then concludes Mālik declared the questioner an innovator only because “kayf” is unestablished.

The response:

• This is an unwarranted insertion (taḥkīm al-iṣṭilāḥ) into an early Arabic statement by an Arab imām unoccupied with later philosophical categories.
• No earlier scholars in his own camp argued like this.
• Even if one assumed denying established kayfiyyah, Imam Mālik’s words still affirm the attribute and forbid probing its modality; they do not negate the attribute’s meaning or reality.

The spirit objection and why it fails

• Asking the Prophet ﷺ during revelation differs from asking post revelation; one may ask him about the unseen, and Allah answers.
• After the end of revelation, our method is submission to transmitted wording, affirm meaning befitting Allah, and leave the kayf.
• Moreover, the rūḥ is created; its kayf could in principle be known if Allah informed us. Allah’s istiwāʾ, by contrast, concerns the Necessary Being; its kayf is forever beyond our minds.

Discussion on the report from Imam Malik:

Here we will look specifically at the report from Imam Malik ibn Anas (d. 179 AH) as a clear example of how the opponents deviate in understanding the words of the Salaf.

We first make clear that our belief did not stop at the report of Imam Malik and those like him. Rather it is the understanding of the imams of Islam and our righteous Salaf regarding the attribute of istiwa (rising over) and the texts about the attributes.

This does not mean that we only understood the texts once those great imams spoke. Revelation is clear in the meaning that the Ummah holds by consensus. The disagreement among the groups is whether this apparent meaning is subject to ta’wil (reinterpretation) or not, and whether it includes the defects of created beings or not. The understanding of the Salaf removed ta’wil.

Do not think that if not for the understanding of the Salaf ta’wil would not be removed. It is removed at its root because there is no contextual indicator. Many contexts point to one meaning. It is hard to reinterpret all of them together, even if you allowed that in a single text. There are other supports inside the texts themselves that prevent ta’wil without the need for any external support.

As for the report from Imam Malik, it is more famous than fire on a landmark. Its wordings differ, but all revolve around one meaning. The kayf majhool (how is unknown). The istiwa is not unknown. Faith in it is obligatory. Asking about it is bidah (innovation). Among these wordings are his statement, The Most Merciful rose over the Throne, regarding Allah as He described Himself, and one does not say how, and the how is lifted.

And his statement, The istiwa is not unknown, and the kayf ghayr maqul (how is not comprehended), and belief in it is obligatory, and asking about it is a bidah. And his statement, The istiwa from Him is known, and the kayf from Him is not comprehended, and asking about this is a bidah, and belief in it is obligatory. And his statement, His istiwa is understood, and its kayfiyyah is unknown, and your question about this is a bidah. (See these reports and their discussion in the book Innocence of the Four Imams from the issues of the innovating mutakallimeen by Dr Abd al Aziz al Humaydi, p. 280.)

Notice that all of them indicate the following.

First, the istiwa Imam Malik is speaking about is the istiwa of Allah, Glorified is He. This is what he was asked about. He is not speaking about istiwa in general, that it is known to occur in the Quran, or that its meanings are known in the language. He is speaking about the istiwa that he was asked about.

This is shown by his saying, The istiwa from Him, meaning from the Creator, is known. And his saying, The Most Merciful rose over the Throne as He described Himself.

And his saying, His istiwa, meaning that of the Creator. He is speaking about the istiwa of Allah in particular. He is not speaking about istiwa in an unrestricted sense, nor about it as a word in revelation, but as an attribute attached to the Creator.

Second, the istiwa of Allah is not unknown. It is known and understood. It is not a riddle or a foreign vague phrase that is not known and not understood.

Third, the kayf of this istiwa is not known. It is unknown and not comprehended. It is lifted, meaning one does not say how. This does not negate the root of kayf, nor the reality, nor the true nature with respect to istiwa. It negates knowledge of the kayfiyyah and forbids asking about it. Here we use the terms in their proper place. The kayf majhool means the reality of the how is not known. The kayf ghayr maqul means minds do not grasp it.

Fourth, he makes faith in that obligatory. The reason is clear. It is from the ghayb (unseen). You believe in it while the kayfiyyah is not known and not comprehended. It is farfetched that he would command the questioner to believe if what he intended was only belief that the word istiwa occurs in the Quran.

The questioner knows this. He only asked about a detail, which is the kayf. So he obligated him to believe in it. This shows that the meaning and the reality are established in a way that obligates faith, like the rest of the unseen matters.

In summary, all of our opponents restrict the words of Imam Malik, assume unspoken omissions, and treat his words so they fit what they want. None of them takes his words upon their apparent sense except us.

When you reinterpret a man’s words and insert what is not explicit in the apparent wording, your link to that man is cut. It is no longer your right to attribute your saying to him, or to anchor your statement in his words, or to claim that he holds what you only understood by means of insertions and additions.

The objector discussed this report and tried to pull it to his side. He began by analysing the reality of the question and the intent of the one who asked, saying, We must understand the reality of this question, How did He rise, and what the man directed his request for information toward when he asked the Imam. He then discussed the concept of asking with how. We cited that earlier.

What matters here is his last claim when he said, It is known that he could not have asked this question about the kayf except because he affirms for it a kayf that includes the attributes of possibility, transformation, and change. (His phrase includes the attributes of possibility, transformation, and change is from the objector himself. We have shown that affirming kayf is a position necessary for everyone, and its opposite is nonexistence.) (Naqd al Tadmuriyyah, p. 40.)

The objector then explained kayf as the fixed configuration that has a particular arrangement for something else, or the very parts themselves. He carried the word kayf in the report upon that.

After he defined kayf, he set out what arose in the mind of the questioner when he asked the Imam about the kayfiyyah of istiwa. He says that what arose in his mind was affirmation of istiwa, affirmation that it has a kayfiyyah, and affirmation that it is receptive to other possible kayfiyyat.

He then discussed the concept of bidah. He said it is inventing something that is not established. That is, affirming what was not established.

He wants to reach by this that Imam Malik’s describing the questioner as a person of bidah does not fit with believing that the root of kayf is established. It only fits if the questioner has affirmed something not established in the Sharia.

He likens this to affirming a fifth rakah. He says that asking about the kayfiyyah of prayer is not correctly called a bidah, because its kayfiyyah has been established in the Sharia.

Since its kayfiyyah is established, it is not allowed to describe asking about it as bidah. He concludes that Imam Malik’s describing the question about the kayfiyyah of istiwa as a bidah was because the kayf is not established at all. He said, Here Ibn Taymiyyah falls into a big problem.

How can it be sound to describe the questioner as an innovator when, in the view of Ibn Taymiyyah, he did not innovate an attribute not established for Allah. Rather he only asked. Mere questioning, as we explained, is not correctly called a bidah, rather it should be answered, and asking about what people do not know, if its root is established, does not entail bidah. (Naqd al Tadmuriyyah, p. 43.)

He then mentioned after that some issues, like, The Sharia has not established at all affirming kayf for Allah, Exalted is He. He wants his own definition of kayf.

Upon that he said, It is not allowed in the Sharia that Allah, Exalted is He, can be described with a configuration from several configurations that are possible in His regard. (No one has claimed that this is allowed, nor that it is necessary for kayf, nor that it is contained within kayf. You agree that this is not allowed. What connection does this have to the kayf that is established by revelation and reason and by which the report should be interpreted.)

Here are claims.

The first, that the kayf mentioned in the report is the technical term in the science of the categories.

The second, that this technical sense is what Imam Malik, the Arab, understood decisively, even though he did not study the categories, nor engage in philosophy, nor were the things that affected the objector present for him.

The third is a universal rule, that everyone who asks about kayf thereby affirms for the thing asked about a kayf that is possible by specific possibility, and the receptivity to being described by more than one possible kayf, and hence the receptivity to transformation and change.

The objector does not allow, or even let cross his mind by way of fairness when criticising his opponent’s statement, that the one who asks about kayf might be affirming kayf in the sense of reality and true nature, not in the technical sense he mentioned.

The objector must prove his claims and guesses above without doubt as a first step.

He must then prove that such meanings, which he extracted from the question, were known in the time of Imam Malik, such that the Imam would understand from the question what he understood, and would interpret kayf as he interpreted it.

He must then show that the concept of the question includes what he loaded into it of possibility and change. We found nothing of that from him. Rather, he held fast to the report of Imam Malik and began to shape and twist his tongue with it to drive it to his aim.

It is enough, to show the invalidity of what the objector mentioned in his analysis of the question, that none of those who explained the report of Imam Malik preceded him in this, even among his own group.

At most they discussed the Imam’s answer, explaining it. They did not discuss the question in the way he mentioned. This is not renewal that one boasts about.

His reliance on the claim that asking about kayfiyyah cannot be described as bidah except where the kayfiyyah is not established at root, and his saying that this is a big problem, is among the strangest things.

It shows weakness in his grasp of the concept of bidah and of the fiqh of the Salaf. Bidah is not limited to beliefs and to affirming an unseen belief that revelation did not establish.

Actions are also described as bidah. I did not think that a rational person with any knowledge of the concept of bidah and how the Salaf dealt with it would deny this. The correct understanding of the words of Imam Malik is this.

When the man asked about something that was known and settled among everyone to be a matter in which people must not delve, and a matter that cannot be reached, his question was a bidah and a departure from the path of the believers.

Is what Sabigh ibn Asl did in the time of the Commander of the Believers Umar a good example of this.

The people of knowledge deemed what he did to be an innovation. He used to ask about the mutashabihat and set some of them against others in a stubborn way.

So Umar acted as he acted with him. Did Sabigh do anything other than ask in the mutashabihat, yet by that he was an innovator who deserved discipline.

And Jarir ibn Abd Allah mentioned the hadith about the vision, so a man said to him in his gathering, Abu Khalid, what is the meaning of this hadith.

He became angry and withdrew and said, How like you are to Sabigh and how much in need you are of what was done to him and his like. Who knows how this is.

Who is allowed to go beyond the wording that came with the hadith, or to speak about it from himself, except one who has made his own soul foolish and made light of his religion. If you hear the hadith from the Messenger of Allah, then follow it, and do not innovate in it.

If you follow it and do not argue about it, you will be safe. If you do not do so, you will perish. (Look at a subject by our brother Adel Basha Hashim on the Ahl al Hadith forum. He was the first to show the flaw in Naqd al Tadmuriyyah.) (Aqidah of the Salaf by al Sabuni, no. 82.)

Our words are what Abd al Jalil al Rubai, the student of al Baqillani, understood when he said, As for his expelling the questioner, it is because he seemed to understand that he was deficient, not understanding what he heard of the subtle matter in this, or he seemed to understand that he asked while feigning ignorance.

If he had understood that he asked as a seeker of benefit and guidance, or that he understood what he heard from the answer, he would have answered him and explained to him, and would not have ordered that he be expelled. (Al Tasdeed fi Sharh al Tamheed, manuscript, p. 174.)

And likewise al Qarafi al Maliki (d. 684 AH) when he said, His statement, Asking about it is a bidah, means that the way of the Salaf did not include asking about these matters that stir corrupt desires. So it is a bidah.

I saw that Abu Hanifah had a reply to a statement written to him by Malik.

You speak about the usul of the religion, while the Salaf did not speak about it. He replied that the Salaf had no bidah appear in their time. Stirring answers about it would be a cause for making it appear. In our time bidah appeared. If we were silent we would be approving bidah. The situation differs.

This is a sound answer. It shows that bidah appeared in his land in Iraq. For Malik it did not appear in his land, so he rejected it. This is the way to reconcile the words of the two imams. (Al Dhakhirah, 13, p. 243.)

It is enough to invalidate the objector’s strained language that Imam Malik is more eloquent and more aware of his own words than the objector. He said, Asking about it is a bidah. He did not say, Affirming kayf is a bidah.

Take an unseen matter as an example, the Sirat. The Sirat has a kayfiyyah that the objector does not deny, because even if he denied kayfiyyah for the Necessary One, he affirms it by necessity for a created thing that subsists by itself and extends and is perceptible and is composite, like the Sirat.

If someone asked me, How did Allah make the Sirat thinner than a hair and sharper than a sword. How do people walk upon it, even though bodies are cut by a sword and a hair is cut. Is his question about the kayfiyyah a bidah or allowed in the Sharia. If I answered the questioner and said, Your question is a bidah.

The Companions did not ask about this. They received it with submission and yielding. Do not ask about it again. It suffices you that it is possible in reason and that Allah is Able to do all things.

Would anyone be right to say that my answer is wrong. Did I depart from what is correct in what I said. The objector might strive to fault me, and dress himself in the clothing of one who defends the universal declaration of human rights and freedom of expression. But is my answer wrong, at least in language, in this place.

This invalidates his strange understanding of Imam Malik’s declaring the question to be a bidah. He may posture as a learned man and disagree with the Imam’s answer. It is not acceptable from him to reinterpret the Imam’s words to shift the description of bidah from the question to the affirming of kayf.

The Imam’s words are explicit that the question is the bidah. He did not utter a single letter saying that kayf is negated or that affirming it is a bidah.

As for the example, lest someone act clever, we do not liken the kayfiyyah of the Sirat (The bridge we will pass on Judgement Day) to the kayfiyyah of Allah. The kayfiyyah of the Sirat can be known. The kayfiyyah of the Sirat is possible, because the Sirat is created.

It can be in another kayfiyyah. Its kayfiyyah is subject to what all originated possibles are subject to. The point of the example is a single point only. It shows that it is possible to combine describing the question about kayfiyyah as a bidah with affirming the kayfiyyah. These two are not in conflict, as the objector claimed.

The objector relied on the question of the Companions about the spirit, and that Allah sent down what contained their answer, without describing their question as a bidah. There is no support in that.

That time was the time of the descent of revelation. The Prophet is the source of knowledge. In his time there are questions allowed that are not allowed after him, especially if there was no prior prohibition.

The reality of bidah is imitating revelation in what belongs to it. Among the functions of revelation is clarifying the unseen. Asking the Prophet about the spirit in the time of the descent of the Quran is not like asking someone other than the Prophet about it after the end of revelation.

If someone had asked Imam Malik, What is the spirit like, he would have answered with the transmitted answer itself. The spirit is known, and the kayf is unknown, and asking about it is a bidah, and he would have recited the verse to him. This is one side.

On the other side, the spirit is created. A person can imagine knowing it by comparison to created things, if we were told or inspired with knowledge of its kayfiyyah. The matter is completely different regarding the reality of the istiwa of Allah, Glorified is He.

A created being cannot know it. It is not sound for a created being to ask about it from one like him. The difference between the two is vast.

The objector then said, From here the answer came, according to the narration chosen by Ibn Taymiyyah, The istiwa is known, meaning its mention in the Quran is known. And he said, And the kayf is unknown.

The kayf itself is unknown in its attribution to Allah, Exalted is He. What has not been established for us to attribute to Him, we deny it and do not affirm it for Him, and we do not ask about it.

Here is the long-awaited scalpel of reinterpretation. He uses it on the words of the imams, after he permitted it in the revealed texts. The Imam says plainly, The istiwa is known. The istiwa is not unknown. We know the istiwa. From where did the objector bring the restriction known in mention in the Quran.

What benefit would there be in intending this, while the questioner knows it is mentioned in the Quran. He would not have asked him about that in the first place if he did not know this great point. In the report itself the questioner said, The Most Merciful rose over the Throne.

How did He rise. He recited the verse first, then he asked him. If the claim of the objector were true, would it not be more fitting for the Imam to say, The istiwa is mentioned.

This is the case too in the second wording in which he says, The istiwa is not unknown, meaning, The istiwa is not a matter unknown that you do not know it. Imagine how awkward and far the meaning would be if what he intended was, The istiwa is not unknown in being mentioned in the Quran.

Is this understood from the context by fair people. Or is it closer and more apparent that the istiwa is known, not something hidden and unknown, that we do not know its meaning, and that you only know its letters lined up in the mushaf.

Here the istiwa is known without doubt. Its being known means that it is understood in the language of the Arabs. It is not only letters written in the mushaf waiting for a translator. It does not accept any meaning whatsoever.

As for his reinterpretation of the answer about kayf in the Imam’s words, The kayf is unknown, he did not depart here from his error in reinterpreting the first part. When the Imam says what he said, every rational Arab understands that he is ignorant of the kayf, that he does not know it and does not comprehend it.

He does not understand from this that the kayf is negated. We already cited words of the scholars in the discussion of kayf that show the meaning that denying knowledge of kayf implies the establishment of its root. In particular, we cited from Ibn Hubayrah. If you asked a man about a person and he said to you, This person is unknown. Does this mean he rules that he does not exist and denies his existence.

How many narrators of hadith would the objector then deny their existence. On this he continued his error when he said, As for his statement, And belief in it is obligatory, it certainly does not go back to kayf, since kayf is unknown, that is, not known and not established.

Notice the play with words that only deludes those who are taken in by such speech. Which of the rational people said that the unknown is not established. Do you not affirm many unseen matters that you do not know their realities, yet you believe in them. Will you not see Allah on the Day of Resurrection.

Do you know how you will see, or do you not know that. If you do not know it, will you deny it. Does the Prophet ask his Lord for something non existent when he says, O Allah, I ask You by every Name that is Yours, by which You named Yourself, or that You sent down in Your Book, or that You taught to any of Your creation, or that You kept to Yourself in the knowledge of the unseen with You.

Does ignorance of what Allah kept in the knowledge of the unseen with Him necessitate denying the establishment of these Names unknown to us, and prevent faith in them.

Even on the second wording, which delights those who follow the objector in his reinterpretation, The kayf is not comprehended, he explained it saying, If we add to it the other wordings, which Ibn Taymiyyah did not mention, in which it says, The kayf is not comprehended, meaning, It is not comprehended in its attribution to Allah, Exalted is He, and not comprehended in its establishment for Him.

It will agree with the explanation that we say. From where did he bring the restriction of attribution and establishment.

The objector inserts into the speech what he wishes from his own pocket, then he argues with the speech that he added and altered, claiming that it is the statement of the Imam. If a mujassim came to him and argued with the report of Imam Malik by the same method, he would confute him. He would explain it thus.

The intent of The istiwa is known is that we know its reality, which we see something like it in created beings. The kayf is unknown means we do not know how the Creator is described with this reality of istiwa rather than another.

Asking about it is a bidah means asking about the reason that this kayfiyyah, which matches what is in creation, is singled out. Let them then clash while we look on from a safe height, free from reinterpretation and twisting words.

What we have presented is understanding the words of an Arab Imam. As for reinterpretation and twisting words, anyone can do that. The words of a non infallible are taken upon their apparent sense. If the words of a non infallible conflict with the demands of reason, he is declared wrong. We do not strain to reinterpret his words. We made that clear at the start of the book.

His reinterpretation here, despite all that is in it, is far better than the reinterpretation of the one who said, This is like saying, A partner for Allah is not comprehended. This is a rational ruling that the existence of a partner for Allah in His Lordship or His Godhood is impossible. He did not give us time before he added a heap in the margin, saying, The rulings of reason are three, obligation, permissibility, and impossibility.

He did not tell us whether the Imam intended by possibility the general possibility or the specific possibility. In this wording, reason means knowledge. This is not a reinterpretation or turning away from the apparent sense.

This is the direct linguistic explanation. His saying not comprehended is like his saying not known. Al Khalil al Farahidi (d. 170 AH) said, Reason is the opposite of ignorance.

Al Firuzabadi (d. 817 AH) said: Reason is knowledge, or knowledge of the attributes of things, their beauty and their ugliness, their completeness and their deficiency. Allah, Exalted is He, said, Those who call you from behind the apartments, most of them do not reason. Ibn Sidah (d. 458 AH) said, He grasped a thing with reason means he understood it.

Thus, even the wording the kayf is not comprehended means nothing more than denying knowledge of the kayfiyyah. Denying knowledge of the kayfiyyah does not mean denying its existence.

You only deny your knowledge of a thing when you ask about it after you have affirmed its existence.

It also does not justify restricting the speech with his addition unknown in attribution and establishment, because that conflicts with the apparent sense of the Imam’s words and because of the awkwardness and distance that appear if you were to say, So and so is unknown, while you intend, So and so does not exist and is not established.

Imagine that the one being asked is the objector. A man asks him, How did He rise. The objector here affirms that the word occurs in the texts, but he consigns the meaning and does not affirm kayf.

The best answer that expresses what is in the objector’s soul would be to say, The istiwa is unknown, and there is no kayf for you to ask me about, and affirming kayf, rather affirming the meaning, is a bidah.

This is the best expression of the objector’s belief. Look at the clear difference between this answer and the answer of Imam Malik. Think.

Can you understand the same meaning from both answers. What rhetoric is this and what noble speech is this by which Ahl al Sunnah have argued from the time of Imam Malik until today if it is in such a state that needs all those restrictions and directed reinterpretations to correct what its apparent sense suggests.

The understanding of the Salaf and the scholars regarding the report of Imam Malik:

In this context you must recall the stance of the imams and scholars toward this statement of Malik, and how they esteemed it, because it has a very high level of clarity, brevity, and precise formulation that answers every question of this type.

You find that this clear understanding that we have set out for the words of Imam Malik became a rule with the imams for the rest of the attributes and the divine actions. Among what shows this is what al Khatib al Baghdadi narrated with his chain from Ahmad ibn Uthman. I was present with Abu Jaafar al Tirmidhi.

A man asked him about the hadith of the Prophet, Allah, Exalted, descends to the lowest heaven. How is the descent. Does loftiness remain above Him. Abu Jaafar al Tirmidhi said, The descent is understood, and the kayf majhool, the how is unknown, and belief in it is obligatory, and asking about it is a bidah. (Tarikh Al Baghdad, vol. 2, p. 233).

Notice how he used the mold of Imam Malik’s words, but he used it this time with the attribute of descent. He made the kayf unknown, not non existent. By this he understood from the words of Imam Malik that negating kayf is negating knowledge, not negating existence.

Al Dhahabi commented on this report. He said, The faqih of Baghdad and its scholar in his time spoke the truth. The question, What is descent, is confusion. A question is only asked about a word that is strange in the language.

As for descent, speech, hearing, sight, knowledge, and istiwa, these are clear expressions to the listener. When the One for whom there is nothing like Him is described with them, the attribute follows the One described, and the kayfiyyah of that is unknown to human beings. This al Tirmidhi was an ocean of knowledge and among the devout and cautious. He died in the year two hundred and ninety five. (Mukhtasar al Uluw, p. 231).

You must remember the principle with which we opened the book. No one has the right to make the imams say whatever he wishes, and to restrict their words as he wants. There must be a control that restrains that. There is no control here except that Imam Malik would have stated in other texts that kayf does not exist or is not established, or something like that. Proving this possibility is as hard as combing thorns.

If we were to allow the objector and others to mention restrictions, to specify generalities, and to qualify absolutes at their whim so they distort the words of whomever they wish, as they wish, to support their madhhab, we would not be able to attribute any statement to anyone. Every statement would be open to editing so it agrees with their desires.

As we said earlier, this liberty is only the product of making the revealed texts open to ta’wil, reinterpretation. Making what is below them open to it is even easier.

Now I set down the words of those more worthy and more able than us to give a correct ruling and a sound understanding of the words of Imam Malik. I transmit that some of them chose the wording, and the kayf majhool, the how is unknown, which indicates our point.

Abu Uthman al Sabuni al Shafi said in his Counsel. The Imam of the Muslims in his time, Abu Abd Allah Malik ibn Anas, may Allah have mercy on him, when asked about the kayfiyyah of istiwa, said, The istiwa is known, and the kayf majhool, the how is unknown, and belief in it is obligatory, and asking about it is a bidah. I think you are a zindiq. Expel him from the masjid. (Tabaqat al Shafiiyyah al Kubra by al Subki, vol. 4, p. 287).

Abu al Qasim Ismail al Isbahani al Shafi said. Ahl al Sunnah said. Belief in His statement, The Most Merciful rose over the Throne, is obligatory, and delving into it by ta’wil, reinterpretation, is a bidah. He praised those firmly grounded in knowledge because they believe in such verses and do not delve into knowledge of their kayfiyyah. For this reason Malik ibn Anas spoke with firmness when he was asked about His statement, The Most Merciful rose over the Throne. He said, The istiwa is known, and the kayf majhool, the how is unknown, and belief in it is obligatory, and asking about it is a bidah. (al Hujjah fi Bayan al Mahajjah, vol. 2, p. 257).

Abu Talib al Makki al Qaisi said. Likewise His attributes are not like the attributes of created beings. The istiwa is known, and the kayf we do not know. We must submit to that. (al Hidayah ila Bulugh al Nihayah, vol. 8, p. 5243).

This is without doubt the personal expression of Makki ibn Abi Talib about the report of Imam Malik, based on what he understood from it, even if he did not ascribe it to him or mention the transmission from him in this place.

Abu Amr al Dani said. Among their statements is that He, Glorified, is above His heavens, established over His Throne, exercising authority over all His creation, and distinct from them with His Essence, not distinct from them by His knowledge, rather His knowledge encompasses them.

He knows their secrets and their open speech, and He knows what they earn, in accord with what His truthful report and His speaking Book have brought. He, Exalted, said, The Most Merciful rose over the Throne.

His istiwa is His highness without kayfiyyah, without delimitation, without adjacency, and without contact. Malik said to the one who asked him about the kayfiyyah of istiwa. The istiwa is not unknown, and the kayf ghayr maqul, the how is not comprehended, and belief in it is obligatory, and asking about it is a bidah. (al Risalah al Wafiyyah, pp. 129 to 134).

He used the report of Imam Malik as proof to affirm the highness of Allah and His being above His heavens and His separateness from His creation with His Essence. That is, the report provides knowledge of this. Thus the statement of Imam Malik, The istiwa is known, means its meaning is known. It is His highness, His being above, and His separateness with His Essence. This is the meaning that al Dani indicated using the report of Imam Malik. If what he intended was, known in that it occurs in the Quran, or known in its Arabic meanings, it would not prove what al Dani sought.

Abu Bakr ibn al Arabi al Maliki, when explaining a hadith on the attributes in Sunan al Tirmidhi, said. The madhhab of Malik as a whole is that every such hadith is known in meaning. For that he said to the one who asked him. The istiwa is known, and the kayfiyyah is unknown. (Aridat al Ahwadhi, vol. 3, p. 166).

Ibn Qudamah al Maqdisi al Hanbali, in explaining the words of Imam Malik, said. Their saying, The istiwa is not unknown, means it is not unknown in existence, because Allah, Exalted, informed of it, and His report is true and certain.

It is not allowed to doubt or to be uncertain about it, so its occurrence and knowledge of it is not unknown. In some wordings it is narrated as, The istiwa is known. Their saying, The kayf ghayr maqul, the how is not comprehended, is because there is no transmitted proof for it, and there is no way to know it without transmitted proof. (Dham al Ta’wil, p. 26).

Abu Abd Allah al Qurtubi al Maliki, when explaining the verse of istiwa and transmitting the madhhab of the Salaf, among them Umm Salamah and Imam Malik, said. None of the righteous Salaf denied that He rose over His Throne in reality.

He specified the Throne with that because it is the greatest of His creation. They only did not know the kayfiyyah of istiwa, since its true nature is not known. Malik said, The istiwa is known, he meant in the language, and the kayfiyyah is unknown, and asking about this is a bidah. (Tafsir al Qurtubi, vol. 7, p. 219).

I know that the objector often attacks the imams of Islam and reviles the likes of Ibn Abd al Barr and Ibn Qudamah, may Allah have mercy on them. I do not intend him by what I have transmitted. I intend those who venerate these scholars and know the worth of men.

Al Kawthari discussed this report, commenting. The istiwa is known, meaning its use in the language is known, and the kayfiyyah that Allah intended, from the meanings of istiwa that are permissible for Him, is unknown.

Who can specify it exactly. From the words of the Imam of the Muslims, Malik, you gain that the istiwa is known, and that what is permissible for Allah is not confined to one specific meaning, and what is impossible for Him He is exalted above. (Maqalat al Kawthari, p. 273).

It is not hidden that al Kawthari wanted tafwid al ma’na, consigning the meaning, and he stated that in other places. What matters here is to show the error of the objector in what he understood from the Imam’s words, the kayf majhool, or the kayf ghayr maqul. Al Kawthari understood that kayfiyyah in the Imam’s words is affirmed, and that what is negated is specifying it and knowing it.

He differs from us about the meaning of an affirmed but unknown kayfiyyah, not about its being affirmed. Either he intended by kayfiyyah the reality, the attribute, and the true nature, so there is no sense in his censure of Shaykh al Islam, and of us by following him, for affirming it. Or he intended the technical sense by which the objector judges us, and this would make him a mujassim and a mushabbih in his own understanding.

Here there is an important point related to tafwid that many who reinterpret the words of the people of knowledge overlook.

Denying knowledge of the kayfiyyah of istiwa, or denying the comprehension of it, or denying its establishment, even for the sake of argument, all of that is a branch of affirming the meaning of istiwa. You do not deny the kayfiyyah of a thing whose meaning you do not grasp. Here we know with certainty that Imam Malik affirms istiwa. No rational person doubts this. Seeking to depart from this by ta’wil is a burden beyond capacity. But does he affirm it by its wording only, or by its wording and its meaning.

That is, does he consign its meaning.

We say. The Imam does not consign the meaning at all. Speaking about kayfiyyah is a branch of affirming the meaning. You do not set aside the kayfiyyah except for something whose meaning you understand. If it is said. This is required only if what is negated is specifying the kayfiyyah, not its being established. We claim that what is negated is its being established at all. We say. Even if we accept your interpretation, the problem remains.

You deny the establishment of kayfiyyah in the attributes whose meanings you understand and do not consign. You deny that there is a kayfiyyah for His Essence and a kayfiyyah for His attributes after you understood them and did not consign their meanings. The same holds here. Denying the establishment of a kayfiyyah for istiwa is a branch of affirming its meaning. In fact, a rational person does not deny the establishment of kayf except when he fears that its establishment will be imagined.

No one fears its establishment except after affirming the meaning. Without a meaning and without a known concept for istiwa there is nothing at all to which you would ascribe a kayfiyyah, let alone specify it. I do not find anything shorter or more indicative of the point than the words of Shaykh al Islam on the matter.

Even if the kayfiyyah were assumed to be negated, kayfiyyah is not negated from what does not exist. If there were not an istiwa established in reality, it would not be correct to negate kayfiyyah from it. If what is intended were isti’la and the like, there would be no need to say in that, and the kayf is unknown or known. (Dar’ Talbis al Jahmiyyah, vol. 8, p. 305).

He said in al Hamawiyyah al Kubra. The statement of Rabi’ah and Malik. The istiwa is not unknown, and the kayf ghayr maqul, the how is not comprehended, and belief in it is obligatory, agrees with the statement of the rest.

Let them pass as they came without kayf. They only negated knowledge of the kayfiyyah. They did not negate the reality of the attribute. If the people had believed in the bare wording without understanding its meaning in a way befitting Allah, they would not have said, The istiwa is not unknown, and the kayf is not comprehended, and they would not have said, Let them pass as they came without kayf.

In that case istiwa would not be known. It would be unknown like the letters of the alphabet. Also, there is no need to negate knowledge of kayfiyyah if no meaning is understood from the wording. Negation of knowledge of kayfiyyah is only needed when the attributes are affirmed. Also, whoever denies the attributes of perfection or denies the attributes absolutely does not need to say, without kayf. Whoever says, Allah is not on the Throne, does not need to say, without kayf. If the madhhab of the Salaf were to deny the attributes in reality, they would not have said, without kayf. Also their statement, Let them pass as they came, requires leaving their indication as it is.

The texts came as words that indicate meanings. If their indication were negated it would be obligatory to say, Pass their wording while believing that what is understood from them is not intended, or pass their wording while believing that Allah is not described with what they truly indicate. In that case you would not have passed them as they came, and you would not say then, without kayf, since negating kayf from what is not established is empty speech. (al Fatawa al Hamawiyyah al Kubra, pp. 306 to 307).