Ibn Taymiyyah’s view of time as measure of motion

Ibn Taymiyyah رحمه الله defines time (zamaan) as the measure of motion. Time is the ceonceptual measuring of movement and change, not a thing that exists outside the mind on its own. It is an abstract measure that the mind takes from motion. (Al Jawab al Sahih 6/180; Sharh Hadith al Nuzul 177)

When Allah created the heavens and the earth in six days, these days were not measured by the motion of the sun, because the sun itself was created within those six days. So the six days of creation were measured by another motion that we do not know, not by the familiar motions of this universe. (Al Jawab al Sahih 6/180; Sharh Hadith al Nuzul 177)

Time for him is always tied to motion. If there is motion, there is time. A specific time is the measure of a specific motion, such as the motion of the earth that we use now to count our days. The general kind of time is the measure of the general kind of motion, and this is what he says has no beginning and no end. (Sharh Hadith al Nuzul 177; Al Safadiyyah 2/167)

Time before this universe and in the hereafter

Ibn Taymiyyah explains that Allah informed us that His Throne was on the water before He created the heavens and the earth, and that He created the heavens from smoke, which is the vapour of that water. This shows that there were motions and events before the motions of the present universe. These earlier motions had their own time, which was their measure, even though they were not the motions of the sun and the known spheres. (Al Jawab al Sahih 6/180; Sharh Hadith al Nuzul 177)

He also proves that there is time in the hereafter. In the Garden, the people will have provision “morning and evening” and they will glorify Allah in what is called morning and evening, even though there is no sun and no moon there. Ibn Kathir explains that these are times like the times of morning and evening in this life, known by lights and signs, not by sunrise and sunset. So time in the Garden is also a measure of other motions, such as lights that appear from the direction of the Throne. (Maryam 62; Tafsir Ibn Kathir 5/218 to 219; Sahih Muslim 2834)

There is also a special day of Jumuah in the Garden when the believers will see their Lord, a day whose length is described as like a day of Jumuah from the days of this universe, although there is no sun there. This shows that after the destruction of this universe there will still be days and times, measured by other motions that Allah creates. (Sahih Ibn Hibban 7438; Sharh Hadith al Nuzul 177 to 178)

From this he concludes that the general kind of time continues after the end of the present heavens and earth, since there will still be motions and ordered events that can be measured. (Al Safadiyyah 2/137 and 2/167)

The eternal genus of time and continual acts of Allah

Ibn Taymiyyah agrees with Aristotle in one narrow point, that if there is motion now then the general kind of motion cannot have come after absolute nothing. From this he accepts that the genus of motion has no beginning, and therefore the genus of time, which is its measure, also has no beginning. (Sharh Hadith al Nuzul 174; Al Safadiyyah 2/167)

But he strongly disagrees with the philosophers in their conclusion that this means an eternal body, such as an eternal sphere. He says their proof only shows the eternity of the genus of motion and the genus of time, not the eternity of any specific body.

The mistake of Aristotle was to restrict time to the motion of the spheres and then claim that if time is without beginning, the spheres must also be without beginning. Ibn Taymiyyah answers that the genus of time can be measured by many different motions, in different created universes, without any single body being eternal. (Al Safadiyyah 2/167; Sharh al Asfahaniyyah 330)

On this basis he accepts that there can be an endless sequence of events with no first event. There is no event except that before it there was another event. Allah has always been acting, with will, in the way He wills, and He has never been idle. This is from the perfection of His creating. He uses the verse “He does whatever He wills” to support this meaning. (Hud 107; Majmu al Fatawa 12/243 to 244)

He also makes an important distinction when speaking about the createdness of time. A specific time that is measured by the motion of created bodies is created in the minds of created beings. It is originated and created for them. As for the knowledge of Allah, His knowledge of events and their order is from His acts, and the acts of the Lord are originated but not created in the sense of being made by another. Every created thing is originated, but not every originated thing is created. (Majmu al Fatawa 2/492 to 494)

For this reason he warns that it is not correct to speak in a general way and say, “time is not created”. Time is ancient in one respect and originated in another respect. It is created in the minds of created beings, and in that sense its particular measures are created, but the genus of time as a conceptual measure of motions has no beginning. He dislikes using absolute phrases in front of ordinary people without this detail. (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 2/287 to 288; Majmu al Fatawa 2/492 to 494)

Time as conceptual ordering and measure of events

Sometimes Ibn Taymiyyah explains time as the ordering and measuring of events. When people say that this event is before that one by a certain amount and another is after it by a certain amount, they are simply measuring what lies between events by other events. This measure is like numbers that we use to compare counted things. The numbered things exist outside the mind, but the numbers themselves are only a way of separating and comparing them, not an extra thing attached to them outside the mind. (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 2/287)

In the same way, realities, their numbers, their times and their places are all connected in this issue. The realities exist and are distinct by their own attributes. Time as a measure and ordering of them is a concept, not a separate substance or accident that stands outside them. One root of mistakes in understanding time is to confuse what exists only in the mind with what exists outside the mind. (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 2/287 to 288)

The basic distinction between place and space

Ibn Taymiyyah draws a clear line between place (makaan) and what he calls hayyiz, which here can be translated as space in his technical sense. Place in common speech refers to real existing things. It is either the very bodies in which or on which something is found, like the body of the earth or the body of the moon, or the inner surface of a containing body that touches the outer surface of what it holds, like a shirt that contains a human body. (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 4/239)

Space in his technical usage is different. It is the conceptual estimation of such places. Space is a non existent matter that does not exist outside the mind. Just as people estimate durations beyond any actually existing time, they also estimate empty spaces beyond any actually existing place. These estimations are only in the mind. (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 4/239; Majmu al Fatawa 17/344)

He also notes that most theologians use “place” for something existing and “space” for something non existent. They say that the universe is in a space but not in a place, meaning that nothing surrounds the whole universe, so it has no containing body, but the mind still imagines something around it and calls this space. (Majmu al Fatawa 17/344)

Direction as a relative conceptual relation

Direction (jiha) for Ibn Taymiyyah is not an independent existing thing. He says that direction only becomes a direction when there is turning. It needs someone who turns towards it, or a turner and one who is turned to. Without such a relation, there is no direction. It is therefore also a relative matter that the mind estimates. (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 4/239)

This means that we must be very careful when we speak about direction for Allah. If someone uses the word in a way that suggests Allah is inside created things or surrounded by them, this is false. If someone uses it to mean that Allah is above His creation and separate from them, without describing Him with need or limits, then the meaning is true, even if the wording can be confusing. (Majmu al Fatawa 5/264 to 265)

The universe in non existent space

When Ibn Taymiyyah says that the universe is in a hayyiz, he does not mean that it is inside another existing body. He means that it exists alone with no other existing thing surrounding it. The so called space around it is non existent. Being in non existent space does not mean that the universe itself is non existent. Non existence is not a thing at all. It simply means that nothing else is with it. (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 4/219; Minhaj al Sunnah 2/354)

He explains that non existent space cannot have parts. It is not something whose one part is to the right and another to the left, or whose upper part is above its lower part. It cannot be pointed at, because pointing to pure non existence is impossible. Pointing is only to what exists. The multiplicity of space, in our talk, follows from the multiplicity of existing things. Minds imagine different “spaces” because they imagine different bodies. (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 4/219; 5/179 to 180)

From this he says that for every existing thing, the mind imagines endless times and endless empty spaces with it, although these imagined times and spaces have no existence outside the mind. What exists outside is only Allah and His creation and their real attributes. (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 5/179 to 180)

Real place is limited and belongs to bodies

Ibn Taymiyyah insists that every real place must have a limit. There is no real place without an end, just as there is no real body without an end. Time can be without end because it is one thing after another, a sequence. Place, on the other hand, is present in one time. It does not renew in that way, so it must be bounded. (Dar Ta arud al Aql wal Naql 6/316)

In practice this means that we do not deny real place inside the universe. A human being stands on the surface of the earth. Around him there is air, which is made up of bodies that can be sensed, and beyond that there are created bodies in space, such as what people call dark matter. These are all real bodies and real places. But all of them together, the whole universe, is still in non existent space in the sense mentioned before, otherwise we would have to say that every place is surrounded by another real place without end. (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 4/129 to 130; Majmu al Fatawa 17/344)

So when we say “the place of the Throne” we only mean the Throne itself. When we say “the place of the Garden” we mean the Garden itself with its bodies. When we say “the place of the universe” we mean the universe itself with its bodies. All of these real places lie within non existent space in the conceptual sense. (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 4/129 to 130)

Rejecting space as an independent existing substance

Some theologians say that everything other than Allah is a body or stands in a body, then at the same time they speak about an empty space that exists outside bodies and has no measure except what we imagine.

Ibn Taymiyyah says this is a clear contradiction. If they affirm an existing empty space that is not a body and does not stand in a body, they have gone against their own principle. (Minhaj al Sunnah 2/355)

He links this to the view of Plato, who claimed that universal forms exist outside the mind. To say that space is an existing substance that is not perceived by any of the senses is to fall into a kind of Platonic idealism.

Ibn Taymiyyah answers that what people think of as matter without any forms, or empty space that exists by itself, or universal forms outside the mind, are all conceptual things that the mind strips from real particulars, then mistakenly thinks that they exist outside as independent things. (Sharh al Asfahaniyyah 511)

In his view, according to Ahl al Sunnah wal Jamaah, nothing exists outside the mind except what can be perceived in some way. Something that cannot be sensed at all has no external existence. The so called non existent place and abstract space are only conceptual estimations. (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 2/288; Sharh al Asfahaniyyah 511)

Inside and outside the universe and the first rational principles

A central part of Ibn Taymiyyah’s view is that we cannot understand any real existing thing that is neither inside the universe nor outside it. This would be to remove both sides of a necessary pair, like saying something is neither moving nor still, or neither eternal nor originated. The mind must accept that every real being is either separate from the universe or joined to it. (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 5/177 to 178)

Some people try to escape this by saying that the basic principles of reason may hold inside the universe but not outside it. Ibn Taymiyyah replies that if this were accepted, every proof would collapse and complete doubt would follow. The same necessary rules that the mind knows in this universe apply everywhere. There is no acceptable proof for someone who denies these first principles. (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 5/177 to 178)

So when we affirm that Allah exists outside the mind, as all Muslims do, the mind must accept that He is either inside the universe or outside it. Being inside the universe would mean that He is mixed with His creation, which is false. Therefore it follows that He is above and separate from the universe, without anything surrounding Him and without being in need of any created thing. (Dar Ta arud al Aql wal Naql 6/315 to 316)

The wording of “place” and “space” with regard to Allah

Because of these fine points, Ibn Taymiyyah is very careful with the wording that people use about Allah. He says that the statement “Allah has no direction and no space” is not found in his books, and that using such vague wording for negation is an innovation. He prefers to speak with the words of the Book and Sunnah, and with the clear agreement of the salaf. (Majmu al Fatawa 5/264 to 265)

If by saying that Allah has no direction and no space someone means that there is no Lord above the heavens, no God above the Throne, and that there is nothing above the universe except pure non existence, this is false and against the consensus of the Salaf. If he means that Allah is not surrounded by His creation and not inside them, then this meaning is true and he himself affirms it. The problem is in the vague wording. (Majmu al Fatawa 5/264 to 265)

He therefore calls for detail. If someone understands “being in a space” to mean that a being is separate from other things and not mixed with them, and that it does not have to be made of parts or accept division, then saying that Allah is in a space with that meaning would be correct in meaning, but the wording is still an innovation.

This is because this meaning of space is a special technical meaning, not the meaning in Arabic language, and different groups dispute about it. He warns that a Muslim must not use words that carry wrong meanings without clarifying what he intends. (Majmu al Fatawa 17/346 to 347)

He also clarifies that “place” in Arabic can have different usages. Sometimes it is used for something that a being is above and needs, like a person standing on a roof. Sometimes it is used for something a being is above without needing it, like the sky above the air, or angels above the earth and the air.

The sahabah used such words for Allah in poetry while knowing that He is free of need of anything. This shows that being “in a place” does not always mean dependence. (Minhaj al Sunnah 2/356; Al Uluw 84)

Summary of Ibn Taymiyyah’s belief on time (zamaan) and place (makaan)

In summary, Ibn Taymiyyah sees time as a created conceptual measure of motion. Specific times are created with specific motions of created bodies, while the general kind of time as the measure of the general kind of motion has no beginning and no end. Time is abstracted by the mind from the order of events, like numbers are abstracted from counted things.

It does not exist as an independent substance outside the mind, yet its basis in motion and events is real. There were motions and times before the present universe, and there will be motions and times in the hereafter, such as the morning and evening of the people of the Garden and the day of Jumuah when they see their Lord. (Al Jawab al Sahih 6/180; Al Safadiyyah 2/137 and 2/167; Tafsir Ibn Kathir 5/218 to 219; Sahih Muslim 854 and 2834)

He distinguishes between what is created in the minds of creation and what relates to the knowledge and acts of Allah.

He accepts that there is an endless sequence of events, with no first event, and that Allah has always been acting with will, which shows His complete perfection. He warns against careless phrases like “time is not created” without explaining that time is ancient in one respect and originated in another. (Majmu al Fatawa 2/492 to 494; 12/243 to 244)

For place and space, he says that real place belongs to bodies and their bounding surfaces, and every real place is limited. Space, in his technical sense of hayyiz, is the conceptual estimation of place and is a non existent matter outside the mind.

The universe as a whole is in non existent space in the sense that nothing else surrounds it. The mind imagines endless spaces around every body, but these imagined spaces do not exist outside the mind, just as universal forms do not exist outside real particulars. (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 4/239; 5/179 to 180; Majmu al Fatawa 17/344 to 347)

He rejects the claim that space is an independent existing substance and links it to the Platonic view of universals. He holds that everything that exists outside the mind can in some way be perceived. He insists that any real being must either be inside the universe or outside it, and that the first principles of reason apply both inside and outside the universe.

Therefore Allah must be affirmed as existing outside and above the universe, separate from His creation and free of need of it, while we avoid vague and misleading terms and stay close to the wording and meaning of the Book, the Sunnah, and the understanding of the early generations. (Sharh al Asfahaniyyah 511; Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 5/177 to 178; Dar Ta arud al Aql wal Naql 6/315 to 320; Majmu al Fatawa 5/264 to 265)

The theory of Ibn Taymiyyah on space and time

May Allah have mercy on Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, and we ask Allah Most High to gather us with him in the Gardens of everlasting residence, together with the messengers, the prophets, the Companions and the noble scholars. He was an exceptional mind, and after him there has not come anyone from Ahl al Sunnah wal Jamaah whose rank equals his.

He dived deep into the oceans of all the sciences and would take from them what is true. He has great works that contain precious gems of very high worth. It was said that if some verses from the Great Quran were read in a gathering, he would begin to explain them, and the whole sitting would pass, and the whole lesson time would go, while he was still explaining one single verse, and he would do this from his own memory, without preparing. (Al Alam al Aliyyah fi Manaqib Ibn Taymiyyah 20, Umar ibn Ali al Bazzar)

It was also said that he, may Allah have mercy on him, had begun to write a tafsir and if he had completed it, it would have reached fifty volumes. (Al Alam al Aliyyah fi Manaqib Ibn Taymiyyah 2, Umar ibn Ali al Bazzar)

He, may Allah have mercy on him, used to memorise knowledge by heart. Al Bazzar mentions a strange story about this. He said: A trustworthy person reported that one day Ibn Taymiyyah was in a gathering and a hadith scholar was reading to him from some hadith books. The reader was very fast.

The shaykh stopped him regarding the name of a man in the chain of narration of a hadith which the reader had mentioned quickly. The shaykh said that his name was such and such, different from what the reader had read.

They checked the book and found it exactly as the shaykh had said. So look at this quick grasp and this amazing fine alertness. No one can do that except someone whose knowledge is very strong and whose memory is very firm. (Al Alam al Aliyyah fi Manaqib Ibn Taymiyyah 30, Umar ibn Ali al Bazzar)

The writings of Shaykh al Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, were a refuge for anyone who fell into doubt, confusion or sophistry because of the speech of the mutakallimun and the philosophers. Al Bazzar related a story about this. He said:

“More than one of the scholars, virtuous and noble, who went very deep into the sayings of the mutakallimun in order to gain reward and to separate the shell from the core, told me that each one of them remained confused, pulled in different directions by the sayings of the usul scholars and their rational discussions.

No saying from them settled in his heart, and no truth became clear to him from their content. Rather he saw that all of them throw people into confusion and misguidance, and most of them go too far in forcing proofs and reasons. Each one of them was afraid for himself that, because of these sayings, he would fall into doubt and taatil, until Allah blessed him to read the books of this imam, Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah, Shaykh al Islam, and what he brought in them of texts and rational proofs in a clear order.

As soon as he looked at them and understood them, he saw that they agreed with sound reason and correct understanding. He learned them until the darkness that had covered him from the sayings of the mutakallimun was removed, and what he had feared of falling into doubt was lifted from him, and he reached what he was seeking.” (Al Alam al Aliyyah fi Manaqib Ibn Taymiyyah 32, Umar ibn Ali al Bazzar)

Shaykh al Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, paid special attention to the foundations of the religion, in a very strong way, and he wrote many books in this field. He did that to defend the creed of Ahl al Sunnah wal Jamaah.

Al Bazzar asked Shaykh al Islam to write one fiqh book which would be a main reference in giving fatwa. Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, then explained to him the secret behind his strong focus on writing in usul al din and al aqidah. Al Bazzar said:

“He, may Allah be pleased with him, wrote a lot in usul, even more than in other sciences. So I asked him about the reason for that and requested from him that he write a clear book in fiqh which would gather his chosen rulings and his preferred views, so that it could be a main reference in ifta. He said to me, with this meaning: ‘The branches of the religion are easy.

Any Muslim who follows one of the recognised imams in them, it is allowed for him to act on his saying, as long as he is not certain that it is wrong.

As for the foundations, then I have seen the people of bidah, misguidance and desires, such as the mutafalsifah, the batiniyyah, the mulhidah, the ones who say with wahdat al wujud, the dahriyyah, the qadariyyah, the nusayriyyah, the jahmiyyah, the hululiyyah, the muatilah, the mujassimah, the mushabbihah, the rawandiyyah, the kullabiyyah, the salimiyyah and others from the people of bidah, pulling the people in these issues with the ropes of misguidance.

It became clear to me that many of them only wanted to destroy the noble Sharia of Muhammad, which is clear, high and above every religion. Most of them have made the people fall into doubt regarding the foundations of their religion.

For that reason, it is rare that I hear about or see anyone who turns away from the Book and Sunnah and turns towards their sayings, except that he falls into zandaqah or into not being sure about his religion and his creed.

When I saw the situation like that, it became clear to me that it is obligatory on everyone who is able to push away their doubts and falsehoods, and to cut off their proofs and misguidance, to give his full effort to uncover their lowly things and to show the false nature of their arguments, as a defence of the religion of al hanifiyyah and the sound clear sunnah.’” (Al Alam al Aliyyah fi Manaqib Ibn Taymiyyah 32–33, Umar ibn Ali al Bazzar)

May Allah have mercy on this imam, about whom it was said that his self almost never became full from knowledge. He was never satisfied from reading. He never became bored of studying. He never became tired of research. It was said that it was rare for him to enter a field of knowledge through one of its doors except that many more doors were opened for him from that single door, and he would discover points that even the masters of that science had not noticed, and all of that was supported by the Book and Sunnah. (Al Alam al Aliyyah fi Manaqib Ibn Taymiyyah 33–34, Umar ibn Ali al Bazzar, and al Uqud al Durriyyah fi Dhikr Baad Manaqib Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah 10)

It was also said about him, may Allah have mercy on him, that he was never asked about any field of knowledge except that the listener thought that he knew nothing except that field, because of how deep his knowledge was of the details and fine points of that science. Al Allamah Kamal al Din Ibn al Zamlakani said:

“When he was asked about a field of knowledge, anyone who saw him or heard him would think that he knew nothing except that field, and would judge that no one knew that science like him. The fuqaha from all different madhahib, when they sat with him, would gain in their own madhhab from him knowledge they had never known before that. It is not known that he debated anyone and then became unable to answer him.

He never spoke in any science, whether from the sciences of the Sharia or from other sciences, except that he surpassed the people of that science and those ascribed to it. His hand was very strong in good writing, clear expression, good arrangement, clear division and clarification.” (Al Alam al Aliyyah fi Manaqib Ibn Taymiyyah 33–34, Umar ibn Ali al Bazzar, and al Uqud al Durriyyah 10)

Shaykh al Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, was an imam in spreading knowledge at all times, even during hardship and prison. It was said about him:

“When he entered the prison, he found the prisoners busy with different kinds of games which they used to distract themselves from their situation, such as chess, dice and the like, and they used to waste the prayers.

The shaykh strongly condemned this, and ordered them to stick to the prayer, to turn to Allah with righteous deeds, with tasbih, seeking forgiveness and supplication. He taught them from the Sunnah what they needed, and he encouraged them to do good actions and pushed them to that, until the prison, because of the knowledge and religion being studied in it, became better than many zawiyahs, ribats, khanqahs and madrasahs. Many of the prisoners, when they were released, chose to stay with him. The number of people visiting him became so many that the prison became full of them.” (Al Uqud al Durriyyah, together with Al Alam al Aliyyah fi Manaqib Ibn Taymiyyah 331)

The books of Shaykh al Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, have no equal in the full history of Islam. He combined in them between the revealed sciences and the rational sciences, and between strong holding to the Book and Sunnah and wide knowledge of philosophy, logic and reason. I claim that his works built a complete conceptual structure which gathered together the basic foundations of the creed of Ahl al Sunnah wal Jamaah, and he reached the end of the rational research that defends the foundations of the beliefs of the true religion.

For that reason, the philosophical system that Ibn Taymiyyah laid out has no equal in the history of Islam, even though many of those foundations were not unique to him. Some noble imams before him had already spoken about some of them. But it is not known that any imam from the imams of Ahl al Sunnah wrote on all the creedal and philosophical issues and built a full system in the way that Shaykh al Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, did. (Al Uqud al Durriyyah, together with Al Alam al Aliyyah fi Manaqib Ibn Taymiyyah 13 and 33)

As for time according to Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, it exists inside the mind, not outside it. This does not cancel the fact that time is created, but the genus of time is without beginning, and time for him is the measure of motion. A specific time is the measure of a specific motion. He made this clear in Al Jawab al Sahih, where he said:

“And time is the measure of motion. If Allah created the heavens and earth and what is between them in six days, as the messengers have told, then those days in which Allah created the heavens and the earth are not the measure of the motion of the sun, which is one of the things He created in those days.

Allah the Exalted has told that His Throne was on the water before He created the heavens and the earth, and He told that He created the heavens from smoke, which is the vapour of water. So if before these familiar movements there were other movements of other bodies, not the bodies we see, this does not go against what sound reason shows.” (Al Jawab al Sahih li man Baddala Din al Masih 6/180)

His saying: “time is the measure of motion” means that time is the abstraction of motion. Time is its measure. A measure is an abstraction. It has no existence outside the mind.

His saying: “If Allah created the heavens and earth and what is between them in six days, as the messengers have told, then those days in which Allah created the heavens and the earth are not the measure of the motion of the sun, which is one of the things He created in those days” means that the statement of Allah, the Exalted, that He created the heavens and earth in six days is not difficult to understand at all. These days are not like our days, because our days are measured by the motion of the sun.

Here he measured the earthly day by the motion of the sun. At first glance, this may not seem precise to some readers, because the earthly day is the time of the earth rotating fully around its own axis. Even so, it can be said that the earthly day is one part out of three hundred and sixty five parts of the time of the earth going once around the sun.

It can also be said that the earthly day is the presence of the rays of the sun and their disappearance once in succession on a spot of the earth. In this way, it is correct to measure the day by the motion of the sun, so there is no problem in his words, may Allah have mercy on him.

He, may Allah have mercy on him, then made it clear that saying that the six days in which Allah the Exalted created the universe are themselves these earthly days contains confusion. The earthly days are measured by the earth itself or by the sun, as the shaykh measured them.

The sun is created within those six days. So it is not correct to say that the six days were according to the measure of what was created inside them.

Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, agreed with Aristotle in two matters. The first was that time is the measure of motion. The second was that the genus of motion cannot begin after pure non existence. He said in his explanation of the hadith of the descent:

“Aristotle and his followers say that it is impossible for the genus of motion to occur after it did not exist. For, as is known by clear reason, if a self was not doing anything, then after that it did something, there must be the occurrence of an event. If the self was in one state and did not do anything, then in that same state it would also not do anything now. So if it is now doing something, that requires that it always does so.

They say: before and after both depend on time. Whoever says that time came to exist must also, without knowing it, say that it is eternal. They say that time is the measure of motion, so if time is eternal, then motion is eternal, and if motion is eternal, then the moving body is eternal. That leads to the existence of an eternal body. They then make this eternal body the sphere. But they have no proof for that, as has been explained in another place.” (Sharh Hadith al Nuzul 174, Ibn Taymiyyah)

His saying: “Aristotle and his followers say that it is impossible for the genus of motion to occur after it did not exist. For, as is known by clear reason, if a self was not doing anything, then after that it did something, there must be the occurrence of an event. If the self was in one state and did not do anything, then in that same state it would also not do anything now.

So if it is now doing something, that requires that it always does so” means that Aristotle and his followers said that the genus of motion cannot appear after pure non existence. Motion, according to them, requires the continual presence of motion, and stillness requires continual stillness. If the self was not acting, then now it would not be acting. If it is now acting, this requires that it has always been acting.

On that basis, if we say that time is the measure of motion, and then we prove that motion now implies that motion has always been, we say that the genus of time has no beginning. For that reason, we also say there is an endless sequence of events and that there are events which have no first and no last.

His saying: “They say that time is the measure of motion, so if time is eternal, then motion is eternal, and if motion is eternal, then the moving body is eternal.

That leads to the existence of an eternal body” means that Aristotle and his followers say that time is the measure of motion. If motion is eternal because, in their view, the genus of motion cannot begin, then the eternity of the genus of motion means the eternity of the moving body, and this means the eternity of the genus of time, which is the measure of that eternal motion. Aristotle and his followers then made this eternal moving body the sphere. This is known about Aristotle, as he believed that the spheres are eternal. This is clearly false to sound reason.

Of course, Ibn Sina followed Aristotle in this matter of the nature of time. Time for Aristotle is the measure of motion, and it is the same for Ibn Sina. He said in Al Najat:

“So this measure is not the measure of a fixed state. It is the measure of a changing state, which is motion. For this reason, time cannot be imagined without motion. Whenever motion is not sensed, time is not sensed.” (Al Najat fi al Hikmah al Mantiqiyyah wa al Tabiiyyah wa al Ilahiyyah 155, Ibn Sina)

Yaqub ibn Ishaq al Kindi also followed Aristotle in this. He, like Aristotle, linked time to motion and both of them to the body. Time is the time of the body, meaning the length of its existence, because time has no independent existence. Motion is the motion of the body and has no independent existence. If there is motion, there is time. If there is no motion, there is no time. (Rasaail al Kindi al Falsafiyyah 1/72)

Shaykh al Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, affirmed that the genus of time is the measure of the genus of motion, and that specific time is the measure of specific motion. Here he made a clear difference between genus and individual in time. He said in Sharh Hadith al Nuzul:

“If it is said that time is the measure of motion, then the genus of time is the measure of the genus of motion. It is not required that this be the measure of the motion of the sun or the sphere.” (Sharh Hadith al Nuzul 177, Ibn Taymiyyah)

He then said:

“The people of the religions agree that Allah created the heavens and the earth in six days, and that He created them from a substance that existed before these heavens and this earth. That is the smoke which is the vapour, as Allah said:

ثم استوى إلى السماء وهي دخان فقال لها وللأرض ائتيا طوعا أو كرها قالتا أتينا طائعين

‘Then He rose to the heaven when it was smoke and said to it and to the earth: Come willingly or unwillingly.

They said: We come willingly.’ (Fussilat 11) This smoke is the vapour of the water which was then present, as the reports from the Companions and the Tabiin indicate, and as the People of the Book say. This has all been mentioned in another place. Those days were not the measure of the motion of this sun and this sphere, for these things were created in those days. Rather those days were measured by another motion.

Likewise, when Allah tears these heavens apart, raises the Hour and admits the people of the Garden into the Garden, Allah said: ولهم رزقهم فيها بكرة وعشيا

‘They will have their provision in it morning and evening.’ (Maryam 62).

Reports have come from the Prophet ﷺ that Allah, blessed and exalted, will show Himself to His believing servants on the day of Jumuah, and that the highest of them in rank will see Allah every day twice. In the Garden there is no sun and no moon, and there is no motion of a sphere there. Rather the time there is measured by other motions, as has come in the reports that they will know this by lights which appear from the direction of the Throne.” (Sharh Hadith al Nuzul 177–178, Ibn Taymiyyah)

His saying: “Those days were not the measure of the motion of this sun and this sphere, for these things were created in those days. Rather those days were measured by another motion” is a firm confirmation of the earlier point, that the days of creation were measured by another motion that we do not know. They were not measured by the motion of the spheres inside this universe, such as the sun or the earth and others.

His saying: “Reports have come from the Prophet ﷺ that Allah, blessed and exalted, will show Himself to His believing servants on the day of Jumuah, and that the highest of them in rank will see Allah every day twice. In the Garden there is no sun and no moon, and there is no motion of a sphere there.

Rather the time there is measured by other motions, as has come in the reports that they will know this by lights which appear from the direction of the Throne” means that it is proven by sound texts that there is time in the hereafter. It is known that the Garden is outside this universe that we know. The time in the Garden is the measure of other motions.

The textual proofs for the existence of time in the Garden are many and clear. Among them is what Shaykh al Islam used here as proof from Surah Maryam, where our Lord, the Exalted, said: ولهم رزقهم فيها بكرة وعشيا

“They will have their provision in it morning and evening.” (Maryam 62)

Ibn Kathir, may Allah have mercy on him, and others from the mufassirun mentioned that time exists in the Garden but without night and day. He said in explanation of this verse:

His saying: ولهم رزقهم فيها بكرة وعشيا

‘They will have their provision in it morning and evening’ means in a time like the time of the mornings and the time of the evenings. It does not mean that there is night and day there.

They have times that follow one another, and they will know that times have passed by lights and radiance.” He then mentioned the words of Imam Ahmad who said: “Abd al Razzaq told us, from Maamar, from Hammam, from Abu Hurayrah, that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: ‘The first group who enter the Garden will have faces like the full moon.

They will not spit, blow their nose or pass filth. Their vessels and combs will be of gold and silver. Their incense burners will be of aluwah wood and their sweat will be like musk. Each of them will have two wives. The marrow of the bone of her shin will be seen through the flesh because of beauty. There will be no differences between them and no hatred. Their hearts will be like the heart of a single man. They will glorify Allah morning and evening.’” (Sahih Muslim 2834)

He then mentioned the words of Imam Ahmad: “Yaqub told us, from his father, from Ibn Ishaq, from al Harith ibn Fudayl al Ansari, from Mahmood ibn Labid al Ansari, from Ibn Abbas who said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: ‘The martyrs are on a river called Barq at the gate of the Garden, in a green tent. Their provision is brought out to them from the Garden morning and evening.’” (Musnad Ahmad, and it was graded sound by al Albani in Sahih al Mawarid 1334)

Al Dahhak said from Ibn Abbas: “His saying: ولهم رزقهم فيها بكرة وعشيا ‘They will have their provision in it morning and evening’ means in measures like the measures of night and day.”

Ibn Jarir said: “Ali ibn Sahm told us, al Walid ibn Muslim told us. I asked Zuhayr ibn Muhammad about the saying of Allah: ولهم رزقهم فيها بكرة وعشيا

‘They will have their provision in it morning and evening.’

He said: ‘There is no night in the Garden. They are always in light.

They have the measures of night and day. They know the measure of the night when curtains are lowered and doors are closed. They know the measure of the day when curtains are raised and doors are opened.’” With this chain al Walid ibn Muslim also reported from Khalid, from al Hasan al Basri, who mentioned the gates of the Garden and said: “They are gates whose inside can be seen from their outside. They speak and are spoken to. It is said to them: Open and close, and they do so.”

Qatadah said about His saying: ولهم رزقهم فيها بكرة وعشيا

“They have two hours, a morning and an evening.

There is no night and no day there. It is all light and radiance.” Mujahid said: “There is no morning and no evening there, but their provision will be brought to them at the times they used to like in the life of this world.”

Al Hasan and Qatadah and others said: “Among the Arabs, the most blessed of them was the one who used to eat in the morning and evening.

The Quran was revealed according to what was in their minds of their understanding of blessing, so Allah said: ولهم رزقهم فيها بكرة وعشيا

‘They will have their provision in it morning and evening.’”

Ibn Mahdi said from Hammad ibn Zayd from Hisham from al Hasan that he said about His saying: ولهم رزقهم فيها بكرة وعشيا

“The morning follows the evening and the evening follows the morning. There is no night there.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir 5/218–219)

Based on this, it is correct to say that the textual proofs for the existence of time in the Garden are firmly established, and that it is the measure of motions other than the motion of the spheres such as the sun and earth which are known in this worldly life.

Many hadiths also prove the existence of time in the Garden. Among them is what is reported in Sahih Ibn Hibban that Saeed ibn al Musayyib met Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, and said: “I ask Allah to gather me and you in the market of the Garden.” Saeed said: “Is there a market there” Abu Hurayrah said: “Yes.

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ told me that when the people of the Garden enter it, they will settle in it according to their deeds. Permission will be given to them in a time equal to the length of a day of Jumuah from the days of this world. They will visit their Lord, the Exalted. His Throne will be visible for them and He will appear to them in one of the gardens of the Garden.

Platforms of light, platforms of pearl, platforms of ruby, platforms of emerald, platforms of gold and platforms of silver will be placed for them. The lowest of them, and there is no one low among them, will sit on cushions of musk and camphor. They will not think that those sitting on platforms have any better seating than them.” Then he completed the hadith. (Sahih Ibn Hibban 7438)

The words of the Prophet ﷺ in this hadith: “Permission will be given to them in a time equal to the length of a day of Jumuah from the days of this world” are clear proof. The Messenger ﷺ established two matters in this hadith. First, that there are days and time in the Garden. Second, that the days and time in the Garden are not like the days and time in this life.

By this, it is correct for us to say that the genus of time is the measure of the genus of motion. A specific time is the measure of a specific motion, such as the motion of the earth in this life, and other motions outside this universe, and other motions in the Garden and so on.

The noble hadiths that affirm the existence of days outside this universe are well known. Among them, for example, is what is in Sahih Muslim, that the Messenger ﷺ said: “The best day on which the sun rises is Friday. On it Adam was created. On it he was admitted into the Garden. On it he was taken out of it. The Hour will not be established except on a Friday.” (Sahih Muslim 854)

Shaykh al Islam confirmed this meaning many times in his books. He said in Al Safadiyyah while answering al Razi and al Armawi:

“If Allah created the heavens and the earth in six days, then this sun and moon and this night and day are created and came into being after not existing.

After the Day of Resurrection, when the heavens are split, the sun is folded up, the moon is eclipsed and the stars are scattered, there will be other motions and they will have another time. In the Garden there is the day of Jumuah which is the day of increase. So there are days known by other things which Allah has made in the Garden. They are not the sun and moon.” (Al Safadiyyah 2/137, Ibn Taymiyyah)

After a few pages in Al Safadiyyah, in his reply to al Razi and al Armawi, Shaykh al Islam showed the mistake in the saying of Aristotle that the spheres are eternal because the genus of time is eternal. He said that the most his proof shows is the eternity of the genus of time, not the eternity of the spheres. He said:

“The first one known among the peripatetic philosophers to say that the spheres are eternal was Aristotle. His proofs for that are very weak. They do not prove what he wants. His proof actually leads to the eternity of time as the measure of motion, and so to the eternity of the genus of motion, and he then thought that the genus of time is the measure of the motion of the sphere. This is a great mistake.

If it is said that time is the measure of motion, then the genus of time is the measure of the genus of motion, not of a particular motion. Specific time is the measure of a specific motion. For that reason, the genus of time continues according to the Muslims after the Day of Resurrection, after the splitting of the heavens and the folding of the sun.

#The people of the Garden have times which are the measures of motions there other than the motion of the sphere, and they have in the hereafter the day of increase, the day of Jumuah. The Garden has no sun and no cold, but there are lights and other motions.” (Al Safadiyyah 2/167, Ibn Taymiyyah)

His saying: “The first one known among the peripatetic philosophers to say that the spheres are eternal was Aristotle” means by the peripatetics Aristotle and his followers, because the peripatetic school is the name given to them.

Teaching in that school used to take place while walking. Other names for that school appeared after Aristotle, such as Eudorus of Rhodes in the fourth century before Isa, Andronicus of Rhodes in the first century before Isa, who published the writings of Aristotle and cared for them, and Alexander of Aphrodisias at the end of the second century after Isa. (Al Mawsooah al Falsafiyyah 478–479 and Evans J Peripatetics in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy Oxford University Press 2005)

Shaykh al Islam said that the first one from that school to say that the spheres are eternal was Aristotle, and he refuted him. He reached the conclusion that the proof of Aristotle does not in fact prove what he wanted. He then explained where Aristotle mixed things up.

His saying: “His proofs for that are very weak. They do not prove what he wants. His proof actually leads to the eternity of time as the measure of motion, and so to the eternity of the genus of motion, and he then thought that the genus of time is the measure of the motion of the sphere.

This is a great mistake” means that Aristotle’s proof that the spheres are eternal is invalid. Aristotle established that time is the measure of motion and that motion is eternal, so he thought that the eternity of the genus of motion leads to the eternity of time and then to the eternity of the moving body.

But this does not mean the eternity of the spheres themselves. Aristotle restricted time to the motion of the spheres, so he made the eternity of the genus of time depend on the eternity of the spheres and their motions. This is a serious mistake. He confused the genus of time with a specific time. Eternity belongs to the genus of time, not to a specific time.

This confusion reminds us of what happened with the Asharis, who accused Ahl al Sunnah of saying that this universe is eternal, because they thought that the eternity of a genus means the eternity of one individual of that genus, and this is what happened to their first teacher Aristotle. He thought that the eternity of the genus of time requires the eternity of a specific time.

Perhaps this proof of Aristotle goes back to his view of the unmoved mover. For Aristotle, Allah does not move, similar to the Asharis. There is therefore no time for Him. The universe is then paired with this unmoved mover. For that reason the universe is eternal for him and for those who followed him.

Shaykh al Islam then went into detail and said: “If the genus of time is the measure of motion, then it is the measure of the genus of motion, not of a specific motion. Specific time is the measure of a specific motion. For this reason, the genus of time continues according to the Muslims after the end of this life.”

He confirmed this in other places. He said that affirming the eternity of the genus of motion and the genus of time does not require affirming the eternity of any specific created thing at all. He said in Sharh al Asfahaniyyah:

“Everything they use as a proof for the continual acting of the doer and for what follows from that, such as the continual motion, or the continual measure of motion, which they call time, or the continual genus of duration, or the continual genus of matter, does not prove the eternity of any specific part of the universe at all.” (Sharh al Asfahaniyyah 330)

He then clearly stated that time can be expressed as the ordering of events. In this way, it does not exist outside the mind. He said in Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah:

“Sometimes by time they intend only the measuring of events, as when it is said: This is before this by so much, and this is after this by so much. The meaning of this is the measuring of what lies between events by other events. This measuring is like the numbering of things. With numbers we make clear which of two numbered things is more, which is less and which is equal.

Even so, numbers, with respect to the numbered things, are not an existent thing outside the mind, a substance standing by itself or an accident present in them. Rather, they are a way of separating and distinguishing between some of them and others. The numbered things are in their own selves separate and distinct by their own selves and the attributes in them. Their separation and distinction do not depend on anything outside them.” (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah fi Taasis Bidaihim al Kalamiyyah 2/287)

He then said that people confusing what exists in the mind with what exists outside the mind is a root cause for mistakes in understanding time and space. He said:

“Just as some people become confused about the conceptual universal forms and think that they exist in the outside world, until they imagine that they themselves, in that very form, exist outside, so too knowledge of realities and their numbers and their times and their places is all very close in this matter. There is no doubt that the realities exist in themselves and are distinct from each other in themselves, by the attributes that stand with them and what follows from that, such as their place, time and number. These things are not separate substances or accidents apart from those realities.” (Bayan Talbis al Jahmiyyah 2/288)

In his Fatawa he confirmed that the fact that time does not exist outside the mind does not mean that it is not created, and that its genus is eternal. He said:

“Allah, the Exalted, told us in more than one place that He created time. He said:

وجعل الظلمات والنور

‘He made the darknesses and the light.’ (Al Anam 1)

He said: وهو الذي خلق الليل والنهار والشمس والقمر كل في فلك يسبحون

‘He is the One who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon. Each one is floating in an orbit.’ (Al Anbiya 33)

He said: وهو الذي جعل الليل والنهار خلفة لمن أراد أن يذكر أو أراد شكورا

‘He is the One who made the night and the day as succession for whoever wants to remember or wants to be thankful.’ (Al Furqan 62)

He said: إن في خلق السماوات والأرض واختلاف الليل والنهار لآيات لأولي الألباب

‘In the creation of the heavens and the earth and in the alternation of the night and the day there are signs for people of understanding.’ (Aal Imran 190)

and other texts which show that He is the Creator of time. No sensible person imagines that Allah is time. Time is the measure of motion, and motion and its measure are from the category of accidents and attributes which stand in other things, such as motion, stillness, blackness and whiteness.” (Majmu al Fatawa 2/492)

He then said in another place that the day of Jumuah in the Garden will be known by a light from under the Throne. He said:

“In the hereafter there is the day of Jumuah, the day of increase. The Garden has no sun or moon. The times will be known by other lights. It was reported that they appear from under the Throne. The time there is the measure of the motion by which those lights appear.” (Majmu al Fatawa 2/494)

If someone objects to the eternity of the genus of time and says: This would mean that the genus of time exists along with Allah, or that it requires the existence of events with no first, we reply: the first claim is false and the second is true. The eternity of the genus of time does not mean that it exists along with Allah in a real independent way. The intention is the eternity of the genus, not the eternity of any specific time.

We do not say that a specific time is eternal. We say that the genus of time is without beginning, just as we do not say that this universe is eternal.

Rather we say that it is possible that the genus of created universes is without beginning, so that this universe was preceded by non existence and then created, but before it Allah created another universe and then removed it, and so on. The genus and type exists only as a concept. It does not exist outside the mind. It therefore does not accompany Allah, the Exalted.

As for the existence of events with no first, this is what Ahl al Sunnah establish. There is no event except that before it there was another event. Allah, the Exalted, has never been not acting. He has never at any time been idle. Rather He has always been acting, from eternity, and this is from the completeness of His creating and His perfection, exalted is He. He described Himself as: فعال لما يريد “He does whatever He wills.” (Hud 107)

If it is said: The existence of time before this universe would require the presence of a moving body existing with Allah from eternity, so that time can be known by it, we reply: That is not so. Allah, the Exalted, Himself has motion in the way He wills and when He wills. Time is the measure of motion, or it is the ordering of events and motions. It is the conceptual measure of the motion of Allah, the Exalted.

It is the measuring of one act of Allah that follows a previous act. This measure depends on the existence of a mind. There is no problem here.

According to Ahl al Sunnah wal Jamaah, in opposition to the mutakallimun and philosophers, Allah, the Exalted, has action with will from eternity, in whatever way He wills.

The meaning of motion here is not necessarily moving from one place to another, but the transition of the doer from not acting to acting.

We can sum up the theory of Ibn Taymiyyah on time as follows. Time is a concept. It does not exist outside the mind. It is created inside the mind as the measure of motion, and it is created outside the mind from one angle, because the motions of created bodies are created, except for the acts of Allah, the Exalted.

Specific time is the measure of a specific motion. The genus of time is the genus of the measures of motions. The genus of time is without beginning and without end. Time does not exist by itself, separate from motion and bodies.

Here we have to make two notes, because they can cause confusion in the mind of a student of knowledge.

They relate to time being created and its genus being without beginning at the same time, and to the link between this and time being known in the minds of created beings and being known to Allah, the Exalted. Some students of knowledge made mistakes and used words that show that time is not created at all. This is not precise. For this reason we must pay attention to the following points.

First. A specific time that is measured by the motion of a created body is a created time in the minds of created beings. It is not created in the knowledge of Allah exalted is He. This is because the renewal of His knowledge exalted is He is from His acts, and the acts of the Lord are not created. Every created thing is originated, but not every originated thing is created, because the individual acts of Allah exalted is He are originated and are not created.

Second. The genus of time, whether its individual instances are measured by the motion of a created body or by the motion of Allah exalted is He, is created in the minds of created beings and is not created in the knowledge of Allah exalted is He.

So saying in an unrestricted way that time or its genus is not created is not precise in reality. I dislike this statement being used in front of the general people. Rather, detail is necessary. Time is ancient in one respect and originated in another respect. It is created in one respect and not created in another respect. All of this goes back to the fact that it is a concept and considered, and that it does not exist outside the mind by itself.

This is a very important point in this topic. This is a place where confusion is frequent, even among students of knowledge from Ahl al Sunnah who know many fine points of this topic. I saw one of them in a discussion say that the genus of time is ancient, so it is not created. This absolute statement is wrong based on what we have explained.

This is like the one who says that the first rational principles are not created. This is also an incorrect absolute statement and needs detail just as we explained.

So saying in an unrestricted way that time or its genus is not created is not precise in reality. I dislike this statement being used in front of the general people. Rather, detail is necessary. Time is ancient in one respect and originated in another respect. It is created in one respect and not created in another respect.

All of this goes back to the fact that it is conceptual and considered, and that it does not exist outside the mind by itself. This is a very important point in this topic. This is a place where confusion is frequent, even among students of knowledge from Ahl al Sunnah who know many fine points of this topic. I saw one of them in a discussion say that the genus of time is ancient, so it is not created.

This absolute statement is wrong based on what we have explained. This is like the one who says that the first rational principles are not created. This is also an incorrect absolute statement and needs detail just as we explained.

His words, “The well known and familiar place is the well known entities and what belongs to them. Whether it is said that place is the very bodies upon which or in which the thing is, or it is said that the place is the inner surface of the containing body that is touching the outer surface of the contained body,” mean that the word “place” is well known with the intention of affirming something that exists.

This thing is either the bodies themselves, such as the body of the earth, the body of the moon and so on, or what is meant by it is a containing body that contains another body inside it, such as a shirt that contains a human being. For these created existing places, the mind then estimates for them spaces that contain them.

His words, “but with” and “He estimates that even if these places did not exist,” mean that the well known meaning of the word “space” is the estimation of place in the mind. The mind estimates spaces that contain the real places that exist. This estimation does not exist outside the mind.

His words, “or it is non existent and does not exist outside the mind, as the majority say,” mean that the majority agree that space is a non existent matter like dahr (time in the sense of absolute duration), so neither of them exists outside the mind. Rather, the mind estimates them.

This follows the principle that we set out at the beginning of the chapter, which is that existing things outside must be perceived by one of the senses, either outward or inward. If they are not perceived, then they are non existent outside and they only exist in the mind, like time and space.

He affirms in more than one place that space is the estimation of place and that it is not something that exists but is a measured non existence. He said, “Space is the estimation of place and is not an existing matter.” (Bayaan Talbis al Jahmiyyah fi Tasis Bidaihim al Kalamiyyah 4/239)

As for direction, which is one of the necessary consequences of space, it is only a direction when there is one who turns in that direction, or one who turns and one who is turned to. It is also a relative matter that the mind estimates.

He said, “As for direction, it is not a direction unless there is turning, so it needs turning in order to be a direction. The one who turns does not need any specific direction at all.” (Bayaan Talbis al Jahmiyyah fi Tasis Bidaihim al Kalamiyyah 4/239)

If created things do not need an existing space or an existing direction or a specific existing place, even though among them there are things that need some type of these in a general way, and what is called a place for them may need them, and what is called a space for them, whether connected or separate, may need them, and direction needs them in the sense that it is a direction, then the claim that things that are in a space need that space while the space is free from any need of them in the case of created things is not absolute.

Rather, using such an absolute statement is a false claim. So how can such a claim be made about the Creator who is free of need of everything other than Him, while everything other than Him is in need of Him?

His words may Allah have mercy on him, “Likewise direction needs them in the sense that it is a direction. The claim that things in a space need the space while the space does not need them in the case of created beings is not absolute.

Rather, using such an absolute statement is a false claim. So how can such a claim be made about the Creator who is free of need of everything other than Him, while everything other than Him is in need of Him,” mean that direction needs the existence of existing things in order to be a direction. It needs a being that turns, or a being that turns and a being to whom one turns, from among existing things, so that it becomes a direction that the mind estimates. If space and direction need the created thing, then how can it be said that the Creator exalted is He is in need of direction.

This belief has a great effect in affirming the attribute of uluw (highness above the creation) and other attributes of Allah exalted is He that are linked to place. At the same time the limited mind estimates alongside Allah spaces that are empty without end.

Shaykh al Islam affirms that these spaces are concepts that have no existence outside, because Allah exalted is He exists by Himself, distinct in His reality, whether anything else exists or not. He said, “This is found in His Names al Kabir (the Most Great) and al Azim (the Tremendous) and al Ali (the Most High) and al Zahir (the Most High and Supreme) and what is like that from the Names of Allah that are related to place.

He exalted is He is in Himself existing by Himself and distinct in His reality. He is in Himself Great and Tremendous, whether anything else exists or not. But the mind estimates alongside Him empty spaces without end. These are conceptual estimations that do not exist outside according to the generality of people of intellect.” (Bayaan Talbis al Jahmiyyah fi Tasis Bidaihim al Kalamiyyah 4/130)

Along with this, Shaykh al Islam stops from using the word “direction” and “being in a space” for Allah, whether in affirmation or denial. He asks in detail about the meaning that the speaker intends, following the rule about vague terms that carry both truth and falsehood.

He said, “As for the one who says that a person is asked to believe that there is no direction for Allah and no space, this wording is not found in my speech, because using this wording for negation is an innovation.

I only say what the Book and the Sunnah brought and what the ummah agreed upon. If by this statement he means that there is no Lord above the heavens and no God above the Throne, and that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was not taken up to his Lord, and that there is nothing above the universe except pure non existence, then this is false and goes against the consensus of the Salaf. If he means by it that Allah is not surrounded by His creations and is not inside existing things, then this is mentioned clearly in my words, for I say this. So what is the benefit in repeating it.” (Majmu al Fatawa 5/264–265)

His meaning is that whoever affirms that space and place are real existing things, and that by this meaning they surround Allah exalted is He, then his statement is false and not accepted. If he means that above the universe there is pure non existence, then this is also false and not accepted.

If what is intended is that Allah exalted is He is separate from His creation, above the universe, and that nothing from His creation surrounds Him, and that He is not inside any existing thing, then this is true and accepted, and this is what our master the Messenger ﷺ brought.

Then he said in more than one place that it is necessary to give detail. If a speaker by “being in a space” means that the Creator exalted is He is distinct from His creation and that He exalted is He is not made up of parts and not composed and does not accept division and separation, then he has reached the correct meaning.

Allah exalted is He is in a space with this meaning. However using this wording is an innovation, because this meaning is a technical meaning and the meaning of “space” in the language is not like this. Also some groups differ about this technical meaning. So it is necessary to keep Allah exalted is He above this wording.

He said, “As for the one who believes that the one in a space is whatever is separate from what is other than it and has moved away from it, and that it is not a condition for this that it is made up of separate parts, and that it does not have to accept division and separation. If he says that the Lord is in a space with this meaning, which is that He is separate from His creations, then he intends a correct meaning.

But using this statement is an innovation and contains confusion. This is because what he intends is not the meaning of ‘being in a space’ in the language. Rather it is a special term that he and his group use.

About this technical meaning there is disagreement among the people of reason. So it carries a false meaning that it is necessary to keep the Lord above. A person is not allowed to use a word that makes others understand a false meaning without making clear what he intends.” (Majmu al Fatawa 17/346–347)

He also quoted in more than one place the disagreement about what is meant by the word “space” and the word “place”. He mentioned that most of the time “place” is used with the meaning of something that exists and “space” is used with the meaning of something that does not exist.

He said, “They mean by ‘space’ sometimes something that exists and sometimes something that is non existent. The same is true with the word ‘place’. But most of the time they mean by ‘space’ something non existent and by ‘place’ something that exists. For this reason they say that the universe is in a space and not in a place.

If this is so, then whoever affirms a being in a non existent space does not affirm that there is any other existing thing besides it, whether that being is necessary or possible. If that is the case, then it is not necessary that there be something that must exist with it, let alone that it needs it.” (Majmu al Fatawa 17/346–347)

His words, “If that is the case, then whoever affirms a being in a non existent space does not affirm that there is any other existing thing besides it,” mean that being in a non existent space does not mean that the thing is in non existence or that the thing is non existent.

Non existence is not a thing at all. Being in a non existent space means that there is no other existing thing besides that being at all. In other words there is a being and no other being at all, not in any existing emptiness, and there is no white nor black, no light nor darkness around it. Nothing at all surrounds it.

Ibn Taymiyyah then mentioned the objection of Fakhr al Din al Razi to this and that al Razi rejected that space is non existent. He said that if it were non existent then no substance could be found in it.

Ibn Taymiyyah replied that what is meant by existing in a non existent space is not what al Razi imagined. It only means that a being exists alone with no other being surrounding it. He explained this just as we mentioned above.

He said, “His words, ‘If space is non existent, then how can the substance exist in what is non existent’ are answered by saying that they did not intend by its being in the non existent that it itself becomes non existent while existing. They only intended that it exists alone with no other being that surrounds it. They did not intend that it be non existent while still existing.” (Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah 2/354)

Here al Razi was putting forward his argument in opposing al Juwaini and al Baqillani who said that space is nothing more than the very body itself. Thus space is a non existent thing and not an existent thing. Ibn Taymiyyah made clear the place where al Razi became confused and showed the mistake in his understanding about non existent space. (Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah 2/350–351)

This conception can be supported by the hadith which is reported from Abu Razin al Uqayli Laqit ibn Amir. He said, “I said, O Messenger of Allah, where was our Lord before He created the heavens and the earth. He said, He was in a cloud with no air above it and no air below it. Then He created the Throne and then rose over it.” The Arabs use the word “air” for empty space and void, so what is meant here is non existence. Allah knows best. (It was graded hasan by al Dhahabi in Al Uluw page 18 and others considered it weak.)

Even if it is difficult for the mind to take in this meaning, this is what is meant by non existent space. This conception is central to understanding the argument of those who affirm the highness and separateness of Allah exalted is He from His creation.

It is a conception that is difficult for the mind to take in, because the mind always imagines endless place with no limit. For every existing thing, the mind imagines places without any end. This does not exist outside the mind in reality.

He then affirms in more than one place that it is impossible for there to be a place without end and for there to be a body without end. This is imagination with no reality. This is in contrast to time. The genus of time is ancient and continues without end according to the Muslims. As for place, it must have a limit. He said, “One of their leading imams once said to me, ‘We are upon the saying of Pharaoh.’ Allah exalted is He is before all times and above all places. But the mind estimates His precedence by duration and estimates His being above by a space just as we have mentioned.

These are two concepts that have no existence outside in the view of most people. There is however a difference between these two kinds which must be affirmed. The duration that is estimated and the time that exists by its nature require one thing after another and its beginning and end do not meet in one time.

For this reason it is possible that it has no end in its existence, like time itself. The people of Paradise and others have no end to their existence.” (Al Uluw by al Dhahabi 18, and others have declared the hadith previously mentioned weak, but the point about time itself is from the words of Ibn Taymiyyah.)

“As for space which is estimated and the place that exists, it is present in one time and is not one thing after another. So it must have a limit and a reality. There cannot be a place without end nor a body without end. For this reason there is a difference between His precedence over what He precedes from His creation and His separateness from what He is separate from among His creation.

In His precedence over what He precedes it is possible to imagine times without end, but in His separateness from what He is separate from among His creation it is not possible to imagine places without end between them.” (Dar Taarud al Aql wal Naql 6/316)

His words, “For this reason there is a difference between His precedence over what He precedes from His creation and His separateness from what He is separate from among His creation. In His precedence over what He precedes it is possible to imagine times without end, but in His separateness from what He is separate from among His creation it is not possible to imagine places without end between them,” mean that time requires one thing after another. There is no beginning for Allah exalted is He.

His existence is eternal without beginning and everlasting without end. The existing place and the space that the mind estimates both exist in one time and do not renew, and they are not one thing after another like time.

For this reason place must have a limit. It is not correct to say that between Allah exalted is He and His creation there are places without end, as we say that His precedence over the universe has no beginning. Every existing place and every estimated space must have a limit because it does not renew like time.

We notice that he may Allah have mercy on him repeatedly affirms the use of the word “place” with the meaning of a real existing thing, and the use of the word “space” with the meaning of something non existent that the mind estimates.

When he says that there is no place without a limit he means that he does not believe in any real place that is eternal without end outside the mind.

He confirms this meaning many times, which is that the mind imagines places with no end for every existing thing, while this has no reality outside the mind.

He said, “It is known that for every existing thing the mind estimates successive times with it. If its existence has no end, even if that succession is not really existing, and likewise for every existing thing the mind estimates alongside it empty spaces that it imagines as places without end. This also has no existence outside. What exists outside is the lasting of the Truth and His remaining.” (Bayaan Talbis al Jahmiyyah fi Tasis Bidaihim al Kalamiyyah 5/179–180)

He then mentioned that what is meant by “space” may be the boundaries of the thing that are connected to it and that gather it. These are its sides and its sides are inside it. So they are not free of need of it. The human being therefore does not need a space outside his own self. He said, “Space as we mentioned may be meant by it the limits of the thing that are connected to it and that gather it.

These are its sides. These are inside it and so are not free of need of it while it needs them. It may be meant by space the thing that is separate from it and that surrounds it, like a sewn garment.

This may be in need of the human, like his garment, and it may be free of need of him while he needs it. The human being does not need any specific space that is outside his own self in any case. The same is true of all existing things.

Their space is either their boundaries that surround them and their ends which are part of them, so these cannot be described as free from them while they need these boundaries, or their space is what surrounds them while separate from them. No part of creation needs any specific space.” (Bayaan Talbis al Jahmiyyah fi Tasis Bidaihim al Kalamiyyah 4/129–130)

He then mentioned in more than one place that whoever says that everything other than Allah is a body or stands in a body then affirms the existence of empty space outside minds falls into contradiction.

He said, “The theologians who say that everything other than Allah is a body or stands in a body sometimes contradict themselves when most of them affirm empty space as an existing matter and say that it has no measure but that we imagine measure in it by estimation. This empty space is the substance that Plato affirmed.” (Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah 2/355)

His meaning may Allah have mercy on him is that whoever says that everything other than Allah is a body or is standing in a body must then not affirm the existence of empty space outside the mind. If he affirms the existence of empty space outside the mind then he has affirmed the existence of something external that is not a body.

This is a clear contradiction. No person of sound reason says that empty space is a body. They affirm the existence of empty space outside the mind in the manner of Plato. Plato says that universals that are not perceived by the senses exist outside the mind. Their affirmation of empty space which is not a body and exists outside the mind is in reality a type of those Platonic forms. It is a contradiction and does not stay in line with the rule that they first used.

Ibn Taymiyyah said about this in Sharh al Asfahaniyyah, “We have spoken at length in refuting these people in more than one place. We clarified that what the followers of Plato claim about affirming matter outside that is empty from all forms and about affirming empty space that exists and is other than bodies and their attributes and about affirming Platonic forms which are universal realities outside the mind that are separate from specific things that exist are all conceptual matters which the mind strips and takes from existing real particular realities then thinks that they are established outside the mind.” (Sharh al Asfahaniyyah page 511)

He also clarified in more than one place that the word “place” can be used about the one who needs it and about the one who does not need it.

He said, “The word ‘place’ may be used for something that a thing is above and needs, like a human being who stands upon a roof. It may be used for something that a thing is above without needing it, like the sky above the air, and like the angels above the earth and the air, and like birds above the earth.” (Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah 2/356)

In this there is a great benefit, because many of the philosophers of kalam set out the idea that if a being is in a place then it must need that place. This is not necessary even in the case of real existing place.

He then proved this by the words of our master Hassan ibn Thabit may Allah be pleased with him when he said

He rose above the Throne our God with high rising
The place of Allah was highest and greatest

This is while our master Hassan and others from the Companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ knew that Allah is free of need of everything other than Him and that everything other than Him from the Throne and other than it are in need of Him.

He is not in need of anything. Even so he affirmed for Him exalted is He a place with this meaning. So there is no necessary link between a being being in a place and its need for that place in this sense.

However when we investigate we find that the one who said this verse was not Hassan ibn Thabit may Allah be pleased with him. It was the Companion al Abbas ibn Mirdas al Sulami. He recited these verses and the Messenger ﷺ heard him and rewarded him and gave him a cloak. (See Al Bidayah wan Nihayah 9/262, and Al Arsh 2/130 by al Dhahabi, and Al Uluw page 84 by al Dhahabi.)

If by place what is meant is what surrounds the thing from all sides, then in that case the place would be an inner surface or it would be a substance that is never perceived.

He said that this meaning is the claim of the philosophers and is a meaning that is not established from any of the Companions or the Tabiin or the imams of the Muslims. He said, “Place may be meant by it what surrounds the thing from all its sides. Either what is meant by ‘place’ is only an inner surface or what is meant by place is a substance that is never perceived at all.

This is the saying of these philosophers. I do not know of anyone from the Companions or the Tabiin or other imams of the Muslims who intends this by the word ‘place’. This meaning that Aristotle intended by the word ‘place’ is a fixed attribute.

This is not what is meant by the word ‘place’ in the speech of the scholars of the Muslims and their general people, nor in the speech of the majority of nations in their scholars and their general people. As for what Plato meant, most people of intellect deny that it exists outside the mind. The detailed discussion of these matters has another place.” (Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah 2/357)

His words, “As for what Plato meant, most people of intellect deny that it exists outside the mind. The detailed discussion of these matters has another place,” mean that affirming place as a substance that is never perceived by any of the senses is in reality affirming the existence of a conceptual meaning outside the mind, which is the Platonic idealism. The majority of reasonable people deny this.

For this reason we mentioned in the first chapter that Ahl al Sunnah wal Jamaah do not affirm any external existence for anything that cannot be perceived at all. Every external existent is capable of being perceived. The non existent place is not capable of being perceived.

If a person says, as al Razi said, that affirming a place for a body means affirming a specific space, because unrestricted space is one type of abstract meaning that does not exist outside the mind, and that if a specific space is affirmed from eternity then it cannot vanish from eternity to eternity, and that this would stop the body from moving from eternity to eternity, then we say to him that space is not an existing matter.

It is the estimation of place. This is the same in the mind. So it is not correct to affirm any specific space outside the mind that stops the body from moving.

This is how Ibn Taymiyyah replied to the objection of al Razi which he had brought against al Armawi. Al Razi said that there is a necessary link between an eternal body and a specific space that would prevent it from moving. (Dar Taarud al Aql wal Naql 5/3)

If it is then said, “Even if space is a non existent matter, this still means that the Creator exalted is He is in need of a non existent matter. It is necessary to keep Allah exalted is He above this,” then we answer that non existence is not a thing at all.

We do not say that the Creator needs it. A being only needs something that exists. Non existence is not a thing that can be needed. Shaykh al Islam mentioned this argument in Dar Taarud.

He said, “His words that the Creator according to the opponent cannot be without being in a space is a vague wording. If he means that according to the opponent He needs an existing space, then the opponent did not say this and we do not know anyone who said it.

If anyone unknown said it, his words are not given any weight. There is no doubt among the Muslims that Allah the Exalted is free of need of everything other than Him. So how can it be said that He needs a non existent space. Non existence is not a thing so that it could be said that the Lord needs it or does not need it.” (Dar Taarud al Aql wal Naql 6/315)

Ibn Taymiyyah then mentioned in more than one place that the universe is in a non existent space with this meaning, and that a group of theologians also say this. He said, “The reply to him is from several angles.

One angle is to say that spaces are non existent matters as is known, for they say that the universe is in a space, and space according to them is non existent. If a person said that space may be something that exists, those who affirm an existing space say, we say that He is above the universe alone just as He was before the creation, and that He is not in any existing space. If you then call what is there ‘space’ you would be calling non existence ‘space’. This is their way of speaking.” (Dar Taarud al Aql wal Naql 6/319–320)

He repeated this in more than one place. He transmitted the statement of a group of theologians that the universe is not surrounded by anything, meaning that it is in non existence. For this reason they distinguish between place and space. Place is an existing matter, while space is a non existent matter, as we explained.

He said, “More general than this is that by ‘existing in a space’ they may mean what is surrounded by a space that exists, so that everything that is surrounded by something else is called ‘in a space’. In this case whatever is between the heaven and the earth is in a space, and whatever is in the universe is in a space, except the surface of the universe which is not surrounded by anything and so is not in a space.

The universe as a whole is also not in a space according to this definition, since there is not another universe that surrounds it. The theologians mean by ‘being in a space’ something more general than this, and ‘space’ according to them is more general than ‘place’. The entire universe is in a space and it is not in a place.

Anything that is pointed at and is distinct, such that some of it is separated from other parts, is said to be in a space according to them.” (Majmu al Fatawa 17/344)

His words, “The entire universe is in a space and it is not in a place,” mean that the universe is not in a place if by place what is meant is a real existing thing. The universe is in non existence.

He then mentioned in more than one place that space is not a thing that is distinct part from part, so that some parts are to the right and others to the left, and that parts of it are above and parts below. It cannot be pointed at, because pointing at pure non existence is impossible. Pointing is only to what exists.

The existing thing lies in non existent space in the sense that nothing other than it exists with it. He said, “This is because space here is not meant as an existing matter as has been made clear. It is the estimation of place. This is what space means in the special term of many theologians.

If this is the case then it is impossible that some of it be distinct from some other part of it before that which is in it exists. This is known by sense and by basic rational necessity. No one says that it may be distinct by pointing, because pointing to non existence is impossible. Pointing is only to what exists. If space is not multiple and not divided before that which is in it exists, then its multiplicity follows from the multiplicity of the things in it.” (Bayaan Talbis al Jahmiyyah fi Tasis Bidaihim al Kalamiyyah 4/219)

Based on this Ibn Taymiyyah may Allah have mercy on him says that it is not rationally possible to imagine any existing thing outside the mind that is neither inside the universe nor outside it. This is an example of lifting both opposites, which is impossible.

A thing is either inside the universe or outside it. It is either moving or still. There is no third state for either of these. Just as something is either eternal or originated, it is either separate from the universe or joined to it. He said may Allah have mercy on him, “He said that we do not understand any existing thing that is free of being eternal or originated.

Likewise we do not understand any existing thing that is not in the universe nor outside the universe and not in any of its six directions. Making the similarity more precise, we say that we do not understand two existing things except that one of them precedes the other or that they exist together.

Likewise we do not understand two existing things except that one is outside the other and separate from it or that they are joined so that one is inside the other. Or we can say that we do not understand any existing thing that is free of being eternal or originated. Likewise we do not understand any existing thing that is free of being separate from the universe or joined to it, and the like.” (Bayaan Talbis al Jahmiyyah fi Tasis Bidaihim al Kalamiyyah 5/177–178)

As we have explained, affirming the existence of a being that is not inside the universe and not outside it cannot be understood outside the mind. If we affirm that Allah exalted is He exists outside the mind, which is what all Muslims affirm, then He must either be outside the universe, separate from it, or inside it, far above that and greatly exalted.

If an objector then says that it is possible for both opposites to be lifted outside the universe, since the first rational principles may not necessarily work outside the universe as they do inside the universe, we answer that this necessarily leads to complete scepticism as we explained in the first chapter.

The reach of the first rational principles and their action inside the universe and outside it is something established that must be accepted.

There are necessary rational proofs for this which none but a pure sceptic denies, as we explained in the detailed discussion. Whoever claims that the first rational principles do not work outside the universe has no consistent proof in any matter. None of his arguments can stand in such a place.

If another objector says that the description of being inside or outside only works if there is space, we answer that space is a non existent matter that does not exist outside the mind. It is something that cannot be perceived by any sense.

For every two existing things outside the mind the notions of inside and outside can be rationally applied to the relation between them based on this.

So we can sum up the view of Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah about space and place in several points which I will list as follows.

First. Space is not the same as place in the common special term. Space is a non existent matter. It is a conceptual estimation of real existing place. Place is either the very bodies themselves or it is the surface that contains bodies.

Second. Direction needs turning. It is a conceptual estimation just like space. It needs a being that turns or a being that turns and a being to whom one turns.

Third: the existence of a mutahayyiz (something that occupies space) in a hayyiz means that it exists in non existence. This does not mean that it has become nothing. Rather it means that there is nothing else at all besides it. It is like there is a body that exists and there is nothing else with it, no darkness and no light and nothing at all.

Fourth: every place must have a limit. There is no place that is without an end, as some people say about time. This is because time exists together with things, thing by thing, while place does not exist in this way.

Fifth: the mind imagines endless places for every existing thing, but this has no real existence outside the mind.

Sixth: affirming the existence of place as a jawhar (substance) that cannot be sensed by any of the senses comes from being influenced by the Platonic forms, which the people of sound reason agree do not exist outside the mind at all.

According to Ahl al Sunna wa al Jamaah (the people of the Sunna and the united group), there is nothing outside the mind except something that can be sensed. The non existent place is not like that.

Seventh: the universe is in a hayyiz in the sense that hayyiz is something non existent. The surface of the universe is seen, while at the same time it is mutahayyiz (occupying space) in this sense.

Eighth: hayyiz is not a thing whose parts are separate from each other, so that some of it could be different from another part. It cannot be given a direction or pointed at, because pointing to pure non existence is impossible. Pointing can only be to something that exists. The existing thing is in the non existent hayyiz in the sense that there is no other existing thing apart from it.

Ninth: the word hayyiz and the word mutahayyiz are not used for Allah سبحانه وتعالى, because they may carry a true meaning and a false meaning.

Hayyiz may be meant as something non existent, and in that sense Allah سبحانه وتعالى is separate from the universe and above it, so with this meaning it is acceptable. But this meaning is not the Arabic linguistic meaning of mutahayyiz. Some groups mean by hayyiz something real and existing.

So to say that Allah سبحانه وتعالى is mutahayyiz in this sense would mean that there is an existing thing that surrounds Him, exalted is He far above that. So this word is not to be used for Him except when there is a need, and only after giving details and asking what meaning is intended. Then the meaning that is true is accepted and the meaning that is false is rejected.

Tenth: it has been said about the Lord عز وجل that He is in a place, in what has been reported from the companion Al Abbas ibn Mirdas al Sulami, when he said in verse:

تعالى علوّا فوق عرش إلهنا
وكان مكان الله أعلى وأعظما

He rose in highness above the Throne of our God
And the place of Allah was higher and greater

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ rewarded him for that poem and gave him a robe.

Eleventh: it is not to be said that affirming hayyiz as something non existent means that Allah سبحانه وتعالى is in need of a non existent hayyiz, because non existence is not a thing at all, so that any existing thing could be in need of it.

Twelfth: it is not reasonable to say that Allah سبحانه وتعالى is not inside the universe and not outside the universe. This belongs to the type of speech where two opposites are both removed. Opposites do not come together and are not both removed. This is a basic first rule of the mind that works by necessity inside the universe and outside it.

On this basis, affirming the non existent hayyiz in the way we have explained here follows our statement that everything outside the mind can be sensed, as we have explained in the first chapter. Whatever cannot be sensed by any of the senses at all is non existent in external reality. Allah knows best.

There are two notes here.

First: what we have explained does not mean that we completely deny real place inside the universe. A human being is found on the surface of the earth, and the earth is a body. All around him on every side is air, and this air is made of bodies that can be sensed, such as particles and atoms and other things. In space outside the earth there is dark matter and other things. (Dark matter, mentioned in the work of Ridpath I, A Dictionary of Astronomy, Oxford University Press, and in the work of Liddle A and Loveday J, The Oxford Companion to Cosmology, Oxford University Press, both found in Oxford Reference and accessed on twenty four October two thousand twenty one.)

Based on all of this, we do not deny real place. But the result of what we are saying is that real place does not go beyond the bodies themselves. Real places need a non existent hayyiz, just like the universe. If the entire universe is made up of real places, that is, bodies that can be sensed, then it is also in a non existent hayyiz. Otherwise there would have to be an endless chain, so that every real place would need another place that surrounds it, and so on without an end.

So when we say: a certain place, we only mean a surface on the body of the earth. If we say: the place of the Throne, it is nothing but the Throne itself. If we say: the place of the Garden, it is nothing but the Garden itself with its bodies. If we say: the place of the universe, what is meant is only the universe itself with its bodies, and all of it exists in non existence as has already been explained.

Second: it is not necessary that a philosopher of kalam proves the attribute of uluw (highness) and istiwa (rising over the Throne) when he affirms that hayyiz is something non existent. Their doubts are not limited to whether hayyiz is real or non existent. Rather they have other doubts besides this.

Nadhariyyat al Zaman wa al Makan inda Ibn Taymiyyah by Ahmad Najjar page 167-205