The Ashʿaris Claim About Allah’s Speech Being “kalam nafsi”

The Ashʿaris affirmed, in general terms, the attribute of speech for Allah. They said, in disagreement with the Muʿtazilah, the Jahmiyyah, and other negators, that this attribute is affirmed, and established with Allah Most High.

However, they explained it as a meaning that exists within Allah’s Essence, inseparable from Him in eternity and forever, and they named this meaning “kalam nafsi”.

They said that this meaning that exists within the Essence does not divide into secrecy and openness, and it is not that part of it is within the Lord and part of it is with the angels. Rather, the hearing of the angels, or anyone else, of His speech is only Allah creating perception for them.

So they restricted speech to what exists within the inner self, and that it is inseparable from the Essence, never separating from it, and that words and letters are not speech. They argued for their claims with several proofs, including:

وَيَقُولُونَ فِي أَنفُسِهِمْ
“And they say within themselves.” (al Mujadalah 8)

وَاذْكُر رَّبَّكَ فِي نَفْسِكَ تَضَرُّعاً
“And remember your Lord within yourself, in humility.” (al Aʿraf 205)

وَأَسِرُّوا قَوْلَكُمْ أَوِ اجْهَرُوا بِهِ إِنَّهُ عَلِيمٌ بِذَاتِ الصُّدُورِ
“And keep your speech secret, or declare it openly, for He knows what is within the chests.” (al Mulk 13) So He named secrecy “speech”.

آيَتُكَ أَلاَّ تُكَلِّمَ النَّاسَ ثَلاَثَةَ أَيَّامٍ إِلاَّ رَمْزًا
“Your sign is that you will not speak to the people for 3 days, except by gesture.” (Al ʿImran 41)

And the saying of ʿUmar رضي الله عنه: “I prepared within myself a statement I wanted to say.”

And the earlier line of al Akhtal: “Indeed, speech is within the heart…”

These are their most important proofs for kalam nafsi. Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah discussed these proofs and made clear that they have no proof in them.

Reply To Their Proof From “They Say Within Themselves”

As for His saying:

وَيَقُولُونَ فِي أَنفُسِهِمْ لَوْلَا يُعَذِّبُنَا اللَّهُ بِمَا نَقُولُ
“And they say within themselves, ‘Why does Allah not punish us for what we say?’” (al Mujadalah 8)

There are two answers.

The first is that the meaning is that they said it with their tongues secretly, and then there is no proof for them in it.

This is what the mufassirun mentioned. They used to say: “Death be upon you.” Then, when they left, they would say “within themselves”, meaning some of them would say to others: “If he were a prophet, we would be punished for what we say to him.”

The second is that He restricted it to the “self”. This is on the meaning that they said it within their hearts. When “speech” is restricted to the “self”, then the meaning of the restricted wording differs from the meaning of the unrestricted wording.

The proof for this is the hadith of the Prophet ﷺ: “Indeed Allah has overlooked for my ummah what their beings speak to themselves, as long as they do not speak or act.” (Reported by al Bukhari, 2528; Muslim, 127.) This refutes them completely, because he said: “as long as they do not speak”, so it shows that kalam nafsi is not the unrestricted meaning of “speech”.

Reply To Their Proof From “Remember Your Lord Within Yourself”

As for His saying:

وَاذْكُر رَّبَّكَ فِي نَفْسِكَ تَضَرُّعاً وَخِيفَةً
“And remember your Lord within yourself, in humility and fear.” (al Aʿraf 205)

The intended meaning is remembrance with the tongue, because He said: “in humility and fear, and below open speech”. From looking at the texts, it becomes clear that the word that is restricted to the “nafs (self)” is the word “speech”, such as in the hadith mentioned earlier: “what their beings speak to themselves”. As for the word “speech”, it is not known that it was intended to mean only what is within the self.

Reply To Their Proof From “Keep Your Speech Secret Or Declare It”

As for His saying:

وَأَسِرُّوا قَوْلَكُمْ أَوِ اجْهَرُوا بِهِ إِنَّهُ عَلِيمٌ بِذَاتِ الصُّدُورِ
“And keep your speech secret, or declare it openly, for He knows what is within the chests.” (al Mulk 13)

They argued that the secret “speech” is in the heart, not on the tongue, because of His saying at the end of the verse: “He knows what is within the chests”.

This is a very weak proof, because His saying: “keep your speech secret, or declare it openly” makes clear that speech is kept secret at times and declared openly at other times.

This is only about speech that is with heard letters. After that, His saying: “He knows what is within the chests” is from the meaning of alerting by what is lower to what is higher. If He knows what is within the chests, then His knowledge of the secret speech and the open speech is more fitting.

Reply To Their Proof From “Except By Gesture”

As for His saying:

آيَتُكَ أَلاَّ تُكَلِّمَ النَّاسَ ثَلاَثَةَ أَيَّامٍ إِلاَّ رَمْزًا
“Your sign is that you will not speak to the people for 3 days, except by gesture.” (Al ʿImran 41)

Then, in Maryam, He mentioned:

ثَلَاثَ لَيَالٍ سَوِيًّا
“For 3 nights, while sound.” (Maryam 10)

And He did not make any exception. The story is one. This shows that the exception is disconnected, meaning: “Your sign is that you will not speak to the people, but you will gesture to them with gestures.”

Reply To Their Proof From The Saying Of ʿUmar

As for the saying of ʿUmar رضي الله عنه in the story of al Saqifah: “I prepared within myself a statement”, it is a proof against them. “Preparing” means correcting speech and making it ready. Its wording shows that he measured within himself what he wanted to say, but he did not say it. So it is known that something is not called “speech” unless it is spoken with the tongue.

Before that, it was not “speech”. Rather, it was something measured within the self, intended to be said, just as a person measures within himself that he will perform Hajj, that he will pray, that he will travel, and so on. So what he intends from speech and action has a mental form measured within the self, but it is not called speech or action unless it exists outwardly.

This is also shown by the earlier hadith: “Indeed Allah has overlooked for my ummah what their beings speak to themselves, as long as they do not speak or act.” (Reported by al Bukhari, 2528; Muslim, 127.) 

The wording here is restricted by the phrase “within myself.”

It is not general, and it is not an unrestricted use of the word “speech” to mean kalam nafsi in an absolute sense.

This is one side.

From another side: there is a clear difference between what passed within himself and actual speech. If someone had said to Umar: “Did you speak?” he would have said: “No.”

Meaning that when he said: “I arranged some words within myself,” if it were said to him: “Did you speak?” and if it were truly speech, he would have said: “Yes, I spoke within myself.”

But it is known that he would say: “I did not speak,” because when speech is used on its own, it cannot mean kalam nafsi.

For this reason, it is established in the hadith that the Prophet ﷺ said: “Allah has pardoned my ummah for what their selves speak within them, so long as they do not speak or act upon it.” This clearly separates between what occurs within the self and actual speech, and it shows that what occurs within the self is not speech.

They also used the statement of al Akhtal: “Speech is in the heart, and the tongue is only made as a guide to what is in the heart.” There is no doubt that this is also false.

Shaykh al Islam rejected the concept of kalam nafsi itself, and said to them: what do you mean by kalam nafsi?

If kalam nafsi (kalam nafsi) is information, then it is the attribute of knowledge.

If it is command, prohibition, or expression, then it is the attribute of will. There is therefore nothing left that can be claimed as a separate attribute called kalam nafsi apart from knowledge and will. This shows that the attribute they ascribed to Allah is not correct, unless they establish it in a valid way from the Sharia.

There is also another work by Shaykh al Islam on the attribute of speech titled “al Masalah al Misriyyah fi al Quran.” It is originally a legal verdict, not an independent treatise.

The book al Sabiniyyah is not the same as al Tisiniyyah.

The Sabiniyyah is a refutation of heretics and philosophers, and it is also known as “Bughyat al Murtad fi al Radd ala Ibn Sabin.”

Ibn Sabin was a well known Sufi who sat in the cave of Hira for a month waiting for revelation, but nothing came to him, because he followed the approach of philosophers who believed that revelation can be acquired.

He also has a work titled “al Kilaniyyah,” which deals with the topic of kalam nafsi.

Reply To Their Proof From The Line Attributed To al Akhtal

As for the line attributed to al Akhtal, it has what it has regarding whether it is truly attributed to him. Even the words of the line were changed to match the aim of those who used it as proof from the philosophers. Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah was amazed at those who argue with this line, which was said by a Christian, and it is not established from him.

He said that if someone argued in an issue with a hadith that al Bukhari and Muslim reported in the two Sahih books from the Prophet ﷺ, they would say: “This is a singular report”, even though it is from what the ulama agreed to accept and receive with acceptance.

Yet this line was not established as transmitted from its speaker with a sound chain, not one chain nor more than one, and the people of the Arabic language did not receive it with acceptance. So how can the least thing of language be established by it, let alone the name of “speech”.

These are the transmitted and linguistic proofs of the Ashʿaris for their claim of kalam nafsi, with the invalidity of their argument, and with showing that these proofs are closer to refuting them than being a proof for them.

The Claim That “kalam nafsi” Makes Speech Return To Knowledge And Will

Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) did not stop at these replies. Rather, he discussed the reality of their belief in kalam nafsi, and that their belief is false. This important discussion came in al Tisʿiniyyah through several ways, and his discussions can be summarised as follows.

He objected to the Ashʿaris claim that “speech” is the meaning that exists within the self. It is said to them: “You said: speech is report, command, and prohibition, and that all of that is a meaning that exists within the self. So it is said to you: if speech, according to you, has no form, then what is the difference between report and knowledge, and between command, prohibition, and will?”

Because a report, without a form and without words, is nothing other than the knowledge that exists within the self. Likewise, command and prohibition, without a form and without the wording of command and prohibition, are nothing other than the will that exists within the self.

If this is correct, then your affirmation of kalam nafsi as report, command, and prohibition returns to the 2 attributes of knowledge and will. The outcome is that your belief leads to denying the attribute of speech, because what you affirmed as kalam nafsi is nothing other than knowledge and will.

The Ashʿaris answered that, as al Razi reports from them, with the following.

Some of them answered that report returns to knowledge, based on the claim that some people said that command and prohibition return to report. If that is so, then why does report not also return to knowledge? Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah weakened this reply, because a person finds within himself a difference between request and report.

Then he answered that al Razi and the Ashʿaris, if they answered the issue of command and prohibition by saying that Allah may command what He does not will, then they are correct regarding the creational will. However, they cannot say that Allah reported what He does not know, or what He knows to be the opposite. Rather, His knowledge is from the necessities of His report. For that reason, Allah reported about His Messenger that when the Qur’an came to him, knowledge came to him, as He said:

فَمَنْ حَآجَّكَ فِيهِ مِن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءكَ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ
“So whoever disputes with you about it after knowledge has come to you…” (Al ʿImran 61)

وَلَئِنِ اتَّبَعْتَ أَهْوَاءهُم بَعْدَ الَّذِي جَاءكَ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ
“And if you follow their desires after what has come to you of knowledge…” (al Baqarah 120)

This is from what the imams used as proof for declaring a disbeliever the one who said the Qur’an is created, because Allah reported that this which came to him is knowledge, and the claim of the Muʿtazilah implies that Allah’s knowledge is created.

As for the claim that a person may judge or report against his knowledge, which is the proof of al Razi (d. 606 AH) mentioned earlier, Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) replied to it in several ways.

First, the Ashʿariyyah themselves admitted its corruption. They use as proof that Allah must be truthful that kalam nafsi cannot contain lying, because knowledge is necessary for Allah and ignorance is impossible. This proof is mentioned by their imams, even al Razi mentioned it, but he said it only proves the truthfulness of kalam nafsi, not the truthfulness of the letters that point to it.

If it were permissible that a living being has an inner judgement that he does not know, does not believe, does not think, rather he knows its opposite, then it would be impossible to say that inner judgement necessarily includes knowledge, or that it cannot oppose knowledge and become lying. This is contradiction in the same matter.

Second, their contradiction also appears in the issue of iman. They say, as al Juwayni (d. 478 AH) says, that the reality of iman is affirmation of Allah Most High, and that affirmation, in reality, is kalam nafsi, and kalam nafsi is only established with knowledge.

Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said that this is a clear admission that affirmation is not with absence of knowledge, and it is not against belief. This contradicts what they used to establish kalam nafsi and claim it differs from knowledge.

Some of the Ashʿaris have another contradiction in iman. Abu Ishaq said that iman is affirmation, and that it does not exist except with knowledge and verbal acknowledgement. Since verbal acknowledgement is only with the tongue, this contradicts their claim that speech is only what exists within the self.

Third, their claim that report differs from knowledge, because a person may report against his knowledge in lying, destroys their argument for proving truthfulness for kalam nafsi that exists within Allah’s Essence.

If that becomes invalid, then affirming a “speech” that can be true or false does not help them. Rather, their method of proving inner report depended on imagining lying report, so they only knew “inner report” in what is lying. If they affirm that for Allah, then it is disbelief and falsehood, against their aim and against the agreement of creation. If they do not affirm it, then they have no path to affirm inner report.

Fourth, Allah Most High said:

فَإِنَّهُمْ لاَ يُكَذِّبُونَكَ وَلَكِنَّ الظَّالِمِينَ بِآيَاتِ اللّهِ يَجْحَدُونَ
“Indeed, they do not deny you, but the wrongdoers reject the signs of Allah.” (al Anʿam 33)

So He negated denial and affirmed rejection. It is known that denial by the tongue was not absent from them. So it is known that He negated denial of the heart. If the denying rejecter, while knowing, had inner report within his heart, then they would be deniers with their hearts.

Since He negated denial of the heart, it is known that rejection, which is a type of lying and denial of the known truth, is not lying within the self and not denial within it. This requires that the one who knows a thing does not lie about it, and does not report within himself against his knowledge. Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned an objection to this and answered it.

And Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah has other discussions and other ways in refutation. Through these ways it becomes clear that what the Ashʿaris claimed, that report differs from knowledge, is not correct regarding Allah. If this is established, then their affirmation of kalam nafsi is nothing other than the attribute of knowledge. So where is the attribute of speech that they claimed, distinct from the attribute of knowledge.

Reply To Their Claim That Command And Prohibition Differ From Will

As for their claim that command and prohibition differ from will because Allah may command what He does not will, Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah replied with several answers, including:

First, they argued using the will connected to what occurs in creation, which is the will that includes every existent and excludes every non existent, which is the creational will. This is not the will that is the meaning of command and prohibition, because the will meant by command and prohibition includes love and approval. The texts came with separating between the 2 wills. The creational is like His saying:

فَمَن يُرِدِ اللّهُ أَن يَهْدِيَهُ يَشْرَحْ صَدْرَهُ لِلإِسْلاَمِ وَمَن يُرِدْ أَن يُضِلَّهُ يَجْعَلْ صَدْرَهُ ضَيِّقًا حَرَجًا كَأَنَّمَا يَصَّعَّدُ فِي السَّمَاء
“So whoever Allah wills to guide, He opens his chest to Islam, and whoever He wills to misguide, He makes his chest tight and constrained as if he were climbing into the sky.” (al Anʿam 125)

And the other is like His saying:

مَا يُرِيدُ اللّهُ لِيَجْعَلَ عَلَيْكُم مِّنْ حَرَجٍ وَلَكِن يُرِيدُ لِيُطَهَّرَكُمْ وَلِيُتِمَّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ
“Allah does not will to place hardship upon you, but He wills to purify you and complete His favour upon you, so that you may be grateful.” (al Ma’idah 6)

Second, their argument by the creational will, and that Allah may command what He does not will, is answered by the fact that prohibition includes disliking the prohibited, just as command includes loving the commanded. What is disliked is not willed, in the religious will.

If the prohibited occurs, then 2 matters exist: it is willed by a creational will, and it is not willed by the religious will, rather it is disliked. So the will negated from the disliked that occurs is not the will required by it. Every prohibited matter, even if willed creationally, is disliked, and dislike is necessary for it. So the answer of al Razi is not sound.

Third, al Razi, when asked for the difference between request and will, mentioned 2 weak points. Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned them and discussed them.

With that, Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) said that their separating between report and knowledge has no sound proof at all, unlike their separating between command and prohibition and will, by the argument that Allah may command what He does not will, though even this has what has been explained.

So, from what has preceded, the proofs of the Ashʿaris for kalam nafsi, and the objection that there is no difference between report and knowledge, nor between command, prohibition, and will, as long as they restricted speech to only what exists within the self, then knowledge and will stand in its place.

Reply To Their Claim That Speech Is Eternal And Allah Does Not Speak By His Will

This is built, as mentioned earlier, on their denial that optional attributes exist with Allah, so they said speech is eternal, and they denied that Allah speaks when He wills, whenever He wills.

The belief of Ahl al Sunnah wa al Jamaʿah is that Allah has never ceased being One who speaks when He wills, and that Allah’s speech to Adam عليه السلام, or to Musa عليه السلام, or to the angels, each occurred at the time of His speaking and calling. Meaning, Allah did not call Musa before creating him and before his coming to the tree, even though the attribute of speech is eternal in its type.

Ahl al Sunnah built their belief on 2 foundations: that optional matters exist with Allah, and that Allah’s speech has no end, as Allah said:

قُل لَّوْ كَانَ الْبَحْرُ مِدَادًا لِّكَلِمَاتِ رَبِّي لَنَفِدَ الْبَحْرُ قَبْلَ أَن تَنفَدَ كَلِمَاتُ رَبِّي وَلَوْ جِئْنَا بِمِثْلِهِ مَدَدًا
“Say: if the sea were ink for the words of my Lord, the sea would run out before the words of my Lord run out, even if We brought the like of it as additional supply.” (al Kahf 109)

وَلَوْ أَنَّمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ مِن شَجَرَةٍ أَقْلَامٌ وَالْبَحْرُ يَمُدُّهُ مِن بَعْدِهِ سَبْعَةُ أَبْحُرٍ مَّا نَفِدَتْ كَلِمَاتُ اللَّهِ
“And if all that is on the earth of trees were pens, and the sea, supplied after it by 7 seas, the words of Allah would not run out.” (Luqman 27)

The Salaf mentioned, to clarify their belief and to distinguish it from the belief of the Kullabiyyah and the Ashʿaris and those who followed them, that Allah is described with silence, and that if He wills He speaks, and if He wills He is silent. From the most well known events in that is the story of Ibn Khuzaymah (d. 311 AH) with the Kullabiyyah.

Abu Ismaʿil al Ansari (d. 481 AH) pointed to this story in Manaqib Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH). From what he said about it: “A group came and said: He does not speak after He has spoken, so His speech would be newly occurring.”

Then he said, after mentioning the stance of Abu Bakr ibn Khuzaymah (d. 311 AH) against them: “So that imam Abu Bakr flew to that trial, and he did not stop calling out against it, and writing in refutation of it like one warning an army, until it was recorded in the registers, and settled in the hearts, and taught in the schools, and carved in the prayer places: ‘Allah is One who speaks. If Allah wills, He speaks, and if He wills, He is silent.’”

Among the clearest statements in opposing the Kullabiyyah and Ashʿaris is the saying of Ibn Khuzaymah (d. 311 AH): “What I say is that the Qur’an is Allah’s speech, His revelation, and His sending down, not created.

Whoever says the Qur’an, or any part of it, or any of His revelation and sending down, is created, or says that Allah does not speak after He used to speak in eternity, then he is, to me, a Jahmi. He is to be asked to repent. If he repents, then fine. If not, I would strike his neck.”

It is also reported from Ibn Khuzaymah (d. 311 AH) that he said: “Some of the ignorant among those who appeared in our Sunnah in this year claimed that Allah does not repeat speech, so they do not understand Allah’s Book…”

So when the belief of the Ashʿaris is to deny that optional attributes exist with Allah, built on their denial of what they call “occurring events” within Allah, they prevented saying: Allah speaks when He wills, whenever He wills, with speech existing with Him, and that He speaks one thing after another. Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah answered them by saying: “Who denied this before you from the Salaf and the imams? The texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah include it, along with clear reason, and it is a necessary belief for all groups…”

Qur’an Verses Indicating Allah Speaks At Specific Times

The texts proving the attribute of speech for Allah, according to the belief of the Salaf, are very many. They even include that Allah may be described with silence. From these proofs are:

فَلَمَّا جَاءهَا نُودِيَ أَن بُورِكَ مَن فِي النَّارِ وَمَنْ حَوْلَهَا وَسُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
“So when he came to it, he was called: ‘Blessed is whoever is in the fire and whoever is around it, and glory be to Allah, Lord of the universes.’” (al Naml 8)

فَلَمَّا أَتَاهَا نُودِي مِن شَاطِئِ الْوَادِي الْأَيْمَنِ فِي الْبُقْعَةِ الْمُبَارَكَةِ مِنَ الشَّجَرَةِ أَن يَا مُوسَى إِنِّي أَنَا اللَّهُ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ
“So when he came to it, he was called from the right side of the valley, in the blessed spot, from the tree: ‘O Musa, indeed I am Allah, Lord of the universes.’” (al Qasas 30)

هَلْ أتَاكَ حَدِيثُ مُوسَى إِذْ نَادَاهُ رَبُّهُ بِالْوَادِ الْمُقَدَّسِ طُوًى
“Has the account of Musa come to you, when his Lord called him in the sacred valley of Tuwa?” (al Naziʿat 15–16)

فَلَمَّا أَتَاهَا نُودِي يَا مُوسَى إِنِّي أَنَا رَبُّكَ
“So when he came to it, he was called: ‘O Musa, indeed I am your Lord.’” (Ta Ha 11–12)

Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) said, commenting on these texts, that they show he was called at that time, and he was not called before that, because of what is in them of the meaning of the time wording.

From that is His saying:

وَيَوْمَ يُنَادِيهِمْ فَيَقُولُ مَاذَا أَجَبْتُمُ الْمُرْسَلِينَ
“And on the Day He will call them and say: ‘What did you answer the messengers?’” (al Qasas 65)

وَيَوْمَ يُنَادِيهِمْ فَيَقُولُ أَيْنَ شُرَكَائِيَ الَّذِينَ كُنتُمْ تَزْعُمُونَ
“And on the Day He will call them and say: ‘Where are My partners that you used to claim?’” (al Qasas 74)

The time is restricted for the call, so it shows the call occurs then, not in other times.

And likewise:

وَإِذْ قَالَ رَبُّكَ لِلْمَلاَئِكَةِ إِنِّي جَاعِلٌ فِي الأَرْضِ خَلِيفَةً
“And when your Lord said to the angels: ‘Indeed I am placing a successor on the earth.’” (al Baqarah 30)

وَإِذْ قُلْنَا لِلْمَلاَئِكَةِ اسْجُدُواْ لآدَمَ
“And when We said to the angels: ‘Prostrate to Adam.’” (al Baqarah 34)

These texts time some of the Lord’s sayings with specific times. The Kullabiyyah and those who agree with them say: He does not speak by His will and power, rather the specific speech is inseparable from His Essence like life is inseparable from His Essence. These texts refute them, because if Allah spoke with that speech at that time, how can it be said it is eternal forever in that exact form.

Hadith Proofs About Allah Speaking

The hadith in this matter are many. From them is the saying of the Prophet ﷺ, after he led them in the morning prayer at al Hudaybiyah: “Do you know what your Lord said tonight?” They said: “Allah and His Messenger know best.” He said: “Some of My slaves have become believers in Me and disbelievers…” (Reported by al Bukhari, 846; Muslim, 71.)

And the hadith: “If Allah decrees a matter in the heaven, the angels strike their wings in submission to His saying, like a chain upon smooth stone…” (Reported by al Bukhari, 4701.)

And in another wording, clearer: “When Allah speaks with revelation, the people of the heaven hear a ringing in the sky like the dragging of a chain upon smooth stone…” (Reported by Abu Dawud, 4738; Ibn Hibban, 37; al Bayhaqi, 432.)

So how can these clear texts from the Qur’an and Sunnah be explained as meaning that Allah only creates perception for the creation to hear an eternal speech, whether it is said it is a pure meaning, or meaning and letters, as is the claim of Ibn Kullab (d. 240 AH) and al Ashʿari (d. 324 AH).

Hadith Proofs About Allah Being Described With Silence

As for the hadith that mention silence, from them is: “Whatever Allah made lawful in His Book is lawful, whatever He made unlawful is unlawful, and whatever He was silent about is pardon…” (Reported by al Bazzar, 4087; al Tabarani in Musnad al Shamiyyin, 2102; al Daraqutni, 2/137.)

And the hadith: “Indeed Allah has obligated obligations, so do not neglect them. He set limits, so do not transgress them. He prohibited things, so do not violate them. And He was silent about things, as mercy for you, not out of forgetfulness, so do not search about them.” (Reported by al Daraqutni, 4/183; al Hakim, 7114; al Bayhaqi, 20217.)

Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) said that the Sunnah and consensus establish that Allah is described with silence. Silence is sometimes from not speaking, and sometimes from not making the speech apparent and not making it known, like what is in the two Sahih books from Abu Hurayrah رضي الله عنه, that he asked the Prophet ﷺ about his silence between the takbir and the recitation: “What do you say?” He said: “I say: O Allah, distance me from my sins as You have distanced the east and the west. O Allah, purify me from my sins as a white garment is purified from dirt. O Allah, wash me from my sins with water, snow, and hail.” (Reported by al Bukhari, 744; Muslim, 598.)

The Ashʿaris Proof From “Silence Or Muteness” And The Reply

The majority of the Ashʿaris deny that Allah is described with silence, and they make that from their proofs that Allah’s speech is eternal. They have 2 proofs.

The first is that if speech were not eternal, then Allah would have to be described in eternity with an opposite of speech, either silence or muteness. If one of them were eternal, it would be impossible for it to end, and it would be impossible that He is One who speaks forever. Since it is established that He is One who speaks in eternity, it is established that He has never ceased being One who speaks. They also say muteness is a defect that Allah is far above.

The second is that if speech were created, then it would have to be created either in Himself, or in other than Himself, or existing by itself. The first is impossible, because it would require Him to be a place for newly occurring matters. The second is false, because it would require it to be speech for the place it was created in. The third is false because speech is an attribute, and an attribute does not exist by itself. Since the 3 divisions are invalid, it is established, they claim, that speech is eternal.

Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) discussed these 2 proofs with detail and clarity. He showed what is correct in them, which is that they prove affirming the attribute of speech for Allah and the eternity of its type, and what is false in them, which is their claim that they prove Allah does not speak by His will and power.

The Claim That Allah’s Speech Is One Meaning

They also said: Allah’s speech is one meaning. It is command regarding every commanded matter, and report regarding every reported matter. If it is expressed in Arabic, it is Qur’an. If it is expressed in Hebrew, it is Torah. If it is expressed in Syriac, it is Gospel. They said command and prohibition are attributes of speech, not types of it. So there is no difference between the Qur’an and the Torah, and no difference between one verse and another verse whose meaning differs.

This is from the strangest matters in the belief of the Ashʿaris , because it goes against clear reason and against reality. Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) summarised the reply to this claim in several points.

First, this belief is something they alone held, away from all other groups, as al Razi (d. 606 AH) mentioned. Those who said it is one meaning said: that one meaning is the meaning of every command Allah commanded, whether it is a command of creation or a command of Sharia, and whether it is in the Qur’an or in the Torah. Likewise, it is the meaning of every prohibition Allah prohibited, and the meaning of every report Allah reported. Others among them said it is 5 meanings.

Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: merely imagining this claim makes a person know its falsehood by necessity, because it is among the clearest matters that command is not report, and that commanding the Sabbath is not commanding Hajj, and that reporting about Allah is not reporting about Shaytan.

And the meaning of:

قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ
“Say: He is Allah, One.” (al Ikhlas 1)

is not the meaning of:

تَبَّتْ يَدَا أَبِي لَهَبٍ وَتَبَّ
“May the hands of Abu Lahab perish, and may he perish.” (al Masad 1)

Likewise, the meanings that Allah reported in the Qur’an about the events of Badr, Uhud, and al Khandaq were not sent down to Musa ibn ʿImran عليه السلام, just as the prohibition of the Sabbath was not sent down to Muhammad ﷺ. So how can Allah’s speech be one meaning.

Second, it is said to them: when Allah spoke to Musa عليه السلام, did he understand all of Allah’s speech or part of it? If they say: all of it, then Musa would know Allah’s knowledge, which is among the greatest falsehood. If they say: part of it, then Allah’s speech became divided, while they claim it does not divide. This invalidates their belief.

Third, it is necessary for them to say in the attributes what they say in speech, and in speech what they say in the attributes. If it is permissible, according to them, to make the many realities one thing, then it should also be permissible to make knowledge, power, speech, hearing, sight, life, and will one attribute. If they do not accept that, then their claim about speech is also not acceptable.

Fourth, it is said to them: what you say here is the same as what you reject from those who said the letters and sounds are eternal, and that one letter is not before another. Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) نقل the reply of al Baqillani (d. 403 AH) against those people, then said: this exact reply is against you regarding the meanings you affirm.

Fifth, the texts came indicating that Allah has “words”, in the plural, such as:

وَتَمَّتْ كَلِمَتُ رَبِّكَ صِدْقًا وَعَدْلاً لاَّ مُبَدِّلِ لِكَلِمَاتِهِ
“And the word of your Lord was completed in truth and justice. None can change His words.” (al Anʿam 115)

مَّا نَفِدَتْ كَلِمَاتُ اللَّهِ
“The words of Allah would not run out.” (Luqman 27)

يُحِقَّ الحَقَّ بِكَلِمَاتِهِ
“That He may establish the truth by His words.” (al Anfal 7)

And many hadith mention seeking refuge in the complete words of Allah.

And from that is what is reported from the Prophet ﷺ: “Indeed Allah divided the Qur’an into 3 parts, and He made ‘Say: He is Allah, One’ one part from the parts of the Qur’an.” (Reported by Muslim, 811.)

How can it be said, with these texts, that Allah’s speech is only one meaning.

Sixth, the proofs also indicate that some parts of the Qur’an are better than other parts, which is the strongest saying of Ahl al Sunnah. This indicates that Allah’s speech is not one meaning.

Seventh, there is in their belief resemblance to the sayings of the Christians, and this indicates its falsehood.

Eighth, imams from the Ashʿaris themselves admitted the corruption of the belief of Ibn Kullab (d. 240 AH) and al Ashʿari (d. 324 AH) in Allah’s speech. Among them are Abu Hamid al Isfarayini (d. 406 AH), Abu Muhammad al Juwayni (d. 438 AH), Abu al Hasan al Karji (d. 532 AH), and al ʿIzz ibn ʿAbd al Salam (d. 660 AH). The positions of al Isfarayini in rejecting al Baqillani were well known.

Some of the Ashʿaris later held that Allah’s speech is multiple by the multiplicity of speech, and this saying was chosen by al Maklati (d. 626 AH).

Refuting Their Use Of The Christian Poet al Akhtal

Some of them argued with the line of al Akhtal, the Christian, may Allah curse him, saying:

“Indeed, speech is within the heart, and the tongue was made only as a sign upon the heart.”

Our reply to this argument is: cursed, cursed is the one who said this line, and cursed, cursed is the one who made the saying of this Christian a proof in Allah’s religion.

This is not from the Arabic language where the speech of an Arab is used as proof even if he is a disbeliever. Rather, this is an issue of reason, and action and sense deny this line, and it is an issue of Sharia. Allah Most High is more truthful than that cursed Christian, as He says:

يَقُولُونَ بِأَفْوَاهِهِم مَّا لَيْسَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ
“They say with their mouths what is not in their hearts.” (Al ʿImran 167)

So Allah Most High informed that among people are those who say with their tongues what is not in their hearts, against the claim of al Akhtal, that speech is in the heart and the tongue is a sign upon it.

So we affirm Allah Most High, and we reject al Akhtal, and may Allah curse whoever makes al Akhtal a proof in his religion. “al Fasl 3/219”.

Allah Most High also said:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَرْفَعُوا أَصْوَاتَكُمْ فَوْقَ صَوْتِ النَّبِيِّ وَلَا تَجْهَرُوا لَهُ بِالْقَوْلِ كَجَهْرِ بَعْضِكُمْ لِبَعْضٍ أَن تَحْبَطَ أَعْمَالُكُمْ وَأَنتُمْ لَا تَشْعُرُونَ
“O you who believe, do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet, and do not speak loudly to him as you speak loudly to one another, lest your deeds become worthless while you do not realise.” (al Hujurat 2)

This is a clear text and a call to the believers that their iman becomes invalid and their deeds become worthless by raising their voices above the voice of the Prophet ﷺ, without any rejection from them in the foundation. “al Fasl 3/220”.

It is also strange that they say: prayer, fasting, and zakah are not iman, rather they are the Sharia of iman. “al Fasl 3/221”.

This naming is not permitted by Allah Most High, nor by His Messenger ﷺ, nor by any of the Sahabah رضي الله عنهم. Rather, Islam is iman and it is the Sharia, and the Sharia is iman and Islam. And with Allah is all success. “al Fasl 3/222”.