Navigation Menu Of The Summary

Addressing Supposed Contradiction

Meaning of Tasalsul and Its Types

The Infinite Regress of Causes

The Infinite Succession of Events

Ibn Taymiyyah on Infinite Succession

The Claim of Endless Celestial Motion

Is Matter Eternal

Does the Hadith “Allah was, and there was nothing with Him” Refute Ibn Taymiyyah’s View

Variants of the Hadith and the Meaning of “The First of this Matter”

Did the Sahabah Ask About the First of All Created Things

Navigation Menu Of The Full Article

Meaning of Tasalsul and Its Types

The Infinite Regress of Causes

The Infinite Succession of Events

The Madhhab of Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah

Can Eternal Matter Be Claimed Alongside the View of Ibn Taymiyyah

Is the Succession of Created Things Necessary or Possible

Is the “Eternity of the Type of The Universe” Necessary or Possible?

Does Allah Create Always, So That It Is Never “And There Was Nothing Else With Him”

Did Ibn Taymiyyah Deny “Allah Was and There Was Nothing Else With Him”

Did the Sahabah Ask About the First of All Created Things

Summary

Addressing Supposed Contradiction

Before we get into this, some may have already heard of the shaykh’s view on tasalsul al hawadith and think it is contradictory to say that there is no first creation/first act but affirm that Allah still acts successively.

A simple way to understand it is the sequence of negative numbers ending at 0: …, minus 3, minus 2, minus 1, 0. There is no first negative number, but 0 still has a clear place in the order. We did not reach 0 by starting from the first negative number, because there is no first negative number. Likewise, on the beginningless succession view, “now” is not reached by starting from the first past event, because there is no first past event.

Meaning of Tasalsul and Its Types

Meaning of Tasalsul and Its Types: tasalsul (endless sequence) is the arranging of events with no end. Tasalsul has types, including the infinite regress of causes, the endless succession of events, also called the endless succession of effects, and the endless succession of conditions.

The Infinite Regress of Causes

The Infinite Regress of Causes: the infinite regress of causes is impossible by agreement of all mutakallimun (philosophers), all philosophers, and all people of sound reason.

Causes are either efficient causes or final causes, and both are impossible in this way. This tasalsul is also called “the infinite regress of influencers” or “the infinite regress of doers”. Its impossibility means reason does not permit it.

A clear example is the claim, “Nothing will be written until something else is written, and that other thing will not be written until something else is written,” and so on.

If the chain never stops, nothing is written. The well known example is a person sentenced to death: the soldier’s firing is stopped until permission is taken, and the permission is stopped upon another permission.

If there is no first commander, the soldier never fires. If the soldier fires, that itself shows the chain is not endless, rather it ends at a first commander who issues the order.

Applied to creation, the seen creation exists, so the chain of efficient causes does not continue endlessly. The Creator is Allah, Exalted is He. Ibn Rushd (d. 595 AH) called this “tasalsul by itself, not by accident”, while “tasalsul by accident” refers to the succession of events, effects, conditions, and similar matters.

Because the endless regress of causes is impossible, the Messenger ﷺ commanded leaving off the question “Who created Allah?”

This question assumes an endless chain of causes, and it assumes a beginning for Allah, Exalted is He, in His Essence. Both assumptions are false, and the contradiction is in the question itself.

The Infinite Succession of Events

This is the arranging of events with no end, whether from the side of eternity past or from the side of eternity future.

The first madhhab is the majority of Ashʿaris and Muʿtazilah: events with no end are affirmed in the future, and denied in the past. The proof is the permanence of the people of Paradise with no end, with movements and events continuing without end.

The second madhhab is Jahm ibn Safwan (d. 128 AH): the endless succession in the future is impossible, just as it is impossible in the past, since there is no difference between past and future in this respect.

This led to saying that the Fire ends, the people of the Fire end, Paradise ends, and the people of Paradise end.

The third madhhab is al Hudhayl ibn al ʿAllaf (d. 227 AH): since the endless succession is impossible in the past, it is also impossible in the future.

Unlike Jahm ibn Safwan (d. 128 AH), this position did not require the ending of the beings of the people of Paradise and the people of the Fire, rather it required the ending of their movements, so that they become like statues with no movement forever, with pleasure gathered for the people of Paradise in that moment, and punishment gathered for the people of the Fire in that moment. Qadi ʿAbd al Jabbar (d. 415 AH) transmitted that al Hudhayl ibn al ʿAllaf (d. 227 AH) withdrew from this view.

The fourth madhhab is the Peripatetic philosophers, the followers of Aristotle, affirming the succession of events absolutely in the past and the future, including events in the celestial spheres with no first for their type or genus. “Events with no first” does not mean a single event with no first, rather it means no first for the type.

Ibn Taymiyyah on Infinite Succession

The succession of events in the past is permissible in a specific form, not in every form.

The necessary and actual form is the succession of events and effects returning to one influencer, Allah, Exalted is He.

The impossible form is the succession of events and effects returning to more than one influencer, such as claiming the celestial spheres themselves have existence with no first, with each sphere being eternal in itself. Evidence for this was used in Darʾ Taʿarud al ʿAql wa al Naql (2/363–364).

Action based attributes of choice are treated with this same precision. The meaning affirmed is that Allah, Exalted is He, has never ceased to speak when He wills, whenever He wills, however He wills, without a first speech that can be pointed to as “the first”, and without a last speech that can be pointed to as “the last”.

This does not mean uninterrupted speech with no pauses, because speech is tied to will and choice, and silence can occur while full power to speak remains.

The same applies to creating: a span may occur between one act of creating and another, with no creating in that span. The principle operates here: the statement regarding some attributes is like the statement regarding other attributes.

The Claim of Endless Celestial Motion

The materialists claim celestial motion has no beginning and no end, with no stopping point.

If so, then unequal quantities must follow in an impossible way: the cycles of Saturn, the sun, and the moon would all be without limit, yet the moon’s cycles are twelve times the sun’s, and the sun’s cycles are thirty times Saturn’s. If one is less than another by a finite amount while both are claimed to be without limit, the claim collapses, and finitude follows for those cycles.

This proof does not apply to the imams of Islam and the people of revealed traditions who permit an endless sequence of events, because that permission is not built on claiming the celestial sphere is eternal.

The celestial sphere has a beginning and an end, is originated and created after not existing, and will split and break apart, so the motion of the sun and the moon ends, and every cycle has a beginning and an end.

The scope of the proof is limited: it proves the celestial motion cannot be without limit, and it proves the corruption of the position of Aristotle and Ibn Sina (d. 428 AH) and those like them who claim the celestial sphere is eternal without beginning.

This is widely agreed upon among the people of revealed traditions and most rational people, and the proof for the origination of the celestial sphere is strong, while al Urmawi’s objection is weak.

In contrast, the proofs used to deny an endless sequence of events absolutely are weak, and the objections against them are strong.

Is Matter Eternal

The eternity of the known materials in this universe is impossible according to Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH).

An atheist cannot take the permissibility of the past succession of events and use it to claim the eternity of atoms, quarks, materials, or bodies in the external reality, because that would be events returning to more than one influencer, and that form is impossible.

Matter can end. A clear illustration is the embryo being created from the sperm drop, with nothing of the sperm drop remaining in matter or form, showing complete ending. This refutes the claim that matter must be eternal.

Does the Hadith “Allah was, and there was nothing with Him” Refute Ibn Taymiyyah’s View

The issue is primarily hadith wording, not a denial of the hadith meaning.

The hadith came with several wordings, and Ibn Hajar al ʿAsqalani (d. 852 AH) held that the narration occurred by meaning due to the variation of wordings.

The strongest established wording, according to Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, is “Allah was, and there was nothing before Him”.

This does not require the impossibility of Allah, Exalted is He, existing with nothing created with Him.

Periods can occur between created things, just as silence can occur between acts of speech while power remains, and just as spans can occur between acts of creating.

Creation can be brought into existence, then ended, then a span passes with nothing created, then creation occurs again. So the succession of Allah’s actions is necessary, while the presence of a specific created thing at every moment is not necessary.

Variants of the Hadith and the Meaning of “The First of this Matter”

Variants of the Hadith and the Meaning of “The First of this Matter”: the hadith is transmitted with four core wordings: “Allah was, and there was nothing before Him”; “Allah was, and there was nothing with Him”; “Allah was, and there was nothing alongside Him”; “Allah was, and there was nothing other than Him”.

The meaning carried is tied to the question that was asked: “the first of this matter”.

The wording mentioning “His Throne was upon the water, then He created the heavens and the earth” clarifies the intent: the answer relates to the beginning of this matter, meaning this known universe, not an absolute account of the first created thing without exception.

Did the Sahabah Ask About the First of All Created Things

Did the Sahabah Ask About the First of All Created Things: the repeated phrasing in the narrations is “the first of this matter”.

If the question had been about the first of all created things absolutely, clarity would have been required about what was created first, since the hadith includes mention of the Throne and the water before the creation of the heavens and the earth, while not specifying which of those two was created first.

This supports that the question was about the first of this matter, not about the first created thing absolutely.

Complete Article

Meaning of Tasalsul and Its Types

Tasalsul (an infinite sequence) is the arranging of events with no end.

Tasalsul has types.

Among them are the infinite regress of causes, the infinite succession of events, which is also called the infinite succession of effects, and the infinite succession of conditions.

The Infinite Regress of Causes

As for the infinite regress of causes, it is impossible by agreement of all theologians, all philosophers, and all people of sound reason. Causes are either efficient causes or final causes, and both are, of course, impossible in this way.

Sometimes, this tasalsul is called “the infinite regress of influencers” or “the infinite regress of doers”. Saying it is impossible means it is impossible and not possible in reason.

This is like saying, “I will not write a certain thing until I write something else, and I will not write that other thing until I write something else,” and so on.

If this chain continues with no stopping, writing will never happen, and nothing will be written.

The well known example of this is a person sentenced to death: for the soldier to fire, he must take permission from his commander, and that commander takes permission from his commander. If there is no first commander who makes the decision, the soldier will never fire.

Alright. If the soldier fires and the sentence is carried out, what does that mean. It means the chain is not without a beginning. Rather, there was a first commander who gave the permission and the order.

Applying this, it is said: who created the creation that is seen. Allah, Exalted is He, created it. Since it is created, this chain of efficient causes stopped and did not continue endlessly, otherwise creation would not be created at all.

This type of tasalsul is sometimes called by Ibn Rushd (d. 595 AH) “tasalsul by itself, not by accident”. As for “tasalsul by accident”, what is meant by it is the succession of events, effects, conditions, and similar matters.

Because this type of tasalsul is impossible, the Messenger ﷺ ordered not to engage with this question, such as when it is said, “Who created Allah”. Why. Because it assumes, first, an endless chain of causes, and this is already impossible in reason.

Second, it assumes that Allah, Exalted is He, in His Essence has a beginning in existence, and this contradicts being God.

If He is God, then His Essence has no beginning in existence, and if His Essence has a beginning in existence, then He is not God. So the contradiction is in the question itself.

It is noticed that, in the examples used for the infinite regress of causes, the matter is stopped until something else is done. The soldier’s firing was stopped until permission is taken. This permission was stopped upon taking another permission. So “the matter was stopped”.

Alright. If the first matter happened, such as the soldier actually firing, then that means, as said, that the chain is not infinite. Rather, it is finite and has a beginning. There is a commander who is the first of them, who is given the order and permission, then the one after him, then the one after him, then the one after him, until the soldier fires.

This, in a brief form, is the picture of the infinite regress of causes, and this matter, as said, is impossible among all philosophers, theologians, and the people of hadith.

The Infinite Succession of Events

As for the infinite succession of events, it is the arranging of events with no end, whether from the side of eternity past or from the side of eternity future, meaning whether from the side of the past or the side of the future.

In this matter there are different madhhahib.

The first madhhab is that the majority of theologians from the Asharis and the Mutazilah say that such tasalsul is possible in the future and not possible in the past.

Because, for example, the people of Paradise remain in Paradise with no end.

So this is an endless succession of events and effects from the side of the future, because the people of Paradise do something today, then after it something, with no end.

So the person in Paradise is everlasting with no end, and there is no end to his movements, and no end to the events he brings about. Because of this, they said that what is apparent from the texts is the affirmation of events with no end from the side of eternity future, not from the side of eternity past.

The second madhhab is the madhhab of Jahm ibn Safwan (d. 128 AH). He said that the infinite succession of events in the future is impossible just as it is impossible in the past, because there is no difference between the succession of events from the side of the future and the succession of events from the side of the past. Because of this, he said that the Fire ends, and the people of the Fire end, and Paradise ends, and the people of Paradise end.

The third madhhab is the madhhab of al Hudhayl ibn al ʿAllaf (d. 227 AH) from the Mutazilah. He said that the succession of events, since it is impossible from the side of the past, is also impossible from the side of the future.

But, unlike Jahm ibn Safwan, he did not say that the beings of the people of Paradise and the people of the Fire end. He said that the movements of the people of Paradise and the people of the Fire end.

He said that, at a certain moment in Paradise, the creation stops and becomes like statues with no movement forever, and the same for the people of the Fire.

Meaning, the people of Paradise and the Fire stop moving at a certain moment, and pleasures gather for the people of Paradise in that moment, and punishment gathers for the people of the Fire in that moment. Qadi ʿAbd al Jabbar (d. 415 AH) transmitted in his book “Tarajim al Mutazilah” that al Hudhayl ibn al ʿAllaf (d. 227 AH) withdrew from this view.

The fourth madhhab is the madhhab of the Peripatetic philosophers, the followers of Aristotle. They said that the succession of events is possible in an absolute sense. So there are events that occur in the known celestial spheres, and they are events with no first.

The phrase “events with no first” here does not mean there is a specific event with no first, because this is among the objections that many answered, and it is among the strange objections: how can there be events with no first, while they are events and have no first. This assumes there is one event with no first, and this is not what is meant.

Rather, “events with no first” means there is no first for their type, or no first for their genus. For this reason, when clarifying this meaning to people, it is said: events with no first for their type, no first for their genus, because the phrase “events with no first” can cause confusion for people. The Peripatetic philosophers said that this tasalsul occurs in an absolute sense in the past and in the future.

The Madhhab of Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah

The madhhab of Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah is that the succession of events in the past is possible. This is only a way to bring the matter closer, because not every form of the succession of events is possible according to Shaykh al Islam. Rather, there is a form that occurs, and there are other forms that are impossible, as follows.

The succession of events, or the succession of effects, returning to one influencer, which is Allah, Exalted is He. This is necessary and certainly occurs.

As for the succession of events and effects returning to more than one influencer, this is impossible. This form is like saying that these known celestial spheres have events with no first. For example, that the moon has no first for its existence, and that the sphere of Mars has no first for its existence, and so on.

This form is impossible according to Ibn Taymiyyah, impossible in reason. He used as evidence for this in “Darʾ Taʿarud al ʿAql wa al Naql”.

On the Claim of Endless Celestial Motion

At that point it is said: the materialists claim that the movements of the celestial sphere have no beginning and no end. They do not assign to them any final point at which they stop. So it is not correct for them to rely on the claim that these events are finite from one side. Rather, it necessarily follows for them that the celestial motion which they claim has always existed and will always continue must be unequal in quantity.

According to them, the cycles of Saturn have always existed and will always continue, and likewise the cycles of the sun and the moon.

Yet the cycles of the moon are twelve times the cycles of the sun, and the cycles of the sun are thirty times the cycles of Saturn. So each of these is without limit in the past and the future, while one is less than the other by a finite amount, and another is greater than the other by a finite amount. If the lesser compared to another is finite, then it follows that each of the cycles must be finite.

Clarification Regarding the Position of the Scholars of Islam

This line of reasoning does not apply to those among the imams of Islam and the people of revealed traditions who hold that an endless sequence of events is permissible.

Those people say that the motion of the celestial sphere has a beginning and an end, and that it is originated and created, coming into existence after not existing, and that it will split and break apart. So the motion of the sun and the moon comes to an end, and every single cycle of the sphere, its stars, its sun, and its moon has, according to them, a beginning and an end.

Scope of the Argument

This argument only proves that its motion cannot be without limit. It does not follow that if the motion of a specific body must be finite, then the entire category of events must be finite, unless the proof that establishes the finitude of that specific motion also establishes the finitude of the entire category. That is not the case. This proof only concerns the celestial sphere. It is a proof of its origination and the impossibility of its motion being without a beginning and without an end.

So it demonstrates the corruption of the position of Aristotle and Ibn Sina and those like them who say that the celestial sphere is eternal without beginning.

This is a truth agreed upon among the people of revealed traditions and the majority of rational people. It is also the position of most philosophers, and only a small group opposed it. Because of this, the proof for its origination is strong, while the objection raised by al Urmawi is weak.

In contrast, the arguments used to claim the impossibility of an endless sequence of events as a whole are weak, and the objections raised against them are strong.

Agreement Between Revelation and Clear Reason

This makes clear that what the messengers brought is the truth, and that clear rational proofs agree with what the messengers brought. Sound reason does not contradict authentic transmission. Contradiction only occurs between what is falsely attributed to revelation and what is falsely claimed to be rational.

An example of this is those who counted as part of revelation the claim that the Lord was always without speech and action, not speaking by His will and not acting by His will. According to them, it is not even possible that He continually speaks by His will and acts by His will.

Darʾ Taʿāruḍ al-ʿAql wa al-Naql by Ibn Taymiyyah (2/363–364)

Can Eternal Matter Be Claimed Alongside the View of Ibn Taymiyyah

Also, it is said that the known materials in this universe are eternal. This form is impossible according to Ibn Taymiyyah. So an atheist cannot come and say: Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said it is possible, or that it occurs, that the succession of events is possible in the past, so these known materials are eternal. This is not possible at all according to Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah.

For example, that every atom, or every Quark, or every material, or every body among the known bodies has events with no first. This is impossible, because these are events returning to more than one influencer in the outside reality, and this form, as said, is impossible.

Rather, the form that occurs, and is even necessary, according to Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah is that events with no first occur for one influencer, which is Allah, Exalted is He. This is among the proofs of the oneness of Allah, Exalted is He.

It means that Allah, Exalted is He, for example, as many of the Salaf said, has never ceased to speak when He wills, whenever He wills, however He wills. So Allah, Exalted is He, has no beginning for the existence of His Essence, and no beginning for His attributes.

Among these attributes are the action based attributes, such as the attribute of speech. Allah, Exalted is He, has no specific speech that can be pointed to and said: this is the first speech by which Allah, Exalted is He, spoke.

This assumption contradicts the meaning of eternity past, because eternity past means the absence of firstness, just as eternity future means the absence of lastness, or the absence of an end.

So, just as in eternity future it cannot be said: this specific speech is the last speech Allah, Exalted is He, will ever speak, likewise from the side of eternity past it cannot be said: this specific speech is the first speech Allah, Exalted is He, ever spoke. The same applies to all His action based attributes.

This does not mean that Allah, Exalted is He, speaks from eternity past to eternity future with no interruption, because this contradicts speech being an action based attribute of choice that is connected to will and choice.

Rather, hadiths affirm that Allah, Exalted is He, may be silent at a certain time, while He has full power to speak.

So some silence may occur between one specific speech and another specific speech. The same applies to His other action based attributes of choice, such as the attribute of creating. A period of time may occur between one act of creating and another act of creating, with no creating in that period.

Some people may be confused by some wordings narrated from the ulama of the favoured generations in this matter, and it may appear at first glance that some narrations from the Salaf oppose this view.

With careful examination, they do not oppose it at all. Rather, they affirm it, and some narrations from the Salaf show this.

حدثنا عبدان، عن أبي حمزة، عن الأعمش، عن أبي الضحى، عن مسروق، قال: من كان يحدثنا بهذه الآية لولا ابن مسعود سألناه: ( حتى إذا فزع عن قلوبهم ) “سمع أهل السماوات صلصلة مثل صلصلة السلسلة على الصفوان فيخرون”، ( حتى إذا فزع عن قلوبهم ) “سكن الصوت، عرفوا أنه الوحي ونادوا”، ( ماذا قال ربكم قالوا الحق )  
حدثنا عمر بن حفص، ثنا أبي، ثنا الأعمش، حدثني مسلم، عن مسروق، عن عبد الله، بهذا.

ʿAbdān (d. 221 AH) narrated to us, from Abū Ḥamzah (d. 167 AH), from al Aʿmash (d. 148 AH), from Abū al Ḍuḥā (d. 100 AH), from Masrūq (d. 62 AH), who said: ‘If it were not for Ibn Masʿūd رضي الله عنه informing us about this verse, we would have asked about it: “Until, when fear is removed from their hearts” — the people of the heavens hear a ringing sound like the striking of a chain upon smooth stone, so they fall down.

Then, when fear is removed from their hearts, the sound becomes still (indicates silence for Allah), they know that it is the revelation, and they call out, “What did your Lord say?”

They say, “The truth.”’”

“And ʿUmar ibn Ḥafṣ (d. 223 AH) narrated to us: my father (d. 194 AH) narrated to us, al Aʿmash (d. 148 AH) narrated to us, Muslim (d. 128 AH) narrated to me, from Masrūq (d. 62 AH), from ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd رضي الله عنه, with the same.”

So, since it cannot be said that Allah, Exalted is He, has a specific speech that is the first speech, and it cannot be said that Allah, Exalted is He, has a specific speech that is the last speech, such that He does not speak after it, likewise in the other attributes, such as creating, it cannot be said: this is the first created thing by Allah, Exalted is He, with no creating before it, or this is the last created thing by Allah, Exalted is He, with no creating after it.

For example, regarding Paradise, it is said that Allah, Exalted is He, creates fruit for the people in Paradise. Can it be said that there is a single fruit that is the last of the creation of Allah, Exalted is He, such that no created thing comes after it. This cannot be said.

Because Allah, Exalted is He, exists from eternity past and to eternity future, and He creates from eternity past and to eternity future.

So, since there is no created thing that can be specified and said to be the last of the creation of Allah, Exalted is He, because Allah, Exalted is He, is everlasting in His Essence, His attributes, and His actions, likewise there is no created thing that can be specified and said to be the first of the creation of Allah, Exalted is He, because Allah, Exalted is He, is eternal in His Essence, His attributes, and His actions.

Because of this, there is a principle: the statement about some attributes is like the statement about some other attributes.

Is the Succession of Created Things Necessary or Possible

Here a specific difficulty may enter for people. It is said: “the succession of the act of creating is necessary, so the succession of created things is necessary”. The correct point is that “the succession of created things” may be meant in 2 different ways.

The first meaning is the succession of a created thing from a specific type or a specific genus, such as the succession of the type of this universe.

Meaning, it is said that before these heavens and earth, Allah, Exalted is He, created another universe from the same genus as these heavens and earth, or from the same type as these heavens and earth.

Or the type of rational creation is ancient, meaning it is said: before humans there were jinn, and before jinn there were rational creations with another name, and so on. This succession, the succession of created things from a specific type, is possible, and it is not necessary.

The second meaning is that it is said: “the succession of creation in an absolute sense”. Meaning, it is said that before the creation of these heavens and earth, Allah, Exalted is He, created the angels, or created other creations that are not known, and they may be from a completely different type, and from a completely different nature that is not known.

This understanding of “the succession of created things” is the rational necessary result of the succession of the act of creating, because Allah, Exalted is He, cannot create without an effect coming from that, which is the created thing. So, since the succession of the act of creating by Allah, Exalted is He, is necessary, the succession of creation in an absolute sense is also necessary.

But, as said, this does not mean that there is a necessary succession for the type of this universe, or a necessary succession for specific creations.

It was written in Ahmad Najjar’s article that will be translated below, about the matter of tasalsul and the type based ancientness of the universe, and that this, in reality, does not go beyond mere possibility, because Allah, Exalted is He, as He creates this universe, like the heavens and earth, also creates other things that are not known, and they are not from the genus of these heavens and earth.

Is the “Eternity of the Type of The Universe” Necessary or Possible?

The Claim Attributed to Ibn Taymiyyah

The philosophers say that Ibn Taymiyyah holds that the universe, as a type, is necessarily eternal. This wording is firmly rejected. What is meant by “eternity of the type” is only a rational possibility, and there is nothing of necessity in it.

The Meaning of “Universe” and the Issue of Succession

It may be said that the universe is everything other than Allah, Exalted is He. According to this, if there is a necessary succession of all created things, then before every created thing there is another created thing. This would fall under the meaning of “everything other than Allah,” and so before every universe there would be another universe. In other words, before every created thing there is another created thing, whether this universe is from the same kind as these heavens and earth, or from other creations about which nothing is known.

It is said that, in this sense, the succession of universes would be necessary. However, who among the philosophers says that the concept of “universe” applies to any created thing, regardless of its type? For example, if before these heavens and earth Allah created rational beings unlike anything known, not within a heaven or an earth, but created them alone, not within any physical place, would the philosophers then say that the term “universe” applies to such a creation? This assumption is not something known to have been addressed or ruled upon by them.

What People Understand by “Universe”

The point is that what naturally comes to mind for people is that the term “universe” applies only to heavens and earth of the kind that is observed. For this reason, it is rejected to say that Ibn Taymiyyah affirms the necessary eternity of the type of the universe, because what comes to mind is that Allah only creates another universe similar to this visible one. In reality, Allah creates creations that may be completely different from what is observed, and such things are not what people naturally understand to be called a “universe.”

Misunderstanding the Term “Type”

Another point is that what comes to mind in these discussions when the term “eternity of the type” is used is a logical type made up of genus and differentiation. This would imply that Allah only creates from a specific essence and is not able to create something from another essence. This is incorrect.

For this reason, it is more accurate to say that Ibn Taymiyyah affirms the necessary eternity of created things in general, not the eternity of a specific type of creation.

The Question of Eternity of a Specific Universe

Another issue arises. If it is accepted that the universe is everything other than Allah in a broad sense, does this mean that this specific universe is eternal, or that universes follow one another necessarily?

If it is said that Ibn Taymiyyah holds that no created thing exists except from a prior material, then this would be a claim of the eternity of matter. In that case, the universe itself would be eternal, because there would always be something alongside Allah that falls under the term “universe.” This is what some attempt to attribute to Ibn Taymiyyah, but it is incorrect for two reasons.

The first reason is that Ibn Taymiyyah clearly states that matter can come to an end, even in his later works such as “al Nubuwwat.”

The second reason is that no philosopher or common person would accept such a meaning for the term “universe.”

The Succession of Universes

The second possibility is that universes follow one another necessarily. This would be correct in a broad sense. However, this creates confusion, because no one naturally understands the term “universe” to apply to every created thing in an unrestricted way. Rather, what comes to mind is that the universe refers to a specific type and essence of creation.

The Meaning of Universe as a Genus

Another question is whether the universe refers to the genus of all created things as a genus. If this is intended, then it would be said that the universe is eternal with no beginning, because the genus of created things has no beginning. However, who among philosophers or ordinary people would understand the term “universe” in this way?

The Source of Confusion

Because of the ambiguity in the meaning and application of the term “universe,” it is firmly maintained that it should not be said that Ibn Taymiyyah holds the necessary eternity of the type of the universe.

Rather, it should be said that it is a rational possibility that before these heavens and earth, Allah created a universe similar to this one. As for the succession of created things in general, which follows from Allah being a Creator from eternity, this is not what naturally comes to mind when the term “eternity of the type” is used.

Clarification

The correct expression is that the succession of created things in general is necessary, because it follows from Allah being a Creator from eternity, creating whatever He wills, however He wills.

At the same time, it is possible that Allah may exist alone with nothing else, as He may bring all creations to an end, leaving Himself alone without any creation for a period, then create again.

As for the succession of a specific type of creation, this is rationally possible, but there is no proof that it actually occurs. This approach is safer than affirming either the necessity or the possibility of the eternity of the type of the universe, due to the ambiguity in the meaning and application of the term “universe.”

القدم النوعي للعالم، واجب أم ممكن؟

So, before this universe, other things may have been created that are not similar and not the same as these heavens and earth. For this reason, the type based succession of this universe is only something possible. As for whether it is what actually occurred, that is not known.

So the intended meaning is that there is no created thing except that there is a created thing before it, and there is no created thing except that there is a created thing after it.

Why. Because this is the rational necessary result of the succession of the act of creating by Allah, Exalted is He.

Does Allah Create Always, So That It Is Never “And There Was Nothing Else With Him”

Does this mean that there is no time except that there is a specific created thing with Allah, Exalted is He. This is not correct.

Just as between one specific speech and another specific speech, Allah, Exalted is He, may have a period of time with no speech, or with silence, while He has full power to speak, likewise in the attribute of creating, there may be a period of time between one specific act of creating and another specific act of creating in which Allah, Exalted is He, did not create anything.

Allah, Exalted is He, as He creates a thing, also removes it and causes things to end. So Allah, Exalted is He, may create a specific created thing, then cause that created thing to end, then a period of time passes in which Allah, Exalted is He, did not create anything, so Allah, Exalted is He, is there and nothing is with Him. Then, after this period, He creates another created thing.

So the necessary succession in events is the succession of the actions of Allah, Exalted is He. As for the succession of creation in an absolute sense, it is the necessary result of the succession of the actions of Allah, Exalted is He. As for the succession of a specific created thing, or the succession of a specific type of created thing, it is a possible succession, and it is not known whether it actually occurred or not.

Did Ibn Taymiyyah Deny “Allah Was and There Was Nothing Else With Him”

First, this is a hadith matter according to Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH), because he says that the wording “and there was nothing before Him” is what is established. This hadith is narrated with 4 different wordings.

Because of this, Ibn Hajar al ʿAsqalani (d. 852 AH) said that this hadith is narrated by meaning, not by exact wording.

But, according to Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH), the wording “and there was nothing before Him” is what is established. This matter was mentioned with detail in the book “Theory of Time and Space According to Ibn Taymiyyah”, in the second chapter, when speaking about objections connected to the view of Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) on time and the succession of events.

Does Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH), in terms of the meaning, prevent that Allah, Exalted is He, is there and nothing is with Him, such that it is necessary that there is always something with Allah, Exalted is He. This is not correct.

Rather, his words, as said, are about the hadith wording: is what is established “and there was nothing with Him” or “and there was nothing else besides Him” or “and there was nothing before Him”.

As for what Ibn Taymiyyah said in “al Nubuwwat”, some later people, and some Asharis, used it to claim that Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) prevents the meaning that Allah, Exalted is He, is there and nothing is with Him. This is not correct.

Details were given in this matter in the second chapter of the second section of volume 2 in the book Masʾalat Ḥudūth al-ʿĀlam “The Matter of the Origination of the Universe”, because the words of Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah in the book “The Matter of the Origination of the Universe” are that possibility is connected to the mind, not to outside reality. Then, in “al Nubuwwat”, he said that possibility is connected to a locus.

Allegation: Ibn Taymiyyah forbids the existence of Allah without creation at any time

Saʿīd Fūdah says: “He agreed with them that the existence of a created thing in actuality is from the perfection of the Creator. For that reason, he opposed the mutakallimūn (theologians) in their statement about the possibility of the existence of Allah without any created thing with Him, whether in pre eternity or in the future. He considered this judgement to be negation of the attribute.” (Tanzīh al Raḥmān, p. 19)

Clarification of the Attribution

It is said: This claim is only attributed to Ibn Taymiyyah through his words in al Nubuwwāt, and even there it is not stated with certainty or decisiveness.

It is not binding upon him in an absolute sense, especially in his treatise on ḥudūth al ʿālam (origination of the universe), which Saʿīd Fūdah set out to critique.

The position of Ibn Taymiyyah in the treatise on ḥudūth al ʿālam, which is the subject of Fūdah’s critique, has already been established. In that work, Ibn Taymiyyah holds that al imkān (possibility) does not necessitate a mahall (substrate or locus) at all. This means that in that treatise he affirms that ḥudūth al ḥādith (the coming into existence of a created event) is possible without being preceded by a substrate.

In other words, creation from absolute non existence (al ʿadam al maḥḍ), other than the Creator, is possible. His wording on this matter is explicit, as has already been clarified in the explanation of that treatise.

Relation to the Hadith

This discussion may be connected to the well known hadith reported in Sahih al Bukhari:

The Prophet ﷺ said: “Accept the glad tidings, O people of Yemen.” When Banū Tamīm did not accept it, they said: “We accept it. We have come to seek understanding of the religion and to ask about the beginning of this matter, what was it?”

He ﷺ said: “Allah was, and there was nothing before Him. His Throne was upon the water. Then He created the heavens and the earth, and He wrote everything in the Book.” (Sahih al Bukhari 7418)

Variations of the Hadith

This hadith has been transmitted with several wordings:

“Allah was, and there was nothing before Him.”

“Allah was, and there was nothing with Him.”

“Allah was, and there was nothing alongside Him.”

“Allah was, and there was nothing other than Him.”

Ibn Taymiyyah held that the established and strongest wording is:

“Allah was, and there was nothing before Him.”

Does the Hadith Imply Impossibility of Allah Being Alone?

Does this wording clearly state that it is impossible for Allah to exist alone without any creation?

The answer is: no.

There is no explicit statement in the hadith that negates the possibility of Allah existing alone without any created being.

In addition, as already established, Ibn Taymiyyah in his treatise on ḥudūth al ʿālam affirms that al imkān (possibility) does not require a maḥall (substrate). Therefore, origination from pure non existence is not impossible, meaning it is possible that Allah existed alone without any creation, and then brought creation into existence from nothing.

Clarifying Ibn Taymiyyah’s Position Further

Even according to his later position, he does not hold that al imkān al khārijī (external possibility) requires a substrate in the sense of both maḥall (place) and māddah (matter). Rather, at most, it would require a maḥall (place) in which the event occurs.

Moreover, the maḥall itself may be something non existent in reality, as has been previously clarified. It is also possible that his statements refer specifically to creation within the ʿālam al shahādah (the visible universe), not the unseen.

So even on that interpretation, it remains valid to affirm creation from absolute non existence, other than the Creator.

Even if one were to assume that his final position required a real existing substrate, Saʿīd Fūdah is critiquing the treatise on ḥudūth al ʿālam, not al Nubuwwāt. In that treatise, Ibn Taymiyyah explicitly rejects the necessity of a real substrate.

So fairness demands stating that this claim would only apply to his later view, not to what he affirmed in the very work being critiqued.

On the Wording of “Otherness” and “Withness”

The wording of “ghayr” (other than) and “maʿiyyah” (withness) in some narrations does not fully align with the content of the hadith.

This is because the hadith explicitly mentions only the creation of the heavens and the earth, while also affirming that the Throne and the water existed before them. The Throne is created, and the water is created.

So the hadith itself does not establish absolute non existence of all creation before the heavens and the earth in a way that would negate every form of prior created existence.

Conclusion of the Argument

There is no explicit statement in Ibn Taymiyyah’s words, whether in:

his discussion of the hadith,
his treatise on ḥudūth al ʿālam,
or his work al Nubuwwāt,

that affirms the impossibility of the Creator existing alone without any creation.

It may be argued that some of his later wording suggests this or leads to that implication. That is possible. But it is not established with certainty or definitiveness.

Supporting Evidence from His Students

This understanding is further supported by how his students understood his position.

Among them is Ibn Qadi al Jabal, who said in his treatise Ḥawādith lā awwal lahā (events with no beginning): “We say: the universe is originated, created, brought into existence after not existing. The voluntary agent (al fāʿil al mukhtār) gives preference based on power and choice. Allah was, and there was nothing with Him. I composed a poem on this meaning, consisting of more than eighty lines, and presented it to him, seeking discussion on the matter, in the year 722 AH at his home in the Qassāʿīn school. He said to me: expand it into prose, because most people do not understand poetry.”

Final Observation

Notice that Ibn Qāḍī al Jabal used the wording:

“Allah was, and there was nothing with Him.”

There is nothing in this that contradicts the doctrine of ḥawādith lā awwal lahā (events without beginning).

The key point is that he presented this understanding to Ibn Taymiyyah, and Ibn Taymiyyah approved of it, even encouraging him to explain it further.

So this understanding does not contradict what Ibn Taymiyyah held.

Masʾalat Ḥudūth al-ʿĀlam by Aḥmad Najjār pg 118–121

But his words in “al Nubuwwat” were somewhat general.

So, did he mean readiness based possibility, not absolute possibility, because there are many types of possibility. There is general possibility, and there is specific possibility, and there is readiness based possibility, and other types.

Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, in “al Nubuwwat”, gave examples, and all of them were examples from the seen universe, all connected to readiness based possibility. So it may be that his intent in “al Nubuwwat” was readiness based possibility, because all the examples were about readiness based possibility.

Or it may be that, and this is more likely, his view is that possibility being connected to a locus does not require the locus to be an existing thing, because direction and space and similar matters, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, are non existent matters.

As was said elsewhere, this is not something unique toIbn Taymiyyah. Rather, some Asharis, such as al Juwayni (d. 478 AH) and al Baqillani (d. 403 AH), also said that space is non existent.

The matter of possibility being connected to a non existent locus is a way of understanding that is very close to what is correct, for a reason, which is that Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, even in “al Nubuwwat”, clearly states that matter ends. Meaning, creating a thing from a thing requires that the first thing is fully removed, in its matter and its form.

For example, when the embryo is created from the sperm drop, nothing of the sperm drop remains, neither matter nor form, and nothing of the sperm drop remains at all.

This is a clear statement that the embryo was created from the very sperm drop, but the embryo contains no matter and no form from the sperm drop. Meaning, the sperm drop ends completely, then in its place there is a non existent locus, and in that same locus, Allah, Exalted is He, created another entity, which is the embryo.

This is one way of understanding.

But the intended meaning is that Ibn Taymiyyah, in a decisive and clear manner, with no need for any extra explanation, affirms that matter ends completely. Because of this, it cannot be said that he says matter is eternal, and it also cannot be said, based on the ways of understanding mentioned, that he prevents the meaning that Allah, Exalted is He, is there and nothing else besides Him.

This is also how his student Ibn Qadi al Jabal understood it. In his treatise responding to those who criticised Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah about the matter of events with no first, he said that he presented to Ibn Taymiyyah a poem in which it says that Allah, Exalted is He, was and there was nothing else besides Him, and Ibn Taymiyyah approved it, and even encouraged turning it into prose so that people can understand it. So the intended meaning is that “Allah was and there was nothing else besides Him” is not prevented by Ibn Taymiyyah when investigated correctly. This meaning was also transmitted from his students.

This is, in a very very brief form, the matter of the succession of events and the succession of created things. As seen, among the Peripatetic philosophers, almost all forms of the succession of events occur.

As for Ibn Taymiyyah, the matter has detail: some forms occur, and are even necessary, and some forms are impossible. Also, among the theologians, the succession of events in the past, in an absolute sense, is impossible according to most of them. As for Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, the matter has detail.

So this matter is a clear example of the sharpness of Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah: the matter is not one single form. Rather, there are many different forms, and each form has its own graded ruling.

Did the Sahabah Ask About the First of All Created Things

One last matter. Concerning the hadith “Allah was and there was nothing before Him”, it was said that it is narrated with 4 different wordings.

In every form of the hadith, the Sahabah who asked the Messenger ﷺ said, “We came to ask about the first of this matter”. So the Messenger ﷺ said, “Allah was and there was nothing before Him”, or “Allah was and there was nothing with Him”, and he said, “His Throne was upon water, then He created the heavens and the earth”.

So, if the question was about the first of all created things in an absolute sense, the Messenger ﷺ would not have answered them like this.

He only mentioned that Allah, Exalted is He, created the heavens and the earth, but he said “His Throne was upon water”.

So, is the first of all created things the Throne, or the water. This was not specified in the hadith, even though the Throne is created and the water is created. But the Messenger ﷺ did not clarify which of these was created first in this hadith.

If the question of those Sahabah was about the first of all created things in an absolute sense, he would have clarified it, because he mentioned the creation of the heavens and the earth, and he did not mention the first of all created things: is it the Throne or the water. So the question was only about “the first of this matter”, as the Sahabah said, and it was not about the first of all created things in an absolute sense.

Other ways of explanation were given in the book Nadhariyyat al-Zamān wa al-Makān ʿinda Ibn Taymiyyah “Theory of Time and Space According to Ibn Taymiyyah”, in the second chapter, when dealing with objections to the matter of the succession of events, the genus of time, and similar matters.

I will extract the passage in detail on this matter from Ustadh Ahmad Najjar’s book.

The theologians have no textual proof for denying the possibility of events with no beginning

He, may Allah have mercy on him, clarified in more than one place that the mutakallimun (theologians) have no proof from the Book or the Sunnah for denying the possibility of events that have no beginning. Rather, the transmitted proofs indicate other than what they say.

He said: “This principle has no Book, no Sunnah, and no report from the Sahabah and the Tabiʿun with you. Rather, the Book, the Sunnah, and the reports from the Sahabah and their followers are contrary to that.

The text and the intellect indicate that everything besides Allah, Most High, is created, originated, and exists after not having existed.

Yet it does not follow, from the origination of each individual while events follow one another, that the type itself must be originated.

It does not follow from that that the acting, speaking One was eternally inactive from action and speech, then that occurred without any cause. Just as the like of that does not follow in the future, for every individual from the future things that pass away will perish, yet the type does not perish.” (Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, 1/425, 1/426)

Qur’an verses on the lasting type and the passing individual

As Allah, Most High, said:

أَكُلُهَا دَابِر وَظِلُهَا
Its fruit is lasting, and its shade. (al Raʿd 35)

إِنَّ هَذَا لَرِزْقُنَا مَا لَهُ مِن نَّشَادٍ
“Indeed, this is Our provision, it has no end.” (Sad 54)

So, the lasting thing that does not run out, meaning, that does not come to an end, is the type. Otherwise, every individual from its individuals runs out and comes to an end, and is not lasting.

The strongest proof of the opponents and the hadith of ʿImran ibn Husayn

As for the strongest proof of the opponents, it was the hadith, “Allah was, and there was nothing with Him,” narrated from ʿImran ibn Husayn, may Allah be pleased with him.

Al Bukhari narrated it in one place with the wording: “Allah was, and there was nothing other than Him. His Throne was upon the water. He wrote everything in the Reminder, and He created the heavens and the earth.” (Reported by al Bukhari, 6/286)

And al Bukhari narrated it in another place with the wording: “Allah was, and there was nothing before Him. His Throne was upon the water. Then He created the heavens and the earth, and He wrote everything in the Reminder.” (Reported by al Bukhari, 13/403)

As for the addition found in some narrations, “and He is now upon what He was,” then it is a false, fabricated addition with no basis in any of the narrations. (Majmuʿ Fatawa Ibn Baz, 26/282)

Ibn Taymiyyah drew attention to that and said: “This addition, which is his saying, ‘and He is now upon what He was,’ is a lie fabricated against the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.

The people of knowledge of hadith agreed that it is fabricated and invented. It is not in any of the hadith collections, neither the large nor the small.

No one from the people of knowledge narrated it with any chain, neither sound nor weak, nor even an unknown chain. Rather, some later Jahmi theologians uttered this word, and those who reached the end of Jahmism, which is negation and heresy, received it.” (Majmuʿat al Rasaʾil wa al Masaʾil, 4/93, 4/94)

This fabricated addition is used by many contemporary Ashʿaris in their saying: “Allah was, and there was no place and no time, and He is now upon what He was.” It is an old, widespread phrase among them.

Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Those people may say: ‘Allah was, and there was no place and no time, and He is now upon what He was.’ So they said: ‘Allah was, and there was nothing with Him, and He is now upon what He was.’ It is known that this is not from the speech of the Prophet ﷺ.” (Majmuʿat al Rasaʾil wa al Masaʾil, 4/94)

The wording “and there was nothing other than Him” does not prove what they want

As for the wording, “Allah was, and there was nothing other than Him,” it does not indicate what the opponents want. At most, it can be said here that Allah, Glorified and Exalted, caused any creation that was before this universe to pass away.

This does not prove its opposite, for it is said that every creation is originated, so non existence precedes it, and every creation can pass away, so non existence follows it. So the wording, “and there was nothing other than Him,” does not indicate what they want at all.

It was also said that this noble hadith was narrated by meaning, not by the exact wording, because the wording differs in the narrations of al Bukhari.

Ibn Hajar al ʿAsqalani (d. 852 AH) mentioned that in Fath al Bari and said: “His saying, ‘Allah was, and there was nothing other than Him,’ and in the narration that comes in Tawhid, ‘and there was nothing before Him,’ and in a narration outside al Bukhari, ‘and there was nothing with Him.’

The story is one, so this indicates that the narration occurred by meaning. Perhaps the narrator took it from his ﷺ statement in his supplication in the night prayer, as has preceded from the hadith of Ibn ʿAbbas, ‘You are the First, so there is nothing before You.’” (Fath al Bari, 6/333)

This hadith has been narrated with several wordings, such as, “Allah was, and there was nothing with Him,” and, “Allah was, and there was nothing other than Him,” as Ibn Hajar al ʿAsqalani (d. 852 AH) mentioned.

It was also narrated with the wording, “Allah was, and there was nothing other than Him,” outside al Bukhari, such as in Mushkil al Athar by Abu Jaʿfar al Tahawi (d. 321 AH), and Hilyat al Awliya by Abu Nuʿaym al Asbahani (d. 430 AH).

Accordingly, the noble hadith was narrated with the following wordings:

• First: “Allah was, and there was nothing before Him.”
• Second: “Allah was, and there was nothing with Him.”
• Third: “Allah was, and there was nothing with Him.”
• Fourth: “Allah was, and there was nothing other than Him.”

Even so, every wording from these wordings indicates what is wanted here and does not indicate what the opponents want, even if they argue by the greater number of wordings of “other than” and “with.”

There is no basis for preferring that over this without proof. Along with that, the wording “before” has been established from the people of hadith that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said it as exact wording. It is established in al Jamʿ bayna al Sahihayn by al Humaydi (d. 219 AH) (1/353), in Masabih al Sunnah by al Baghawi (d. 516 AH) (4/16), in Jamiʿ al Usul by Ibn al Athir (d. 606 AH) (4/15), and in al Jamʿ bayna al Sahihayn by Abu Hafs al Mawsili (1/261).

The question was about the beginning of this matter, meaning this universe

If an opponent says: even so, the question directed to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was about the beginning of creation, meaning, the beginning of the type of created things, it is said: rather, the question was about the first matter of the creation of this universe.

There is no basis to generalise that to the beginning of the type of creation. The narrations support this meaning.

From those narrations is the saying of ʿImran, may Allah be pleased with him: “We were with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, then a group from the people of Yemen came to him.

They said: ‘We have come to you, O Messenger of Allah, to understand the religion, and to ask you about the first of this matter, how was it?’

He said: ‘Allah was, and there was nothing other than Him. His Throne was upon the water. Then He wrote everything in the Reminder. Then He created the heavens and the earth.’” (Reported by al Tahawi, 5630)

From them is his saying: “I came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and tied my camel at the door, then I entered. A group from the people of Yemen came to him, so he said: ‘Accept it, O people of Yemen, if your brothers, Banu Tamim, do not accept it.’

They said: ‘We accept, O Messenger of Allah. We have come to you to understand the religion, and to ask you about the first of this matter, how was it?’

He said: ‘Allah was, and there was nothing other than Him. His Throne was upon the water. Then He, Majestic is His praise, wrote everything in the Reminder.

Then He created the heavens and the earth.’ Then he came to me and said: ‘Catch your camel, for it has gone.’ So I went out and found that the mirage was cutting off before it. By Allah, I wished I had left it.” (Reported by Abu Nuʿaym, 8/285)

From them is the narration of al Bukhari: “I entered upon the Prophet ﷺ and tied my camel at the door. People from Banu Tamim came to him, so he said: ‘Accept the glad tidings, O Banu Tamim.’

They said: ‘You have given us glad tidings, so give to us,’ twice. Then people from the people of Yemen entered upon him, so he said: ‘Accept the glad tidings, O people of Yemen, since Banu Tamim did not accept it.’

They said: ‘We accept, O Messenger of Allah. We came to ask you about this matter.’ He said: ‘Allah was, and there was nothing other than Him. His Throne was upon the water. He wrote everything in the Reminder, and He created the heavens and the earth.’ Then a caller called: ‘Your camel has gone, O son of al Husayn.’

So I went, and the mirage was cutting off before it. By Allah, I wished I had left it.” Then he narrated: “ʿIsa narrated from Raqabah, from Qays ibn Muslim, from Tariq ibn Shihab, who said:

I heard ʿUmar, may Allah be pleased with him, say: The Prophet ﷺ stood among us in a standing, and informed us about the beginning of creation until the people of Paradise entered their homes, and the people of the Fire entered their homes. Whoever preserved it preserved it, and whoever forgot it forgot it.” (Reported by al Bukhari, 3191)

Likewise, the other narration of al Bukhari that contains the wording, “Allah was, and there was nothing before Him,” and it is the narration established as exact wording, not merely by meaning. He said: “I was with the Prophet ﷺ when people from Banu Tamim came and he said: ‘Accept the glad tidings, O Banu Tamim.’

They said: ‘You have given us glad tidings, so give to us.’ Then people from the people of Yemen came in, and he said: ‘Accept the glad tidings, O people of Yemen, since Banu Tamim did not accept it.’ They said: ‘We accept.

We have come to understand the religion and to ask you about the first of this matter, what was it?’ He said: ‘Allah was, and there was nothing before Him.

His Throne was upon the water. Then He created the heavens and the earth, and He wrote everything in the Reminder.’

Then a man came to me and said: ‘O ʿImran, catch your camel, for it has gone.’ So I went out seeking it, and the mirage was cutting off before it. By Allah, I wished it had gone and I had not stood up.” (Reported by al Bukhari, 7418)

So, every narration of the hadith contains the question about “the first of this matter,” and this matches what is wanted here: the question directed to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was about the first matter of this universe, not the type of the universe, nor the type of created things, nor is there any proof for other than that, so it may be said that the question was about the type of created things, or the type of effects, as the mutakallimun (theologians) say, contrary to the apparent meaning of the hadith.

The argument from “His Throne was upon the water” and the hadith of Abu Razin

From the ways of proof is also to say: if it is said that this noble hadith establishes the first created thing absolutely, then how, when every narration of the hadith includes his ﷺ saying, “His Throne was upon the water”?

No Muslim says that the Throne and the water are not created. This means that the Throne and the water were created, in the description of origination.

Yet he ﷺ said: “Allah was, and there was nothing other than Him, and His Throne was upon the water.” So it was said: there was nothing other than Allah, and His created Throne was upon the created water.

The like of that is said about the hadith of the creation of the Pen, which has been narrated with several narrations, among them what is fabricated and among them what is sound.

Then, the saying of the questioners, “We have come to ask you about the first of this matter,” either refers to this universe, or to the type of created things. If the intended meaning is the first, then the Prophet ﷺ answered them, because he informed them about the first creation of this universe.

If the intended meaning is the second, then he did not answer them, because he did not mention the first creation absolutely. Rather, he said: “Allah was, and there was nothing before Him. His Throne was upon the water.

He wrote everything in the Reminder. Then He created the heavens and the earth.” So he only mentioned the creation of the heavens and the earth. He did not mention the creation of the Throne, even though the Throne is also created.

For Allah is the Lord of the Great Throne, and the Creator of everything, the Throne and other than it, and the Lord of everything, the Throne and other than it.

In the hadith of Abu Razin, the Prophet ﷺ informed about the creation of the Throne. 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, there was air above it and air below it. Then He created the Throne, then He rose above it.” (Al Dhahabi, al ʿUlu, 18)

In the hadith of ʿImran, he did not inform about its creation, meaning, the Throne. He only informed about the creation of the heavens and the earth. So it is known that he informed about the first creation of this universe, not the first creation absolutely. (Qadam al ʿAlam wa Tasalsul al Hawadith bayna Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah wa al Falasifah, 106)

A summary of the replies to those who use the hadith of ʿImran

Therefore, it is permissible to summarise the ways of replying to those who use the hadith of ʿImran, may Allah be pleased with him, as follows:

First: the hadith with the wording “before” is what is established from the Prophet ﷺ as exact wording, not merely by meaning.

Second: the hadith with the wording “before” means that Allah, Glorified and Exalted, has nothing before Him. He, Glorified and Exalted, has nothing before Him and nothing after Him. This wording does not indicate what the opponents want.

Third: the wording “other than” and “with” also does not indicate what the opponents want, for more than one reason.

The endless sequence in Allah’s actions, and the possibility in His effects

It is said to him: “Azal (eternity) is lastingness, and it is not a limited time in which any doer acts an action at all. Even so, it is said to him: before this choosing, did Allah, Glorified and Exalted, have choosing before it, or did He not?”

If it is said: “He had choosing before it,” then it is said: this is what is wanted, so there is no action except that before it is an action.

If it is said: “No, He did not have choosing before it,” then it is said: this requires that Allah, Glorified and Exalted, was inactive, without choosing. Allah, Glorified and Exalted, is far above that, exalted greatly.

The one who says this has nothing to do with Islam. Also, saying that Allah, Glorified and Exalted, is now choosing after not having been choosing includes preferring without a reason, as has been established earlier. If applied consistently, it means that the universe could exist without a creator.

If it is said: perhaps Allah, Glorified and Exalted, did not have choosing before this choosing, because this choosing is the first action of Allah, Glorified and Exalted, then it is said: saying “first” contradicts the meaning of His eternality, for eternality is the absence of a beginning and the absence of firstness.

So how is an eternal existence affirmed for Allah, and an eternal choosing, and an eternal will, while each of these, according to them, has a first? Whatever has a first was not eternal.

Accordingly, tasalsul (endless sequence) in Allah’s actions is obligatory, and tasalsul (endless sequence) in His effects is possible.

Likewise, it is said as proof for this meaning: Allah, Glorified and Exalted, has always been Seeing, from eternity, so Allah, Glorified and Exalted, did not lack the action of seeing at any time.

Likewise, He did not lack the action of choosing at any time. Likewise, He did not lack the action of creating. The statement regarding one of the attributes is like the statement regarding another. The statement regarding the Essence is like the statement regarding the attributes. Allah is the One whose help is sought.

Upon all of that, it is correct to say: the kind of time is eternal, and this is what is wanted in this book.

Nadhariyyat al-Zamān wa al-Makān ʿinda Ibn Taymiyyah by Aḥmad Najjār pg 234–251

So the intended meaning is that the use of this hadith by opponents is, in reality, against what they intend, but careful thought is necessary.

So, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, every wording in the hadith carries a meaning, not empty wording.

When the Messenger ﷺ says, “Allah was and there was nothing with Him”, or “Allah was and there was nothing before Him”, and “His Throne was upon water, then He created the heavens and the earth”, every wording has a meaning.

Was the question about the first of all created things. Then how could it be about the first of all created things while the Messenger ﷺ did not specify the first of all created things: is it the Throne or the water.

For this reason, in every wording of the hadith, even those that contain “Allah was and there was nothing with Him”, the question is about “the first of this matter”.

اللهم وبارك على نبينا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه أجمعين

O Allah, send blessings and barakah upon our Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, and upon his family and his companions altogether.