Summary

Saʿīd Foūdah’s Claim

Al Tahawi (d. 321AH) is cited with the statement: “Exalted is He above limits, ends, pillars, limbs, and tools. The six directions do not contain Him, like the rest of created things.” (al Sharh al Kabir li al Tahawiyyah, 700.) From this wording, the objector argues that al Tahawi is denying the “limit” affirmed by Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728AH). He further claims that this phrase negates real elevation and also negates the reported attributes (sifat khabariyyah), such as the hand and the face.

The objector then criticises Ibn Abi al ʿIzz (d. 792AH), alleging that his explanation exposes an underlying belief.

He suggests that Ibn Abi al ʿIzz’s view is almost like a quiet complaint to al Tahawi: “If only you, Imam, had not spoken about negating the limit, directions, and ends.”

In his view, al Tahawi’s wording leaves only two choices.

Either openly disagree with him, or say that his words are general and unclear.

Yet he also admits that the wording is not general. Instead of clearly opposing al Tahawi, he avoids doing so because of al Tahawi’s respected status among the Muslims. (al Sharh al Kabir li al Tahawiyyah, 700.)

The Refutation of This Method

Such speech appears contradictory when it comes from a mutakallim (theologian) who does taʾwil (interpretation) of revelation and likewise reinterprets the statements of the salaf. Even if the objector’s reading of al Tahawi were hypothetically accepted, al Tahawi is not maʿsum (infallible), and the Ashʿari theologians themselves openly disagree with him in a number of issues.

They have also opposed others in matters of iman (faith) and related doctrines without hesitation.

The deeper inconsistency lies in directing criticism toward a scholar while the same reasoning could be levelled against revelation itself.

When apparent meanings are labelled “anthropomorphic” and then subjected to taʾwil, the implication extends beyond a single scholar’s wording.

By that logic, the same discomfort would apply to the revealed texts that contain those expressions!

Moreover, this line of objection equally applies to the explicit statements of the salaf who preceded al Tahawi and surpassed him in number and authority. They clearly affirmed the divine attributes, affirmed elevation, and openly censured the people of taʾwil, taʿtil, and nafy (denial).

What al Tahawi’s Words Mean in Context

Al Tahawi (d. 321AH) combines the terms hudud (limits) and ghayat (ends), which directs the meaning toward the bounded characteristics of created things, not toward “limit” in the sense of distinction, separation, or non mixing.

The decisive clarification is found in what follows: “The six directions do not contain Him, like the rest of created things.” This continuation makes clear that the discussion concerns containment and spatial boundedness, qualities that apply to creation, not to Allah.” (al Sharh al Kabir li al Tahawiyyah, 700.)

The intent is to affirm divine transcendence, meaning that Allah is free from being contained by anything and free from being enclosed within the limits and ends that define created things. This understanding is supported by al Ghunaymi (d. 1298AH), who explained the phrase as referring to “limited dimensions and boundaries.” (Sharh al Tahawiyyah, 73.)

The same principle applies to the terms “pillars, limbs, and tools.” These expressions negate composition, dependency, division, and the need for instruments. They deny that Allah consists of parts, relies on supports, is subject to fragmentation, or depends on external means to act.

The statement, “The six directions do not contain Him, like the rest of created things,” clearly affirms that Allah is not enclosed within spatial confines as creation is.

Rather, He is not contained by them and is distinct from them, in accordance with the plain and direct meaning of the language. On this basis, the objector’s argument falls apart. Reinterpreting “limits” to mean mere distinction or separation, instead of limits that enclose created beings, imposes a strained reading upon the text, particularly since the wording joins “limits” with “ends” and explicitly links them to the negation of containment within the six directions.

Conclusion

Even if “limit” were assumed to be negated plainly, it is carried upon the type of negation that is also reported from some of the salaf, just as affirmation is reported from some of them. Yet al Tahawi negates it as a combined set with “ends”, and ties it to the negation of being contained within the six directions like created things, so the contextual meaning remains firm. The statement “encompassing everything and above it” is then treated as further reinforcement for the meaning of elevation.

The objector and his companions are then criticised for permitting taʾwil at this point, turning al Tahawi’s wording into something “general”, and speaking as though the problem is that al Tahawi said such a sentence at all.

The closing point is that a muʾawwil (interpreter) who permits taʾwil against the Book and Sunnah, and against the explicit words of the salaf, has no standing to speak in the manner of the objector, because that method forces the same conflict with what is clearer and more guided than the words of al Tahawi.

Holding to the words of the salaf removes the need for embarrassment over disagreeing with al Tahawi if an error were truly established, and the claim of error is rejected when the wording is taken on its plain meaning in its context. Any claim of “generality” is treated as something that emerges in the minds of the mutakallimun (philosophers), who then lean on that alleged generality to establish falsehood.

End of Summary.

Māhir Amīr’s Full Refutation of Saʿīd Foūdah

The Objector’s Argument from al Tahawi on Negating Limits, and Explaining His Mistake

The objector quoted the words of al Tahawi (d. 321AH): “Exalted is He above limits, ends, pillars, limbs, and tools. The six directions do not contain Him, like the rest of created things.”

Then he explained it in a way that implies that al Tahawi is negating the limit that Ibn Taymiyyah affirms. Rather, by these words, he is negating real elevation, and negating the reported attributes, like the hand, the face, and other than that.

Then he said, while debating Ibn Abi al ʿIzz’s explanation of al Tahawi’s earlier words: “Some people may find our description of Ibn Abi al ʿIzz strange, and may think, due to a lack of understanding, that we are searching into what is inside him. He does not know that his words point to that, and they almost release it as a loud cry to Imam al Tahawi: ‘If only you, Imam, had not spoken by negating the limit, directions, and ends, and so on.

Because by this, you place us into one of two matters: either we clearly say that we oppose you in what you believe, or we attack your wording by saying it is general. The one who looks at it knows fully that it is not general, but what pushes us to that is that we may not be able to clearly say that we oppose you in this tremendous matter, because of your great status among the Muslims. If they compare between us and you, they will put you before us, and before hundreds like us.’” (al Sharh al Kabir li al Tahawiyyah, 700.)

Maher Ameer’s Response

This speech, by Allah, is from the laughable things when it comes from a philosopher who interprets revelation and interprets the words of the salaf. If we assume that his understanding of al Tahawi is correct, then al Tahawi is not protected from error.

The Ashʿari theologians openly oppose him in issues, and they opposed us in the issue of iman and similar matters, without any covering. But the true objector is the one who feels ashamed before revelation. He is more deserving that it be said about him, by the tongue of his condition:

“If only you, revelation, had not spoken with these disbelieving, anthropomorphic wordings, and filled your verses with them in their noblest places, which are the attributes of Allah, Exalted is He. Because by this, you entangle us and place us into one of two matters: either we clearly say that we oppose you, or we attack your wording by saying that its apparent meaning is disbelief and innovation, so it must be interpreted.”

The same speech binds him regarding the words of the salaf, who came before al Tahawi and surpassed him in quantity and quality, those who clearly affirm the attributes, affirm elevation, and condemn the interpreters, the negators, and the deniers.

As for the words of al Tahawi, they are clear to us. Part of them explains part of them.

Clarifying al Tahawi’s Words

Al Tahawi joined the words “limits and ends”, so he is speaking about created things, not about limit in the sense of distinction, no mixing, and the ending of the Essence from entering into created things. The proof for that is what follows in his words: “The six directions do not contain Him, like the rest of created things.” So he declares Allah free from being contained by anything, and from entering into limits and ends.

This is what al Ghunaymi (d. 1298AH) understood in his explanation of al Tahawiyyah when he said: “Meaning the limited dimensions and ends.” (Sharh al Tahawiyyah, 73.) So Allah is exalted above them, and is not within them like the rest of created things.

Likewise, al Tahawi declares Him free from pillars. Allah is free of need of parts, and free of need of anything that He would rely on or need. He is also free from limbs, meaning being divided and split, and free from tools. He does not need anything other than Him to help Him in His act, nor is He unable to bring effect without it. Allah does not accept anything of that, Exalted is He, as will be clarified later.

Then al Tahawi confirmed our understanding and said: “The six directions do not contain Him, like the rest of created things.” So He is outside them, separate from them. This is the clear meaning that his words give in Arabic, without twisting or circling. If his words were taken upon their clear meaning, the objector’s proof would end, and Allah would suffice the believers from fighting.

As for turning his words, from limits that contain the rest of created things, into “limit” meaning separation, distinctness, and no mixing, then this is pure strain in understanding his words, especially since he joined “limits”. So Allah is declared free from limits and ends, as he said. His being exalted above them is His being outside them all, separate from them.

Rather, if we assume that he negated “the limit” plainly, then it is carried upon what the salaf negated, since negating the limit is reported from some of them, just as affirming it is reported. Yet he negated it as a whole, joined it with ends, and joined it with negating that He is contained within the six directions like the rest of created things, so our understanding of his words is established.

If nothing else came from his words, what preceded would be enough. So how, when he also said: “Encompassing everything and above it.” He confirms our meaning in a way that leaves no space for doubt. As for the objector and his companions, here they permit interpretation, and the words of al Tahawi become general, and the tongue of their condition becomes: “If only you, al Tahawi, had not said this sentence,” and had not said other than it from what includes affirming other attributes.

Conclusion

It is not for an interpreter who violates the sanctuary of revelation from the Book and Sunnah, and violates the clear words of the salaf, to say what the objector said, or else he entangles himself with what is better than the words of al Tahawi, clearer than them, and more guided. As for us, this speech is not said to us, because we held firmly to what preceded and to the words of the salaf. So it does not harm us to oppose al Tahawi if his mistake were established, and it has not been established, and all praise is for Allah, when his words are taken upon their clear meaning from the context. Our criticism of some of our companions against al Tahawi, for using general wordings, is only because of their time, since some leaned on them.

As for his time, the time of those who understand Arabic and understand these words in line with the ʿaqidah of al Tahawi and their agreement upon affirming elevation and the attributes, if they were taken upon their meanings in their contexts, nothing would be unclear and they would not be general. But they become general in the minds of the philosophers, so they lean on this generality to establish their falsehood.

Al Intisar lil Taymariyyah by Māhir Amīr ʿAbd al Karīm pg 110–112