Taken from the Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid lessons with Shaykh Shams Tameez

Written by Faizan Ali Khan al-Karachawi

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

إن الحمد لله، واجب الوجود، الذي تعالى عن الغاياب والجهات والحدود. وصلى الله على سيدنا وجبيبنا وقدوتنا ومولانا ومحمد أبي القاسم وجد الحسن والحسين المخصوص باقاب القوسين.

أما بعد

Allāh says in the Noble Qurʾān:

ٱلرَّحْمَـٰنُ عَلَى ٱلْعَرْشِ ٱسْتَوَىٰ ۝٥﴾ [طه: 5]﴿

The Absolutely-Merciful Did Istiwā on the Throne. [20:5]

The above verse and many like has led to many theological discussions between Muslim theologians. Is Allāh literally above the Throne? In the Heavens? Everywhere? Many tackled the discussion but either they fell into deviancy or erred in their beliefs.

Many of the Mutakallimūn (theologians) tackle the matter utilising logic stating that logically, Allāh cannot be constrained to change because change is indicative of possibility (ʾimkān), and possibility requires a cause. This would necessitate a cause for Allāh, however as He is Necessary (wājib), this is impossible (mustaḥīl). As of this, these verses are not discussing a literal “aboveness” etc. hence they are to be interpreted, or the meaning relegated to Him.

Some find issue with such an approach as it relies on the utilisation logic, and due to their aversion of this, a proof from Revelation would be better suited.

This is what Shaykh Ramaḍān Effendī attempted to do in his Ḥāshiyaħ of Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid. He utilised verses of the Qurʾān and its relevant sciences to disprove the notion of a “literal” aboveness.

Referring back to the verse we commenced with, the word istiwā was utilised. Linguistically the word means settling (istiqrār). This necessitates seeking a place (tamakkun). If we were to take this meaning, which is the belief of some, then this means Allāh has described His Pre-Eternal Essence with tamakkun, hence He is Mutamakkin (the one who has taken space.)

This derivation of a judgement (istidlāl) can be responded with the following:

The aforementioned verse doesn’t affirm tamakkun fundamentally. How? The term istiwā can be used in different contexts, which we can see within the Qurʾān and pre-ʾIslāmic contexts.

Iistiwā can refer to completion (ʾitmām):

﴾وَلَمَّا بَلَغَ أَشُدَّهُۥ وَٱسْتَوَىٰٓ ءَاتَيْنَـٰهُ حُكْمًۭا وَعِلْمًۭا ۚ وَكَذَٰلِكَ نَجْزِى ٱلْمُحْسِنِينَ ۝١٤﴾ [القصص: 14]

“And when he reached full strength and maturity, We gave him wisdom and knowledge. This is how We reward the good-doers.” [28:14]

He was completed and his Aql was developed. That’s the context in which istiwā is being used, and not to mean a physical rise. The Qurʾān does still use it in that context, nonetheless; the context of settling:

﴾وَقِيلَ يَـٰٓأَرْضُ ٱبْلَعِى مَآءَكِ وَيَـٰسَمَآءُ أَقْلِعِى وَغِيضَ ٱلْمَآءُ وَقُضِىَ ٱلْأَمْرُ وَٱسْتَوَتْ عَلَى ٱلْجُودِىِّ ۖ وَقِيلَ بُعْدًۭا لِّلْقَوْمِ ٱلظَّـٰلِمِينَ ٤٤ ۝٤٤﴾ [هود: 44]

And it was said, “O earth! Swallow up your water. And O  sky! Withhold ˹your rain˺.” The floodwater receded and the decree was carried out. The Ark rested on Mount Judi, and it was said, “Away with the wrongdoing people!” [11:44]

Here we can accept that istiwā refers to settlement. However we do see the term istiwā being used in the context of taking possession (istīlaʾ) and overpowering (ghalabaħ).

Now we observe the term istiwā to be having multiple meanings, and not just one. Before we move on we need to understand some terminology regarding how we understand the clarity of Qurʾān verses. There are three terms that are necessary to this discussion:

1. Muḥkamaħ (unambiguous) – this is when the meaning of the verse is clearly known and it does not hold any other possible meanings.
2. Mutshābihaħ (unknown/unclear) – this is either the meaning is not known nor can be known.
3. Muḥtamalaħ (probable) – this is when the verse has multiple possible meanings.

Due to the possibility in meanings, the verse is clearly muḥtamalaħ, and for that reason one would need to select the most appropriate meaning for Allāh. Completion is not appropriate due to the quality of being imperfect to perfect is problematic and not befitting for Him. Sitting/settling isn’t something praiseworthy either. Pharoah sat on a throne and so did Nabī Sulaymān. That didn’t differentiate between their ranks, hence the only possible meaning which is appropriate for Allāh is taking ownership and overpowering. This is a quality deserving of praise.

Hence to conclude, the most appropriate reading of this verse is to not take it to be a literal aboveness, for that is not befitting for Him.

والحمد لله رب العالمين