On Imam Malik’s Quote Regarding Istiwa Being a Supposed Rejection of Tafwid

The Pseudo-Salafi says in ‘The Dangers of Tafwid’:

“If Imam Maalik’s narration was in support of tafwid he would have never said istiwaa is known and the kayf is unknown. He wouldn’t need to specify the kayf if the meaning was also unknown (as is the case in tafwid).”

Similarly Ibn Baz says in Fataawa Noor ‘ala ad-Darb, p. 65:

Tafweed means saying: Only Allah knows what it means. This is not permissible because the meaning is known to the scholars. Maalik (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Istiwa’ (rising over) is known, but how it occurred is unknown. This was narrated from Imam Rabee‘ah ibn Abi ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan and from other scholars. The meanings of the divine attributes are known to and understood by Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah……

The ‘salafis’ use the less authentic narration from Imam Malik [which some ‘Ulema have transmitted without complete authentic isnad / chain of transmission to the Imam] to try and prove that Imam Malik understood the meaning of istawa as it is applied to Allah in a literal sense like sitting / julus or settling / istiqrar as their own scholars have done and what Imam Malik did not know is the modality / kayf alone.

This is not substantiated even if one were to accept their favored wording.

This is the narration they use:

A man came to Imām Mālik and said: “Oh Abū ‘Abdullāh! [Allah said]: ‘al-Rahman ‘ala ‘arshi stawa.’ How did He istiwa?”
“Al-Istiwâ is known, and the ‘how’ is unknown…
الاستوى معلوم و الكيف مجهول….
to have îmân in it is obligatory and to question it is an innovation.” Then he said to the questioner: “I do not think, except that you are an evil man.” So he ordered him to be expelled.

Firstly, we respectfully ask for this athar’s full and authentic isnad – it us up to the Salafis to provide it and show it to us in its entirety.

The wording of “al kayfu majhul” [the ‘how / modality’ is unknown] is, in fact, from a riwaya shadhdha .

Furthermore, even if it were authentic it needs to be understood in light of the other numerous variant authentic transmissions of this incident from his students which clearly state that kayf / modality does not apply to Allah.

Affirmation of a modality / kayf accepts the possibility of many temporary conditions or manners which is impossible for Allah.

Imam Malik’s statement, “Its modality is unknown” means, therefore, that we do not know the ascription of modality itself to Allah, the Exalted. And this is why those who ask: “How did He istawa?” are judged as innovators because they affirmed that which is not established.

A second Sunni explanation is that “Kayf” in this context is interpreted as meaning “reality” (haqiqah). So his statement الاستوى معلوم و الكيف مجهول if authentic, would mean Istawa is known (as it is mentioned in the Qur’an), but its reality is unknown. [1]

A Look at Some of the Other Authentic Ways This Narration Has Reached Us Which Confirms the Sunni Understanding of Imam Malik’s statement:

From the most authentic variants transmitted from Imam Malik with isnad is the following version narrated by Hafiz Al-Bayhaqi:

From Ibn Wahb: “We were with Malik when a man asked him: ‘O Abu `Abd Allah! “al-Rahman ‘ala ‘arshi stawa” (20:5): how is His istiwa?’ Malik lowered his head and began to sweat profusely. Then he lifted up his head and said: ‘”al-Rahman ‘ala ‘arshi stawa” just as He described Himself. One cannot ask “how.” “How” does not apply to Him. And you are an evil man, a man of innovation. Take him out!’ The man was led out.”

(Narrated by al-Bayhaqi with a sound chain in al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat (2:304-305 #866), al-Dhahabi in the Siyar (7:416), and Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (1959 ed. 13:406-407; 1989 ed. 13:501).)

قال البيهقي: أخبرنا أبو عبد الله الحافظ أحمد بن محمد بن إسماعيل بن مهران، ثنا أبي حدّثنا أبو الربيع بن أخي رشدين ابن سعد قال: سمعت عبد الله بن وهب يقول: كنا عند مالك بن أنس فدخل رجل فقال: يا أبا عبدالله الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى العَرْشِ اسْتَوَى كيف استواؤه؟، قال: فأطرق مالك وأخذته الرحضاء ، ثم رفع رأسه فقال: (( الرحمن على العرش استوى كما وصف نفسه، ولا يقال كيف، وكيف عنه مرفوع، وأنت رجل سوء صاحب بدعة أخرجوه، قال: فأُخرج ))( ).
البيهقي الأسماء والصفات (2/304)،
قال الذهبي في العلوّ: (( وساق البيهقي بإسناد صحيح عن أبي الربيع الرشديني عن ابن وهب … )) وذكره . مختصر العلوّ (ص:141).
وقال الحافظ ابن حجر: (( وأخرج البيهقي بسند جيِّد عن ابن وهب ..)) وذكره. فتح الباري (13/406،407 ـ

[Imam al-Dhahabi said regarding this: al Bayhaqi brought it with an authentic isnad from abi rabi’ from Ibn Wahb….
Imam Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said: Al-Bayhaqi’s isnad from Ibn Wahb is good.

Implication:

If ‘How’ or modality does not even apply to Him then any idea of not knowing a ‘How’ or Modality is impossible.

In other variant transmissions of this incident we see another slightly different wording:

From Yahya ibn Yahya al-Tamimi and Malik’s shaykh Rabi`a ibn Abi `Abd al-Rahman:

“We were with Malik when a man came and asked him: ‘O Abu `Abd Allah! “al-Rahman ‘ala ‘arshi stawa” (20:5): how is istawa?’ Malik lowered his head and remained thus until he was completely soaked in sweat. Then he said: ‘The establishment is not unknown; the “how” is inconceivable / not intelligible (ghayr ma’qul); belief in it (istiwa) is obligatory; asking about it is an innovation; and I do not think that you are anything but an innovator.’ Then he ordered that the man be led out.”

(Narrated by al-Bayhaqi with a sound chain in al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat (2:305-306 #867), al-Baghawi in Sharh al-Sunna (1:171), al-Lalika’i in Sharh Usul al-I’tiqad (2:398), Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani in al-Jami` fi al-Sunan (p. 123), Abu Nu’aym in the Hilya (6:325-326), cf. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhid (7:151) and Ibn Hajar in the Fath (13:407).)

قال البيهقي -رحمه الله- في كتابه الأسماء والصفات:
أخبرنا أبو بكر أحمد بن محمد بن الحارث الفقيه الأصفهاني، أنا أبو محمد عبد الله بن محمد بن جعفر بن حيَّان المعروف بأبي الشيخ، ثنا أبو جعفر أحمد بن زيرك اليزدي: سمعت محمد بن عمرو بن النضر النيسابوري يقول: سمعت يحيى بن يحيى يقول : كنا عند مالك بن أنس فجاء رجـل فقال : يا أبا عبد الله الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى العَرْشِ اسْتَوَى فكيف استوى؟، قال: فأطرق مالك رأسه حتى علاه الرحضاء ثم قال: (( الاستواء غير مجهول، والكيف غير معقول، والإيمان به واجب، والسؤال عنه بدعة، وما أراك إلاّ مبتدعاً. فأمر به أن يُخرج )).( ) الأسماء والصفات (2/305،306).
ورواه البيهقي في الاعتقاد (ص:56)،

Qadi Iyadh Al-Maliki narrates the following:

قال القاضي عياض: (( قال أبو طالب المكي: كان مالك -رحمه الله- أبعدَ الناس من مذاهب المتكلِّمين، وأشدَّهم بُغضاً للعراقيين، وألزَمَهم لسنة السالفين من الصحابة والتابعين، قال سفيان بن عيينة : سأل رجلٌ مالكاً فقال: الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى العَرْشِ اسْتَوَى كيف استوى يا أبا عبد الله؟، فسكت مالكٌ مليًّا حتى علاه الرحضاء، وما رأينا مالكاً وجد من شيء وجده من مقالته، وجعل الناس ينظرون ما يأمر به، ثمَّ سُريَّ عنه فقال: (( الاستواء منه معلوم، والكيف منه غير معقول، والسؤال عن هذا بدعة، والإيمان به واجب، وإني لأظنُّك ضالاًّ، أخرجوه )).
فناداه الرجل: يا أبا عبد الله، والله الذي لا إله إلاَّ هو، لقد سألتُ عن هذه المسألة أهلَ البصرة والكوفة والعراق، فلم أجِد أحداً وُفِّق لما وُفِّقت له ))
ترتيب المدارك للقاضي عياض (2/39)، ونقله الذهبي في سير أعلام النبلاء (8/106،107  )).

Sahnoon’s riwaya related by Ibn Rushd Al-Maliki:

.قال ابن رشد في البيان والتحصيل: قال سحنون: أخبرني بعض أصحاب مالك أنَّه كان قاعداً عند مالك فأتاه رجل فقال: (( يا أبا عبد الله مسألة؟، فسكت عنه ثم قال له: مسألة؟، فسكت عنه، ثم عاد فرفع إليه مالك رأسَه كالمجيب له، فقال السائل: يا أبا عبد الله: الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى العَرْشِ اسْتَوَى ، كيف كان استواؤه؟ فطأطأ مالك رأسَه ساعة ثم رفعه، فقال: (( سألتَ عن غير مجهول، وتكلّمتَ في غير معقول، ولا أراك إلاَّ امرأ سوء، أَخرِجوه )) .البيان والتحصيل (16/367 ـ 368).

From Ja`far ibn `Abd Allah: “We were with Malik when a man came and asked him: ‘O Abu `Abd Allah! “al-Rahman ‘ala ‘arshi stawa” (20:5): how is istawa?’ Nothing affected Malik as much as that man’s question. He looked at the ground and started prodding it with a twig he held in his hand until he was completely soaked in sweat. Then he lifted his head and said: ‘The “how” of it is inconceivable / not intelligible (ghayr ma’qul); the “establishment” part of it is not unknown; belief in it is obligatory; asking about it is an innovation; and I believe that you are a man of innovation.’ Then he gave an order and the man was led out.”

(Al-Dhahabi, Siyar (7:415))

قال الحافظ أبو نعيم في الحلية: حدّثنا محمد بن علي بن مسلم العقيلي، ثنا القاضي أبو أميَّة الغلابي، ثنا سلمة بن شبيب، ثنا مهدي بن جعفر، ثنا جعفر بن عبد الله قال: كنا عند مالك بن أنس فجاءه رجل فقال: يا أبا عبد الله الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى العَرْشِ اسْتَوَى كيف استوى؟، فما وجد مالك من شيء ما وجد من مسألته، فنظر إلى الأرض وجعل ينكتُ بعود في يده حتى علاه الرّحضاء ـ يعني العرق ـ ثمَّ رفع رأسه ورمى بالعود وقال: (( الكيف منه غير معقول، والاستواء منه غير مجهول، والإيمان به واجب، والسؤال عنه بدعة ))، وأمر به فأُخرج .الحلية لأبي نعيم 6/325،326.

Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani al-Maliki (who salafis quote when it suits them) in al-Jami` fi al-sunan wa al-adab wa al-maghazi wa al-tarikh also transmits the riwaya with the wording al-kayfu minhu ghayru ma`qul

[ed. M. Abu al-Ajfan & `Uthman Battikh (Beyrouth : Mu’assasat al-risala ; Tunis: al-maktaba al-`atiqa, 1402/1982) p. 123.)]

Recently some pseudo-salafis have tried to put a spin on this variant of the wording stating al-kayf ghayr ma’qul but their faulty ta’wil contradicts the understanding of the ‘Ulema.

For example, according to Imam Al-Qarafi Al-Maliki, Imam Malik’s saying the kayf is inconceivable / al-kayf ghayr ma’qul means that Allah Himself is not attributed with what the Arabs used the word “kayf” for, which are temporary states and bodily appearances, and this is impossible / not conceivable, because it is impossible that Allah should be attributed with such meanings

(Dhakhirah, 13/243).”

قال القرافي: ومعنى قول مالك الاستواء غير مجهول أن عقولنا دلتنا على الاستواء اللائق بالله وجلاله وعظمته وهو الاستيلاء دون الجلوس ونحوه مما لا يكون إلا في الأجسام. وقوله والكيف غير معقول معناه أن ذات الله لا توصف بما وضعت له العرب لفظ كيف، وهو الأحوال المتنقلة والهيئات الجسمية..فلا يعقل ذلك في حقه لاستحالته في جهة الربوبية (ج.13/ص.242).

Explaining this specific statement of Imam Malik, Imam al-Qastallani also mentions in his famous commentary on the Sahih of Imam Al-Bukhari Irshad al Sari fi Sharh Sahih Bukhari with interlinear commentary of Imam Malik’s words:

من إرشاد الساري لشرح صحيح البخاري
لأحمد بن محمد بن أبى بكر بن عبد الملك القسطلاني
({ثم استوى على العرش}) الاستواء افتعال من السواء والسواء يكون بمعنى العدل والوسط وبمعنى الإقبال كما نقله الهروي عن الفراء وتبعه ابن عرفة بمعنى الاستيلاء، وأنكره ابن الأعرابي. وقال الحرب: لا تقول استولى إلا لمن له مضادّ وفيما قاله نظر فإن الاستيلاء من الولاء وهو القرب أو من الولاية وكلاهما لا يفتقر في إطلاقه لمضادّ، وبمعنى اعتدل وبمعنى علا وإذا علم هذا فينزل على ذلك الاستواء الثابت للباري تعالى على الوجه اللائق به وقد ثبت عن الإمام مالك أنه سئل كيف استوى؟ فقال: كيف غير معقول والاستواء غير مجهول والإيمان به واجب والسؤال عنه بدعة فقوله: كيف غير معقول أي كيف من صفات الحوادث وكل ما كان من صفات الحوادث فإثباته في صفات الله تعالى ينافي ما يقتضيه العقل فيجزم بنفيه عن الله تعالى وقوله والاستواء غير مجهول أي أنه معلوم المعنى عند أهل اللغة والإيمان به على الوجه اللائق به تعالى واجب لأنه من الإيمان بالله تعالى، وكتبه والسؤال عنه بدعة أي حادث لأن الصحابة رضي الله عنهم كانوا عالمين بمعناه اللائق بحسب اللغة فلم يحتاجوا للسؤال عنه فلما جاء من لم يحط بأوضاع لغتهم ولا له نور كنورهم يهديه لنور صفات الباري تعالى شرع يسأل عن ذلك فكان سؤاله سببًا لاشتباهه على الناس وزيغهم على العلماء حينئذٍ أن يهملوا البيان وقد مر أن استوى افتعل وأصله العدل، وحقيقة الاستواء المنسوب إلى الله تعالى في كتابه بمعنى اعتدل أي قام بالعدل وأصله من قوله شهد الله أنه لا إله إلا هو إلى قوله قائمًا بالقسط والعدل وهو استواؤه ويرجع معناه إلى أنه أعطى بعزته كل شيء خلقه موزونًا بحكمته المبالغة في التعريف لخلقه بوحدانيته ولذلك قرنه بقوله لا إله إلا هو العزيز الحكيم والاستواء المذكور في القرآن استواءان سماويّ وعرشي فالأول معدّى بإلى قال تعالى: {ثم استوى إلى السماء} [البقرة: 29] والثاني بعلى لأنه تعالى قام بالقسط متعرقًا بوحدانيته في عالمين عالم الخلق وعالم الأمر وهو عالم التدبير فكان استواؤه على العرش للتدبير بعد انتهاء عالم الخلق وبهذا يفهم سر تعدية الاستواء العرشي بعلى لأن التدبير للأمر لا بد فيه من استعلاء واستيلاء والعرش جسم كسائر الأجسام سمي به لارتفاعه أو للتشبيه بسرير الملك فإن الأمور والتدابير تنزل منه

Imam al-Qastallani says,

The ayah,({ثم استوى على العرش}) , al-istiwa’a الاستواء is in the morphological form ifti’aal افتعال from the original gerund assawaa السواء (to be equal) which means al’adl العدل (to be just), alwasT الوسط (to be fair) and aliqbaal الإقبال (to face). Al Harawi narrates from alFarra and ibn Arfah corroborates its meaning being al-istilaa الاستيلاء (to firmly establish) yet ibn an’araabi rejects this.
alHarb said that you only say istawlaa for one who has an antagonistic characteristic (i.e. an opposite state) so in what is mentioned there is an objection. Istilaa الاستيلاء is from alwalaa الولاء which means alqurb القرب (initmacy) or alwilayah الولاية (guardianship) and for both these meanings to be appropriate they do not require an antagonistic characteristic (i.e. an opposite state), and the meaning al’itadala اعتدل (to straighten) and the mean ‘alaa علا (to ascend). If you know this then apply the appropriate meaning of alisitiwaa الاستواء for the Creator, the exalted (i.e. the two meanings of intimacy and guardianship that does not require the Creator to take up contrary states which are inappropriate for Him).
And it has been established that Imam alMalik was asked, “How was istiwaa?”
He said,
“How is not intelligible,
istiwaa is not unknown,
belief in it is necessary,
and questioning it is an innovation.
So his words “How is not intelligible”
ie “how” is one of the attributes of contingent things, and to affirm contingent attributes as attributes for Allah Most Exalted is negated by what the intellect dictates [i.e., concerning what is rationally necessary and rationally impossible for Allah], and thus it must be incontrovertibly negated from Allah Most Exalted.
“and Istiwaa is not unknown” or in another narration “known” (fath)
i.e. It’s meaning is known by the scholars of language
“and belief in it” according to a correct understanding that is suitable to Him “is necessary” as it is from belief in Allah, the exalted,
“and questioning it is innovation”
i.e. A new matter in the religion as the companions, may Allah be pleased with them, knew its meaning according to language and hence did not need to ask the question and so when those people came who did not encompass the connotation (lit: placement) of their language and they did not have Light like their Light to guide them to the Light of the Creator’s attributes, the exalted, they began to ask about this matter. Their question was a reason for its confusion amongst people and their deviation from the scholars thereafter.

(above quote coutesy of Abdullah Hasan)

Imam al-Qurtubi‘s tafsir of ayah 29 of Al-Baqarah shows how he understood Imam Malik’s statement, Al-Istawa ghayr majhul wAl-kayf ghayr ma’qul:

Imam Al-Qurtubi says (rough translation of boxed part of scan above):

On this verse and those similar to it the people are divided into three groups:

Some have said, “we read, and we believe without doing exegesis,” and that is what most of the imams chose, and this is as has been reported from [Imam] Malik (rh) who was asked by a man about the verse, “ar-Rahman ‘ala l-arshi Stawa” and he said “Al-istawa is not unknown, the how is not conceivable (ghayr ma’qul), belief in it [al-istawa] is obligatory and questioning about it is an innovation and I do not think that you are anything but an innovator.’ Then he ordered that the man be led out.

Some others said, “we read, and we explain it by what is apparent in the language.” And this is what the anthropomorphists (mushabbihah) say.

And others said: “We read and we interpret them and we prevent taking it upon the apparent meaning [which comes to the mind of the anthropomorphists].”

(end quote)

Notice how Imam Malik’s statement is not placed with the second category above?  This shows that Imam Al-Qurtubi did not believe the salaf [including Imam Malik] read and understood these verses by the outwardly apparent meaning in the language which comes to the minds of anthropomorphists.

These explanations put to bed any pseudo-salafi attempts at twisting the meaning of the variant narration of al-kayfu ghayru ma’qul.

I would also like to point out what Ibn Taymiyyah said in al-Fataawa al-Hamawiyyah, 5/41 :

If the scholars had believed in the mere wording, without any understanding of the meaning in a manner that is befitting to Allah, they would not have said “The rising over (istiwa’) is not unknown and how cannot be comprehended”, and they would not have said “Let them pass as they came without discussing how.” In that case the rising over (istiwa’) would not have been known; rather it would have been unknown.
source

This is similar to what we quoted from his blind followers above from the Pseudo-salafis of ‘Saheefah’ and Ibn Baz.

Well here is something interesting for Ibn Taymiyyah and co to ponder upon in the narration related from Ibn Abdul Barr‘s al-Tamhid with its own chain:

قال الامام ابن عبد البر في التمهيد

أخبرنا محمد بن عبدالملك قال حدثنا عبدالله بن يونس قال حدثنا بقي بن مخلد قال حدثنا بكار بن عبدالله القرشي قال حدثنا مهدي بن جعفر عن مالك بن أنس أنه سأله عن قول الله تعالى الرحمن على العرش استوى كيف استوى قال فأطرق مالك ثم قال استواؤه مجهول والفعل منه غير معقول والمسألة عن هذا بدعة.
التمهيد الجزء 7 صفحة 151

Take note – this is the same Imam Ibn Abdul Barr the Wahhabis quote when it suits their false beliefs.  This narration says: His Istawa’ is unkown and this Act of His is not intelligible… So much for Ibn Taymiyya’s ‘logic’ then. I recommend the Salafis propagate this quote from the Imam they love to quote also.

To conclude what justification is there for the faulty conclusion that Imam Malik considered the meaning of istawa to be sitting or settling as they do and that he only did not know the manner / Kayf of this sitting / settling? Just a faulty understanding of one particular variant of the many variants of a narration from Imam Malik?

Conveniently they ignore the other authentic narration mentioned above.

“Their proofs and arguments are weaker than dust on a windy night.
And to Allah is our complaint.”

………..

Footnote:

[1] Adu Adam of SunniAnswers:
Imam Al-Zarkashiy said in Al-Baĥr Al-Muhiţ:

وَأُجِيبُ بِأَنَّ الْمُرَادَ بِالرَّاسِخِينَ في الْعِلْمِ الرَّاسِخُونَ في الْعِلْمِ بِاَللَّهِ وَمَعْرَفَتِهِ وَأَنَّهُ لَا سَبِيلَ لِلْوُقُوفِ على كُنْهِ ذَاتِهِ وَصِفَاتِهِ وَأَفْعَالِهِ بِغَيْرِهِ كما حَكَى عن الصِّدِّيقِ أَنَّهُ قال الْعَجْزُ عن دَرْكِ الْإِدْرَاكِ إدْرَاكٌ وقد قِيلَ:
حَقِيقَةُ الْمَرْءِ ليس الْمَرْءُ يُدْرِكُهَا فَكَيْفَ كَيْفِيَّةُ الْجَبَّارِ في الْقِدَمِ

“The answer is the what is meant by firm in knowledge is the one’s that are firm in knowledge of Allah, and knowing Him, and that there is no way to comprehend the kunh (reality) of His Self, attributes and actions by other than Him, as in the saying of (Abu Bakr) Al-Şiddiq “inability to reach comprehension, is comprehension” and it has been said:
The ĥaqiqah of a person is not comprehended by a person
So how about kayfiyyah of Al-Jabbar who has beginningless existence (1/368)”

As one can see, Al-Zarkakshi uses ĥaqiqah and kayfiyyah as synonyms to mean reality or “kunh.” Accordingly, whenever a respected scholar says “the kayf is unknown” then we should understand that he means by it this figurative usage, namely “reality,” and not “modality.”

source