Divine Descent1

This is considered one of the major attributes that a long dispute has surrounded from the
different groups in this Ummah. It is not of less concern than the other attributes, such as
Kalam and Istiwa’. These attributes, along with Nuzul (Descent), are considered one of the
major attributes over which disputes arose under the topic of names and attributes. The imams
of Sunnah have given a lot of care for this attribute, and even authored specialised books on it
alone. From amongst those who authored on this attribute is Abu Na’eem al-Asbahany, Abu
Bakr as-Saboony, ad-Dhahabi, Ibn Mandah, and others. It is also considered as a branch from
‘uluw. ‘uluw is considered an asl (foundation) for a lot of attributes, such as istiwa’, Ma’iyyah
(being with), Nuzul, Ru’yah (seeing), and others. So, anyone who has disagreed with Ahlul
Sunnah on ‘uluw will definitely disagree with them on Nuzul.

The madhab of Ahlul Sunnah on Nuzul

Before getting to what Ahlul Sunnah believe, it is important to highlight that no other group
has this in common with Ahlul Sunnah, unlike other matters where there could be
commonality.

To sum it up, we believe Allah Descends a real descent subsisting within His Dhat, with His
Will, and what is meant is what is linguistically understood from this term, heading from up to
down. Ahlul Sunnah also believe that Nuzul is an attribute that is Khabariyyah, meaning we
could not have known about it except through revelation. The imams of the Sunnah have a
consensus regarding this attribute, and their statements on it are mutawatir. Abu ‘amr at-
Talamankiy states, “they reached a consensus that Allah Descends every night to the lower
heaven, upon what the aathar have come, however He Wills.”2

However, there are some matters which are brought up against this ijma’, such as what was
narrated from imam Malik where he says, “descends His command and mercy.” On the

1
This document has been majorly translated from Dr. Sultan al-‘Umayri’s book

169-176‫ ص‬،‫ الجزئ األول‬،‫العقود الذهبية على مقاصد العقيدة الواسطية‬

)578/5( ‫ مجموع الفتاوى البن تيمية‬2

apparent, this looks like it is going against the consensus, however, this athar is weak.3 It has
been narrated from him through 2 isnads, both of them containing unknown individuals,
known liars and weak individuals4. Besides, it would also be going against what has been
narrated and mutawatir from imam Malik regarding his position on the names and attributes
of Allah saying, “pass them along as they came without a kayf” and other authentic narrations.5

Another is what a number of mutakallimeen narrate from al-Awza’iyy, where he was asked
about Nuzul and said, “He does as He pleases.” So, Ibn Fawrak (an Ash’ari scholar) tells us that
what al-Awza’iyy meant here is that Nuzul is an action that Allah does to something other than
Himself, not an action that subsists within the Dhat of Allah.6 However, this understanding from
Ibn Fawrak and others is an incorrect understanding. Al-Awza’iyy saying that meant that Allah
does the action by His Will, so it’s sifa ikhtiyarriyah (done by choice of Will), which Allah does
whenever He Wills however He Wills. This is known from the speech of the Salaf.

What has been affirmed for Allah is several types of Nuzul7:

1. Nuzul every night, and this is affirmed no doubt, as the narrations regarding it are
mutawatir and clear in their apparent meaning.

‫ لكن هذا كذاب باتفاق أهل العلم‬، ‫( ُرويت من طريق كاتبه حبيب بن أبي حبيب‬5/401) :‫ قال شيخ اإلسالم ابن تيمية في الفتاوى‬3
‫ورويت من طريق أخرى – يقصد رواية مطرف – ذكرها ابن عبد البر وفي إسنادها من ال‬ ُ . ‫ ال يقبل أح ٌد منهم نقله عن مالك‬، ‫بالنقل‬
.‫نعرفه‬

‫ بمعنى نزول أمره‬، ‫ ينزل ربنا‬: ‫ وقد روي عنه – أي مالك – أنه تأول قوله‬:)453‫وقال اإلمام ابن القيم في مختصر الصواعق (ص‬
‫ بل هو كذاب وضاع باتفاق أهل الجرح والتعديل‬، ‫ وحبيب هذا غير حبيب‬، ‫ من طريق حبيب كاتبه‬: ‫ أحدهما‬: ‫وهذه الرواية لها إسنادان‬
.‫ فيه مجهول ال يعرف حاله‬: ‫ والثاني‬، ‫ ولم يعتمد أحد من العلماء على نقله‬،

.‫ يقصد اإلمام الذهبي أنه مشهور بالكذب‬. ‫ ال أعرف صالحا وحبيب مشهور‬: ‫) على رواية حبيب‬105/8( ‫وقال اإلمام الذهبي في السير‬

‫ وقال ابن عدي حدثنا محمد بن هارون بن حسان حدثنا صالح‬:)105/8( ‫ روى اإلمام الذهبي في سير أعالم النبالء‬:‫ الرواية األولى‬4
.‫ يت نزل ربنا تبارك وتعالى أمره فأما هو فدائم ال يزول‬:‫بن أيوب حدثنا حبيب بن أبي حبيب حدثني مالك قال‬

‫ حدثنا‬:‫ وكان من ثقات المسلمين بالقيروان قال‬، ‫وقد روى محمد بن ال َجبُّلي‬: (7/143) ‫ قال اإلمام ابن عبدالبر في التمهيد‬:‫الرواية الثانية‬
‫ ينزل‬:‫ عن هللا ينزل في الليل إلى سماء الدنيا فقال مالك‬:‫ قال حدثنا مطرف عن مالك بن أنس أنه سئل عن الحديث‬،‫جامع بن سوادة بمصر‬
.‫أمره‬

،‫ وسفيان‬، ‫ مالك بن أنس‬: ‫ كل من أدركت من المشايخ‬:‫) عن زهير بن عباد قال‬341/1( ‫ روى ابن أبي زمنين في أصول السنة‬:‫ مثل‬5
. ‫ النزول حق‬: ‫ يقولون‬،‫ ووكيع بن الجراح‬،‫ وعبد هللا بن المبارك‬،‫وفضيل بن عياض‬

)205( ‫ مشكل الحديث و بيانه‬6

)76( ‫ الرد على الجهمية للدارمي‬7

 2. Nuzul at the beginning of ‘arafah’s night, where Allah shows off the people of ‘arafah to
the angels, and there’s a mashhur hadith for this.8
3. Nuzul on the night of mid-Sha’ban. Ad-Daramiyy mentions it being a type of Nuzul,
however, the affirmation of this meaning is a bit shaky, as the ahadith from which the
attribute is affirmed have been weakened by a number of scholars like al-‘uqayli, ad-
Dhahabi, Ibn al-Jawzi, and others. Some of the scholars strengthen the wordings with Allah
examining His slaves on that night, however, this ittila’ (examination) does not affirm this
type of Nuzul for certain.
4. Nuzul on the day of Qiyamah to judge between creation. Ad-Darami also affirms it to be
a type of Nuzul, however, his evidence was the majee’ (coming), but the majee’ does not
necessitate Nuzul, rather harakah (movement), which will come later on.

The research on this attribute is highly related to the research on the types of this attribute.
As we have seen above, if we include majee’ as a type of Nuzul, then the evidence for Nuzul
would include the Quran, and vice versa. So, ad-Darami, who includes it as a type of nuzul,
considers surat al-Baqarah verse 210, and al-Fajr verse 22 as evidence.9

From amongst the most famous ahadith used to affirm Nuzul states, “Our Lord Descends to
the lower heaven every night on the last third.” This hadith is famous and mutawatir, and there
are multiple imams who have stated that it’s mutawatir. From amongst the oldest who stated
that it’s mutawatir is Abu Zar’ah ar-Razi where he said, “these ahadith that are mutawatir from
the prophet  that Allah Descends every night to the lower heaven have been narrated from
multiple companions of the prophet  and they are considered extremely authentic for us.”
This hadith is related to a lot of matters, due to the different wordings it came in and its riwayat
in general, as it was narrated from nearly 30 of the prophet ’s companions. The most
important matters to do with it are 6:

1. The words that have been used to describe the Nuzul; sometimes they are ‫ينزل‬, ‫يهبط‬, ‫يتدلى‬,
and others.
2. The time of Nuzul, where sometimes it’s mentioned to be after midnight; sometimes it’s
after the first third of the night, and others it’s after the last third of the night.

)1348( ‫ أخرجه مسلم‬8

)76( ‫ الرد على الجهمية للدارمي‬9

 3. Determining who the caller is, whether it’s Allah or an angel whom Allah commands to
call.
4. Determining the forms of calling that have been narrated.
5. Determining when the Nuzul ends; is it at Fajr, sunrise, or another.
6. The different terms that are used to describe Allah’s ‘uluw after the Nuzul.

These 6 matters have some differing upon between the later scholars due to the differences
between the narrations. It is not the place to get into these branched matters as they are
branches from the foundations which we are here to affirm. If a person is intending to get into
the details of these branches, the book ‫ صفة العلو‬by Abdulqadir al-Ghamidi is good for such an
expansion.

There are some matters related to this topic as well, such as do we say Allah
descends by Himself (bi dhatihi).

Ahlul Sunnah scholars differed upon this into 3 positions:

1. That is what we should say, even though with His Dhat is not mentioned in the text, rather
Ahlul Sunnah used it to describe the belief, affirming it in its reality.
2. Others would say “He Descends”, and would not use with His Dhat, whether in
affirmation or negation. This was the position of Abu al-Qasim at-Tamimi, as well as ad-
Dhahabi and others. However, this is incorrect because with His Dhat is not an attribute that
we affirm for Allah, rather it falls under talking about Allah’s attributes, and that is a matter
of ease. A matter that is similar to this is when the Salaf say, “Allah is distinct and separate
from His creation”. This is a description, not an attribute. There are numerous examples for
this.
3. That He does not Descend with His Dhat.

Whether the Throne is vacuous when Allah Descends.

Ahlul Sunnah also split upon 3 statements:

1. Rejecting the question itself, as it is asking about the modality (kayfiyyah), and this was
the choice of Abdulghani al-Maqdisi and other scholars.
2. That the Throne is vacuous, and this was the choice of some of Ahlul Hadith, like
Abdulrahman Ibn Mandah, the student of the famous imam who authored on creed and
hadith. Ibn Mandah authored a specialised book on this topic which Ibn Taymiyyah showed
the incorrectness of his argument in his book Sharh Hadith an-Nuzool. For amongst the
proponents of this position is Abu Abdullah Ibn Hamid, whereby He states that the Throne
is vacuous upon Allah’s Descent.

They have used multiple pieces of evidence for this position, and from amongst them is the
claim that the term “nuzool”, meaning descent, necessitates the emptiness of the Throne
and the movement from one place to another. What is known from the language of the
Arabs however is that this is not true. In Arabic, the term indicates directing oneself from
up to down. As for emptiness, that is not from the binding necessities of descent, which will
be elaborated upon later.

They might also use the narration which states, “And then when it’s morning, He rises up
and sits on His Throne”10, which is not an authentic narration; we can not depend upon it.
In its chain is Ibn Abi Tawbah, whom imam Ahmed and others have weakened.
3. The Throne is not vacuous upon Allah’s Descent, which is the position of the majority of
Ahlul Sunnah and the major scholars. This position was triumphed by Ibn Taymiyyah and
umpteen scholars have claimed it. Imam Ahmed states, “He Descends, and the Throne is
not emptied”11. It has also been narrated from Hammad bin Zayd, Na’eem bin Hammad,
ash-Shafi’I, and others, narrations along the wording of, “He Descends, and the Throne is
not emptied”12. The jumhoor (majority) of Ahlul Sunnah have used a variety of evidence for
this position; from amongst which are:
1. ‘Uluw is an attribute of the Dhat, and the istiwa’ upon the ‘arsh is an attribute bound
to Him. It is not possible of ‘Uluw to be separated from Allah, nor is it possible for the
‘arsh to be emptied after He has performed istiwa’ upon it. If it were the case that this
happens upon the Descent, then it would always be vacuous as the 3rd part of the night
is always happening on Earth. Ibn Taymiyyah states, “the differing in the night-time
from place to place negates the saying of one who thinks that the Throne is vacuous,
and He becomes under the Throne of under the heaven”13.

)6334( ‫ و انظر السلسلة الضعيفة لأللباني‬،)80( ‫ رواه ابن منده في الرد على الجهمية‬10

)379\2( ‫ منهاج السنة النبوية البن تيمية‬11

)459\5( ‫ مجموع الفتاوى البن تيمية‬12

)478\5( ‫ مجموع الفتاوى‬13

 2. Nuzool (Descent) does not necessitate emptiness in the language, rather it
necessitates heading from up to down. This is even witnessed in the daily interactions of
people. A person could be sitting on a chair and would descent to pick up something
from the ground. This descent is nuzool, and the chair is not vacuous. What is meant by
this example is to get the concept closer, and not an analogy for the modality of Allah’s
Descent. Upon this example, the concept of descent without emptiness should have
been conceptualised. The analogy of higher ordered should be applied.

So, what is correct is the third position, which is the majority position.

Whether the Descent is through movement and displacement.

Ahlul Sunnah differed on this upon 3 statements:

1. That He Descents with movement and displacement. It is the statement of those who say
that the Throne is emptied upon Descent. Everyone who says that the Throne is emptied
upon Descent is also saying that it’s a Descent through movement and displacement. Abu
Abdullah Ibn Hamid says this, and from amongst those who explicitly states this as well are
ad-Darami, Harb al-Kirmani, and others.
2. That He Descends without movement and displacement. From amongst those who
stated this are Abu Ya’la, Ibn az-Zaghooni, al-Khattaby, Ibn Hibban, and other scholars.
3. To not negate or affirm. So, it is not to be said, “He Descends through movement”, nor is
it to be said, “He Descends without movement”, as this topic is a branch from the branches
of the attribute, which goes outside the reality of Descent and the text hasn’t mentioned it.
So, it’s a problem from 2 perspectives; not being mentioned in the text and being a branch
of a different matter. Since that is the case, we do not have a say on the matter, where we
do not negate or affirm.

However, what is correct is that the term “movement” is ambiguous, and a distinction
should be made before using it. If a correct meaning is given, we accept it, and if an incorrect
meaning is given, we reject it.

Ibn al-Qayyim displayed how this term “movement” is an ambiguous term. So, if what is
meant is the displacement of a jism (body) and accidental property from one place which it
needs to another place which it needs, then this is not an acceptable meaning to be attributed
to Allah. What could also be meant by “movement”, or ‫ انتقال‬in Arabic, is to go from not doing
to being a doer and vice versa, then this meaning is correct and it is correct for any doer as
there’s no doer without this.

What could also be meant is something more general, being an action subsisting within the
doer directed at a certain location. The Quran, Sunnah, and the consensus are upon Allah
signify the coming of Allah on the day of judgement, the Descent to lowest heaven every night,
the Descent on the night of ‘arafah, the Descent to Earth before the day of judgement, and the
Descent to the people of Jannah. These are actions which Allah does to specific places, so it is
impermissible to negate them through the negation of movement and the displacement
associated with created things. It is not from the binding necessities of His actions, and what is
from the binding necessities of His actions is impermissible to negate. However, what is from
the binding necessities of the actions of creation alone is not permissible to affirm. The
difference between the living and the dead is then through movement and the ability to sense.
Negating movement in this sense is to negate sensing, which necessitates negation of life.14

The madhab of deviated groups on this attribute

The attribute of Nuzool is from amongst the attributes that the Mu’atillah have agreed to
negate and do ta’weel of. As for the Mu’tazilah, they have said very little with regards to this
attribute to the point where a lot of their books don’t mention it at all. From amongst the few
things that they said with regards to it is what al-Khawarizmi said when he was talking about
the ta’weel of majee’ (coming), “and upon this ta’weel is also what has been narrated from him
 that Allah Descends to the lower heaven”15. Likewise, their speech on the rest of the Divine
attributes, especially on Divine coming, necessitates the negation of Divine Descent.

As for Kullabiyyah, Ash’aris, and Mauridis, they have discussed this matter a lot. Fakhr al-
Din ar-Razi is considered one of the major proponents for the ta’weel of this attribute and he
brought arguments that were not known to those before him. In this article, the foundations
of what ar-Razi has raised will be discussed.

)473\1( ‫ مختصر الصواعق المرسلة على الجهمية و المعتزلة‬14

)407( ‫ المعتمد في أصول الدين‬15

The arguments made by ar-Razi and others to ta’weel Descent are of 2 types

1. General arguments that are not specific to Descent, and they’re the arguments to do with
negating wilful actions and the attributes that are khabariyyah (can only be known through
revelation) of the essence.
2. Arguments that are specific to Descent.

As for the arguments from the first type, they are discussed in a dedicated article16. The
discussion in this article will focus on the arguments that are specific to this attribute and 5 of
them were chosen.

1. Affirming Descent necessitates affirming movement and displacement from one place to
another, while movement and displacement from one place to another is from the
attributes of occurring ajsam (bodies). Allah is not an occurrence; therefore, He is not to be
described with Descent. This argument is one of the most common arguments brought
against Descent, and it is not sound due to 4 main reasons17:
A. This is an argument made using a position of dispute, as the dispute between us and
them is whether to affirm the genus of movement to Allah or not. They can not bring
their position as a premise for their argument, this is an embarrassing form of circular
reasoning. So, we reject this and say we do not give you this as this is presupposing the
position of dispute.
B. This second reason is specific to the Mulaffiqah (Asha’irah, Maturidis, and
Kullabiyyah). It could then be said that knowledge subsists in that which is a jism, and
ajsam are occurrences, then Allah is not to be described with knowledge. The same
with regards to speech. Then the response to this line of reasoning is also the response
to their line of reasoning in negating Descent.
C. Their argument is built upon tashbih. When they likened Allah’s Descent to the
descent of created beings, they thought that the Descent of Allah necessitates
movement from place to place and the emptiness of the place He displaced. Hence,
they negated it for Allah when this is not a binding necessity for descent. The reality of
descent goes back to its meaning of heading from up to down. As for emptiness and

16
Can also be found in Dr. Sultan’s book as well as a plethora of books.

)141( ‫ أساس التقديس للرازي‬17

 relocation, they are not bound to the meaning of descent. Rather, this is bound to the
descent of creation and it is not permissible to perform an analogy of inclusion as we
do not know the actual reality of Allah’s Descent, hence it is not reasonable to assign
binding necessities associated with His Descent.

From amongst the examples that help conceptualise the idea of movement having no
binding necessity of emptying space is the ruh (soul) going to the heaven during sleep
while it hasn’t left the human body. We know that if the ruh completely left the body,
the human being would be dead. During sleep, a human being isn’t really dead, the
death that results in the hardening and rotting of the body. If this is the case, then using
the analogy of higher order, movement for Allah does not necessitate emptying either.
D. The argument is built upon ambiguous terms, from amongst which is “descent
necessitates tajsim”. We ask them what they mean by tajsim?18 If you mean the ajsam
that are described with the attributes of created things, then we agree with you, Allah
is not to be described with this meaning. However, if you mean by jism a thing which
attributes subsist within, then this is a meaning we accept, but your usage of the term
is not in accordance with the Arabic language, and we reject it.

2. If we affirm Descent, then it means Allah is in the direction of above, then He directs
himself to the direction of down. Everything in a direction is limited, and Allah is not limited,
therefore He can not be described with Descension19.

This argument is invalid, because we say that Allah is in the direction of above, but this
direction is not something that is created that Allah incarnates in. Rather it is what is above
the entirety of creation and that is not a created thing for Allah to incarnate in, it is merely
the non-existence of the world from the direction of above. So, the ‘uluw we affirm is not a
limited created thing, rather it refers to the non-existence of the world and its finitude.

18
An entire article is dedicated to the usage of the word jism and the position of Ahlul Sunnah on
this term. In short, the term itself is prohibited to use for Allah, it has not been used for Allah neither in
the Quran nor Sunnah, and it is ambiguous as it carries multiple meanings some of which are correct
while others are wrong.

)141( ‫ أساس التقديس للرازي‬19

3. If what is intended by Descension is to hear the calling of Allah, then that didn’t happen,
because we didn’t hear the calling. If what is intended by it is to just call, then there was no
need to descend. This argument was first made by al-Ghazali, then ar-Razi took over20.

It is an extremely strange argument as it is in direct opposition to the texts that explicitly

state that Allah Descends, and hence it’s necessary to submit to that meaning. It is not
befitting to object using a proof devoid of textual evidence that is also devoid of
understanding the Divine meanings and the relationship between the human and His Lord.

Then, it is to be said that what is intended from Descension is not for us to hear the Speech
of Allah, rather it is to do with the spiritual meanings that are associated with this action
that Allah does. No doubt that when a believer recalls this meaning where Allah Descends
every night and calls upon them, like how the prophet  relayed to us, that it creates deep
meanings within the believers. It is not befitting to make such an objection that do not
account for these values in faith that are associated with this attribute that the pious from
amongst the people and those who love Allah are attached to.

4. If it were the case that Allah Descends, then it would mean that creation becomes above
Allah. So, if Allah Descends to the lowest heaven, that means that the 6 heavens and the
Throne are above Allah. Since it is not possible for anything to be above Allah, then He does
not Descend21.

This argument is based upon the assumption that Descension necessitates emptiness of the
Throne and that Allah incarnates into the lower heaven. If we say that the Throne is not
emptied and that it does not necessitate Allah incarnating in any of His creation, because
He’s greater than everything, then this argument simply falls apart. Another response that
is to be said is also found in response to the next argument.

5. This argument is in fact their strongest argument and the most difficult to deal with, and
it was mentioned by ar-Razi. He states that if the Earth always has the last 3rd of the night

)148( ‫ أساس التقديس للرازي‬20

)148( ‫ أساس التقديس للرازي‬21

somewhere, then the last 3rd of the night is always present on Earth. This is due to the Earth
being round and spins, hence it’s always the last 3rd of the night somewhere. The hadith
specified that Allah Descends on the last 3rd of the night. This means that Allah will always
be Descending and continuous Descension is in contradiction with continuous aboveness22.

It is not just the Asha’irah and the rest of the mulaffiqah who make this argument, rather
you find Ibn Hazm23 as well as every group that is in opposition to Islam. The objectors from
amongst the Jews and Christians, as well as atheists and deists, have attempted to make
this argument, claiming that Islam is in contradiction with sound reasoning.

This argument can be responded to from 2 perspectives:

A. Those who are objecting have conflated between Divine Descent and the descent of
created beings. They have assigned necessities which are bound to the descent of
created beings to the Descent of Allah. When the descent of created beings is assumed
to leave an vacuous location that is high to fill a location that is low, as well as taking
time to descent, they ascribed necessities to Divine Descent. The reality is that the
Descent of Allah is not from the genus of the descent of created beings. Hence, the
implications of the descent of created beings cannot be assigned to the Descent of
Allah. When something is associated with created beings, not the universal meaning,
it is not befitting to include Allah in an analogy of inclusion.

B. This is built upon the inattentiveness to Allah’s Majesty. There’s no limit to His
Majesty. His Footstool encompasses the heavens and the earth, while it is smaller than
the Throne. The prophet  says, “the heavens and the earth, compared to the
Footstool, are but a ring in a desert, and likewise the Footstool compared to the
Throne”24. Every created place does not compare to Allah’s majesty, and there could
exist no place that would encompass Allah. The multiplicity of created places and their
unity is zilch compared to the Divine Majesty.

)148( ‫ أساس التقديس للرازي‬22

)132\2( ‫ الفصل في الملل و األهواء و النحل‬23

‫) و ضعفه األلباني‬861( ‫ أخرجه البيهقي في االسماء و الصفات‬24

 With regards to these 2 perspectives, Ibn Taymiyyah says, “they only said this due to
imagining that His Descent is like the descent of themselves, and this is precisely what
likening is. Then they proceeded to include Allah among the incapable beings from amongst
them who are incapable of doing multiple things at once. The narrations regarding the day
of judgement display how everyone of His creation sees Him judging him alone and speaking
to him alone besides no other. The prophet  said, “if the slave says ‫ الحمد هلل رب العالمين‬Allah
responds with ‫حمدني عبدي‬. And when the slave says ‫ الرحمن الرحيم‬Allah responds with ‫أثنى علي‬
‫عبدي‬.” Where everyone from the people is being spoken to and that is being said to them,
whereby nothing distracts Him from doing something else. As it was asked to Ibn Abbas,
“how is it that Allah judges everyone at the same moment?!” and his response  was, “like
how He gives them their sustenance at the same moment!”25

Nor is it necessary for there to be some creation above Him because they’re nowhere near
His greatness. If we recall the Divine Majesty, which we can not imagine a limit to, then we
imagine the petty nature of creation compared to Allah, then the plurality of places and
states is not a contradiction. One cannot say that Allah has to be in 2 places at once nor that
something is above Allah. All of this can only be allowed if the greatness of creation was
comparable to the greatness of Allah. This is not the case, then it is not the case that this is
permissible.

Their ta’weel of the texts that mention the Descent

After they have put the foundations by negating the ‘uluw dhati upon the fraudulent
intellectual evidence, they directed themselves towards the texts that talk about the Descent.
They tried to drive away the clear contradiction between what they believe and what the text
states using 2 methods:

1. Claiming that the narrations regarding the Descent are ahad narrations so we can not
depend upon them in affirming creedal matters. What is strange is that they make the claim
that they are ahad and they do not prove that or provide any arguments for what they claim.
They do not respond to the statements of the major imams of hadith who said that the
narrations on Descent are mutawatir.

)55\4( ‫ بيان تلبيس الجهمية‬25

 2. They attempt ta’weel, claiming that the term descent is not clear in signifying that it’s a
real descent, rather it means to create, command, and so on. They also try to strengthen
their position by saying the descent (‫ )نزول‬was used in the Quran upon the meanings of
create and command. From amongst the verses they use is verse 6 in surat az-Zumar. Ar-
Razi mentions that it is known that Allah didn’t send down the 4 pairs of cattle, rather He
created them on Earth and yet called it descent. From amongst the verses as well is verse
26 in surat at-Tawbah. They say that sending down here doesn’t refer to sending down from
the heavens, rather creating the tranquillity.

What ar-Razi is arguing for here is incorrect. So, as for the cattle, there are a couple of
perspectives to respond from.
A. There’s no evidence that the genus of cattle hasn’t been sent down from the
heavens. Adam was sent down from heaven, however the particulars from the progeny
of Adam were not sent down from heaven. So, what is the issue with the genus of cattle
being sent down from heaven, then the particulars started to reproduce? Ar-Razi
hasn’t provided any evidence, so we also refuse this premise from the beginning and
ask for evidence.
B. Some scholars have done tafsir of the ayah to mean real descent, but rather the
descent wasn’t associated with the cattle themselves rather the rain that was sent
down and was in charge of plantation that sustains the cattle. So, it is a real descent in
this case that isn’t directly associated with the cattle, rather with the rain.

As for tranquillity, we do not submit to it not being a real descent and there’s nothing
that prevents it from being a real descent. Once again, ar-Razi doesn’t provide any
evidence for his claim.

Their ta’weel of the hadith of Nuzool (Descent)

As for the hadith of Descent, they mentioned a lot of ta’weels for it. From amongst them
are the following.

1. The first ta’weel is that the one who descends is an angel and not Allah. This is why Ibn
Fawrak claims that the correct form of the word is ‫ يُنزل‬and not ‫ َينزل‬, meaning that Allah
sends down not Descends down26. They also mention the narration in an-Nasa’i saying,
“Allah awaits the first half of the night, then a caller calls ‘is there a caller whom I should
answer?’”27
However, this ta’weel is incorrect due to several reasons.
A. It goes against the mutawatir forms of this narration. All the mutawatir forms
ascribe the descension to Allah.
B. In some forms, the caller says, “I am the King, who calls upon me?”. This can not be
the speech of an angel, rather it must be from Allah.
C. As for the narration that mentions angel calling, assuming it is authentic, it goes
against the mutawatir narrations. Then we must put forward the stronger narrations.

It could also be said, what is the issue with the caller being Allah and Allah commands
and angel to call, then both of them are calling?

It could also be said, assuming only the angel calls, then this is not problematic for
affirming Descension, as it could be that Allah Descends to the lower heaven and
commands an angel to call upon the people. The issue at hand is an affirmation of
Descension not a question of who the caller is. So, this is a conflation between 2
different questions.
2. Their second ta’weel is what descends is His mercy, not Allah Himself. However, this
ta’weel is incorrect due to several reasons.
A. The terms in the hadith in the form of, “who will call upon me to grant him, who will
ask me for forgiveness to grant him forgiveness”, these terms elaborate on the
Descension and that it cannot be mercy descending.
B. Some forms of this narration clearly reject this, where some of them state, “there’s
no one who asks about my slaves except me, who will call upon me to grant them” 28.
This form of speech could not be from an angel, nor could it be from mercy.
C. Allah’s mercy is not specific to that time period, rather it is general to all times.

)204( ‫ مشكل الحديث و بيانه البن فورك‬26

)10316( ‫ رواه النسائي‬27

‫) و صححه األلباني‬17748( ‫ أخرجه أحمد‬28

D. The mercy of Allah is not specific to the lower heaven, nor does it stop there, rather
it is also on earth and the narrations regarding the Descension stopping at the lower
heaven are mutawatir.

It could be said that what could cause a clash with the last 2 points is that this could be
a specific type of mercy. This isn’t problematic however, as the apparent meaning of
the hadith signifies that what happens during the Descent is a matter that Allah grants
to His creation on earth every night. This means that it’s an action that is transitive and
so it exceeds in its effects to the people on earth and their life.