“…‘Let them pass exactly as they have come, without exposition.’ In another wording: ‘without asking how.’
- Rabiʿah al-Raʾy, Mālik, and others said, ‘The istiwāʾ is not unknown, its how is beyond human grasp, and believing in it is obligatory.’
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said in al-Fatwā al-Ḥamawiyyah (p. 109, al-Sunnah al-Muḥammadiyyah Press):
‘The words of Rabiʿah and Mālik—“The istiwāʾ is not unknown…”—agree with the statement of the rest, “Let them pass as they came, without how.” They only denied knowledge of the modality; they did not deny the reality of the attribute. Had those scholars affirmed nothing but a bare wording, with no understanding of a meaning befitting Allah, they would never have said, “The istiwāʾ is not unknown and its how is inconceivable,” nor would they have said, “Pass them on as they came, without how,” for in that case istiwāʾ would itself be unknowable, standing no higher than the detached letters of the alphabet!
‘Moreover, one has no need to disclaim knowledge of the how if no meaning at all is understood from the wording; one must deny knowledge of the how only when the attribute itself is affirmed.
‘Likewise, anyone who rejects some or all of the attributes has no reason to add, “without how.” A person who says, “Allah is not on the Throne,” has no occasion to say, “without how.” If the position of the salaf had truly been to negate the attributes in reality, why would they say “and without how” at all?
‘Further, their phrase “Let them pass as they came” requires that the texts’ indicative force be left intact, for they have come as expressions pointing to meanings. Were that indicative force annulled, one ought to say instead: “Transmit their wording while believing that the sense that first comes to mind is not intended,” or: “Transmit their wording while believing that Allah is not described by what they literally denote.” Only then could it be said that the texts had been “passed on as they came.” In that case, however, adding “without how” would be pointless, for negating the modality of something that is not affirmed is mere redundancy.’