Nor did he say, “The Quran merely mentions istiwāʾ,” or, “Allah has reported istiwāʾ.” Rather, he declared, “Istiwaʾ is known.” In other words, he affirmed that the single term itself is understood; he did not speak of the entire clause.

He also said, “and its ‘how’ is unknown.” Had he meant otherwise, he would have said, “The meaning of istiwāʾ is unknown,” or, “The explanation of istiwāʾ is unknown,” or, “The clarification of istiwāʾ is not known.” What he denied, therefore, was knowledge of the modality of istiwāʾ, not knowledge of istiwāʾ itself.

This is the principle regarding everything Allah has described Himself with. If someone were to ask about His words, “Indeed, I am with you both; I hear and I see” ⦗Q 20:46⦘: “How does He hear, and how does He see?” we would reply, “Hearing and seeing are known; the how is unknown.” And if he asked, “How did He speak to Moses with actual speech?” we would say, “Speech is known; the how is not known.”

Furthermore, those of our scholars and other Sunni scholars who employ this formulation affirm that Allah is truly above the Throne, that His essence is above the essence of the Throne. They do not deny the meaning of istiwāʾ, nor do they regard it as one of the ambiguous texts whose meaning is wholly inaccessible. The early generations were unanimous in explaining it in the very sense upheld by Ahl al-Sunnah.

Some of them said, “He rose over the Throne,” or, “He ascended over the Throne,” while others used similar expressions. These reports from the salaf are firmly established; al-Bukhārī recorded some of them in his Ṣaḥīḥ at the end of the book “Refutation of the Jahmiyyah.”

As for distorted interpretations such as “He took possession” and the like, they are among the innovative exegeses that arose only after the emergence of the Jahmiyyah. It has also been confirmed that following