There is a statement attributed to Imām Mālik regarding the matter of Istiwā. However, with various wordings. Below we will dissect three wordings that are found within the books.
Wording 1:
الإستواء غير مجهول والكيف غير معقول
Istiwā is not unknown and the modality is inconceivable.
Wording 2:
الإستواء معلوم والكيف عنه مرفوع
Istiwā is known and the modality is raised (i.e. He transcends it)
Wording 3:
الإستواء معلوم والكيف مجهول
Istiwā is known and the modality is unknown.
Wording 1 & 2 are authentically transmitted and can be found in reliable books such as Al-Asmā wa As-Sifāt of Al-Bayhaqī.
As for wording 3, then it has no origin in transmission and this is what Salafiyyah ought to use the most as it supposedly does not refute the idea of Allah having a modality and it also suggests the meaning being known.
1— ‘Not unknown’ ‘Known’ may refer to two possibilities. The first is that the meaning is not unknown/known. The second, the assertion is not unknown/known. I.e. it is affirmed in the Qur’ān.
2— The term ‘Kayf’ usually refers to modality and is derived from the question ‘Kayfa? (كيف؟) just like Mahiyyah is derived from ‘Ma Huwa’ (ما هو؟). According to scholars of the Arabic language, a modality (Kayfiyyah) in such a context is known by asking ‘how’ the action occurred. For example:
كيف نزل زيد؟
How did Zayd descend?
نزل زيد راكبا
Zayd descended riding.
Therefore, the action of descending and riding are two separate qualities that revolve around an event. Descending is the loci of riding.
Moving on, the term Kayfiyyah may at times also be used synonymously with Quiddity (Mahiyyah). This refers to what makes the subject to what it is. The quiddity of a human being is that he is a rational animal, this makes him what he is. If this is intended by Kayfiyyah in this context, then this is not problematic and we may accept the wording of Kayf being unknown, for argument’s sake.
Nonetheless, what can be derived conclusively from the statements is, that Allāh is free from modality. Thus, any meaning that indicates modality is automatically false according to Imām Mālik.
Let’s go to the possible meanings:
- Istiqrār (Settling) — This has a modality as it is accidental to the concept of moving down in space onto something. Thus it is rejected.
- Istīlā (Subjugating) — This does not have any modality as it firstly is symbolic and not sensory, and secondly, it is the very concept of taking over something itself. Thus it is a possible meaning.
- Istaqāmah Ba’d ‘Iwaj (Becoming upright after being warped) — This contains modality as it revolves around being twisted and shaped. Thus the meaning cannot be accepted as a possible one.
- Ghalabah (Authority) — This is a meaningful concept again and thus it does not have any modality within it. Thus it is a possible meaning.
- Hukm (command) — This is again a meaningful concept and does not contain any modality. Thus it is a possible meaning.
- Irtifā’ (Rising) — This can refer to moving from a lower place to a higher place, but it can also refer to being exalted or transcendent. The first meaning revolves around modality while the second revolves around perfection and transcendence above any mode. Thus the first is an impossible meaning and the second is a possible meaning.
- ‘Uluww (Being above) — The same as number 6.
Thus the possible meanings that can be used are:
- Istīlā
- Ghalabah
- Hukm
- Irtifā’ if used according to the second meaning
- Uluww if used according to the second meaning.
See the chart below for a better image:
