The King Defeated the Enemy, and Imam Mālik's Answer

Taʾwīl, then, basically means to interpret, make sense of, assign a meaning to, give an interpretation or explanation to, as in interpreting a saying. Say somebody said: the king defeated the enemy. The king defeated the enemy. Now, who exactly defeated the enemy? Was it done at the king's hand; did he physically go and do it? Was he part of the war? Not necessarily. That could happen, but it is not necessary. This is a metaphor to explain that it was done under his instruction, command and guidance. It was done using his troops. He may have been part of it; he may not have been part of it. He is probably sitting on the throne somewhere.

When that is said, then to do tafwīḍ (and literally, tafwīḍ means to refer to another for decision or judgement, so that one does not do it oneself, but consigns it to somebody else; here, it is being consigned to Allah) means to leave any statement revealed about Allah Most High as it was revealed, without elucidating or interpreting it, and consigning its intended explanation to Allah.

For instance, Allah says: Allah, Most Gracious, is firmly established on the Throne, istawā ʿalā al-ʿArsh. Hence, this information is mentioned in the Qur'an, but the how of it is not known. How exactly is He established? How exactly is this istiwāʾ on the ʿArsh? That is not known. Asking about it is an innovation.

There is the account of a man who came to Imam Mālik and asked him that very question. When he came to Imam Mālik, he asked: how is this istiwāʾ that Allah mentions in the Qur'an? Imam Mālik initially lowered his head, and then he responded to him with those famous lines: al-istiwāʾu ghayru majhūl, the istiwāʾ is not unknown.

There are various ways in which this has been related, but this seems to be the stronger one: al-istiwāʾu ghayru majhūl, wa al-kayfu ghayru maʿqūl. Wa al-kayfu majhūl. Al-istiwāʾu maʿlūm, wa al-kayfu majhūl: that is the other way it is related. But this one seems stronger, especially in wa al-kayfu ghayru maʿqūl: the how of it, the description of it, the modality of it, is not comprehensible, as opposed to not known. It is not comprehensible; it is not conceivable by us. So yes, the istiwāʾ is known, because Allah mentioned it; but its description and how is not comprehensible.

But al-īmānu bihi wājib: the īmān and belief in it is necessary. Wa al-suʾālu ʿanhu bidʿah: but asking about these questions is an innovation, not something done by the Ṣaḥābah. This basically proves that they did not address the Prophet (peace be upon him) about the exact meaning of these things; but they were able to understand what Allah mentions, in terms of His guidance, in the other place, about not seeking such interpretation except by those who have deviance in their hearts.

And then Imam Mālik said: wa mā aẓunnuka illā ḍāllā. He had no thought about the man except that he was deviant; basically, it means that he considered him deviant. Fa-amara bihi fa-ukhrij: he gave a command, and the man was taken out; he was taken out of the majlis. This was because such a question causes confusion to the whole group of people that were sitting there.