Ash'aris are affirming 20 Attributes instead of 7??

[Abu Harun]

Salaam 'alaykum,

I came across the following statement at http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=114&CATE=24&redirect=yes :
The Asharis affirm 20 'central' divine attributes. All other attributes of Allah return to these.

3. In principle, Allah is characterized by all perfections, and exalted beyond all imperfections. However, the scholars deduced that all the divine attributes can be categorized systematically, for the purpose of understanding clearly.

4. Given this, they say:

Allah has one essential attribute: Being.

Allah has five negative attributes: Beginninglessness, Endlessness, Being Distinct from Created Things, Self-Sufficiency, Oneness. These are called 'negative' because they negate their opposites, which are impossible for Allah.

Allah has seven affirmative attributes, which you mentioned: Knowledge, Will, Power, Life, Hearing, Seeing, and Speech. These have seven attributes that relate to them, which are Allah's being Knowing, Willing, Powerful, Living, Hearing, Seeing, and Speaking.

Mercy, for example, is either Allah's willing good, which returns to Will, or His giving good, which returns to Power. His Might relates to His ability to do whatever He wills, or actually carrying it out; the first returns to Will, and the second to Power, and so on...

In light of this, how can one still insist that they in reality only affirm 7 Attributes and not 20 or all Attributes?

BarakAllaahu feekum.

Wa salaam

[Abuz Zubair]

In light of this, how can one still insist that they in reality only affirm 7 Attributes and not 20 or all Attributes?

No one disputes in Sifat Salbiyya.

We are only speaking in terms of Sifat that are disputed over amongst the Jahmiyya, Mu'tazila and the Ash'aris, and in that regard they only affirm seven.

For instance, we wouldn't add 'existence' to the seven attributes they affirm because no one disputes that Allah exists.

Mercy, for example, is either Allah's willing good, which returns to Will, or His giving good, which returns to Power. His Might relates to His ability to do whatever He wills, or actually carrying it out; the first returns to Will, and the second to Power, and so on...
They are explicit telling us that Allah's mercy is NOT actually his attribute, rather, it either returns to Allah's will, or power.

Mu'tazilas say the same about Allah's Hearing and Seeing, that they both refer to Allah's knowledge, and not that Allah literally Hears and Sees.

[Abu Harun]

No one disputes in Sifat Salbiyya.

Ok clear.

We are only speaking in terms of Sifat that are disputed over amongst the Jahmiyya, Mu'tazila and the Ash'aris, and in that regard they only affirm seven.

This I truly don't understand. How do they affirm those 7 Attributes while disputing with the Jahmiyya and Mu'tazila? What I understand from the confirmation of 7 Attributes is that they confirm them in the same way the Athariyyah/Salafiyyah confirms them.

For instance, we wouldn't add 'existence' to the seven attributes they affirm because no one disputes that Allah exists.

Ok this I do understand, because they all three affirm the Sifat Salbiyya.

They are explicit telling us that Allah's mercy is NOT actually his attribute, rather, it either returns to Allah's will, or power.

Does this mean that they minimize all other Attributes (excluding the Sifat Salbiyya) to those 7 Attributes?

But how then do they call Allah's Attribute Mercy, if they don't call it an Attribute?

Mu'tazilas say the same about Allah's Hearing and Seeing, that they both refer to Allah's knowledge, and not that Allah literally Hears and Sees.

Ok, clear.

[Abu_Abdallah]

Interesting passage from a book against the Maturidites, Shams al-Din al-Afghani - rahimahullah - stated:

"The second and the third example:

[al-Rahmân, al-Rahîm] are two Names from the Beatiful Names of Allah, and both of them signify a real and certain signification, agreeable to His Attribute, the Exalted, of: al-Rahma, al-Kâmila (the perfect mercy).

But the people (i.e. the Maturidites) when they stripped Allah's great Attribute of [al-Rahma] and made Tahrif of it by their interpretations, they turned these two Names [al-Rahman, al-Rahim] in isolation of His Attribute of [al-Rahma]. Since they explained [al-Rahma] as 'reaching of good and expulsion of evil'.

O what an amazement of a people who worship a Lord of which they assert that He has no [Rahma] (mercy)! So what then do they expect from Him?"

So they deny or negate al-Rahma or Mercy. Rather, they turn this Attribute as many other Attributes in one of the 7 or 8 Attributes of Meanings. And the Maturidites go very far in turning so many Attributes, which Allah affirmed for Himself, into the 8 Attributes. In particular all the Attributes that denote an Action of the Al-Mighty, they turn that into the so-called Attribute of al-Takwin. Since all these Sifat al-Fi'liyyah - which they all deny by agreement - is the Attribute of Takwin, and with al-takwîn they mean: 'turning something out of nothingness into existence', and this is an Eternal Attribute (like the well-known seven Attributes, which they add this eight to).

And the Ash'arites, especially from the later ones, do the same. They turn things that are Attributes, such as Laughing, Amazement, Plotting etc. to already affirmed Attributes such as al-Irada or something else.

The Maturidites are not different from them. Indeed, some deny even that Allah has the Attribute of Seeing and Hearing - wa-'iyadu billah!

[Abuz Zubair]

This I truly don't understand. How do they affirm those 7 Attributes while disputing with the Jahmiyya and Mu'tazila? What I understand from the confirmation of 7 Attributes is that they confirm them in the same way the Athariyyah/Salafiyyah confirms them. They do affirm the seven attributes literally, but they also define each of those attributes, too. For instance, they believe that Allah's will is an eternal will, in the sense that He cannot will something to happen at certain point in time.

They also have problems with establishing how Allah gets to see and hear at certain point in time, without that leading them to affirm emergence in Allah's essence. Some of the Ash'aris, to that end, believed in Hal like the Mu'tazila, which they define as a state which neither exists nor inexists.

Does this mean that they minimize all other Attributes (excluding the Sifat Salbiyya) to those 7 Attributes?

But how then do they call Allah's Attribute Mercy, if they don't call it an Attribute?
Yes, but they don't call them attributes, and hence, do not affirm them as separate attributes, just like the mu'tazila do not affirm hearing and seeing as separate attributes.

[Abu_Abdallah]

Yes, but they don't call them attributes, and hence, do not affirm them as separate attributes, just like the mu'tazila do not affirm hearing and seeing as separate attributes.

Some Maturidites, following the Mu'tazilah, deny Hearing and Seeing to as Attributes - turning this into: Knowledge.

Their great man, Ibn al-Hummâm (d.861), turned al-Sam' wa'l-Basar' into the Sifat al-'Ilm. al-Afghani says that even the scholar Muhammad Anwar Shah al-Kashmiri, the great Deobandi, made a major mistake with respect to the same subject in his Fayd al-Bari.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

. al-Afghani says that even the scholar Muhammad Anwar Shah al-Kashmiri, the great Deobandi, made a major mistake with respect to the same subject in his Fayd al-Bari.

wow! what section? Subhanullah! that is awful!

[Abu_Abdallah]

wow! what section? Subhanullah! that is awful!

He refers the reader to vol.4, page 516-517.

[Abuz Zubair]

Add to that Ibn al-Atheer's statement in al-Nihaya that Allah's hearing is only allegorical like fingers, etc.

[jinnzaman]

The Asharis believe that the attributes of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) are infinite, however, it is only obligatory to know a handful, i.e. those which are necessary for a person to remain within the fold of Islam. These basic attributes are usually numbered 20, but can be re-organized into 13 or 7 attributes. Its a matter of simplification; they don't deny other attributes.

[Break The Cross]

The Asharis believe that the attributes of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) are infinite, however, it is only obligatory to know a handful, i.e. those which are necessary for a person to remain within the fold of Islam. These basic attributes are usually numbered 20, but can be re-organized into 13 or 7 attributes. Its a matter of simplification; they don't deny other attributes.

Thats a first for me! I wonder where they got this from?

[jinnzaman]

Thats a first for me! I wonder where they got this from?

By narration from an Ashari scholar.

[Um Abdullah M.]

how can they believe that "rahma" (mercy) is not one of Allah's attributes when Allah has the names of "ar-Rahman" and "Ar-Raheem" which include in them the attribute of Rahma ??!!

[jinnzaman]

how can they not believe that "rahma" (mercy) is not one of Allah's attributes when Allah has the names of "ar-Rahman" and "Ar-Raheem" which include in them the attribute of Rahma ??!!

This is such nonsense. Have you even read any Ashari texts? Imam Juwayni in his Kitab al Irshad .... dedicated an entire chapter to the names of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and the first two he mentions are these. There's a difference between not mentioning something and rejecting something. Just because certain Ashari scholars don't mention the names of Allah in their texts which are dedicated towards refuting deviant sects doesn't mean that they reject the names of Allah. That would be like saying "The Hanafi fuqaha haven't mentioned the 99 names of Allah in Mukhtasar al Qudoori, therefore the Hanafis reject the 99 names of Allah."

Please stop spreading rumors and fabrications of the Ashari school. If you want to "refute" it, make sure that your basic premises are at least accurate, otherwise your conclusions will be erroneous.

[sunnih]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman
The Asharis believe that the attributes of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) are infinite, however, it is only obligatory to know a handful, i.e. those which are necessary for a person to remain within the fold of Islam. These basic attributes are usually numbered 20, but can be re-organized into 13 or 7 attributes. Its a matter of simplification; they don't deny other attributes.

Does this mean that if you deny any of the other attributes (apart from these 20 or 13 or 7) or reject them or oppose them there is nothing wrong with it? There is only a minor sin involved?

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman
The Asharis believe that the attributes of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) are infinite, however, it is only obligatory to know a handful, i.e. those which are necessary for a person to remain within the fold of Islam. These basic attributes are usually numbered 20, but can be re-organized into 13 or 7 attributes. Its a matter of simplification; they don't deny other attributes.

Does this mean that if you deny any of the other attributes (apart from these 20 or 13 or 7) or reject them or oppose them there is nothing wrong with it? There is only a minor sin involved?

Perhaps you should rephrase your question more coherently. Are you asking if its a minor sin to deny the other attributes?

If you read my post, my point was that the Asharis don't deny those attributes, they just choose not to mention them. Denying an attribute and not mentioning an attribute are entirely two different things.

[sunnih]

If you read your saying you will see that my question is valid in the format that I have chosen as you said: "those which are necessary for a person to remain within the fold of Islam".

So from this we understand that the rest of them are not necessary. Thus my question still remains.

May be you need to re-phrase your say then we see.

[Um Abdullah M.]

This is such nonsense. Have you even read any Ashari texts? Imam Juwayni in his Kitab al Irshad .... dedicated an entire chapter to the names of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and the first two he mentions are these. There's a difference between not mentioning something and rejecting something. Just because certain Ashari scholars don't mention the names of Allah in their texts which are dedicated towards refuting deviant sects doesn't mean that they reject the names of Allah. That would be like saying "The Hanafi fuqaha haven't mentioned the 99 names of Allah in Mukhtasar al Qudoori, therefore the Hanafis reject the 99 names of Allah."

Please stop spreading rumors and fabrications of the Ashari school. If you want to "refute" it, make sure that your basic premises are at least accurate, otherwise your conclusions will be erroneous.

now show me where in my post I said that Ash'aris reject Allah's names?
it didnt' come to my mind that they reject the names, but i was talking about the attribute "ar rahma" (Mercy)
Ash'aris don't believe it is an attribute (sifah) and one of 2 of the names of Allah are ar Rahman and Ar Raheem.
and Ash'aris confirm the names so how can they not confirm the attribute contained in the name !

[ibnislam]

Thats a first for me! I wonder where they got this from?

They get it from Aristotle. I took a class in BASIC aqeedah with one of those shaykhs, just to see what they believe, and he almost from the beginning he was saying talking about "necessary, possible and impossible".


Do a google on those words. Whose name do you see there? Aristotle!

What is ajeeb is that they moan about dividing the issue of Tawheed into three branches (each of them having existence in the Quran and Sunnah), and then they turn around and divide Al-Asmaa was-Sifaat into their own three (and this categorization not having any proof for it).

Inconsistency is their downfall.

Ma'asalaam,
IbnIslam

[jinnzaman]

If you read your saying you will see that my question is valid in the format that I have chosen as you said: "those which are necessary for a person to remain within the fold of Islam".

So from this we understand that the rest of them are not necessary. Thus my question still remains.



It is obligatory; i.e. one's Islam is not complete. It is not a fardh ayn for a Muslim to know every single name of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala). All of the other attributes can be re-organized into those basic 7 attributes.


May be you need to re-phrase your say then we see.

I'll take this as an indicator that English is not your first language.

[jinnzaman]

They get it from Aristotle. I took a class in BASIC aqeedah with one of those shaykhs, just to see what they believe, and he almost from the beginning he was saying talking about "necessary, possible and impossible".


Do a google on those words. Whose name do you see there? Aristotle!

What is ajeeb is that they moan about dividing the issue of Tawheed into three branches (each of them having existence in the Quran and Sunnah), and then they turn around and divide Al-Asmaa was-Sifaat into their own three (and this categorization not having any proof for it).

Inconsistency is their downfall.

Ma'asalaam,
IbnIslam


The xenophobic fear of using terminology such as 'necessary, possible, and impossible', is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether these terms accurately portray the authentic beliefs of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala). For example, on this forum, I got into a huge argument with some people over the term 'created' and they suggested using the term 'emergent' when, in reality, the definition they had for 'emergent' was identical to the term 'created'. What terminology one uses is irrelevant, what matters is the meaning.

With regards to dividing tawheed into parts, no Ashari truly objects to this. Their have been Ashari scholars who have divided tawheed into many components. The Asharis merely use this as an example of inconsistency by Salafis who object to the terminology used by Asharis, when they themselves use terms that are not used in the manner that the Sahabah (radhi allahu anhum) used them.

[Um Abdullah M.]

here is what one of ur big Ash'ari scholars has said regarding sifat and what is kufr and what is just bid'ah:

Ar-Razi in his tafsir:
" الثانية : وهي أن الله بإثبات العلم استوعب ذكر الصفات التي هي صفات الإله ومن أنكرها كفر وهي أربعة الحياة والقدرة والإرادة والعلم وأما السمع والبصر والكلام القائم به من ينكرها يكون مبتدعاً لا كافراً "
the second which is that Allah, in affirming the knowledge, has encompasses the mention of the sifat (attributres) which are the attributes of the Ilah, and who rejects/negates them has disbelieved (kafara) and it is four: life, ability, will, and knowledge.
As for hearing, sight and speech that are qa'em bihi , whoever rejects/negates them is a mubtade' (innovator), not a kafir.
so even the attributes which Asha'ira confirm are not all considered to be wajib to believe in for one to be a Muslim, only 4 are !

so it is confining Allah to only 4 attributes !

[sunnih]

It is obligatory; i.e. one's Islam is not complete. It is not a fardh ayn for a Muslim to know every single name of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala). All of the other attributes can be re-organized into those basic 7 attributes.



I'll take this as an indicator that English is not your first language.

Yes English is not my first language but this has nothing to do with the matter we are discussing as what I derived from your saying is not based on the English language but on the way evidences are derived and this you know well. Anyway it is not this what we are talking. You say that it is not fardh ayn for a muslim to know every single name of Allah. Ok I agree but is it fardh ayn for whoever comes to know them to believe in them? Does this knowledge of his necessitate the affirmation of all of them? Does this knowledge of his necessitate acceptance and belief of the attribute that this name implies or does it not?! Where is the evidence that these attributes you choose to specify with wujub does not apply to the other attributes? If someone takes another lot of them and says that it is necessary to take these as the foundation of the Names and Attributes and says that this is fardh ayn to believe in them, is he wrong in that? What is the evidence that restricts this ruling to only those attributes that you mention?

[jinnzaman]

here is what one of ur big Ash'ari scholars has said regarding sifat and what is kufr and what is just bid'ah:

Ar-Razi in his tafsir:
" الثانية : وهي أن الله بإثبات العلم استوعب ذكر الصفات التي هي صفات الإله ومن أنكرها كفر وهي أربعة الحياة والقدرة والإرادة والعلم وأما السمع والبصر والكلام القائم به من ينكرها يكون مبتدعاً لا كافراً "
the second which is that Allah, in affirming the knowledge, has encompasses the mention of the sifat (attributres) which are the attributes of the Ilah, and who rejects/negates them has disbelieved (kafara) and it is four: life, ability, will, and knowledge.
As for hearing, sight and speech that are qa'em bihi , whoever rejects/negates them is a mubtade' (innovator), not a kafir.
so even the attributes which Asha'ira confirm are not all considered to be wajib to believe in for one to be a Muslim, only 4 are !

so it is confining Allah to only 4 attributes !

Firstly, whenever you quote an Ashari scholar, please make sure to give a reference.

Secondly, there's a distinction between an Ashari scholar and the Ashari school. As I stated above, scholars such as Imam Juwayni have dedicated entire sections of their books regarding the names of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala). The reason they choose not to refer to them as an 'attribute' is because they define the term 'attribute' to be a property of a being. Thus, they refer to the names of Allah as simply the names of Allah. Its a semantical issue, not a substantive one.

Why limit yourself to one Ashari scholar? What about Imam Ghazzali who also mentions hearing, speaking, etc?

Basically, you've taken one opinion from one text of one scholar and have made a very generalized conclusion about the Asharis as a whole. If you want to say "Imam Razi was wrong" thats fine, but you can't apply the same claim to other Ashari scholars because they might not have agreed with him.

As I said before, merely stating that a believer is obliged to only know a certain number of attributes isn't the same as denying them. Just because the Asharis say "It is obligatory to believe in the following attributes" doesn't mean "We deny all other obligations."

[jinnzaman]

Yes English is not my first language but this has nothing to do with the matter we are discussing as what I derived from your saying is not based on the English language but on the way evidences are derived and this you know well. Anyway it is not this what we are talking. You say that it is not fardh ayn for a muslim to know every single name of Allah. Ok I agree but is it fardh ayn for whoever comes to know them to believe in them? Does this knowledge of his necessitate the affirmation of all of them? Does this knowledge of his necessitate acceptance and belief of the attribute that this name implies or does it not?! Where is the evidence that these attributes you choose to specify with wujub does not apply to the other attributes? If someone takes another lot of them and says that it is necessary to take these as the foundation of the Names and Attributes and says that this is fardh ayn to believe in them, is he wrong in that? What is the evidence that restricts this ruling to only those attributes that you mention?

No, its not fardh ayn to know the names of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) even if you come accross them. Its not fardh ayn to memorize every verse of the Qur'an just because one reads it.

Do you think its fardh ayn to memorize every single name of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) just because you read them in a book about the names of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala)?

If you want to argue that it is fardh ayn to know all of the names and attributes of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala), then I will have to accuse you of bid'a since you have to give a definitively conclusive proof from the sources of legislation in order to claim that something is fardh ayn.

[Break The Cross]

By narration from an Ashari scholar.

Who are they and what is their Shari' proof?

[sunnih]

No, its not fardh ayn to know the names of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) even if you come accross them. Its not fardh ayn to memorize every verse of the Qur'an just because one reads it.

Do you think its fardh ayn to memorize every single name of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) just because you read them in a book about the names of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala)?

If you want to argue that it is fardh ayn to know all of the names and attributes of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala), then I will have to accuse you of bid'a since you have to give a definitively conclusive proof from the sources of legislation in order to claim that something is fardh ayn.

I did not say it is fardh ayn to memorise them I said: "is it fardh ayn for whoever comes to know them to believe in them? Does this knowledge of his necessitate the affirmation of all of them? Does this knowledge of his necessitate acceptance and belief of the attribute that this name implies or does it not?! Where is the evidence that these attributes you choose to specify with wujub does not apply to the other attributes? If someone takes another lot of them and says that it is necessary to take these as the foundation of the Names and Attributes and says that this is fardh ayn to believe in them, is he wrong in that? What is the evidence that restricts this ruling to only those attributes that you mention?". So read the question again please.

[aMuslimForLife]

They get it from Aristotle. I took a class in BASIC aqeedah with one of those shaykhs, just to see what they believe, and he almost from the beginning he was saying talking about "necessary, possible and impossible".

Ma'asalaam,
IbnIslam

The Ashari school is the middle path between reason and textual evidence. For those with a Salafi background it would be best to study the Ashari Aqidah with Text of Aqidah Tahawi with an Ashari/Maturidi Shaykh, so you can understand the textual basis of the school, which is what most Salafi minded individual want. What is the proof for this and the proof for that?

Yes you can have a sound Aqidah according to the Ashari school without knowing a single point of Ilm Kalam.

And Allah knows best.

[jinnzaman]

I did not say it is fardh ayn to memorise them I said: "is it fardh ayn for whoever comes to know them to believe in them? Does this knowledge of his necessitate the affirmation of all of them? Does this knowledge of his necessitate acceptance and belief of the attribute that this name implies or does it not?! Where is the evidence that these attributes you choose to specify with wujub does not apply to the other attributes? If someone takes another lot of them and says that it is necessary to take these as the foundation of the Names and Attributes and says that this is fardh ayn to believe in them, is he wrong in that? What is the evidence that restricts this ruling to only those attributes that you mention?". So read the question again please.

See my answer above. I already answered the question; either you weren't reading it correctly or you ignored my answer.

When the Ashari scholars say that such and such attribute is obligatory to know or one will be sinful, they mean that independently of knowledge of textual sources. Meaning, even if a person has not read a single letter of the Qur'an, they must still believe in certain things about Allah (subhana wa ta'ala).

Conversely, a person cannot be held to believe in something which he has no knowledge of. The Asharis say that Allah is All-Hearing and All-Knowing as these are His names. There is a distinction between saying Allah is All-Hearing (name) and Allah hears (attribute). Of the names, Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) has 99 and more; it is not an individual obligation to know every single one; but one cannot deny them. Therefore, it is not fardh ayn to know it, but it would be kufr if one denied them. Similarly, it is not fardh ayn to know every single attribute of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) but if one denies them, it would be kufr.

With regards to what is and what is not an attribute of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala), the formula is simple: we affirm what Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) says of Himself in authoritative and conclusive proofs which take precedence over lesser authoritative and conclusive proofs; especially those lesser evidences that compare Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) to His creation.

The Ashari position is the moderate position which shouldn't surprise anyone since Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) describes His Ummah as being the moderate one. It is in between the negation of the Mu'tazila and the anthropomorphicism of the Mujassimah, Karammiyyah, et al.

The hardest thing for Salafis to understand is that Asharis do not use Kalam to understand Aqeedah, rather, Kalam is utilized in order to defend a pre-existing aqeedah.

[Um Abdullah M.]

Firstly, whenever you quote an Ashari scholar, please make sure to give a reference.

I did, I said it is mentioned in his tafsir. But here is a more specific reference, in his tafisr (Mafatih alGhayb), tafsir of ayah 62 surat al-Ankabut.

Secondly, there's a distinction between an Ashari scholar and the Ashari school. As I stated above, scholars such as Imam Juwayni have dedicated entire sections of their books regarding the names of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala). The reason they choose not to refer to them as an 'attribute' is because they define the term 'attribute' to be a property of a being. Thus, they refer to the names of Allah as simply the names of Allah. Its a semantical issue, not a substantive one.

who is talking about "names" of Allah?
also, we refer to them as "names", but these names "contain" attributes, Allah's names are "husna", and they can't be that if they did not contain attributes in them, then they would be names with no meaning, like in human names, people have many names which do not describe them or dont' really have much of a meaning, but Allah's names have a meaning, they contain perfect beautiful attributes that befit Allah 'azza wa jal.

Why limit yourself to one Ashari scholar? What about Imam Ghazzali who also mentions hearing, speaking, etc?

Ar-Razi didn't say that Ash'aris don't believe in hearing and speaking, he said that "hearing and speaking" are not attributes that one would become a kafir if he rejected it, but would be from ahl bid'ah.

Basically, you've taken one opinion from one text of one scholar and have made a very generalized conclusion about the Asharis as a whole. If you want to say "Imam Razi was wrong" thats fine, but you can't apply the same claim to other Ashari scholars because they might not have agreed with him.

true, I will have to check what other Ash'ari scholars said regarding this, but I specifically mentioned his opinion because he is a major scholar in Ash'ari school.

As I said before, merely stating that a believer is obliged to only know a certain number of attributes isn't the same as denying them. Just because the Asharis say "It is obligatory to believe in the following attributes" doesn't mean "We deny all other obligations."

That is not what arRazi said, if u don't know Arabic, u can verify what I said through someone who knows Arabic whom u trust.

but I can't say that all Ash'ari scholars believe that, I would have to see what they say, maybe u can ask one of ur shaikhs to get u the opinion of other Ash'ari scholars on this specific issue to see if it is the opinion of the whole school or only a few.

[aMuslimForLife]

here is what one of ur big Ash'ari scholars has said regarding sifat and what is kufr and what is just bid'ah:

Ar-Razi in his tafsir:
" الثانية : وهي أن الله بإثبات العلم استوعب ذكر الصفات التي هي صفات الإله ومن أنكرها كفر وهي أربعة الحياة والقدرة والإرادة والعلم وأما السمع والبصر والكلام القائم به من ينكرها يكون مبتدعاً لا كافراً "
the second which is that Allah, in affirming the knowledge, has encompasses the mention of the sifat (attributres) which are the attributes of the Ilah, and who rejects/negates them has disbelieved (kafara) and it is four: life, ability, will, and knowledge.
As for hearing, sight and speech that are qa'em bihi , whoever rejects/negates them is a mubtade' (innovator), not a kafir.
so even the attributes which Asha'ira confirm are not all considered to be wajib to believe in for one to be a Muslim, only 4 are !

so it is confining Allah to only 4 attributes !

So basically he is saying that the Mutazila are Muslims but not Ahlus Sunnah. That is what I get from this.

How are you understanding Fakr al Din Razi statement????

And Allah knows best.

[WM]

Bro, there is a huge difference between active negation and just plain ignorance. Razi makes excuses for people who actively negate these things, not just for people ignorant of them. And what about someone that negates speech for Allah? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that person reject 'wa kallam allahu musa taklima'?

[jinnzaman]

Bro, there is a huge difference between active negation and just plain ignorance. Razi makes excuses for people who actively negate these things, not just for people ignorant of them. And what about someone that negates speech for Allah? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that person reject 'wa kallam allahu musa taklima'?

What happens if a person denies:

- An attribute
- An action
- A name

?????

[sunnih]

See my answer above. I already answered the question; either you weren't reading it correctly or you ignored my answer.

When the Ashari scholars say that such and such attribute is obligatory to know or one will be sinful, they mean that independently of knowledge of textual sources. Meaning, even if a person has not read a single letter of the Qur'an, they must still believe in certain things about Allah (subhana wa ta'ala).

Conversely, a person cannot be held to believe in something which he has no knowledge of. The Asharis say that Allah is All-Hearing and All-Knowing as these are His names. There is a distinction between saying Allah is All-Hearing (name) and Allah hears (attribute). Of the names, Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) has 99 and more; it is not an individual obligation to know every single one; but one cannot deny them. Therefore, it is not fardh ayn to know it, but it would be kufr if one denied them. Similarly, it is not fardh ayn to know every single attribute of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) but if one denies them, it would be kufr.

With regards to what is and what is not an attribute of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala), the formula is simple: we affirm what Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) says of Himself in authoritative and conclusive proofs which take precedence over lesser authoritative and conclusive proofs; especially those lesser evidences that compare Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) to His creation.

The Ashari position is the moderate position which shouldn't surprise anyone since Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) describes His Ummah as being the moderate one. It is in between the negation of the Mu'tazila and the anthropomorphicism of the Mujassimah, Karammiyyah, et al.

The hardest thing for Salafis to understand is that Asharis do not use Kalam to understand Aqeedah, rather, Kalam is utilized in order to defend a pre-existing aqeedah.

You said: "When the Ashari scholars say that such and such attribute is obligatory to know or one will be sinful, they mean that independently of knowledge of textual sources. Meaning, even if a person has not read a single letter of the Qur'an, they must still believe in certain things about Allah (subhana wa ta'ala)".

Now if the person has not read not e single letter of the Qur'an and if they must still believe in such Names and Attributes independently of knowledge of the textual sources and as you say that this individual is sinful for not believing such how do you justify such a stance when the position of the Asharis is that minds are in disagreement and further more the same person can be of two minds. Also they state that the good and evil can only be through what the Lawgiver has specified. And they say that the good is not what the reason considers good and the bad is not what the mind considers bad but the measure is the shariah. Now if adultery, gambling and other such matters can not be established by mind alone according to the ashari school, then what about the Names and Attributes of Allah which are more important ? Do we not apply the same rule?!

You said: "With regards to what is and what is not an attribute of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala), the formula is simple: we affirm what Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) says of Himself in authoritative and conclusive proofs which take precedence over lesser authoritative and conclusive proofs; especially those lesser evidences that compare Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) to His creation".

You mentioned The All-Hearing and hearing. Then you mention the authoritative and conclusive proofs and the lesser authoritative and conclusive proofs. Now you know that in the Qur'an it is mentioned that "Allah has heard the complaint of Khawlah bint thalabah in the surah el-mujadilah.
If Allah has used the term heard for Himself, is this not conclusive proof in and of itself? Does He not know what can be said and what can not be said and attributed to Him? If He says Allah has heard, should we say yes indeed or should we say, no He does not hear? Should we not establish what He has established for Himself? If He says Allah has heard should we not say, we hear and we obey? If He says Allah has heard should we not say Allah has heard?
Do we not say: We believe in all of it. The whole of it is from our Lord? Subhanake, not in vain have You revealed all this our Lord?

you said: "The Ashari position is the moderate position which shouldn't surprise anyone since Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) describes His Ummah as being the moderate one. It is in between the negation of the Mu'tazila and the anthropomorphicism of the Mujassimah, Karammiyyah, et al".

This is disputable and it is exactly this that the brothers are debating.

you said: "The hardest thing for Salafis to understand is that Asharis do not use Kalam to understand Aqeedah, rather, Kalam is utilized in order to defend a pre-existing aqeedah".

This is not so, as what you use to defend something is the basis of your foundation of the necessity of the acceptance of the truth about the very thing you are trying to defend. You are not speaking to hindus or budhists so that you have to use other means different to what your foundations are based, rather you are speaking to muslims who believe in the same book you believe and the same sunnah that you believe therefore the basis must be the same so why use kalam for proving to them the basis of your beliefs?

[jinnzaman]

Now if the person has not read not e single letter of the Qur'an and if they must still believe in such Names and Attributes independently of knowledge of the textual sources and as you say that this individual is sinful for not believing such how do you justify such a stance when the position of the Asharis is that minds are in disagreement and further more the same person can be of two minds. Also they state that the good and evil can only be through what the Lawgiver has specified. And they say that the good is not what the reason considers good and the bad is not what the mind considers bad but the measure is the shariah. Now if adultery, gambling and other such matters can not be established by mind alone according to the ashari school, then what about the Names and Attributes of Allah which are more important ? Do we not apply the same rule?!


No, because there is a difference between certain aspects of aqeedah and jurisprudence.

The existence of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and some of His attributes can be known completely independently of the Shari'ah because of Kalam. This is why Kalam was first developed; in order to use rational arguments to prove the existence of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and some of His attributes.

This is a basic point and I'm surprised that you overlooked it.



You mentioned The All-Hearing and hearing. Then you mention the authoritative and conclusive proofs and the lesser authoritative and conclusive proofs. Now you know that in the Qur'an it is mentioned that "Allah has heard the complaint of Khawlah bint thalabah in the surah el-mujadilah.
If Allah has used the term heard for Himself, is this not conclusive proof in and of itself? Does He not know what can be said and what can not be said and attributed to Him? If He says Allah has heard, should we say yes indeed or should we say, no He does not hear? Should we not establish what He has established for Himself? If He says Allah has heard should we not say, we hear and we obey? If He says Allah has heard should we not say Allah has heard?
Do we not say: We believe in all of it. The whole of it is from our Lord? Subhanake, not in vain have You revealed all this our Lord?


Not believing in something and denying something are two different things. If a person denies a verse of the Qur'an, than this is kufr, but if he interprets a verse of the Qur'an innappropriately, this might not be kufr, but merely bid'a. This is why, as far as I am aware, no Salafi would say that the Asharis are kuffar for not desiring to interpret the term 'yadd' or interpreting it figuratively. See the distinction?

As I said before, there is a difference between not believing in an attribute of Allah and denying an attribute of Allah. A person may not believe in an attribute because he is not aware of it; whereas a person who denies the attribute is one who actually knows of the attribute and intentionally denies it. The former is not kufr, but the latter is.


This is not so, as what you use to defend something is the basis of your foundation of the necessity of the acceptance of the truth about the very thing you are trying to defend. You are not speaking to hindus or budhists so that you have to use other means different to what your foundations are based, rather you are speaking to muslims who believe in the same book you believe and the same sunnah that you believe therefore the basis must be the same so why use kalam for proving to them the basis of your beliefs?

Not necessarily. When Ibrahim (alayhi salam) used his intellect in arguing with his idolatrous father, this doesn't mean he took intellect as his basis in aqeedah.

The purpose of Kalam was directed primarily at the Mu'tazilites with regards to philosophy. Quoting the Qur'an and Hadeeth weren't sufficient rebuttals since the Mu'tazilites would simply re-interpet them. You can't use a literalistic argument against people who aren't literalist. Just like when you debate with a Shi'a, you can't quote Sunni hadeeth because they won't accept the authority of Sunni hadeeth. You can either use your intellect, common sense, or you can use their own proofs against them. The latter is more effective.

[sunnih]

No, because there is a difference between certain aspects of aqeedah and jurisprudence.

The existence of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and some of His attributes can be known completely independently of the Shari'ah because of Kalam. This is why Kalam was first developed; in order to use rational arguments to prove the existence of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and some of His attributes.

This is a basic point and I'm surprised that you overlooked it.



Not believing in something and denying something are two different things. If a person denies a verse of the Qur'an, than this is kufr, but if he interprets a verse of the Qur'an innappropriately, this might not be kufr, but merely bid'a. This is why, as far as I am aware, no Salafi would say that the Asharis are kuffar for not desiring to interpret the term 'yadd' or interpreting it figuratively. See the distinction?

As I said before, there is a difference between not believing in an attribute of Allah and denying an attribute of Allah. A person may not believe in an attribute because he is not aware of it; whereas a person who denies the attribute is one who actually knows of the attribute and intentionally denies it. The former is not kufr, but the latter is.



Not necessarily. When Ibrahim (alayhi salam) used his intellect in arguing with his idolatrous father, this doesn't mean he took intellect as his basis in aqeedah.

The purpose of Kalam was directed primarily at the Mu'tazilites with regards to philosophy. Quoting the Qur'an and Hadeeth weren't sufficient rebuttals since the Mu'tazilites would simply re-interpet them. You can't use a literalistic argument against people who aren't literalist. Just like when you debate with a Shi'a, you can't quote Sunni hadeeth because they won't accept the authority of Sunni hadeeth. You can either use your intellect, common sense, or you can use their own proofs against them. The latter is more effective.

First: The distinction that you try to establish is not correct as it is part of the aqidah as to when someone is a kafir and when it is not. Of course fiqh has it's role but this distinction has not as you raise it as black and white. Even in the names and attributes some intellects consider some as known by necessity and some others do not so where lies the criterion as to what is definitely known by necessity and what is not?

you said: "The existence of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and some of His attributes can be known completely independently of the Shari'ah because of Kalam. This is why Kalam was first developed; in order to use rational arguments to prove the existence of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and some of His attributes.

This is a basic point and I'm surprised that you overlooked it".

I say: How can you say that the existence of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and some of His attributes can be known completely independently of the Shari'ah because of Kalam? Is kalam instilled in the fitrah? Someone has to study kalam to understand it. So what can not be achieved without study is now being a criterion for the reality of this matter? Is shariah or kalam obligatory to study? Where does it say in the sharia that kalam is obligatory or that it is insilled in the fitrah? You yourself said that kalam was developed. So something that took years to develop you expect every individual who has not read a single word from the Qur'an to already know and use?! This is strange indeed and noone has said such.

you said: Not believing in something and denying something are two different things.

The difference is only in the manner and not in the foundation as both imply kufr. So not believing the ayah is kufr just as it is kufr in denying the ayah.

then you said: If a person denies a verse of the Qur'an, than this is kufr, but if he interprets a verse of the Qur'an innappropriately, this might not be kufr, but merely bid'a. This is why, as far as I am aware, no Salafi would say that the Asharis are kuffar for not desiring to interpret the term 'yadd' or interpreting it figuratively. See the distinction?

This is different and not the same as what you say regarding not believing and denying. It is true that interpreting the Qur'an inappropriately does not necessarily imply kufr but it is not a mere bidah but indeed it is a major sin and Shaf'i has elaborated on this in line with the Ahadith. Anyway there is a distinction between the case that you mention regarding the yadd and the point that you are trying to make as the ashairah do not deny that yadd is part of the Qur'an and they do not claim that they do not believe in this information rather they interpret it in a way they see fit for such. Thus the difference between the Salafis and them is only in the way they approach the term not that one believes in it and the other does not. Do you see now that this example does not fit the rule you raise?

you said: As I said before, there is a difference between not believing in an attribute of Allah and denying an attribute of Allah. A person may not believe in an attribute because he is not aware of it; whereas a person who denies the attribute is one who actually knows of the attribute and intentionally denies it. The former is not kufr, but the latter is.

I say: The basis for both cases is kufr. Not to believe in an established attribute and denying it are both kufr. It is the implementation of the rule of takfeer that has the distinction and what you have mentioned is exactly that and we do not deny that the impediments of takfeer must be removed before we declare someone a kafir. This is not what we are discussing here. The rule you try to establish is against you and not in your favor as the one who does not believe in the attributes you say are known by necessity is not necessarily a denial of the attribute. Don't you see that the same rule encompasses the same matter you try to make a distinction in?

you said: When Ibrahim (alayhi salam) used his intellect in arguing with his idolatrous father, this doesn't mean he took intellect as his basis in aqeedah.

Again you make a mistake and this is exactly what I said above. Ibrahim argued with his father who was an idol-worshiper as you rightly mention. You are using kalam to prove your aqidah to the muslims who bwlieve in the same text as you. This analogy is inappropriate. Read again what I said please and think about it and do not be hasty please.

you said: The purpose of Kalam was directed primarily at the Mu'tazilites with regards to philosophy. Quoting the Qur'an and Hadeeth weren't sufficient rebuttals since the Mu'tazilites would simply re-interpet them. You can't use a literalistic argument against people who aren't literalist. Just like when you debate with a Shi'a, you can't quote Sunni hadeeth because they won't accept the authority of Sunni hadeeth. You can either use your intellect, common sense, or you can use their own proofs against them. The latter is more effective.

Mu'tezilah had built their beliefs on philosophy that is why the ashairah as you say developed kalam. Salafis do not use philosophy so why use philosophy with them? Don't you see that by doing that you are doing exactly what the mu'tazilah did when they started to use philosophy against the asharis? Now why did not the Prophet and the sahabah use kalam to explain such matters? Why was kalam developed only against the mu'tazilah as you say? There are two situations in this regard: 1) There were no people who depended on philosophy at the time of the Prophet or 2) There were people who depended on philosophy at taht time. Now if the former is the truth does this not indicate at least that with the people who do not take philosophy as their position you should not use kalam? If the later is the truth, does this not indicate that even when such people exist there is no need to use kalam?

[Abuz Zubair]

The existence of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and some of His attributes can be known completely independently of the Shari'ah because of Kalam. This is why Kalam was first developed; in order to use rational arguments to prove the existence of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and some of His attributes.

There are more than one rational way of proving God's existence. In fact, God existence has never been an issue for most of the humanity. In spite of that, the Quran is crammed full of rational proofs for His existence.

Kalam is the faulty 'rational' argument that endeavours to prove God's existence, but ends up divesting God of not only His attributes, but also negates Him from existence.

Kalam was not invented by Ash'aris. It was only inherited by the Ash'aris from their forefathers, the Mu'tazila. They deserve the credit for Islamising Aristotle's categories and using that to prove (or trying to prove) God's existence.

Because the use of Kalam contradicted our Islam, the Salaf were unanimously against 'ilm al-kalam.

Not necessarily. When Ibrahim (alayhi salam) used his intellect in arguing with his idolatrous father, this doesn't mean he took intellect as his basis in aqeedah.

But you do. And if you want to prove otherwise, then name me a single Ash'ari primer in theology that does not start with substance and accidents theory.

The purpose of Kalam was directed primarily at the Mu'tazilites with regards to philosophy. Quoting the Qur'an and Hadeeth weren't sufficient rebuttals since the Mu'tazilites would simply re-interpet them. You can't use a literalistic argument against people who aren't literalist.

The correct way to refute the Mu'tazila is by showing the inconsistencies in their rational thought process, and not by agreeing with their philosophy. This is how Ibn Taymiyya refuted not only you folks, but also your forefathers, the Mu'tazilas, and their forefathers, the Jahmiyya and the philosophers.

Because you held on to the Mu'tazili principles, you eventually came back to your Mu'tazili roots by claiming that the Quran is created. You were even daring enough to proclaim explicitly that Imam Ahmad was theological wrong and the Mu'tazilas were right. Why then the effort of refuting the Mu'tazilas when you all agree? And of course, when then is the point of kalam, if it couldn't even refute the mu'tazila, which we are told was your initial intention?

Just like when you debate with a Shi'a, you can't quote Sunni hadeeth because they won't accept the authority of Sunni hadeeth. You can either use your intellect, common sense, or you can use their own proofs against them. The latter is more effective.

How absurd is it for you to claim that the most effective way of refuting the Shias is by quoting to them reports from their own sources? Are you really expecting to find reports in praise of Abu Bakr and Umar in Usul al-Kafi?!

Rather, the most effective way is to challenge the premise on which they reject our reports, and that is to do with their view on the companions. The Ash'ari way would be to ACCEPT their view on the companions that they are all kuffar, and then using their own reports found in Usul al-Kafi to prove that the companions were in fact Muslims, only to agree with the Shias several hundred years down the line that the companions were, in fact, kuffar!

[joefso]

really interesting, I need to find some Arabic courses so I can read what you guys are reading. InshAllaah.

[al-hanafi]

http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dd5np2v8_0cz8s4v&revision=_published

this link seems to summarise the ash'ari stance on the attributes

[sunnih]

To Abu Zubayr. Dear Brother. Now you are complicating the matter for him even more. Hahahahahaha

[Abuz Zubair]

http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dd5np2v8_0cz8s4v&revision=_published

this link seems to summarise the ash'ari stance on the attributes What a load of nonsense...

It may seem surprising that I mentioned Ibn al-Jawzi among the most important Ash`ari scholars, but when one understands the Ash`ari mindset, this becomes far less surprising
and

The Arabs had borrowed most of their scientific theories and terminology from the Greeks. It is primarily for this reason that critics of the Ashari approach such as Ibn Taymiyah and Ibn al-Qayyim accused them of taking their theology from the Greek philosophers
The Arabs?! It was a fringe heretical group, the Jahmiyya, who adopted the Greek religion, but were rejected by the Arabs. Ash'aris simply inherited this legacy from the Jahmis and the Mu'tazilas, due to which they were shunned by the Arabs. al-Muhasibi had to die in hiding due to the Arab backlash! So when did the Arabs ever accept Greek religion?

The extreme Hashwis include the Mushabbihah, the early Hanbali Mujassimah like Abu Ya’la al-Farra’, Ibn Mandah, and Ibn Battah, and many of the contemporary Salafis.

The moderate Hashwis include Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, Ibn Abu al-`Izz, al-Dhahabi in his early days, and some of the more moderate and better informed contemporary Salafis.
The Hashawis are those who engage in Hashwin min al-kalam - absolutely useless and absurd argumentation, such as believing in two contraries at the same time (God not being inside nor outside the creation, etc, pinnacle of absurdity and Hashw)

Allah created everything as clearly stated in the following verse: “Allah is the Creator of everything” This verse is general in meaning, all-inclusive. The Ashari and Mâturîdî scholars understand from these verses that everything besides Allah, including time and space, are created by Him. Thus, His existence is not temporal. He has no beginning or end. Consequently, He does not perform his actions in time, one before the other. His creation of things in their appointed places and times happens in His timelessness. [This is agreed upon by all Muslims. We shall see that the Ash`aris and Maturidis differ in their manner of explaining it.] He is unchanging, because change is a temporal phenomenon.


Note their admission that Allah is unable to do time-specific things, so He didn't speak to Moses at a particular time, nor did He create the world at a particular time, and guess what else? He would be unable to judge us on the Day of judgement at a particular time.

And to top it up, it is claimed that the Muslims have somehow agreed with this! Yet, our Imam Ahmad tells us that Allah speaks whenever He likes.

If we choose to define “action” in terms of the temporal manifestation, we say the actions are temporal and we need not ascribe an extra attribute to Allah
This is how the Ash'aris define an action... i.e. a temporal manifestation, i.e. the verb is the object.

al-Imam al-Bukhari says in his Khalq Af'al al-'Ibad: The Jahmis said, an verb is in fact is object.

We can see that this is nothing more than hair-splitting. It has no bearing on belief or disbelief. It is important to note that the Salafi position is that Allah’s actions are not created, and they never tire of attacking the Ash`aris on this point. Their purpose for doing so is not so much that they reason along the Maturidi line in this case (that would be far beyond their grasp), but that they are trying to make Allah’s speech of “letters and sounds” uncreated, and they are trying to make it possible for such concepts as Allah’s “descending to the lowest heaven” and his “arriving with the angels” to be taken on their literal meanings.
Astounding coming from someone who continues to believe, in the 21st century that atoms cannot be divided! Kids doing GCSEs know something as basic as the divisibility of atoms into electrons and protons, and yet, your absurd philosophy tells you that this is a kufr belief! And then you claim that understanding your absurd 'ilm al-kalam is beyond our grasp, whereas Ibn Taymiyya had claimed 7 centuries ago, that atoms ARE divisible, contrary to the Ash'aris!

Not only that the Salafis have rationally refuted Ash'aris on infinite regress in the past, they have also shown them how to correctly refute the philosophers on this point. Similarly, the Salafis did not agree with the Maturidis either, but found them to be closer than the Ash'aris, and slightly less absurd. The Salafi belief, which is rationally sound and textually confirmed, is that Allah has eternally existed with all His Attributes, while He performs actions whenever He likes, and His actions remain His attributes, whilst the object of His actions are created.

As far as negating the literal meaning is concerned then it is the very crime for which the Ash'aris imputed kufr on the Batinis, only to be guilty of the same crime of ta'wil.

Anyway, it is useful when dealing with them to assume the Maturidi position on this case and explain the Ash`ari position in more Maturidi terms to take the “fangs” out of the Salafi attack and refer them back to the real issue, which is that their Salafi interpretations of “descent” and “arrival” and their understanding of Speech put Allah and his attributes in the confines of space and time.
This can only be true after you a) define to us both, space and time (which to this day remains undefined), and b) subsequently prove to us the createdness of space and time.

We have already seen that Allah knows everything with his timeless and eternal divine knowledge. Allah knows what you are going to do tomorrow. Allah’s knowledge is never wrong and cannot be changed. This is what we mean by Allah’s determination of things. Wrong! You mean a lot more than that. You believe that Allah forces you to do an action where you have no choice. Read what al-Razi has to say about it.

When you are asked: but isn't this oppression?

You invented a new definition for oppression, that is to interfere with someone else's property, and since we are all Allah's property, whatever He does to us, even if He throws us in Hell for no crime, He is not an oppressor.

What this absurd argument necessitated is that if a person burns his money, he is not an oppressor. If he kills his slave, he is not an oppressor.

Whereas Allah did not say any of what you have assumed about Him. To the contrary He said: I have forbidden oppression upon Myself. And only that which is possible for Allah to do can be made forbidden. Meaning, Allah is capable to throwing people into Hell for no sin, but He does NOT do so, for He has made oppression Haram upon Himself.

And hence, the correct definition of oppression is NOT to place something in its proper place.

The Qur’ân is Allah’s speech. The Qur’ân is an attribute of Allah and is not created. Wrong. Refer to Sharh al-Jawhara, where it states that the correction position is that when the Ash'aris say: Quran is Allah's Speech, they only mean it metaphorically. al-Juwayni was the only Ash'ari to regard Quran to be a homonym for both, the meaning subsisting in Allah's essence, and the 'created Quran' which the Muslims recite through out the world!

Some scholars suggest that Mûsâ heard Allah’s Divine Speech in a way that we cannot understand. They say that Mûsâ actually heard the speech that is neither letter nor sound. Other scholars say that Allah created letters and sounds with which Mûsâ heard His eternal and uncreated Divine Speech. The first opinion is the view of Imâm al-Ash`arî, while the second is the view of Imâm al-Mâturîdî.
And this is EXACTLY the opinion of the Mu'tazila.

The truth is that only Allah and His Messenger Mûsâ know the way in which Allah spoke to him. We should not try and guess about things that are not found in the Qur’ân and Sunnah. This is what you do when your rational absurdities lead you to a dead end... 'Allahu Alam... after all this interpolation, let's make tafweedh now!'

If we should NOT 'guess about things that are not found in the Quran and the Sunnah', then why claim that Allah is neither inside nor outside the creation? Why claim that Allah's actions are in fact the temporal manifestations? Why claim that Allah's Speech is without letters and voice, just a meaning subsisting in His Essence? Are any of these absurd concepts found in the Quran and Sunnah? Why didn't you make tafweedh then and keep silent?

Allah’s speech is indivisible with respect to it being an attribute of Allah. The same goes for Allah’s will and power. Allah’s will is one, indivisible attribute
Here comes further speculation from the wise man who should have listened to his own advice of just believing without asking how.

Now, if Allah's Speech is indivisible, did Moses hear all of Allah's Speech, or only part of it? Or would you switch your mind of from this rational dilemma because we should not 'guess about things that are not found in the Quran and the Sunnah'?

Lost are those who believe that Quran does not rationally answer these questions, such that Islam needs Greek Philosophy to be defended!