Allah being seen on Qiyamah. [Archive]

View Full Version : Allah being seen on Qiyamah.

asharee_salafi

3rd June 2006, 04:36 PM

Assalamu^laykum

We Sunnis and Asharees bothe agree Allah ta Ala will be seen on Qiyamah.

Yet they still accuse us of tashbih. Because theys ay we say that Allah will be in a direction.

As from that article I posted time ago, from spubs, quoting dhabi, he says that Allah is above his creation that includes space and time, ( the creations) and as a result no one can imagine one mass above another mass when we say Allah is above his throne.

So how is it some Salafees say we will see Allah above us?

Shouldn't we se Sunnis say we will see Allah WITHOUT ASKING HOW. because to say we will Allah above us is stipulating a how.

The early muatizilah used to argue that ( and so HT ) that a limited being cannot comprehend the infinite. Im actually surprised that with all the plato rhetoric that the asharees affirm Allah being seen?!

I have to run now. I will conclude another time.

WS

Abuz Zubair

6th June 2006, 10:47 AM

Allah says in His Book:

That day faces will be bright, looking at their Lord

Can we look at something, without looking at it?

This is one of the weakest points of the Ash’ari doctrine, which the Mu’tazilite attacked the Ash’aris over. For they said on one hand: ‘we will look at our Lord’, and on the other hand: ‘not in any direction’.

The Mu’tazila said: How can you look at something, by negating the direction at the same time?!

As for the notion that Allah is beyond our comprehension, then that is correct. However, seeing or 'looking at', is not comprehension.

wasalam

asharee_salafi

6th June 2006, 05:40 PM

Right,

So we will see Allah without confinement but in the above direction? And no one can ask how, no one can say taht there will be a distance between God and the one seeing him, as Allah is beyond created space 

The following is from salafipublications



Imaam adh-Dhahabee said in the final lines of his most excellent work, ‘al-Uluww lil-‘Aliyyil-Ghaffaar’ (pp.286-287): 

"Al-Qurtubee said concerning the saying of Allaah, the Most High, "Then he ascended (istawaa) the Throne", 

"We have explained the sayings of the Scholars regarding this issue in the book ‘al-Asnaa fee Sharh al-Asmaa al-Husnaa’ and we mentioned fourteen different sayings therein" 

up until he said, 

"And the Salaf of the very first times - may Allaah be pleased with them all - never used to negate direction (al-jihah) for Allaah and nor did they used to express this (negation). Rather, they, and all of the others, used to speak with its affirmation for Allaah, the Most High just as His Book has spoken about it and just as His Messengers informed of it. And not a single one of the Salaf denied that his ascending (istawaa) the Throne was real and true (haqeeqah) (as opposed to metaphorical, majaaz). And Allaah specified the Throne with istawaa because that is the greatest of all His creation. However they assumed ignorance only of the exact nature (kaifiyyah) of istiwaa, for the true nature of that is not known. Imaam Maalik said, ‘Istiwaa is known…’, meaning in the language, ‘…its true nature is unknown and asking about it is an innovation." 

And al-Qurtubee also said in ‘al-Asnaa’, 

"Many of the past and contemporary philosophers said, ‘When it is necessary to purify the Creator (al-Baaree) - whose Magnificence is great - from having direction (jihah) and demarcation (tamayyuz), then from the requirements and necessary consequences of this, in the view of most of the past scholars and their leading contemporaries, is the purify the Creator (al-Baaree) from having direction (jihah). In their view, direction does not have the aspect of ‘above’ to it. This is because to them, when Allaah is designated with direction, this would necessitate that He is restricted to a place (makaan) and a confine (hayyiz). (Subsequently), a place and a confine necessitate (for Him) (such) movement and stillness that is related to distinction (tamayyuz), transformation (taghayyur) and new occurrences (hudooth) . This is the saying of the philosophers. 





I (adh-Dhahabee) say, "Yes, this is what the deniers of the ‘uluww (highness) of the Lord, Mighty and Majestic, have depended upon. And they turned away from the requirement of the Book, the Sunnah, the sayings of the Salaf and the innate dispositions of the whole of creation. What they claim to be necessitated (from affirming Allaah’s highness) is only applicable to created bodies. Yet there is nothing like Allaah and the necessities arising from the clear and evident texts (of the Book and the Sunnah) are also true. However, we do not make use of any explanation except one that comes through a narration. In addition to this we say, ‘We do not accept that the Creator’s being upon His Throne and above the heavens, necessitates that He is confined and in spatial direction, since whatever is below the Throne is said to be confined and in spatial direction. However, what is above the Throne is not like that. And Allaah is above the Throne as the very first generation are unanimously agreed upon and as the imaams after them have quoted from them. They said this in refutation of the Jahmiyyah, those who said that He is in every place seeking as a proof His saying, ‘And He is with you…’. So these two sayings were the very two sayings which were present in the time of the Taabi’een and their successors who came after them. And they are the two sayings that can be understood in this statement (i.e. of the philosophers). As for the third saying which came around after this which is that’ Allaah the Most High is not in any place, nor is His Holy Essence (Dhaat) confined, nor is He separate and distinct from His creation, nor is he in any spatial direction, nor is outside of any spatial directions, and nor this and nor that…’ then this is something that cannot be comprehended nor understood [1], along with the fact that within it is opposition to the verses (of the Book) and the narrations (from the Salaf). Therefore flee with your religion and beware of the opinions of the philosophers. Believe in Allaah and what has come from Him upon the desired intent of Allaah, then submit your affair to Him and there is no power nor movement except by Allaah." 

The book is completed and all praise is to Allaah alone…" End of quote from adh-Dhahabee.

waziri

10th June 2006, 03:22 PM

It is biddah to ask about Istawa,

does this mean its biddah to ask about the howness of istawa or biddah to ask about it fullstop?

I have been told that Allah subhanaa ta ala is as he subhana wa ta ala was before he created anything,so that includes the arsh,is this correct?Is that an Ashari belief?

Sureley if Allah is as he was before he crated the arsh then isnt that a denial of istawa?

Logic lover

11th June 2006, 08:51 AM

Assalamu alaimum.
As far as I understand asking how Allah rose over the Arsh is bidah. However, asking where Allah is - is not bidah. We take the news without:
denying
distorting
asking how and
comparing with the creation.

As for the point - Arsh not created at a certain time: we should not go into this type of analysis.

Allah knows best.

waziri

11th June 2006, 02:13 PM

JazakAllah khair brother Logic,

Could one of the brothers please elaborate as i would like to know if it is the understanding of the ahlus sunnah that Allah is as he was before the creation,this is what one person told me.Also if that is the case how do we reconcile that understanding with the belief that Allah is above the arsh?

JazakAllah khir.

wasalam

Abuz Zubair

11th June 2006, 02:36 PM

Yes, Allah is as He was, before and after creating the creation.
<o></o>
How does Allah creating an Arsh change anything in Him?
<o></o>
Likewise, rising over the Throne, what change does it bring about in Allah’s Attributes? Likewise, Allah becoming angry on the day of judgement, as He has never been angry before, does it necessitate change in Allah Attributes, in the sense that He gained a Attributed after not possessing it previously?
<o></o>
Certainly not.
<o></o>
As we argued before, when Allah created the creation, there are only two possibilities we can come up with:
<o></o>
1) Allah created the creation inside of Him
2) Allah created the creation outside Him
<o></o>
The first is impossible, and we are left with the second.

waziri

11th June 2006, 03:01 PM

Allah reward you brother Abu Zubair for sheding light on that for me.

I never assumed that Allah's attributs changed or any thing like that naouthoubillah, because we know that Allah was the creator before the creation.But what i was thinking was that if Allah was not over the arsh before he created it wouldnt it be a denial of the ayah's where Allah say's he rose above the arsh,to say he is as he was ie not over the arsh.

sorry if the above doesnt make sense,maybe its just my misunderstanding that led me to think that.Also the person who told me that said it in response to a question about istawa.

wasalam

abu imaan an-nepalee

12th June 2006, 01:51 AM

As-sallamu 'alaikum

akh abuz-zubair have you read any of the works of st thomas aquinas especially on the catholic creed?, he is one of their major sources and your response to bro waziri's question reminded me of some of the points catholics make, such as can ALLAH Ta'ala be ar-Rahman before there is anything to be merciful to, also they try argue if we say kalaam-ALLAH ghayr makhlooq, then has the Qur'an existed and pre-eternal etc?'

What have the 'ulemah stated about their batil?

jazakALLAHU khairan

Abuz Zubair

12th June 2006, 05:55 AM

As-salaamu ‘alaikum,

It’s interesting you mention St Thomas Aquinas, he too tried to reconcile between the religion and philosophy, and surprisingly, his intellectual mentor in doing so was none other than Ibn Rushd!

Since Ibn Rushd translated the bulk of Aristotle’s works, he in a way made them all available to the European Christian world.

St Thomas Aquinas held Ibn Rushd in high regard, such that in his works he would often refer to Aristotle as ‘The Philosopher’, and Ibn Rushd as ‘The Commentator’

Quite like we say ‘qaal al-musannif’, and ‘qaal al-shaarih’!

also they try argue if we say kalaam-ALLAH ghayr makhlooq, then has the Qur'an existed and pre-eternal etc

This is their problem. For them creation is synonymous with anything non-eternal. We say that not everything that comes into being from non-existence is necessarily created.

For example, Allah does what He likes and when He likes at any instance in time, yet that which He does, does not become a creation, rather it is just an Act of God.

Likewise, Allah Speaks when He likes, and when He does, His Speech is not regarded to be His creation, rather it is the uncreated Speech of God.

wasalam

asharee_salafi

17th June 2006, 03:45 PM

Abuz Zubair

17th June 2006, 09:16 PM

But again, aren't you stipulating a how for Allah in regards to seeing him? i.e you are saying we will see Allah above us. But Imam Tahawi says we shouldn't even go into the howness of it?

If you look in my copy and paste, it says that there is no such thing as distance to ALLAH, as he is above and separate from the creation, one can't envisage how Allah is because he is above CREATED SPACE AND TIME.

ws

To say that we will look at Allah in a direction is not stipulating howness, just as saying that Allah is in the above direction is not stipulating howness.

This is because a person cannot look at something, without looking at it, just as one cannot describe Allah being in the above direction, while negating direction at the same time. This is nonsense.

This is not howness, this is the literal meaning.

Above is a direction.

Looking at only happens in a direction.

The Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wasallam likened Allah’s vision with that of the moon.

Ahl al-Sunnah also believe that we will literally see Allah with our eyes in the sockets.

One cannot use his eyes to look at something, but not in any direction, unless of course, that person is an Ash’ari. This is the Ash’ari dilemma which lead al-Razi the Ash’ari to finally agree with the Mu’tazila that ‘seeing Allah’ in fact refers to having some kind of additional knowledge about Allah. In other words, we would not literally see Allah, but a certain knowledge about Allah’s being will be disclosed to us.

So after centuries of battles against the Mu’tazilites, chicken comes home to roost.

The quote you pasted from al-Dhahabi does not say that Allah is beyond space and time. What it says is that Allah is beyond the confines of the created space, which is surrounded by six directions. Allah is not surround by six directions. Rather, he encompasses everything else. Again, I refer you to the Hadeeth of the ring in the desert.

As for saying time is created, it depends what one means by that.

If one means that Allah created the night and the day, by creating the sun and the moon and making them go in their relative orbits, then yes, Allah did create time in that sense. This is what it means when it states in the Qadiri creed:

Times and ages do not change Him, however times and ages change. He is the Creator of times and ages, the night and the day, the light and darkness, the heavens and earths, and what it contains from the qualities of the creation, the land and sea, and what they contain, and everything else what is living or death.

However, if one says that time is created, in the sense that Allah is beyond time, in the dimension of eternity, and therefore He cannot do what He likes and when He likes, then that meaning is utter nonsense.

Because time, in this particular meaning, unlike day and night, is simply a tool of measurement between two separate instances.

Hence, the ‘creation of time’ in this sense has also been a dilemma for some of the Ash’aris. Take for example, al-Qurtubi himself in his refutation of the Christians, al-I’lam bi ma fi din al-nasara comments on the Christian’s statement that ‘Allah is beyond time’, saying that if Allah beyond time, then define to us what exactly is time? Is it something that really exists? And if so, then is it a substance or an accident? Exactly the same sort of questions I threw at these Ash’aris.

abubakr

18th June 2006, 10:26 AM

Asalamu alaykum

Akhi Abu zubair you mentioned Imam al-qurtubi.

could you refute the following by gf haddad:

Falsification of Imam Qurtubi's Position on Anthropomorphism
<<"Al-Qurtubee said concerning the saying of Allaah, the Most High, "Then he ascended (istawaa) the Throne", We have explained the sayings of the Scholars regarding this issue in the book 'al-Asnaa fee Sharh al-Asmaa al-Husnaa' and we mentioned fourteen different sayings therein">>

I have that book also and al-Qurtubi in it makes abundantly clear that he is against the position of the anthropomorphists!

<<up until he said, "And the Salaf of the very first times - may Allaah be pleased with them all - never used to negate direction (al-jihah) for Allaah and nor did they used to express this (negation). Rather, they, and all of the others, used to speak with its affirmation for Allaah, the Most High just as His Book has spoken about it and just as His Messengers informed of it. And not a single one of the Salaf denied that his ascending (istawaa) the Throne was real and true (haqeeqah) (as opposed to metaphorical, majaaz).">>

The continuation of al-Qurtubi's words quoted in Mukhtasar al-`Uluw (p. 286) states:

"And He mentioned His Throne specifically because it is the greatest of His creations. However, they actually did not know the modality or howness of his Istiwa' for the reality of its modality cannot be known."

NOTE
The original in al-Dhahabi's `Uluw [full edition, 600 pages edited by Hasan al-Saqqaf] here states (p. 574): "for its reality cannot be known." This is also what is found in al-Qurtubi's Tafsir. This tampering is one among many examples of the mendacity of al-Albani and his followers! The reason for this particular tahrif is that when the Salafiyya were faced with the reality of Tafwid among the Salaf, they invented the subdivision of Tafwid al-Kayfiyya so as to deny that the Salaf actually practiced Tafwid al-Ma`na. So when proof to the latter comes up, they deny it or manipulate it, as in this case.

THEN al-Qurtubi continues, in his Tafsir:

"I SAY: the `Uluw [exaltation] of Allah Most High and His irtifa` [elevation] are an expression of the `uluw of His Majesty, Attributes, and Dominion. Meaning: There is nothing above Him whatsoever in the sense of Majesty and its qualities, nor with Him as a partner. Rather, He is the Most High in absolute and unconditional terms - exalted is He!"

See the introduction and appendices to our translation of Sayyid Yusuf al-Rifa`i's Nasiha to the Ulema of Najd for many more examples of their tampering and misreprentations of the Ulema of Islam and their books.

As for the Ghunya: it is not an integrally preserved text and the copies we have today are corrupt. As for the book Ijtima` al-Juyush al-Islamiyya it is crammed with forgeries - like al-Sunna by `Abd Allah ibn Ahmad - and Ibn al-Qayyim is a notorious Mujassim.

Conclusion
Those who call themselves Salafiyyah do not mind lying about the Ulema they quote; make up their own definitions of tafwid and ta'wil; and generally have no idea of the accurate positions of the Salaf and the latter are innocent of them. Allah is our refuge from their bid`a and dalala.

Abuz Zubair

18th June 2006, 02:13 PM

As-salaamu ‘alaikum,
<o></o>
Falsification of Imam Qurtubi's Position on Anthropomorphism<o></o>

<<"Al-Qurtubee said concerning the saying of Allaah, the Most High, "Then he ascended (istawaa) the Throne", We have explained the sayings of the Scholars regarding this issue in the book 'al-Asnaa fee Sharh al-Asmaa al-Husnaa' and we mentioned fourteen different sayings therein">>
<o></o>
I have that book also and al-Qurtubi in it makes abundantly clear that he is against the position of the anthropomorphists! <o></o>
No one is questioning al-Qurtubi’s own position on this issue. We are more interested in what he believed to be the Madhab of the Salaf.
<o></o>
This can be summarised by al-Qurtubi’s statement himself, as quoted by al-Saffarini (which I mentioned in Rotten Apples and <st1><st1:city w:st="on">Oranges</st1:city></st1>):
‘The most correct of the beliefs (adhar al-aqwal), although I do not subscribe to it nor do I prefer it, is what is manifest in the verses and traditions, and (the statements of) the noble and the excellent ones, that Allah Subhanahu is upon His Throne, as He informed in His Books, without kayf, separate from His creation. This is basically the Madhab of the Salaf al-Salih.’
Al-Saffarini then says: ‘What is amazing from al-Qurtubi, that he says: ‘although I do not subscribe to it nor do I prefer it’! Perhaps he feared that some envious people may misconstrue his words, so he guarded himself with this statement.’
<o></o>
So the question is, would GF Haddad admit, that at least according to al-Qurtubi, the Madhab of the Salaf is to believe literally that Allah is above the throne?
<o></o>
The continuation of al-Qurtubi's words quoted in Mukhtasar al-`Uluw (p. 286) states:

"And He mentioned His Throne specifically because it is the greatest of His creations. However, they actually did not know the modality or howness of his Istiwa' for the reality of its modality cannot be known."

NOTE
The original in al-Dhahabi's `Uluw [full edition, 600 pages edited by Hasan al-Saqqaf] here states (p. 574): "for its reality cannot be known." This is also what is found in al-Qurtubi's Tafsir. This tampering is one among many examples of the mendacity of al-Albani and his followers! <o></o>
Firstly, Sheikh al-Albani did err in his summary in more than one instance and often contradicted his own decided methodology for summarisation. Human beings err.
<o></o>
Secondly, Sheikh al-Albani’s addition here [addition within brackets]: ‘for the reality [of its modality] is not know’, does not oppose the meaning, for al-Qurtubi himself explicitly states in this very sentence, as quoted by Haddad:
<o></o>
And He mentioned His Throne specifically because it is the greatest of His creations. However, they actually did not know the modality (or howness) of his Istiwa' for its reality cannot be known. <o></o>
As you can see, omission of [modality] in the last part of the sentence does not affect the meaning, for it is already mentioned in the first part, which Mr. Haddad does not deny! The Jahmite problem is lack of ‘aql, while feigning intellectualism.
<o></o>
See the introduction and appendices to our translation of Sayyid Yusuf al-Rifa`i's Nasiha to the Ulema of Najd for many more examples of their tampering and misreprentations of the Ulema of Islam and their books. <o></o>
And as shown above, the problem here isn’t wahhabi tampering, it is the Jahmite bigotry and lack of intelligence.
<o></o>
As for the Ghunya: it is not an integrally preserved text and the copies we have today are corrupt. As for the book Ijtima` al-Juyush al-Islamiyya it is crammed with forgeries - like al-Sunna by `Abd Allah ibn Ahmad - and Ibn al-Qayyim is a notorious Mujassim. What’s new? Al-Ghunya is corrupt, al-Ibana, Maqalat and Risala Ila Ahl al-Thaghr all three by Ash’ari are corrupt, early books by al-Baqillani have all been tampered with.
<o></o>
They are telling us that they could not preserve a single work by their early scholars, including their figurehead, al-Ash’ari, while the ‘Hashawi Mujassims’ (i.e. the Hanbalis) were the only ones to preserve a heritage, they should have preserved.
<o></o>
To make it even more ridiculous, they lecture us about Isnad, Ijaza and the ‘broken chain’! When will they ever wake up and look at themselves in the mirror?
<o></o>
His comment about Ijtima’ of Ibn al-Qayyim or even about Imams like Abdullah, the son of the undisputed Imam of Ahl al-Sunnah, Ahmad b. Hanbal, only discredit his own faith and credibility. No one attacks Imam Ahmad, or his son who represented his father’s legacy, except one guilty of Zandaqa, a diabolical state which Haddad doesn’t even try to hide.
<o></o>
wasalam

Madarijas-Salikeen

1st January 2007, 08:22 PM

As-salaamu ‘alaikum,
<o></o>
<o></o>
No one is questioning al-Qurtubi’s own position on this issue. We are more interested in what he believed to be the Madhab of the Salaf.
<o></o>
This can be summarised by al-Qurtubi’s statement himself, as quoted by al-Saffarini (which I mentioned in Rotten Apples and <st1><st1:city w:st="on">Oranges</st1:city></st1>):
‘The most correct of the beliefs (adhar al-aqwal), although I do not subscribe to it nor do I prefer it, is what is manifest in the verses and traditions, and (the statements of) the noble and the excellent ones, that Allah Subhanahu is upon His Throne, as He informed in His Books, without kayf, separate from His creation. This is basically the Madhab of the Salaf al-Salih.’
Al-Saffarini then says: ‘What is amazing from al-Qurtubi, that he says: ‘although I do not subscribe to it nor do I prefer it’! Perhaps he feared that some envious people may misconstrue his words, so he guarded himself with this statement.’
<o></o>
So the question is, would GF Haddad admit, that at least according to al-Qurtubi, the Madhab of the Salaf is to believe literally that Allah is above the throne?
<o></o>
<o></o>
Firstly, Sheikh al-Albani did err in his summary in more than one instance and often contradicted his own decided methodology for summarisation. Human beings err.
<o></o>
Secondly, Sheikh al-Albani’s addition here [addition within brackets]: ‘for the reality [of its modality] is not know’, does not oppose the meaning, for al-Qurtubi himself explicitly states in this very sentence, as quoted by Haddad:
<o></o>
<o></o>
As you can see, omission of [modality] in the last part of the sentence does not affect the meaning, for it is already mentioned in the first part, which Mr. Haddad does not deny! The Jahmite problem is lack of ‘aql, while feigning intellectualism.
<o></o>
<o></o>
And as shown above, the problem here isn’t wahhabi tampering, it is the Jahmite bigotry and lack of intelligence.
<o></o>
What’s new? Al-Ghunya is corrupt, al-Ibana, Maqalat and Risala Ila Ahl al-Thaghr all three by Ash’ari are corrupt, early books by al-Baqillani have all been tampered with.
<o></o>
They are telling us that they could not preserve a single work by their early scholars, including their figurehead, al-Ash’ari, while the ‘Hashawi Mujassims’ (i.e. the Hanbalis) were the only ones to preserve a heritage, they should have preserved.
<o></o>
To make it even more ridiculous, they lecture us about Isnad, Ijaza and the ‘broken chain’! When will they ever wake up and look at themselves in the mirror?
<o></o>
His comment about Ijtima’ of Ibn al-Qayyim or even about Imams like Abdullah, the son of the undisputed Imam of Ahl al-Sunnah, Ahmad b. Hanbal, only discredit his own faith and credibility. No one attacks Imam Ahmad, or his son who represented his father’s legacy, except one guilty of Zandaqa, a diabolical state which Haddad doesn’t even try to hide.
<o></o>
wasalam

Jazakallah khayr akhi abu zubayr

asharee_salafi

10th June 2007, 03:31 PM

sorry brother abuz zubair, so Allah will be seen above us right?

but, i mean, if Alah is seperate from the 6 directions, how will he be seen in a direction?

Abuz Zubair

10th June 2007, 03:38 PM

what do you mean 'separate from 6 directions'?

If you mean Allah is not contained within six directions, then this is right because Allah says He encompasses everything.

If you mean Allah is not in the above direction, then I think we have discussed enough to prove otherwise.

asharee_salafi

10th June 2007, 03:41 PM

I thought that Allah is above only in relation to us, he is separate to us and that direction is just 'up' but that doesn't mean that Alah is contained.

Milk Shaykh

10th June 2007, 03:42 PM

If you mean Allah is not in the above direction,

Is this why it is recommened to raise your towards the heavens after completion of wudu according to some Hanbali fiqh manuals?

Abuz Zubair

10th June 2007, 04:44 PM

The reason why it is recommended is because it is reported from the Prophet - SallAllahu 'alayhi wa-sallam - that he would look up and make dua after wudu.

But there are many instances where the Prophet - SallAllahu 'alayhi wasallam - pointed to the heavens while referring to Allah, such as on his last sermon.

Logic lover

12th June 2007, 06:24 PM

I have seen even the Hindus raise their hands upwards when they talk about destiny (saying 'the one above' knows). Please do not think that I take Hindus as my teachers of aqeedah.

joefso

12th June 2007, 06:29 PM

Hindus almost have the same aqeedah as Christians. Also 3 divine oneness that believes in incarnation, funny tough.

abu imaan an-nepalee

12th June 2007, 06:44 PM

i was watching "the weakest link" a few months ago, that robinson woman asked the contestant "which 'V' is the god part of the Hindu trinity?"

The contestant thought about it (and probably thought of which bud-bud-ding ding she met with a name beginning with the letter 'v')......

her answer was "Vikram" lol!