Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 117

God's beautiful body.

This is a discussion on God's beautiful body. within the Islamic Theology and Ideology forums, part of the Islamic Knowledge category; ...

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    32

    Default God's beautiful body.







    This is the first post Im starting here. Some of what has been said in the ibn Kathir posts has been taken in order to start off my post on theology. In God we seek help and protection.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abuz Zubair
    Because the Mutazilas used the texts about the Quran coming to its reciter on the Day of Judgement, claiming that the Quran is created.

    Hence, Imam Ahmad replied to them saying: just as you say that its not the Lord, who will come, it will be His reward, you can likewise say: it is not the Quran that will come, it will be the reward of reciting it, and this seems to be the opinion of Ibn Badran al-DImashqi in his Madkhal.
    Why would the Quran be considered created for simply coming on the Day of Judgment? If attributing coming to something means its created then how can one attribute that to God? Is God considered created?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abuz Zubair
    Besides, why is it blasphemous for Allah to come by Himself to judge?
    Why is it blasphemous for Allah to be everywhere, literally? Why cant we say the Quran literally comes? Why cant God be both in the Sky and the Earth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abuz Zubair
    The narration about Imam Ahmad supposedly making Ta'wil of 'Your Lord will Come...' is narrated by Hanbal alone, the uncle of the Imam. The Hanbalis are very cautious when it comes to narrations transmitted by Hanbal alone on the issues of Fiqh, so how about the issues of Aqida? Many Hanbali Imams claimed that Hanbal erred while reporting this, for Salih b. Ahmad b. Hanbal was also a witness to this discussion and trial, but never reported anything of the like in his account. Furthermore, Hanbal also narrates several times from Imam Ahmad literally affirming Allahs descent.
    I decided to post Hanbals bio here. Inshallah, itll be somewhere around the end of this post.

    Imam Hanbals rank is actually very high in hadith. Its much higher then ibn Aqeels rank. Its odd who is accepted and who is rejected. Lets take a look at what ibn Kathir says. This is what is written in al-Bidaya:

    ޡ :

    : : .

    ( ) [ : 18 ] : .
    : ޡ .
    : ͡ : " ).
    : .
    .
    : : .
    : ( ) [ : 2 ].
    : ˡ .
    : .

    What Imam Ahmed says about the Speech of God being uncreated, and his censure on whoever says, his words with the Quran are created and he means by it the Quran.
    [Imam] Ahmed said, [An uttered] word is muhdath.
    Imam Ahmed used these words of God as proof He does not utter a single word except there is an ever-presence watcher [50:18]. Imam Ahmed said, Hence what is uttered is the speech of humans. It has also been related from him, The Quran, however its used, is uncreated. [What Imam Ahmed means here is that whatever people do when reciting whats in the Mushaf doesnt change the fact that the Quran itself isnt created.]
    I say [i.e. ibn Kathir] this is what Imam Bukhari affirms in his book The Creation of the Actions of Slaves. Imam Bukhari used as proof his words [the Prophet], peace be upon him beautify the Quran with your voices. For this reason, several Imams have said that Speech is the Speech of the Creator and the voice is the voice of the reciter. This is what Bayhaqi affirms also. Bayhaqi relates [that] Imam Ahmed said, Whoever says the Quran is muhdath is a Kaffir. The Gahmiya responded by using the words of God A reminder doesnt come from their lord that is muhdath except that they listen to it playfully [21:2]. Imam Ahmed responded by saying This may mean that the revelation to us is muhdath, not the Quran itself This may [also] be some other reminder, which would be the reminder the Prophet, peace be upon him, gives [i.e. His, peace be upon him, religious exhortations, etc].
    [Muhdath is that which didnt exist, then it existed. For example, youre muhdath because you didnt exist, then you existed. We see that Imam Ahmed said, whoever says the Speech of God is muhdath is a kafir.]

    .

    : ( ) [ : 22 ] .
    : .

    and Imam Ahmeds words in negating anthropomorphism
    Imam Ahmed made Taweel of Gods words And your Lord comes to His reward comes.
    [Look at how Imam Kathir is treated this, as opposed to what has been said by brother Abu Zubair. Read the Arabic for yourself. If you dont know Arabic, ask someone to translate.]

    Ibn Taymiyya: He actually disregarded shin from being an attribute of Allah after speaking about ibn Abbass taweel!
    Quote Originally Posted by Abuz Zubair
    Wrong. As usual, you got it completely wrong.
    These are the words of ibn Taymiyya.

    ɡ ʡ .

    It has been narrated upon Ibn Abbas and a group that whats meant by it [Shin] is severity [i.e.] God unveils severity in the hereafter. [It has been related] upon Saeed and a group that they consider it from the attributes [of God] because of the hadith that Abu Saeed relates in Sahih Bukari and Muslim. [However,] there is no doubt that the dhair of the Quran doesnt indicate that this is from the attributes. For indeed He said the day He unveils a shin, [which is] indefinite, [therefore] its not attributed to God, He didnt say His Shin. Hence, without it being definite, its doesnt show that its from the attributes, except with some other evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by TarimiStudent
    Giving a phrase a metaphorical meaning is denying that phrasing being taken literal. The al-Magribi institute teacher Yasir Qadi realizes this, so does Skinqiti, and so does ibn Taymiya. Look at Shinkitis book on the chapter on majaaz. Ibn Taymiya shows his realization of it in his fatawa when talking about ibn Abbass taweel of Saaq.
    I originally quoted what is above and then I received this response.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abuz Zubair
    You have certainly misunderstood Yasir Qadhi, Shaykh Shanqiti, and definitely Ibn Taymiyya.
    To answer this I said that it negates the literal meaning from being intended. I also backed up what I said with quotes. An example is shown below.

    Quote Originally Posted by TarimiStudent
    In explaining what the author meant he said that the word used can only be either literal or metaphorical. He fully realizes that once a word is used metaphorically, it can no longer be used literally.
    Then I got this response.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abuz Zubair
    Further proof that you failed to understand al-Shanqiti and what others like Ibn Taymiyya have said.

    Haqiqa and Majaz is one topic, and nass, dhahir and ijmal is another topic, and as Ibn Qudama said, we affirm the dhahir of the texts pertaining to attributes, be it haqiqa or majaz.
    Lets take another look at whats been said:
    And this issue in particular we have explained it many times, that affirming the implied meaning does not necessitate negation of the literal meaning.
    Then we see a switch! Lets forget talking about literal and metaphorical!
    Haqiqa and Majaz is one topic, and nass, dhahir and ijmal is another topic

    Until I receive a rebuttal, Im going to assume that we agree that if the metaphorical meaning is implied then the literal meaning is no longer implied.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abuz Zubair
    And this issue in particular we have explained it many times, that affirming the implied meaning does not necessitate negation of the literal meaning.
    Inshallah, whats below will clarify that a metaphor negates the literal meaning from being intended.
    Quote Originally Posted by TarimiStudent
    As far as is concerned, whats intended is that the whole house be watched, regardless if a door is part of a house or not. Affirming the door exists is not intended. Hence the door may be or may not be part of the house, thats a different issue.
    Quote Originally Posted by Abuz Zubair
    Utter rubbish. If a house did not have a door, it would be senseless to say: Watch the door, because the door does NOT have a house.
    Lets take a look at some metaphors:
    1. Hold on to your horses.
    2. Ill spoon-feed you.
    3. When the lids finally do blow off.

    This isnt proof for that there are literally horses, nor spoons, nor lids. If we assume that horses, spoons, and lids are X then we can say a metaphor may or may not literally have X in it. The house example shows that X [the doors] are literally there. However, we know houses have doors, not because of the metaphor, but because of other information we receive that tells us the houses have doors. If we look at the first three examples, we know X isnt there, i.e. no horses, spoons, nor lids.
    Quote Originally Posted by Abuz Zubair
    Ibn al-Subkis words at face value?!
    The values of words dont literally have faces, do they? One couldnt use this metaphor later to prove that indeed values of words literally have faces. Even if they did have faces, it wouldnt be because of that metaphor wed know they have faces, rather it would be other outside information. Again we see that X isnt there. X = face.

    Lets look at some more examples:
    4. Youre on thin ice.
    5. YaSeen is the heart of the Quran
    6. He stabbed me in the back
    7. getting to the heart of the matter
    None of these phrases is proof that a person is on thin ice or anywhere near ice, just as it doesnt prove the Quran literally has organs. When a metaphorical phrase is used it falsifies the literal meaning from being intended.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abuz Zubair
    For instance, it is incorrect and absurd to say in Arabic: This destruction was brought by the hands of wind, referring to hurricane, because everyone knows wind does NOT have hands!
    Its actually very interesting you mention winds! Look at these lines of poetry.

    [ ]


    Look at the last lines of the poem. It says Since the hand of the north winds [held] its rein.

    I do ask, before you argue this point with me, save us some times and pick up this book: . Look up this chapter:





    Then I ask you to read these words:

    : . .

    Then, argue with me.

    Here is another metaphor for you: . A revile tongue is a sword [for causing] wounds in compassion. What this means is that a foul mouth destroys human relations. Do note, a revile tongue isnt literally a sword. If we say X = sword, then we know that X isnt there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abuz Zubair
    Moreover, the verse in the Quran: Whom I created with My Two Hands, cancels out any possibility of majaz, because the Arabs never use dual, except to refer to something that is literally two in number. So if Allah says that He created Adam with His Two Hands, that could not refer to blessings, because Allahs blessings are countless, and not just two, neither could it refer to power for Allah does not have two distinct powers.
    Well, lets take a look at a dictionary.


    I dont have two hands with so-and-so: strength/power.
    I believe two hands is dual and its also being used metaphorically.

    Lets see how the Arabs have used it in the past.
    [SIZE=4]

    ...
    [/SIZE]
    Ive bared from Afraaa that which I dont have, nor firm mountains two hands [Please note, the two hands refer to both the speaker and the firm mountains i.e. neither the mountains nor the speaker have two hands. Obviously this is a metaphor, even though dual for hands is being used.] If we assume that the poet was born with hands and it remained with him when he said this line, then we can say X = two hands: The poet has X and the mountains dont have X. Now a metaphor can literally have X or not. In this line we see the X is literally there and not. However, the line doesnt intend that the poet literally has two hands, just like it doesnt intend the mountains having two hands.
    Take a look at the Quran:
    [SIZE=4]


    [/SIZE]
    between the two hands of Gods mercy We see dual, yet we know its Metaphorical.


    Oh, and that verse you were referring to, you know Whom I created with My Two Hands

    : :


    The majaaz part is from the Mufaseer I believe, the rest is from the Tabaee Mugaahid.

    [COLOR=RED]Question:[/RED] How many hands goes Allah have? Read verse 36:71. Can they not see how, among the things made by our hands (3 or more hands)

    The word used is . This word () means three or more hands. So how many hands does God have?



    I guess you could say that this is metaphorical use, and hence we cant literally believe God has three or more hands.
    Ibn Taymiyya: He actually disregarded shin from being an attribute of Allah after speaking about ibn Abbass taweel!
    Quote Originally Posted by Abuz Zubair
    Wrong. As usual, you got it completely wrong.
    These are the words of ibn Taymiyya.

    ɡ ʡ .

    It has been narrated upon Ibn Abbas and a group that whats meant by it [Shin] is severity [i.e.] God unveils severity in the hereafter. [It has been related] upon Saeed and a group that they consider it from the attributes [of God] because of the hadith that Abu Saeed relates in Sahih Bukari and Muslim. [However,] there is no doubt that the dhair of the Quran doesnt indicate that this is from the attributes. For indeed He said the day He unveils a shin, [which is] indefinite, its not attributed to God, He didnt say His Shin. Hence, without it being definite, its doesnt show that its from the attributes, except with some other evidence.

    Here is Hanbals bio, as promised, from :

    - * : ١ ޡ ݡ ϡ .

    : ȡ ɡ ɡ ϡ .
    : ϡ ϡ ߡ .
    : .
    : ϡ ϡ .
    : ء ǡ .
    : .
    .
    : .
    " "
    " " " " ϡ .


    Here Id like to quote what Yasir Qadi says:

    It is not appropriate that the fundamentals of faith, such as the Names and Attributes of Allaah, be revealed in unexplicit and vague language. Rather, it is essential that these fundamentals of faith be revealed in the clearest and most explicit language; in a manner that leaves no room for doubt, confusion or ambiguity. To claim that Allaah, all Praise and Glory be to Him, revealed His Names and Attributes in majaazee form is, in reality, to claim that Allaah did not explain His Names and Attributes properly, but rather hinted at them in vague, couched language; in language that, outwardly, appears to mislead and deceive, rather than guide and instruct (all Praise is due to Allaah, He is above all that they ascribe to Him!). The Qur`aan describes itself in many verses as being a shining light; a revelation in clear, simple Arabic; a Book that guides mankind; that takes him from the darkness to the Light; is it possible that one of the most important topics of faith - that of the Names and Attributes of Allaah - is revealed in such obscure and vague language? [Bold and underline, mine]

    Personally, Im not a Yasir Qadi fan, nor are his words considered proof to me, but for Salafis that follow him, read his words.

    Lets take another look at the Quran.

    (29) (30)

    And dont keep you hand bound to your neck, nor stretch it as far as it extends, lest you become reprehensible and destitute. For you lord gives abundantly to however He wills and sparingly [17:29&30]

    The word bound () is used to say, dont be a cheap. We also is the words derive from bast () which gives an opposite meaning. We see God telling us not to have bast to a full bast, i.e. dont go overboard in giving out. Then we see bast used with God to say he gives out. We also see the God saying dont keep you hand bound to say give! This is for people that with hands and without hands. Its not just for people that still have their hands, or were born with hands. This verse isnt about affirming hands for people.

    (64)

    Open up your Qur'ans to 5:64. Now take a look at what the Jewish people say. "The hand of God is bound." Do you think they literally mean that it was bound, or did they mean God is cheap? How does God respond to this? He say that His two hands have bast, they give out as He wills. It's simply a metaphor to say God give out aboundantly. This is how abd-Allah ibn Abbas explains it, as God being generous when. Hence this is a refutation on the jews. This isn't suppose to be taken as proof that God has body parts. As we know, if something is metaphorical, it can't be taken literally.


    It is not appropriate that the fundamentals of faith, such as the Names and Attributes of Allaah, be revealed in unexplicit and vague language. Rather, it is essential that these fundamentals of faith be revealed in the clearest and most explicit language; in a manner that leaves no room for doubt, confusion or ambiguity. To claim that Allaah, all Praise and Glory be to Him, revealed His Names and Attributes in majaazee form is, in reality, to claim that Allaah did not explain His Names and Attributes properly, but rather hinted at them in vague, couched language; in language that, outwardly, appears to mislead and deceive, rather than guide and instruct (all Praise is due to Allaah, He is above all that they ascribe to Him!). The Qur`aan describes itself in many verses as being a shining light; a revelation in clear, simple Arabic; a Book that guides mankind; that takes him from the darkness to the Light; is it possible that one of the most important topics of faith - that of the Names and Attributes of Allaah - is revealed in such obscure and vague language? [Bold and underline, mine]

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to TarimiStudent For This Useful Post:
    Basil al-Mamluk (8th August 2011)

  3. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    32

    Default Part II



    Devine body parts, actions, and emotions

    Yasir Qadi:

    It is not appropriate that the fundamentals of faith, such as the Names and Attributes of Allaah, be revealed in unexplicit and vague language. Rather, it is essential that these fundamentals of faith be revealed in the clearest and most explicit language; in a manner that leaves no room for doubt, confusion or ambiguity. To claim that Allaah, all Praise and Glory be to Him, revealed His Names and Attributes in majaazee form is, in reality, to claim that Allaah did not explain His Names and Attributes properly, but rather hinted at them in vague, couched language; in language that, outwardly, appears to mislead and deceive, rather than guide and instruct (all Praise is due to Allaah, He is above all that they ascribe to Him!). The Qur`aan describes itself in many verses as being a shining light; a revelation in clear, simple Arabic; a Book that guides mankind; that takes him from the darkness to the Light; is it possible that one of the most important topics of faith - that of the Names and Attributes of Allaah - is revealed in such obscure and vague language?
    Let us now take a look at some verses and their interpretations.

    (35)
    : : ɡ ӡ ) :



    God is the light of the heavens and earth.
    We dont literally believe that God is the light of the heavens and the earth. We also know, if this phrase is metaphorical, it can no longer be taken literally. Abd-Allah ibn Abbas said that this verse means God is the Guider of the people of the Heavens and the Earth. Hence, since we know its metaphorical, we know that we cant take it literally anymore.

    Lets take a look at some more verses.

    Do not worry, God is with Us (9:40) meaning with His help. We dont say that God is both literally with us and that his Help is with us.

    { } : { }

    { } :



    Abd-Allah ibn Abbas and Imam Hasan al-Basri said that Gods coming means His command and Judgment is coming.

    The hadith master Ali ibn al-Qataan ( ) informs us in his book ( ) that there is consensus that the coming of God and His angels is for punishment and reward, hence He forgives from the believers who He wills and punish from them who He wills, and His coming isnt by movement nor change of locality. This scholar passed away 628 and was of the greatest scholars of hadith during his time. He was a scholars scholar and author of the famous book .

    There is no secret conversation between three people where He is not the fourth, nor five where he is not the sixth, nor between less or more then that without him being with them, wherever they may be (58:8) This means God is with us with His knowledge. We dont say that God is both literally with us and His knowledge with us.

    { } . : . :

    Build the ark under our [watchful] eyes. The word eyes is in the plural case, which literally means three or more eyes. Ibn Abbas said it means under Gods vision, Muqaatil said it means with our knowledge, and on an opinion it means with our protection.

    He is with you wherever you are(57:4) meaning with His knowledge.

    { } ǡ :
    ()


    You are under our [watchful] eyes. Ibn Abbas said it means We see whats done with you.

    Do not be afraid, I am with you (20:46) meaning Gods help is with you.

    (39:56)
    : : . : :


    in Gods side is used metaphorically. Ibn Abbas said it means what is lost from Gods reward, Muqaatil said it means whats neglected from making zikr of Allah, Mugaahid and Sadi said it means whats neglected from the commands of God, while Hasan al-Basari said it means whats neglected from obeying God. This verse could be translated as Woe is to me for having neglected what is due to God.

    My Lord is with me (26:51). This is the fifth time were seeing God saying that He is with us, and we know that this is simply metaphorical, hence it cant be taken literally.

    : . : :

    Imam Bukari said that Gods laughter means His mercy.

    He is with them (4:108) The sixth time we see it, different verses have been mentioned each time to show no matter how many times God tells us, its all Metaphorical use, hence the information cant be taken literally.

    (18)

    "God is all-powerful over His slaves..." (6:18). This verse is simaliar to another verse.

    (127)

    [Pharaoh] replied, We shall kill their sons and spare their daughters: We are over them, powerful.

    Pharaoh doesnt mean he is over them, in terms of geographical location, rather the word over means in power, authority, and position. Its like saying the President has the highest office. When Allah said the He is All-Powerful over His slaves, He doesnt mean in terms of geographical location, but rather in terms of authority, power, and position. This is what Imam Tabari (born 224) says when commenting on this verse:

    :" " .
    : =" " :

    Look at what Imam Tabari says when speaking about Istiwa:

    :" " ڡ .
    :" " ڡ - - - .
    ! : "" ǿ ѡ : :


    Then God turned towards the sky and fashioned them into seven heavens.
    Imam Tabari says commenting on this verse:

    The original meaning of Gods words then He Istiwa is to be high and above.

    How strange, there are people who negate the meaning thats understood from the Arabic language in the interpretation of Gods word then He istiwa to the sky, which means to be high and above. They flee from this meaning, claiming that the understood meaning would mean that God was under the heavens; hence they interpret it with an unfamiliar reprehensible meaning. On top of all of that, theyre not saved from what theyre running away from! For it is said to them, youve claimed the meaning of istiwa is to turn to, was Gods back towards the heavens such that He turned to it? If they claim its not to turn to meaning to face but rather to design, it is said for them, just like this say: the highness is that of a King and Sultaan, not that of movement nor change of locality.
    We see high being used in other areas of the Quran:

    (68)
    (139)
    (35)

    1. Dont be afraid, for you are higher [i.e. youre superior/ have the upper hand].
    2. Do not lose heart or despair for you are higher, if you are believers.
    3. Do not lose heart and cry out for peace. You [Muslims] are higher, and God is with you.

    Describing God with above is fine if you mean rank, not geographical position. Hence God is above you and me and everything else in creation by consensus. The Prophet, peace be upon him, is also above you and me, and above all the other Prophets and Messengers, peace be upon them all. The Prophet, peace be upon him, is above all the People in his Ummah, by consensus.

    Ibn Hajar said in Al-Fath:



    The directions up and down do not necessitate that God cant be described by up/high. This is because Him being described by up/high is figurative it is impossible that up not be taken figuratively.

    Commenting on the hadith that says God is between you and your qibla ( ), i.e. in front of you, ibn Hajar says that this is a refutation on those who claim that God is upon the thrown literally ( ).


    He is one that is in the Skies, God, and in the Earth, God.
    We do believe that God is in the Earth, Skies, and above the Thrown at the same time? Here is a better translation: It is He, who is God in the heavens and God in the Earth. (43:84) Some have taken this to mean that God is the one that is worshiped in the skies and earth, not that Allah is literally in the skies and earth!



    He is God in the Skies and in the Earth [6:3]. This is another verse that says God is in the heavens and in the earth. Just think about God being in the skies. How many skies is God in? Is He in all seven, or just three skies, or some other number? These verses would have God in several places at once. Would we say Gods beautiful body separates such that we can say He is in all those places at once? Perhaps it can be said He is in all those places without saying How. Hence one could say God is in at least 3 skies, the earth, above creation, and in front of a person when they pray, without going into how!

    Christians should learn from us! They can say God is one and three at the same time without saying how. The how we make tafweed to God but we affirm the literal meaning!

    There is a hadith that says al-Hagir al-Aswad is Gods right hand on earth ( ). Ibn Atheer ( ) said that when a king shakes a persons hand, that person in turn will kiss the Kings hand ( ). The black stone is treated on earth as the kings hand is treated, hence it is kissed. This is what is said in Fath al-Bari also. We can all agree that the black stone isnt literally Gods right hand. We also have another hadith that says that both Gods hands are right ( ). Do we mean by this that God has two right hands and no left hand? Or do we as that God as two right hands, but we dont limit God to only two hands? Again we see ibn Atheer telling us a metaphorical meaning for Gods two right hands. Two rights hand is simply a metaphor for perfect. The left hand is seen as deficient; Allah uses two right hands as an allusion to His perfection.

    As we know, there is another hadith that says that a person does voluntary acts worship until God becomes his eyes that he sees with, etc. We know its metaphorical, therefore it doesnt mean a person continuously does voluntary acts of worship until he literally becomes God.

    There are verses that speak of God forgetting.

    1. Indeed we have forgotten you [32:14]
    2. Today we forget you [45:34]
    3. God has forgotten them [9:67]

    Do we say Gods forgetting is literal, but unlike our forgetting, however we make tafweed of the how to Allah?

    Taking a look at another hadith that says no person is more jealous then God ( ). We dont believe God is a person, do we? Nor do we believe God literally gets jealous. Ibn Daqeeq al-Eid said, commenting on this hadith:

    : .

    People that arent anthropomorphists either dont interpret it or make taweel. The latter interpret it as protectiveness hence this expression is metaphorical. (al-Fath)

    I dont think we need Fath al-Bari to negate God being a person. However, anyone thats interested can open up al-Fath and see whats in there. Perhaps it can be posted here.


    There is another hadith, which Im sure more people know:

    ...
    ...


    God: I became sick and you didnt visit me!
    Slave: How can I visit you, and youre the Lord of the Universe!
    God: Dont you know, my slave, so-and-so, got sick, if you visited him, you would have found Me with him.

    This hadith is actually longer, the slave asks how can I visit you, how can I feed you, how can I give you drink. Its not unusual, to this day, to use the word how in the Arabic language to ask what something means. Hence how can be used to say what does that mean. Do you believe this Muslim literally believed God gets sick and just wanted to know how to visit God!?! Of course not! Rather he negated the literal meaning of this and used the word how to ask what God meant. Hence God told him what it means to visit God. Allah said, I became sick and you didnt visit me. The slave replied, What does to visit you mean? How did God reply? Allah told him that visiting God means visiting a sick Muslim. This is God teaching us taweel. We also understand that God isnt literally with a sick person, rather that God being with the sick person means His Mercy being with the sick person.

    On page 7 of we see Imam Al-Izz ibn abd al-Salaam tells us that the Muslim didnt understand what was meant. The Muslim knew that the dhair was not meant so asked How can I visit you i.e. what does it mean to visit you. Imam Al-Izz said that the Muslim didnt understand the eclipse in the statement. What God meant was My slave got sick and you didnt visit him. Anyone, thats not a gross literalist, can agree that God didnt mean I got sick literally.

    Anyone that believes that the Muslim
    1. literally believed God got sick
    2. and was affirming the meaning by using how
    3. while affirming the meaning was only asking about the how-ness of the visiting
    This person is too gross of an anthropomorphist to reason with.


    : . " " " " ( ) ( )

    Ibn Daqeeq al-Eid informs us that there are two ways to look at this. First, that its true upon what God means. And the people that make taweel, if its not far-fetched, its accepted, else we go back to belief in it, not knowing what it means, while negating the literal meaning.

    People that follow the Salafi scholar Yasir Qadi, take another look at what he says:

    It is not appropriate that the fundamentals of faith, such as the Names and Attributes of Allaah, be revealed in unexplicit and vague language. Rather, it is essential that these fundamentals of faith be revealed in the clearest and most explicit language; in a manner that leaves no room for doubt, confusion or ambiguity. To claim that Allaah, all Praise and Glory be to Him, revealed His Names and Attributes in majaazee form is, in reality, to claim that Allaah did not explain His Names and Attributes properly, but rather hinted at them in vague, couched language; in language that, outwardly, appears to mislead and deceive, rather than guide and instruct (all Praise is due to Allaah, He is above all that they ascribe to Him!). The Qur`aan describes itself in many verses as being a shining light; a revelation in clear, simple Arabic; a Book that guides mankind; that takes him from the darkness to the Light; is it possible that one of the most important topics of faith - that of the Names and Attributes of Allaah - is revealed in such obscure and vague language?

    The literal meaning, which is the first thing that comes to the minds of anthropomorphists, is negated from God.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to TarimiStudent For This Useful Post:
    Basil al-Mamluk (8th August 2011)

  5. #3
    The Serial Repper Skillganon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,950

    Default

    Assalamu alaikum wr wb,

    Since this is adressed to brother Abuz Zubair, I guess we should wait for him to answer it in due time, unless anyone else wan't to clear some of the misconception for this brother.

    As for shiekh Yasir Qadhi's statment it can be found in this article here:
    http://www.islaam.net/main/display.php?id=289&category=

  6. #4
    Peculiarly Ostrobogulous Expergefactionist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Londonistan
    Posts
    13,421
    Follow Expergefactionist On Twitter Add Expergefactionist on Facebook Add Expergefactionist on Google+

    Default

    Its free for all btw.. I don't have the time to instantly respond to the nonsense this bigot likes to post out of the blue once in a blue moon. So I'll take my time. In the meantime... anyone may deal with it as he/she pleases.
    A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new.

    Albert Einstein

  7. #5
    Senior Member asharee_salafi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Man, even someone like me who hasn't even studied to the level of a basic primer could figure out how his posts are so off the mark.

    Doesn't this guy read anything you write!?

    I would so love some asharee to come and actually stand up to AZ, but I have never seen this, they always get defeated.

    Initially i wanted someone to win the argument against AZ so that I could think to myself that their was ikhtilaf upon the issue.....but any doubt like that has been crushed in my head through what i have read here on this blessed forum.

    Personally i think that many 'salafi's are too simple minded on these issues, and they don;t know how to approach such matters, i think this website has had a balanced approach and has made thinsg clear.....rather then the usual boring works of some salafi students of knowldge, who don;t deal with the core issues at hand.


    I have, for some time now, alhamdullilah come to the conclusion that the reason why the hanbali talibul 'ilm can't be defeated in this regard is because the arguments come from none other then the sahabah themselves.

    This is why we see the invincible arguments put forth by AZ, they are only invincible not because he thought of it, just that he has correctly given the interpretation of the salaf.


    TARIMI STUDENT.

    Before you seek the refutation of AZ, pls read his arguments. You may want to read apples and oranges and read the part where ibn qudamah is quoted, because i have to say, these arguments are very shallow.

    Muslim knew that the dhair was not meant so asked How can I visit you i.e. what does it mean to visit you. Imam Al-Izz said that the Muslim didnt understand the eclipse in the statement. What God meant was My slave got sick and you didnt visit him. Anyone, thats not a gross literalist, can agree that God didnt mean I got sick literally.
    The problem is that , no one understands that the dhair is that Allah can be sick, no one can say that, not even an idiot! This is because the dhair is that 'which comes to your mind upon first hearing' ( again check ibn qudamah in apples and oranges, its all there).

    So when, for instance Allah says that he created Adam AS with his two hands, no one understand this to mean anything else.
    This is not to say that things cannot have dual meanings.

    But the problem is that you MUST bring the evidence forth whereby the salaf said:

    THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALLAH HAD SUCH AND SUCH ATTRIBUTE, RATHER THAT IS TASHBIH, SO WE MUST NEGATE THE DHAIR, OTHERWISE I YOU DON'T, IT IS TASHBIH AND IT IS KUFR TO ACCEPT THE APPARENT MEANINGS.

    Please tell me where the salaf said this and I would join a sufi tariqha right here right now!

    Can you please tell me where did the salaf ever say this......esp since this is the crux of most of your discussions.

    Besides, if you have followed the discussions, we need to talk more of the concpet of bodys atoms, motions, change etc, as the early asharitea affirmed Allah's attributed, the only problem was reconciling text with greek concepts,

    This is a similar problem that modern day deviants and fraudsters like hizb ut tahrir fall into to.

    They definsay teh creation is limited, and then theyd efine the word, i.e things having a limit include things that are spatially limite, have a beginning etc.....problem is: what about the Qur'an, that has abeginning, is that therefore created?

    Asharites and muatizilah say yes.

    What do you say?

    In fact, I got a quetion...........who said alif lam meem?
    I can't take no more then 4 wives...Sorry!

  8. #6

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,088

    Default

    Bismillah Ar Rahman Ar Raheem

    Alhamdulilah wa salatul wa salam ala rasuhullah

    The best of people are my generation then those who come after them, then those who come after them. (Saheeh Al-Bukharee, v.8 Hadeeth #652 and Saheeh Muslim, v.4, Hadeeth #6150-6159. It is also reported by Ahmad and At-Tirmithee.)


    Truely the way of the Salaf is much better then the way of khalaf and the people of Kalam. I struggled with this issue for such a long time and wasted my time away with it. Then i realized it all was intellectual thinking over the matn of the Quran and Sunnah. Like abu hamid al ghazali said that you accept from the sifaat that which the intellect can accept.

    Surely Abu zubayr will reply when he gets time to tarimi student. I wish to point some things out in the meantime and im not a talib though but I have spoken to some talibul ilm and daees concerning this topic and read from some books from the people who defended the sunnah against the heretics.

    Abul Abbaas Al-Maqreezi There is no report of any kind of narration whatsoever, authentic or inauthentic, from anyone of the Sahabah radiallahu anhum irrespective of their different ranks and great numbers- that he asked Allaahs Messenger Salalahu alayhi wa salam about the meaning of anything with which He subhanahu wa ta ala described His Noble Self in the Noble Quraan or on the tongue of His Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa salam, infact they knew the meaning of that (ie His Sifaat) and did not indulge in discussing them (489)

    Abul Abbaas Ahmad Bin Ali Bin Abdul Qaadir Taqiy-ed-deen Al-Maqreezee (766/1365-845/1442), the famous egypptian historian; born, lived and died in Cairo. He was appointed to lead the hisbah: Enjoining the good when people neglect it and forbidding the wrong when it is manifested. An Imaam and a historian well remembered for his book: Al-Mawaaith wal Itibaar bi Thikr Al-Khitat wal Aathaar shortly referred to as Khitat Al-Maqreezee. (See Al-Badr At-Taali 1:79)
    They radiallahu anhum affirmed whatever Allaah designated to Himself from (the Attributes) of Face, Hand, and so forth, negating any resemblance to any created thing. They affirmed (the Sifaat) without tashbeeh, far above any imperfection and without Tateel. None of them approached the Sifaat with any kind of Taweel. Unanimously, they held the position that the Sifaat should be accepted as the have come (ie. In the Quraan and authentic Sunnah) (Many times we read that the Salaf say:We believe in the sifaat as they have come. Certainly they came in words that have intended meaning. Otherwise it would be an insult to Allaah to suggest that they were merely expressions without meanings! Does Allaah say Words that have no meaning? Far is Allaah removed from every imperfection. Those who consign the meaning to Allaah are wrong because Allaah wants to be known by His slaves so that they worship Him Properly. How would we know if Allaah if His Great sifaat are words without meaning? The sifaat have true and apparent meanings, however, the manner of such meanings is only known to Allaah, Most High. When Allaah describes Himself as having a Face. The obvious meaning of the Face is known, but the manner of the Face is known only to Allaah, Most Exalted and His Attributes cannot be likened to the attributes of His creation.)
    And none of them knew anything about scholastic theological ways or philosophical matters. (Khitat Al-Maqreezee v.3, p.309-310. Published by Maktabat As-Saahil Al-Janoobee, Lebanon)


    These people have come with innovated sayings concerning the attributes of Allaah. That is why you see those changing the meaning of istiwa. They rely on a line of poetry (whoes author is unknown) that says 'bishr conquered Iraq without use of a sword'.

    They wish to say that Istiwa means to conquer just like the yahud changed the wording when they entered the gates.

    This is a futile meaning for Allaah was always in authority so if He had to conquer the throne then before He must not have been in power naudhubillah.

    Imaam Bukhari rahimullah clearly indicated that Allaah is Over the heavens and distinct from His creation. Yet the people of tawil are always going to come to twist up and deny the truth to misguide the masses.

    Allaah affirmed the Names and Attributes to Himself and negated the likeness of anything unto Him. Had the affirmation necessitated Tashbeeh, then it would imply contradiction in the Speech of Allaah and that its parts refute one another. (Shaykh Muhammad Bin Al-Uthaymeen in his book sharh usool Al-Eemaan explaining the fundamentals of Eemaan)

    Just imagine its the day of Ressurection and your being judged. Will Allaah send you to the hellfire for making ithbat upon that which He stated in His Noble Speech?

    Is Allaah's speech to misguide us? Naudhubillah. What is wrong with affirming that which He has affirmed for Himself without TASHBEEH.

    As the noble ayah laysa kamithlihi shay wa huwas sami al basir

    The first part is NEGATION of any likeness to Allaah. The second part then AFFIRMS Hearing and Seeing.

    So stop a moment. Note the NEGATION of likeness. Then the affirmation of Hearing and Seeing. Are we as human beings hearing and seeing? Obviously we are. Though we see from this noble ayah that Allaah's Hearing and Seeing has NO RESEMBLANCE to our hearing and seeing. So thus Allaah's sifaat of hearing and seeing is UNLIKE that of creation so there is no TASHBIH IN IT.

    Similarly Allaah's Ascending the Throne is unlike the ascent of creation. Or His Nuzool is not like the descending of creation.

    The meanings of Allaahs Sifaat are true and known. When Imaam Malik (d179/1273) rah mullah was asked about the manner in which Allaah istawaa on His Arsh, he replied: Istiwaa is not unknown (I.e. its meaning that befits Allaah), the kayf (I.e. the how the manner) is incomprehensible and believing in it (I.e. istiwaa) is obligatory and asking about it (I.e. its how) is an innovation. (An Authentic report collected by Ath-Thahabee, al-laalkaaiee, as-saboonee, ibn Abdul barr, al-baihaqee, ath-thahabee, ibn hajar and others. See ath thecaes Mukhtasar Al-Uluww, p.141-142 (2nd edition), Al-Maktab Al-Islaamee, Beriut, 1412/1991.)


    Imaam malik rahimullah said Istiwa is NOT UNKNOWN. This is in direct refutation to Tafwid. istiwa has been used with illa and Ala. It has been reported of Musa alayhi salam reaching FULL STRENGTH. The term has been used concerning mounting animals. What we look at is the ayahs concerning Allaah that says illa and Ala. The apparent meaning is clear. That Allaah ascended the Throne. The Quran is full of proofs that Allaah is not dwelling with creation and that He is Exalted Above the Throne UNLIKE creation.

    The Salaf affirmed this. As even imam qurtubi mentioned

    Imaam Al-Qurtubee (d.671/1273) rah mullah, who was influenced by the Taweel himself admitted that, None of as-salaf as salih negated that He (Allaah istawa ala arsh haqiqatan) Haqeeqatan Istawaa (truly and really ascended) His Arsh.. They, however, did not know kayfiyah al istiwaa (the kayfiyyah) of His Istiwaa because the nature of the kayfiyyah is unknown. Imaam Maalik said: Istiwaa is Maloom that is , its linguistic meaning is known as al-qurtubee exactly stated in the arabi text), and the kayf is majhool (unknown) and asking about it (I.e. about its kayf) is an innovation. (Tafseer Al-Qurtubee, aayah #54 of Soorat Al-Araaf (no.7).


    Refer also to Imam Qurtubi in defence of Imam Ibn Abd alBar regarding Allah being above the throne Imam Qurtubi in defence of Imam Ibn Abd alBar regarding Allah being above the throne


    Look at what Imaam ibn abd albar rahimullah also said concerning sifaat

    The renowned Imaam ibn Abdul barr (He is Yoosuf bin Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Abdul barr al-Andalusee 368/978-463/1071), the master of Islamic sciences in his times. One of the great Maalikee scholars of North West Africa. The author of many books including At-Tamheed, which is an explanation of Imaam Maliks Muwatta . (See Siyar Alaam An-Nubalaa 18:153) rahimullah at ala alayh said: Ahlu sunnah agreed upon affirming the sifaat that came in the Quraan and sunnah, believing in them and that they are to be taken on their habitat (real and true meaning) and not according to majaaz (metaphoric interpretations). (At-Tamheed, 7:145 published by Muasasatul Kutub Ath Thaqaafiyyah, Beirut 1407/1987)

    Allaahu akbar, This Imaam follows the Imaam of his madhab (Imam Malik rahimullah) he accepts that the sifaat are known in meaning. He does not change their apparent meaning just like imam malik said ISTIWA is MALOON.

    Do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven (Allaah) will not cause the earth to Sink with you, then behold it shakes (as in an earthquake)? (Mulk 16)

    Also reported in the hadith of the slave girl that the Prophet alayhis salatul wa salam asked Where is Allah? and she said: Fis sama (in the heavens) so He asked: Who Am I? She replied You are the Messenger of Allah salallahu alayhi wa salam He said :Free her for indeed she is a believer And this is the truth in which there is no doubt.

    So the question of WHERE IS ALLAAH is an aqidah question that is not amongst innovations or an ABSURD question for the nabi salalahu alayhi wa salam asked it. We will take his words over that of the kalami speakers.

    It is reported on the authority of Al-Abbas radiallahu anhu that Allahs Messenger salallahu alayhi wa salam said:
    Do you know what is the distance between the heaven and the earth? We said: Allah and His Messenger salallahu alayhi wa salam know best. He sallallahu alayhi wa salam said: The Distance between them is five hundred years and the distance between one heaven and the next is five hundred years and the dimension of each heaven would take five hundred years to travel and there is a sea between the seventh heaven and the Arsh which has between its lowest and highest ends the distance equvalent to that between the heavens and the earth. And Allah Most High, Is above that and nothing is witheld from Him of the deeds of the sons of Adam. (Narrated by Abu Dawood and others)

    HOW CLEARER DOES ONE NEED TO GET. Look at the Nabi salalahu alayhi wa salam.

    O ALLAH BARE WITNESS that I AFFIRM THAT YOU SENT YOUR MESSENGER ALAYHI SALATUL WA SALAM WITH TRUTH.

    Affirm the Messenger of Allaah salalahu alayhi wa salam statements about Allaah.

    It is so clear without a doubt there is NO TASHBIH IN IT. Allaahu akbar!

    These ashariyah have also denied Allaah's Hands. We affirm Hands just like we affirm HEARING AND SEEING. the ashariyah affirm hearing and seeing but when they see HANDS they instantly UTTER that its tashbih! SO they make tawil based on their INTELLECT! Yet their intellect could accept hearing and seeing.

    They are indeed the anthropomorphist for they are the ones who when they see Allaah's attributes they instantly believe that its TASHBIH. Whereas we affirm it (make ithbat) and make Nafi (negation) of any LIKENESS to Allaah aza wa jal!

    Muslim narrates, on the authority of ibn Umar radiallahu anhu in a marfoo form: Allah will fold up the heavens on the day of Resurrection and then He will take them in His Right Hand and say: I am the King, where are the tyrants? Where are the arrogant ones? Then He will fold up the seven earth and take them in His Left Hand and say: I am the King, where are the tyrants? Where are the arrogant ones?

    Allaahu akbar! In this sahih hadith Allaah is said by the Messenger salalahu alayhi wa salam that He will take the heavens and fold them up like a scroll (HOW MIGHTY HE IS!). This is beautiful and there is no TASHBIH. its clear here that HAND is not POWER and its clear that we do not NEGATE hand and say (well um its something other then hand but only Allaah knows its meaning)

    Allaah wants to be known by His creation He does not author confusion to us in His Noble speech and He sent His Messenger salalahu alayhi wa salam as a MERCY TO THE WORLDS. Not one to confuse us.

    Ibn Umar radiallahu anhu informs us that he heard the Prophet salallahu alayhi wa salam that on the day of judgement, Allah, Most Glorified, Most High, will fold up the seven heavens and take them in His Right Hand and He will fold up the seven earth and take them in His Left Hand as He folds each of them, He will call forth the tyrants and the arrogant people, making them realize their insignificance by His Words: I am the King I.e. He is the True Owner of All things: He is perfect in every respect and there is no weakness or defect in Him and that all those who claim kingship or sovereignty are in fact weak and feeble, powerless in His Grasp. He will not be asked about what He does, but they will be asked.


    Allaahu akbar! Look at the affirmation of HAND for Allaah. The hand of Allaah is not a limb of the creation bones flesh nerves. Rather HAND for Allaah is that which befits His majesty. Our hands is that which befits us. The hands of a camel is that which befits a camel. The hands of Allaah aza wa jal are what befits Him (and that is UNLIKE CREATION)

    It is reported on the authority of ibn abbas radiallahu anhu that he said: The seven heavens and the seven earths are no more in Allahs Hand than a mustard seed in the hand of one of you.

    Ibn abbas radiallahu anhu informs us in this narration that the seven heavens and the seven earths in comparison to Allahs Hand- in spite of their enormity are as insignificant as a mustard seed in a mans hand; and this is a comparison between the heavens and the earths and a mustard seed, not a comparison between Allahs Hand and the hand of man because nothing resembles Allah, either in His attributes or in His Self.


    Allaahu akbar Look at the affirmation and the showing that the Hand of Allaah is not anything like creation. We affirm bi la kayf!

    Leave the ashari madhab adopt the way of the pious predecessors. The path of abu bakr ismaeli the great Shafii Imaam (born around 270) the early generations were upon the blessed path. The kalami ways were innovated later and borrowed some ideas from greeks and fell into some of the errors of the mutazilah and jahmiyyah.

    Remember it was those jahmiyyah who denied that Allaah took ibrahim alayhi salam as a khalil. The same ones who denied Allaah spoke directly to Musa alayhi salam. How similar they are to the ashariyyah.

    Allaah bless this Ummah with Ulama that will continue to clarify for us the Haq and take us away from the baatil being preached by devils.

    And I repeat the question of my brother ashari salafi (Who said Alif Lam Meem)?

    wasalaam

    -Mustafa

  9. #7
    Murji'i Scumbag
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    283

    Default

    these ashariyyah and mutazila should be whipped real hard. even moreso than al qaeda khariji.

    Athariyyah4EVA

  10. #8
    The Serial Repper Skillganon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,950

    Default

    What is athariyyah?

  11. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    123

    Default

    Assalamwalaikum to all, Abu Zubair can you please delete the title of this thread, is the Tarimstudent trying to insinuate something?

  12. #10
    Murji'i Scumbag
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skillganon View Post
    What is athariyyah?
    athariyyah r the true honoured people who hold the aqeedah of Prophet Muhammad saws.

    all 4 imams of the schools of thought were athari. better stick to it.

Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Ibn al-Qayyim: The Wisdom In Washing the Specified Body Parts During Wudu'
    By Detainee no. 05315-748 in forum Islamic Theology and Ideology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12th March 2009, 11:10 AM
  2. Illa salati! Beautiful nasheed and an even more beautiful video
    By B. Rashaad in forum Islam in General
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 20th September 2007, 04:44 PM
  3. God's Warriors
    By salafiya in forum Islam in General
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 5th September 2007, 04:14 AM
  4. taking the body back home for burial
    By FREE PALESTINE. in forum Islam in General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 3rd August 2007, 10:21 PM
  5. Comments: In Search of the Body Beautiful
    By Anonymous in forum Comment on Articles
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 19th August 2006, 03:12 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41