Results 1 to 6 of 6

How do Ashari's Justify this?

This is a discussion on How do Ashari's Justify this? within the Islamic Theology and Ideology forums, part of the Islamic Knowledge category; Bissmilah Assalamu alaykom wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. As we all know the ashari's are of different types, and their "Salaf" ...

  1. #1
    Senior Member Abdul Malik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    668

    Default How do Ashari's Justify this?

    Bissmilah
    Assalamu alaykom wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.

    As we all know the ashari's are of different types, and their "Salaf" Abul hasan al ashari/Bayhaqi/baqalani ETC all affirmed 2 Hands , Face, Allah being Fee samaa (Above the heavens) / Istawa (Rose-over the throne)
    And the later ashari's (The ones we face today) have a different aqeedah, of affirming the 7 seven sifat and making ta'weel/tafweedh of others and what have you.

    I must admit im not knowledgeable at all, and this scenarios keeps repeating itself inside me throughout the day. And I would really like to understand from brothers who have encountered them and their arguments.

    I want to know how is it that the ashari's affirm Allah is living / Rahmat / Speech / Power ETC
    But they don't affirm face / 2 hands / istawa / Allah Literally being above us/ descending ETC.

    Is their argument 1) WE have Hands, so therefore Allah can not by any means have 2 hands?
    and 2) Do they say by affirming 2 hands entails that Allah must have a physical / solid body like us?


    For the first one, Is not Allah living? And we Living? And Does not Allah have Ilm? and we too have Ilm?
    Is this not, according to their standards shirk and tashbeeh? Because we have these attributes ourselves, (of course we say our ilm is not like nor similar to the ilmullah, or our living is not like His ta'ala)

    and for the second ... How does a face or 2 hands make Allah limited? Because our only understanding of these attributes are physical and limited? What about our understanding of living, we don't know of anything living or having rahmat other then that of a body or a shape of some sort, some physical limits.

    So therefore they would have to say "Living but not like our living" "Allah has ilm, but unlike our ilm"
    So can we not say "Hands but not anything at all similar to our hands"

    Im sure they negate Allah being Above the heavens (Even though there is TONS of evidence for this) and their salaf (bayhaqi/baqalani) affirmed this...
    Can we not say Allah is above, in a way that is unlike the creations above... Not being encompassed by anything.

    Sorry Im sort of all over the place here... They make things very confusing

  2. #2
    Senior Member Logic lover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,269

    Default Re: How do Ashari's Justify this?

    I don't think that there are many defenders of Ashari creed here. May be it is worth posting in an Ashari forum - Sunni Fourms perhaps?
    Do they not then consider the Quran carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much contradictions (Quran 4:82)

    'Ibn Taymiyyah Against the Logicians' p. 114:
    'What truth there lies in logic can be known without the logicians'

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Logic lover For This Useful Post:
    Hamza Patterson (27th February 2012)

  4. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    286

    Default Re: How do Ashari's Justify this?

    Well either you can watch these videos talking about there position and if you want to refute there points go ahead.. The problem you will have with asharis mainly is refuting that ayah they use as a premise which is "There is nothing like Allah"









    The last video he states "if those descriptions diddnt come in the quran and sunnah we would have negated them" I would say leave the asharis alone I don't think you can debate with them if they can openly say a statement like that?

  5. #4
    Senior Member Abdul Malik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    668

    Default Re: How do Ashari's Justify this?

    I just cant get a clear cut answer for how one can affirm something (Which we on the human level have, "Living/Existing/Speech/Forgiveness/Power/Knowledge" )

    How can Allah have those attributes and we have them ourselves? And if Allah's ilm is unlike ours, why can't his other sifat also be different?

  6. #5
    Junior Member moubeen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    263

    Default Re: How do Ashari's Justify this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdul Malik View Post
    I just cant get a clear cut answer for how one can affirm something (Which we on the human level have, "Living/Existing/Speech/Forgiveness/Power/Knowledge" )

    How can Allah have those attributes and we have them ourselves? And if Allah's ilm is unlike ours, why can't his other sifat also be different?
    I think I remember reading a quote from Taj as-subki (the 'ashari fanatic) trying to justify that position somewhere. It may have been on one of the blogs... I think there may have been an article on Sunnipress with a reply and counter argument to as-Subki - not sure.

  7. #6
    Junior Member moubeen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    263

    Default Re: How do Ashari's Justify this?

    OK, did a quick google search with "subki attributes life"

    this came up:

    Refutation of as-Subki | Saheefah
    A refutation of al-Subki comment’s in al-Sayf al-Saqil:

    This is the text from Imam as-Subki that relates to a common claim made by Salafis,

    Claim:

    You (the Asharis, Maturidis) contradict yourselves. You affirm for Allah Azza wa Jalla Life, Power, Will, Knowledge, Speech, Hearing and Sight, while making Ta’wil of Istiwa’, Nuzul, Maji’, Ityan, Wajh, Yad, Saq, Qadam, Janb, ‘Ain, and relocation in (various) levels. The basic rule with regards to the attributes is one, so if you affirm the seven attributes, what prevents you from affirming the rest? What is the difference? This is nothing less than contradiction.

    Response:

    The response to this consists of two points:

    Point one:
    We say that Istiwa’, Nuzul, Maji’, Ityan, Wajh, Yad, Saq, Qadam, Janb, ‘Ain, and relocation in (various) levels are not from the attributes. The claim that they are attributes is deception and this is shown by three things.

    Every possesor of intellect knows that these things mentioned such as Istiwa’ with the meaning of sitting, Nuzul, Maji’, and Wajh and its likes are closer to the attributes of bodies (Ajsam) than (the attributes of) Will, Power, and Knowledge.
    These things that we mentioned are considered parts according the people of the language and not adjectives (Awsaf). So they are explicit in indication composition (Tarkib), and composition is for bodies. So your mentioning of the word Awsaf (adjectives-attributes) is deception. All of the people of the language do not understand from Wajh (face), ‘Ain (eye), Janb (side), and Qadam (foot) except that which are composed parts (Ajza’). They do not understand from Istiwa’ that means sitting except that it is a manner of placing something solid on a place. They (do not understand) from Maji’, Ityan, and Nuzul except movement that is particular to bodies. As for Will, Power, Life and its likes, they are the attributes of the essence (Sifat adh-Dhat)
    If these above mentioned things were presented to a normal person be it a woman, a child, a non-arab, or a common layman arab and the generality of people, would they understand from Istiwa, Nuzul, Maji’, Ityan, Wajh, Yad, Saq, Qadam, Janb, ‘Ain, and relocation in (various) levels, and others that i have mentioned the meaning of a body (Jism), and would he conceptualize that in himself or not? If he responds saying that he does not understand from that anything save the meaning of a body, then that is enough for you of sin with Allah and misguiding the likes of these (common people) and encouraging them to beleive in Tajsim that you yourself claim with your tongue to not say. So what is actualized from you is misguiding the majority of the world. As for you in yourself, if you were lying in your censure of that then you have gathered lying along with corruption in creed. If you were true in your claim then you have decieved yourself and imagined a distintion for yourself.

    Point two:
    Assuming that these things mentioned such as Istiwa’, Nuzul, Maji’, Ityan, Wajh, Yad, Saq, Qadam, Janb, and ‘Ain are attributes like Will, Power, and Knowledge, then we say:

    Will, power, and knowledge within us is two matters. One of them is an accident established in a body (‘Ard Qaim bil Jism), and Allah Ta’ala is far removed from that. The second matter is the meanings that relate to what is willed, to what is in (ones power), and what is known (al-Ma’ani al-Muta’alliqah bil Murad wal Maqdur wal Ma’lum). And the Lord Subhanahu wa Ta’ala is described with those things and they are not restricted to bodies and for that reason we affirm them for Allah Azza wa Jall
    Likewise with Istiwa, Nuzul, Maji’, Ityan, Wajh, Yad, Saq, Qadam, Jamb, and ‘Ain. With these, they are two matters. One, is that they are parts which is clear in denoting composition and Allah Ta’ala is clearly far removed from that. The second is the meaning that are related to these things. They are explained according to the context they appear in among the Ayat and Ahadith as is well known. We affirm this for Allah Azza wa Jall, so for example, Istiwa is explained as managing the affairs, Yad is explained as power or bounty or generosity according to the context and we affirm this for Allah Azza wa Jall as well in the remainder (of the words) mentioned. And Allah is the source of success.

    as-Sayf as-Saqil

    Refutation of as-Subki’s claim:

    Point one:

    We say that Istiwa’, Nuzul, Maji’, Ityan, Wajh, Yad, Saq, Qadam, Janb, ‘Ain, and relocation in (various) levels are not from the attributes. The claim that they are attributes is deception and this is shown by three things.

    1. Every possesor of intellect knows that these things mentioned such as Istiwa’ with the meaning of sitting, Nuzul, Maji’, and Wajh and its likes are closer to the attributes of bodies (Ajsam) than (the attributes of) Will, Power, and Knowledge.

    It is noteworthy to mention in introduction, before entering into the discussion of ‘jism’, the fact that every group that affirmed more attributes for Allah than its predecessors or its opponents was labelled ‘Mujasimah’ by those predecessors or opponents. The Philosophers; who stripped Allah of all of his names and attributes, called the Mu’tazilah Mujasimah because they affirmed Allah’s names (whilst at the same time denying His attributes). The Mu’tazillah labelled the Ashari’s Mujasimah because they affirmed the names and seven attributes (whilst denying the rest). The Asharis labelled Ahl us-Sunnah Mujasimah because they affirmed all of Allahs names and Attributes that are authentically reported in the texts of Islam.

    In addition, it is worth mentioning that the attributes of Wajh, Yad, ‘Ainain, and Istiwa were affirmed as being attributes of Allah by the founders of the Ashari doctrine; Abul hasan Al-Ashari (Al-Ibaanah: 51-58 Indian publication and Ar-risaalah ila Ahl ath-thaghr: 72-73, Istiwa see Al-Ibaanah:46-50 and Ar-risaalah ila Ahl ath-thaghr: 75-76 ) and Al-Baqilaani (At-Tamheed: 262-263). In addition Al-Baqilaani regards these attributes as being attributes of (adh-dhaat) essence. However, the later Ashari’s denounced their founders view and denied them and thus moved closer to the way of al-Ashari’s opponents, the Mu’tazilah. Hence, it can be argued that the Asharis themselves are in disagreement with regards these attributes, therefore for them to attack others concerning them is actually an attack on themselves first and foremost and then an attack on an issue wherein their own school has differing opinions. Thus, for them to attack others where they themselves have not come to a unanimous conclusion is an attack from a very insecure foundation indeed.

    The word Jism (body) is not a shari’ word, it was not used by Allah, His Messenger or his companions, may Allah be pleased with them all. Rather, it is a term which was invented by later generations after they were affected by Greek philosophers and their like. Therefore, it is incumbent to define this term before one can negate or affirm it with regards Allah. However, there is no agreed definition with respect to this term:

    In the language it is synonymous with al-badn and al-jasad.

    According to ahl al-kalaam: it is said to be that which is composite from singular atoms (al-jawaahir al-fardiyah: this concept itself is disputed amongst the Ashari scholars), either by way of two, four, six, eight, sixteen or thirty two atoms.

    It is also said that it is what is composite from form and picture.

    It is also said that it is existence, or the one who is self sufficient or even the one who can be pointed to.

    Hence, if it is said that Allah is a ‘jism’, then it depends on what the speaker intends by the term. If what is meant, is that Allah is composite of parts like one who was divided up and then put together, or that He readily accepts division; whether it is said that he put himself together or others put Him together, or that he is typologically the same as His creation, or that He is composite from form and picture, or that he is composite from singular atoms, then all of this is falsehood.

    On the other hand, if what is meant by ‘Jism’ is that He is existent, or self sufficient, or that he is described by attributes, or that He will be seen in the hereafter, or that it is possible to see Him, or that He is separate from his creation and above it, then all of these meanings have been clearly established by Islam and the intellect.

    Despite this fact, as this word is not Islamic (shari’), the use of it (and describing Allah with it) is an innovation in the deen and thus denounced. Also, if the meaning of a word encompasses truth and falsehood then it should not be used, rather the word used must clearly establish the truth and negate falsehood, otherwise, with its use we attribute falsehood to our complete and perfect religion.

    In addition to this point, it is incumbent to mention from the authors own admission that Istiwa’, Nuzul, Maji’, Ityan, Wajh, Yad, Saq, Qadam, Janb, ‘Ain, and relocation in (various) levels are attributes but in the author’s eyes they are attributes of bodies (Ajsam). Therefore, the author’s first statement ‘that they are not from the attributes’ is incorrect. The author seems to believe that they can only be conceived in association with bodies. The author’s predecessors and founders, however, regarded them as attributes. (see Abul Hasan Al-Ashari in Al-Ibaanah: 51-58 Indian publication and Ar-risaalah ila Ah lath-thaghr: 72-73, Istiwa see Al-Ibaanah:46-50 other attribute Al-Ibaanah: 11,47, 48 and Ar-risaalah ila Ahl ath-thaghr: 75-76) and Al-baqilaani (At-tamheed: 262-263).

    Regarding the attributes of Speech, Hearing, Seeing, and Will, then none conceives of these attributes except in association with bodies. If we look at the attribute of life or will, it can be argued that neither attribute can be conceived except as part of a body. We do not know of anything living except it is a body. Linguistically, ‘Will’ is the inclination of the heart towards the object of will (al-murad). Hence, this is inconceivable outside the realm of bodies.

    In addition the attribute of speech is perceived as being possessed by the one who has the vocal tract. Therefore, speech can only be conceived in relation to a body; which is vocalised, heard and has form (sound waves). Therefore, attributing it to Allah is to liken Allah to bodies?! Thus, you must deny this attribute also or otherwise affirm the rest. The same can be said for hearing and seeing, therefore, how can one affirm one set of attributes and deny the other. Is this not deception?!

    Rather, the way of Ahl as-Sunnah is to affirm what Allaah has affirmed for Himself and what His messenger has affirmed for Him, knowing that He is nothing like his creation. We understand the linguistic meaning of the attributes but we cannot comprehend how they are just like we can not comprehend how He is in His essence.

    2. These things that we mentioned are considered parts according the people of the language and not adjectives (Awsaf). So they are explicit in indication composition (Tarkib), and composition is for bodies. So your mentioning of the word Awsaf (adjectives-attributes) is deception. All of the people of the language do not understand from Wajh (face), ‘Ain (eye), Janb (side), and Qadam (foot) except that which are composed parts (Ajza’). They do not understand from Istiwa’ that means sitting except that it is a manner of placing something solid on a place. They (do not understand) from Maji’, Ityan, and Nuzul except movement that is particular to bodies. As for Will, Power, Life and its likes, they are the attributes of the essence (Sifat adh-Dhat)

    Parts -> composition -> only for bodies.

    Tarkib?

    The people have differed as to its definition:

    The philosophers said Tarkib is of 5 types:

    Composition of essence and form
    Composition of the general and specific
    Composition of the essence and attribute
    Composition of the body from singular atoms
    Composition of matter and picture.

    Others said: Composition is to be fashioned by an ‘other’, like the saying of Allah: ‘In any form He willed He fashioned you.’ (al-infitar:8 )

    Or it is said that the Murakab (composite) is that which was separate and then was put together by other than itself, like the putting together of foods, clothes and structures.

    It is also said: the Murakab (composite) is that which has differing parts like the organs of the human being and his composition, even if he is created with them as one.

    It is also said: it is that which accepts division and separation even if it is a simple thing such as water.

    It is also said: it is that in which distinction can be made of one thing from another. For example, we can distinguish knowledge from will, will from power, etc.

    Al-Ghazali makes an interesting comment applicable to our discussion here. He says whilst arguing with the philosophers, when the philosophers say: Whenever we affirm a meaning more than absolute existence then that is Tarkib in itself. Al-Ghazali replied: even with this (principle) they still say with regards the Creator, He is Originator, First, Existent, Jawhar (Atom), One, Pre-eternal, Eternal, Knowledgeable, Intellect, Intellectual, Rationable, Doer, Creator, Wanter, Powerful, Living, Lover, Loved, Delightful, Delighteable, Generous, Complete good, etc. So they claimed that all of these statements are one not many; and this is from the most astonishing of things.’ (Tafahaat al-falaasifah: 163)

    It could be argued that the author has followed the philosophers in claiming that anything more than the essence is tarkib and ascribing jism to the creator. Hence, it could be argued that the saying that He is living, seeing, hearing, speaking, willing, knowing, powerful is Tarkib just like the philosophers statements are tarkib as Al-Ghazali alludes to. So how can the author argue against tarkib when that is something he himself has fallen in to?!

    Also the author’s denial of Tarkib is based upon two factors: 1) Every composite must have one who composes it 2) Every composite is in need of its compositions.

    1) Al-Ghazali himself argues against this point, he says: ‘The saying that every composite is composed by a composer is similar to the saying that every existent being is in need of the one who brought it into existence. Therefore, it is plausible to say that the First is existent pre-eternally, there is no cause for Him, nor for His existence, nor is there one who brought about His existence. Likewise, it can be said that He is described as being pre-eternal, without cause for His essence, nor for His attributes, nor for His attributes to be associated with His essence.’ (Tafahaat al-Falaasifah: 176)

    2) Al-Aamidee allowed the obligatory existence to be in need of its form. He mentioned that the obligatory being by himself is the one who does not need any cause, not the one who is in need of other things. Therefore, its being possible (by right of it being in need of other things) is the possibility by which the obligatory existence is described; i.e. the one who is in need of its form. (cf. Dar at-Taaraudh, 4: 233-235)

    Based upon this it can be said: Why is it not possible that all parts of the obligatory being or the composite obligatory being is obligatory by essence of every part of its composition, wherein each part is obligatory by itself and does not accept annihilation?! Rather this is better than denial of the text or their interpretation.

    3. If these above mentioned things were presented to a normal person be it a woman, a child, a non-arab, or a common layman arab and the generality of people, would they understand from Istiwa, Nuzul, Maji’, Ityan, Wajh, Yad, Saq, Qadam, Janb, ‘Ain, and relocation in (various) levels, and others that i have mentioned the meaning of a body (Jism), and would he conceptualize that in himself or not? If he responds saying that he does not understand from that anything save the meaning of a body, then that is enough for you of sin with Allah and misguiding the likes of these (common people) and encouraging them to beleive in Tajsim that you yourself claim with your tongue to not say. So what is actualized from you is misguiding the majority of the world. As for you in yourself, if you were lying in your censure of that then you have gathered lying along with corruption in creed. If you were true in your claim then you have decieved yourself and imagined a distintion for yourself.

    Again if it is said to them living, seeing, hearing, speaking, etc the average person would only conceptualize these attributes in association with bodies (or as part of a body). So from where does this distinction originate? Thus who in actual fact is deceiving?

    Point two:
    Assuming that these things mentioned such as Istiwa’, Nuzul, Maji’, Ityan, Wajh, Yad, Saq, Qadam, Janb, and ‘Ain are attributes like Will, Power, and Knowledge, then we say:
    1. Will, power, and knowledge within us is two matters. One of them is an accident established in a body (‘Ard Qaim bil Jism), and Allah Ta’ala is far removed from that.

    By ‘Arad what is meant is that it is not part of the essence. Therefore, according to the author Istiwa’, Nuzul, Maji’, Ityan, Wajh, Yad, Saq, Qadam, Janb, and ‘Ain are a’Araadh and not sifaat, due to the fact that they are ‘accidents’ (occurrences) taking place in the body.

    The whole premise of the author’s argument is based upon the principle of Hulul al-hawadith which is a theoretical principle taken by the Asharis from their Mu’tazili teachers. The principle with its inductive steps states:

    The truth of the Prophet(saw) is dependent upon the proof regarding the existence of the creator (As-Saani’). However, proving the existence of the Creator is dependant upon proving the corruptibility or changing nature of the universe. This changeability of the universe can not be established except through the changeability of bodies. Hence, it can be argued that bodies are not free from change, or in other words are associated with a’Aradh (occurrences/changes) or some of them. This then leads to the following principle:

    ‘Ma halla bihi hawaadith aw lam yakhlu min al-hawadith fa huwa hadith’
    ‘Anything which is associated with change (inside itself or outside of it) or does not remain without change then it is itself created (hadith) and every hadith requires a Muhdith (originator).’ Therefore, if Allah goes through these hawaadith (changes/occurrences) that would imply that he is hadith and that is inconceivable. Therefore, it is inconceivable for him to have these sifaat.

    This principle is the foundation upon which the Asharis proved, in their eyes, the created nature of the universe, the created nature of ajsaam (bodies) and by which they argued against the philosophers and the pre-eternal nature of the universe. In addition, they made this the foundation of the deen. Hence, it became the principle of enlightenment and the crux of faith. In their eyes, without this principle there can be no deen, nor faith, nor proof for the existence of the creator, nor knowledge that the Prophet was truthful. Therefore, it became incumbent upon the Asharis to safe guard this principle and what it implies at all costs.

    However, the principle’s definition is not agreed upon amongst the Ashaaris themselves:

    A group of them said: No ‘body’ exists without change, and whatever does not exist without change then it is created.

    Another group said: No, rather every ‘body’ does not exist without all types of accidents (occurrences/changes). The one who is acceptant of a thing (type of occurrence), then he does not remain without it and without its opposite. Then they said: the occurrence (aradh) does not remain for more than one time period, hence all of the accidents (a’Aradh) happen one after the other, therefore, bodies do not exist without them (i.e. changes). Hence, they are created.

    These are the two most famous statements of the Ashaaris with regards this principle. The latter version is the most accepted amongst them and was chosen by Al-Aamidee. (for other definitions see Abkaar al-Afkaar, 2: 95, 104 onwards, and al-Arbaeen of ar-Razi: 13-41)

    However, even though they are the most acceptable definitions for the principle, their proponents differed with regards there inductive steps. So for example, with regards the inductive step ‘No body exists without change’ they differed (al-Arbaeen of ar-Razi: 13).

    We find that Al-Razi argued vehemently that the second definition (which is supported by Al-Aamidee) is weak and in opposition to sense and intelligence. In contrast Al-Aamidee attacked the definition adopted by Al-Razi. Hence, both definitions are contested by the Imams of the Asharis and without firm foundations. It is also note worthy that Al-Razi critiqued every proof for this principle in his books Al-Mattaalib al-Aaliyah (his last work), and al-Mabahith al-Mashriqiyah.

    In addition, criticisms of this principle are due to it being very long winded, intricate and having too many inductive steps. Also, for the simple fact that the Prophets did not call to it. Its critics include: Abul-Hasan al-Ashari (the founder, in ar-risaalah ila ahl ath-thaghr), Al-Ghazaali, Al-Khataabi, Al-Bayhaqi and others. Therefore, it is arguable that such a principle, which is contested by its very proponents, can not be the basis for negating established and authentic texts of the Quran and Sunnah.

    The second matter is the meanings that relate to what is willed, to what is in (ones power), and what is known (al-Ma’ani al-Muta’alliqah bil Murad wal Maqdur wal Ma’lum). And the Lord Subhanahu wa Ta’ala is described with those things and they are not restricted to bodies and for that reason we affirm them for Allah Azza wa Jall

    Therefore, has the author actually affirmed will, power and knowledge or rather affirmed what is willed, what is in power and what is known. The author’s statement implies that will is the same as what is willed, power is synonymous with what is within power and knowledge is synonymous with what is known. This is in opposition to what is clearly known to all with intellect.

    2. Likewise with Istiwa, Nuzul, Maji’, Ityan, Wajh, Yad, Saq, Qadam, Jamb, and ‘Ain. With these, they are two matters. One, is that they are parts which is clear in denoting composition and Allah Ta’ala is clearly far removed from that.

    Refer to the previous discussion on Tarkib.

    The second is the meaning that are related to these things. They are explained according to the context they appear in among the Ayat and Ahadith as is well known. We affirm this for Allah Azza wa Jall, so for example, Istiwa is explained as managing the affairs, Yad is explained as power or bounty or generosity according to the context and we affirm this for Allah Azza wa Jall as well in the remainder (of the words) mentioned. And Allah is the source of success.

    Again, the founders affirmed some of these attributes without interpretation, as has been mentioned. In addition, there are two well known positions amongst the Ashari school with regards these attributes; Ta’weel or Tafweedh. The Ashari scholars have been, and are still, debating as to which is the correct stance. Al-Juwayni argued against tafweed vehemently but later adopted it as his position.

    A second point, these Taweels that the author mentions for the sifaat, were they known by the Prophet(saw)? If the answer is no, then is the author more knowledgeable than the prophet?!

    If the answer is yes, then did he teach the companions this? If yes, then where are the narrations? If no, then how is teaching something that the prophet(saw) knew but did not teach praiseworthy?!

    If the Prophet(saw) did in fact teach it to the companions, is it plausible that they hid it and did not narrate it, even though they narrate the most intricate and detailed matters of him (saw), even they way he would stand, drink, eat, walk, etc.?!

    In conclusion, the only plausible answer that the intellect can accept is that these concepts and interpretations were never part of the Deen brought to us by the Prophet (saw) or his companions; therefore they can never be part of this Deen. Rather they are innovations introduced into this Deen by those who were affected by Greek philosophy and by those who Shaytaan lead astray.

    Finally, we seek refuge in Allah from such concepts and their proponents. We ask Him for aid in explaining the truth and making it clear for the people of true reasoning and intellect. We ask Allah to forgive and have mercy upon those scholars who adopted such positions and called people to them. We seek refuge in Him from being misguided and leading others astray. Wa salallaahu ala nabiyina Muhammad, wal hamdulillaahi rabil Aalameen
    if you read it on the original website link the formatting might be clearer. Not sure who the author of the article was, but I've seen that article on several blogs before.

Similar Threads

  1. The sole of an Ashari
    By Tisatashar in forum Islamic Theology and Ideology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10th June 2010, 01:29 AM
  2. Video Hisham Kabbani using Ibn Qayyim's words to justify his position.
    By DhulQarNain in forum Islam in General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 9th July 2009, 08:11 PM
  3. Al-Ashari, was he pious?
    By asharee_salafi in forum Islamic Theology and Ideology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 16th May 2009, 05:31 PM
  4. Modern Ashari's
    By akhun in forum Islam in General
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 16th June 2007, 09:44 PM
  5. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 6th June 2007, 08:24 PM

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 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129