God's beautiful body.

Discussion in 'Islamic Theology and Ideology' started by TarimiStudent, Apr 2, 2007.

  1. TarimiStudent

    TarimiStudent New Member


    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
    والحمد لله رب العالمين
    والصلاة والسلام على السيد الأمين
    و على آله و صحبه أجمعين
    السلام عليكم ​

    This is the first post I’m 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.

    Why would the Qur’an be considered created for simply coming on the Day of Judgment? If attributing “coming” to something means it’s created then how can one attribute that to God? Is God considered created?

    Why is it blasphemous for Allah to be everywhere, literally? Why can’t we say the Qur’an literally comes? Why can’t God be both in the Sky and the Earth?

    I decided to post Hanbal’s bio here. Inshallah, it’ll be somewhere around the end of this post.

    Imam Hanbal’s rank is actually very high in hadith. It’s much higher then ibn Aqeel’s rank. It’s odd who is accepted and who is rejected. Let’s take a look at what ibn Kathir says. This is what is written in al-Bidaya:

    وكلامه في القرآن كلام الله غير مخلوق، وإنكاره على من يقول: إن لفظه بالقرآن مخلوق يريد به القرآن

    قال: وفيها حكى أبو عمارة وأبو جعفر أخبرنا أحمد شيخنا السراج عن أحمد بن حنبل أنه قال: اللفظ محدث.
    واستدل بقوله
    (ما يلفظ من قول إلا لديه رقيب عتيد) [ ق: 18 ] قال: فاللفظ كلام الآدميين.
    وروى غيرهما عن أحمد أنه قال: القرآن كيف ما تصرف فيه غير مخلوق، وأما أفعالنا فهي مخلوقة.
    قلت: وقد قرر البخاري في هذا المعنى في أفعال العباد وذكره أيضا في الصحيح، واستدل بقوله عليه السلام: " زينوا القرآن بأصواتكم).
    ولهذا قال غير واحد من الائمة: الكلام كلام الباري، والصوت صوت القاري.
    وقد قرر البيهقي ذلك أيضا.
    وروى البيهقي من طريق إسماعيل بن محمد بن إسماعيل السلمي عن أحمد أنه قال: من قال: القرآن محدث فهو كافر.
    ومن طريق أبي الحسن الميموني عن أحمد أنه أجاب الجهمية حين احتجوا عليه بقوله تعالى: (ما يأتيهم من ذكر من ربهم محدث إلا استمعوه وهم يلعبون) [ الانبياء: 2 ].
    قال: يحتمل أن يكون تنزيله إلينا هو المحدث، لا الذكر نفسه هو المحدث.
    وعن حنبل عن أحمد أنه قال: يحتمل أن يكون ذكر آخر غير القرآن، وهو ذكر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أو وعظه إياهم.

    What Imam Ahmed says about the Speech of God being uncreated, and his censure on whoever says, “his words with the Qur’an are created” and he means by it the Qur’an.
    … [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 Qur’an, however it’s used, is uncreated.” [What Imam Ahmed means here is that whatever people do when reciting what’s in the Mushaf doesn’t change the fact that the Qur’an itself isn’t 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 Qur’an 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 Qur’an is muhdath is a Kaffir.” … The Gahmiya responded by using the words of God “A reminder doesn’t 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 Qur’an 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 didn’t exist, then it existed. For example, you’re muhdath because you didn’t exist, then you existed. We see that Imam Ahmed said, whoever says the Speech of God is muhdath is a kafir.]

    وكلامه في نفي التشبيه وترك الخوض في الكلام والتمسك بما ورد في الكتاب والسنة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وعن أصحابه.

    وروى البيهقي عن الحاكم عن أبي عمرو بن السماك عن حنبل أن أحمد بن حنبل تأول قول الله تعالى: (وجاء ربك) [ الفجر: 22 ] أنه جاء ثوابه.
    ثم قال البيهقي: وهذا إسناد لا غبار عليه.

    and Imam Ahmed’s words in negating anthropomorphism… ​
    … Imam Ahmed made Ta’weel of God’s 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 don’t know Arabic, ask someone to translate.]

    These are the words of ibn Taymiyya.

    روي عن ابن عباس و طائفة المراد به الشدة أن الله يكشف عن الشدة في اللآخرة، و عن أبي سعيد و طائفة أنهم عدوها من الصفات للحديث الذي رواه أبو سعيد في الصحيحين، و لا ريب أن ظاهرالقرآن لا يدل أن هذه الصفات، فإنه قال يوم يكشف عن ساق نكرة في الإثبات لم يضفها الى الله لم يقل عن ساقه، فمع عدم التعريف لا يظهر انه من الصفات إلا بدليل آخر.

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

    I originally quoted what is above and then I received this response.

    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.

    Then I got this response.

    Let’s take another look at what’s 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! Let’s 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, I’m going to assume that we agree that if the metaphorical meaning is implied then the literal meaning is no longer implied.

    Inshallah, what’s below will clarify that a metaphor negates the literal meaning from being intended.
    Let’s take a look at some metaphors:
    1. Hold on to your horses.
    2. I’ll spoon-feed you.
    3. When the lids finally do blow off.

    This isn’t 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 isn’t there, i.e. no horses, spoons, nor lids.
    The values of words don’t literally have faces, do they? One couldn’t use this metaphor later to prove that indeed values of words literally have faces. Even if they did have faces, it wouldn’t be because of that metaphor we’d know they have faces, rather it would be other outside information. Again we see that X isn’t there. X = face.

    Let’s look at some more examples:
    4. You’re on thin ice.
    5. Ya’Seen is the heart of the Qur’an
    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 doesn’t prove the Qur’an literally has organs. When a metaphorical phrase is used it falsifies the literal meaning from being intended.

    It’s actually very interesting you mention winds! Look at these lines of poetry.

    [وغداة ريح قد وزعت وقرة]
    إذ أصبحت بيد الشمال زمامها

    Look at the last lines of the poem. It says “Since the hand of the north winds [held] it’s rein.”

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

    فصل في اللفظ يطلق والمراد به غير ظاهره

    اعلم أن لهذا الضرب اتساعا وتفننا لا إلى غاية إلا أنه على اتساعه يدور في الأمر الأعم على شيئين الكناية والمجاز

    Then I ask you to read these words:

    قلت: إذ أصبحت بيد الشمال زمامها فقد ادعيت أن للشمال يداً. ومعلوم أنه لا يكون للريح يد.

    Then, argue with me.

    Here is another metaphor for you: اللسان البذيء سيف في جرح العواطف. 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 isn’t literally a sword. If we say X = sword, then we know that X isn’t there.

    Well, let’s take a look at a dictionary.

    ما لي بفلان يَدانِ أَي طاقةٌ
    I don’t have two hands with so-and-so: strength/power.
    I believe “two hands” is dual and it’s also being used metaphorically.

    Let’s see how the Arabs have used it in the past.
    [SIZE=“4”]

    تحملت من عفراء ما ليس لي به ... ولا للجبال الراسيات يدان
    [/SIZE]
    “I’ve bared from Afraa’a that which I don’t 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 don’t 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 doesn’t intend that the poet literally has two hands, just like it doesn’t intend the mountains having two hands.
    Take a look at the Qur’an:
    [SIZE=“4”]

    بَيْنَ يَدَيْ رَحْمَتِهِ
    [/SIZE]
    “between the two hands of God’s mercy” We see dual, yet we know it’s Metaphorical.


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

    قال مجاهد : اليد هنا بمعنى : التأكيد ، والصلة مجازاً


    The majaaz part is from the Mufaseer I believe, the rest is from the Ta’ba’ee 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 أيدينا. This word (أيدي) means three or more hands. So how many hands does God have?

    أَوَلَمْ يَرَوْا أَنَّا خَلَقْنَا لَهُمْ مِمَّا عَمِلَتْ أَيْدِينَا أَنْعَامًا فَهُمْ لَهَا مَالِكُونَ

    I guess you could say that this is metaphorical use, and hence we can’t literally believe God has three or more hands.
    These are the words of ibn Taymiyya.

    روي عن ابن عباس و طائفة المراد به الشدة أن الله يكشف عن الشدة في اللآخرة، و عن أبي سعيد و طائفة أنهم عدوها من الصفات للحديث الذي رواه أبو سعيد في الصحيحين، و لا ريب أن ظاهرالقرآن لا يدل أن هذه الصفات، فإنه قال يوم يكشف عن ساق نكرة في الإثبات لم يضفها الى الله لم يقل عن ساقه، فمع عدم التعريف لا يظهر انه من الصفات إلا بدليل آخر.

    “It has been narrated upon Ibn Abbas and a group that what’s meant by it [Shin] is severity [i.e.] God unveils severity in the hereafter. [It has been related] upon Sa’eed and a group that they consider it from the attributes [of God] because of the hadith that Abu Sa’eed relates in Sahih Bukari and Muslim. [However,] there is no doubt that the dhair of the Qur’an doesn’t indicate that this is from the attributes. For indeed He said the day He unveils a shin, [which is] indefinite, it’s not attributed to God, He didn’t say His Shin. Hence, without it being definite, it’s doesn’t show that it’s from the attributes, except with some other evidence.”

    Here is Hanbal’s bio, as promised, from سير أعلام النبلاء:

    - حنبل * ابن إسحاق بن حنبل بن هلال بن أسد: الامام، الحافظ، المحدث الصدوق، المصنف، أبو علي الشيباني، ابن عم الامام أحمد، وتلميذه.
    ولد قبل المئتين
    وسمع: محمد بن عبدالله الانصاري، وسليمان بن حرب، وأبا نعيم، وعفان بن مسلم، والحميدي، وأبا الوليد الطيالسي، وحجاج بن منهال، ومسلم بن إبراهيم، وقبيصة بن عقبة، وأبا سلمة، وعاصم بن علي، وسريج بن النعمان، وعلي بن الجعد، وأباه، وابن عمه، وخلقا كثيرا.
    حدث عنه: ابن صاعد، وأبو بكر الخلال، ومحمد بن مخلد، وأبو جعفر ابن البختري، وعثمان بن السماك، وآخرون.
    قال الخطيب: كان ثقة ثبتا.
    قلت: له مسائل كثيرة عن أحمد، ويتفرد، ويغرب.
    قال أحمد بن المنادي: كان حنبل قد خرج إلى واسط، فجاءنا نعيه منها، في جمادى الاولى، سنة ثلاث وسبعين ومئتين.
    قلت: كان من أبناء الثمانين.
    ومات أبوه في سنة ثلاث وخمسين ومئتين، وله ثنتان وتسعون سنة.
    وقد حدث عن: يزيد بن هارون، وغيره.
    وقع لي جزء حنبل، وجزء فيه الرابع من " الفتن " لحنبل، وكتاب
    " المحنة " لحنبل، وله " تاريخ " مفيد، رأيته، وعلقت منه.


    Here I’d 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, I’m not a Yasir Qadi fan, nor are his words considered proof to me, but for Salafis that follow him, read his words.

    Let’s take another look at the Qur’an.

    وَلَا تَجْعَلْ يَدَكَ مَغْلُولَةً إِلَى عُنُقِكَ وَلَا تَبْسُطْهَا كُلَّ الْبَسْطِ فَتَقْعُدَ مَلُومًا مَحْسُورًا (29) إِنَّ رَبَّكَ يَبْسُطُ الرِّزْقَ لِمَنْ يَشَاءُ وَيَقْدِرُ إِنَّهُ كَانَ بِعِبَادِهِ خَبِيرًا بَصِيرًا (30) الإسراء

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

    وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ يَدُ اللَّهِ مَغْلُولَةٌ غُلَّتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَلُعِنُوا بِمَا قَالُوا بَلْ يَدَاهُ مَبْسُوطَتَانِ يُنْفِقُ كَيْفَ يَشَاءُ وَلَيَزِيدَنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنْهُمْ مَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِنْ رَبِّكَ طُغْيَانًا وَكُفْرًا وَأَلْقَيْنَا بَيْنَهُمُ الْعَدَاوَةَ وَالْبَغْضَاءَ إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ كُلَّمَا أَوْقَدُوا نَارًا لِلْحَرْبِ أَطْفَأَهَا اللَّهُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَسَادًا وَاللَّهُ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُفْسِدِينَ (64) المائدة

    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. TarimiStudent

    TarimiStudent New Member

    Part II

    بسم الله​
    السلام عليكم

    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.

    اللَّهُ نُورُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ مَثَلُ نُورِهِ كَمِشْكَاةٍ فِيهَا مِصْبَاحٌ الْمِصْبَاحُ فِي زُجَاجَةٍ الزُّجَاجَةُ كَأَنَّهَا كَوْكَبٌ دُرِّيٌّ يُوقَدُ مِنْ شَجَرَةٍ مُبَارَكَةٍ زَيْتُونَةٍ لَا شَرْقِيَّةٍ وَلَا غَرْبِيَّةٍ يَكَادُ زَيْتُهَا يُضِيءُ وَلَوْ لَمْ تَمْسَسْهُ نَارٌ نُورٌ عَلَى نُورٍ يَهْدِي اللَّهُ لِنُورِهِ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَيَضْرِبُ اللَّهُ الْأَمْثَالَ لِلنَّاسِ وَاللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ (35)
    حدثني عليّ، قال: ثنا عبد الله، قال: ثني معاوية، عن عليّ، عن ابن عباس، قوله:( اللَّهُ نُورُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأرْضِ ) يقول: الله سبحانه هادي أهل السماوات والأرض
    طبري


    “God is the light of the heavens and earth.”
    We don’t 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 it’s metaphorical, we know that we can’t take it literally anymore.

    Let’s take a look at some more verses.

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

    { وَجَآءَ رَبُّكَ } تمثيل لظهور آيات اقتداره وتبيين آثار قهره وسلطانه ، فإن واحداً من الملوك إذا حضر بنفسه ظهر بحضوره من آثار الهيبة ما لا يظهر بحضور عساكره وخواصه ، وعن ابن عباس : أمره وقضاؤه { والملك صَفّاً صَفّاً } أي ينزل ملائكة كل سماء فيصطفون صفاً بعد صف محدقين بالجن والإنس
    النسفي
    { وَجَاءَ رَبُّكَ } قال الحسن: جاء أمره وقضاؤه
    بغوي


    Abd-Allah ibn Abbas and Imam Hasan al-Basri said that “God’s coming” means “His command and Judgment is coming.”

    The hadith master Ali ibn al-Qataan (بن القطان) informs us in his book (الإقناع في مسائل الإجماع) 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” isn’t 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 scholar’s scholar and author of the famous book الوهم و الإيهام.

    “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 don’t say that God is both literally with us and His knowledge with us.

    { وَاصْنَعِ الْفُلْكَ بِأَعْيُنِنَا } قال ابن عباس بمرأى منا. وقال مقاتل: بعلمنا. وقيل: بحفظنا

    “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 God’s 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.

    { فَإِنَّكَ بِأَعْيُنِنَا } أي بمرأىً مِنَّا، قال ابن عباس: نرى ما يُعْمَلُ بك
    (البغوي)


    “You are under our [watchful] eyes.” Ibn Abbas said it means “We see what’s done with you.”

    “Do not be afraid, I am with you…” (20:46) meaning God’s help is with you.

    أَنْ تَقُولَ نَفْسٌ يَا حَسْرَتَا عَلَى مَا فَرَّطْتُ فِي جَنْبِ اللَّهِ وَإِنْ كُنْتُ لَمِنَ السَّاخِرِينَ (39:56)
    وقول ابن عباس : يريد على ما ضيعت من ثواب الله ، ومقاتل : على ما ضيعت من ذكر الله؛ ومجاهد . والسدي : على ما فرطت في أمر الله ، والحسن : في طاعة الله
    روح المعاني

    “in God’s side” is used metaphorically. Ibn Abbas said it means what is lost from God’s reward, Muqaatil said it means what’s neglected from making zikr of Allah, Mugaahid and Sadi said it means what’s neglected from the commands of God, while Hasan al-Basari said it means what’s 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 we’re seeing God saying that He is with us, and we know that this is simply metaphorical, hence it can’t be taken literally.

    قال البخاري : « معنى الضحك الرحمة » . قال أبو سليمان : « قول أبي عبد الله قريب ، وتأويله على معنى الرضى لفعلهما أقرب وأشبه ، ومعلوم أن الضحك من ذوي التمييز يدل على الرضى والبشر ، والاستهلال منهم دليل قبول الوسيلة ، ومقدمة إنجاح الطلبة ، والكرام يوصفون عند المسألة بالبشر وحسن اللقاء ، فيكون المعنى في قوله » يضحك الله إلى رجلين « ؛ أي : يجزل العطاء لهما ؛ لأنه موجب الضحك

    Imam Bukari said that God’s 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, it’s all Metaphorical use, hence the information can’t be taken literally.

    وَهُوَ الْقَاهِرُ فَوْقَ عِبَادِهِ وَهُوَ الْحَكِيمُ الْخَبِيرُ (18)

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

    وَقَالَ الْمَلَأُ مِنْ قَوْمِ فِرْعَوْنَ أَتَذَرُ مُوسَى وَقَوْمَهُ لِيُفْسِدُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَيَذَرَكَ وَآَلِهَتَكَ قَالَ سَنُقَتِّلُ أَبْنَاءَهُمْ وَنَسْتَحْيِي نِسَاءَهُمْ وَإِنَّا فَوْقَهُمْ قَاهِرُونَ (127)

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

    Pharaoh doesn’t mean he is over them, in terms of geographical location, rather the word “over” means in power, authority, and position. It’s like saying the President has the highest office. When Allah said the He is All-Powerful over His slaves, He doesn’t 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:

    وإنما قال:"فوق عباده"، لأنه وصف نفسه تعالى ذكره بقهره إياهم. ومن صفة كلّ قاهر شيئًا أن يكون مستعليًا عليه
    فمعنى الكلام إذًا: والله الغالب عبادَه، المذلِّلهم، العالي عليهم بتذليله لهم، وخلقه إياهم، فهو فوقهم بقهره إياهم، وهم دونه ="وهو الحكيم" ، يقول: والله الحكيم في علِّوه على عباده، وقهره إياهم بقدرته، وفي سائر تدبيره

    Look at what Imam Tabari says when speaking about Istiwa:

    وأوْلى المعاني بقول الله جل ثناؤه:"ثم استوى إلى السماء فسوَّاهن"، علا عليهن وارتفع، فدبرهنّ بقدرته، وخلقهنّ سبع سموات.
    والعجبُ ممن أنكر المعنى المفهوم من كلام العرب في تأويل قول الله:"ثم استوى إلى السماء"، الذي هو بمعنى العلو والارتفاع، هربًا عند نفسه من أن يلزمه بزعمه -إذا تأوله بمعناه المفهم كذلك- أن يكون إنما علا وارتفع بعد أن كان تحتها - إلى أن تأوله بالمجهول من تأويله المستنكر. ثم لم يَنْجُ مما
    هرَب منه! فيقال له: زعمت أن تأويل قوله"استوى" أقبلَ، أفكان مُدْبِرًا عن السماء فأقبل إليها؟ فإن زعم أنّ ذلك ليس بإقبال فعل، ولكنه إقبال تدبير، قيل له: فكذلك فقُلْ: علا عليها علوّ مُلْك وسُلْطان، لا علوّ انتقال وزَوال
    من إمام الطبري

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

    The original meaning of God’s words “then He Istiwa” is to be high and above.

    How strange, there are people who negate the meaning that’s understood from the Arabic language in the interpretation of God’s 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, they’re not saved from what they’re running away from! For it is said to them, you’ve claimed the meaning of istiwa is “to turn to,” was God’s back towards the heavens such that He turned to it? If they claim it’s 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 Qur’an:

    قُلْنَا لَا تَخَفْ إِنَّكَ أَنْتَ الْأَعْلَى (68)طه
    وَلَا تَهِنُوا وَلَا تَحْزَنُوا وَأَنْتُمُ الْأَعْلَوْنَ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ مُؤْمِنِينَ (139)آل عمران
    فَلَا تَهِنُوا وَتَدْعُوا إِلَى السَّلْمِ وَأَنْتُمُ الْأَعْلَوْنَ وَاللَّهُ مَعَكُمْ وَلَنْ يَتِرَكُمْ أَعْمَالَكُمْ (35)محمد

    1. “Don’t be afraid, for you are higher [i.e. you’re 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:

    وَلَا يَلْزَم مِنْ كَوْن جِهَتَيْ الْعُلُوّ وَالسُّفَّل مُحَال عَلَى اللَّه أَنْ لَا يُوصَف بِالْعُلُوِّ لِأَنَّ وَصْفه بِالْعُلُوِّ مِنْ جِهَة الْمَعْنَى وَالْمُسْتَحِيل كَوْن ذَلِكَ مِنْ جِهَة الْحِسّ

    “The directions up and down do not necessitate that God can’t 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” (إِنَّ رَبَّهُ بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ الْقِبْلَةِ), 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 (فِيهِ الرَّدّ عَلَى مَنْ زَعَمَ أَنَّهُ عَلَى الْعَرْش بِذَاتِهِ).

    وَهُوَ الَّذِي فِي السَّمَاءِ إِلَهٌ وَفِي الْأَرْضِ إِلَهٌ وَهُوَ الْحَكِيمُ الْعَلِيمُ
    “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!

    وَهُوَ اللَّهُ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَفِي الْأَرْضِ

    “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 God’s 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 God’s right hand on earth (الحجر يمين الله على الأرض). Ibn Atheer (ابن أثير) said that when a king shakes a person’s hand, that person in turn will kiss the King’s hand (النهاية في غريب الحديث). The black stone is treated on earth as the king’s 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 isn’t literally God’s right hand. We also have another hadith that says that both God’s hands are right (كلتا يديه يمين). 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 don’t limit God to only two hands? Again we see ibn Atheer telling us a metaphorical meaning for God’s 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 it’s metaphorical, therefore it doesn’t 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 God’s 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” (لا شخص أغير من الله). We don’t believe God is a person, do we? Nor do we believe God literally gets jealous. Ibn Daqeeq al-Eid said, commenting on this hadith:

    قَالَ اِبْن دَقِيق الْعِيد : الْمُنَزِّهُونَ لِلَّهِ إِمَّا سَاكِت عَنْ التَّأْوِيل وَإِمَّا مُؤَوِّل ، وَالثَّانِي يَقُول الْمُرَاد بِالْغَيْرَةِ الْمَنْع مِنْ الشَّيْء وَالْحِمَايَة وَهُمَا مِنْ لَوَازِم الْغَيْرَة فَأُطْلِقَتْ عَلَى سَبِيل الْمَجَاز كَالْمُلَازَمَةِ ، وَغَيْرهَا مِنْ الْأَوْجُه الشَّائِعَة فِي لِسَان الْعَرَب.

    “People that aren’t anthropomorphists either don’t interpret it or make ta’weel. The latter interpret it as protectiveness … hence this expression is metaphorical.” (al-Fath)

    I don’t think we need Fath al-Bari to negate God being a person. However, anyone that’s interested can open up al-Fath and see what’s in there. Perhaps it can be posted here.


    There is another hadith, which I’m sure more people know:

    مَرِضْتُ فَلَمْ تَعُدْنِي...
    قَالَ يَا رَبِّ كَيْفَ أَعُودُكَ وَأَنْتَ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ...
    أَمَا عَلِمْتَ أَنَّ عَبْدِي فُلَانًا مَرِضَ فَلَمْ تَعُدْهُ أَمَا عَلِمْتَ أَنَّكَ لَوْ عُدْتَهُ لَوَجَدْتَنِي عِنْدَهُ

    God: I became sick and you didn’t visit me!
    Slave: How can I visit you, and you’re the Lord of the Universe!
    God: Don’t 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. It’s 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 didn’t 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 ta’weel. We also understand that God isn’t 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 الإشارة إلى الإيجاز we see Imam Al-Izz ibn abd al-Salaam tells us that the Muslim didn’t 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 didn’t understand the eclipse in the statement. What God meant was “My slave got sick and you didn’t visit him.” Anyone, that’s not a gross literalist, can agree that God didn’t 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.


    قَالَ اِبْن دَقِيق الْعِيد فِي الْعَقِيدَة : تَقُول فِي الصِّفَات الْمُشْكِلَة إِنَّهَا حَقّ وَصِدْق عَلَى الْمَعْنَى الَّذِي أَرَادَهُ اللَّه ، وَمَنْ تَأَوَّلَهَا نَظَرْنَا فَإِنْ كَانَ تَأْوِيله قَرِيبًا عَلَى مُقْتَضَى لِسَان الْعَرَب لَمْ نُنْكِر عَلَيْهِ ، وَإِنْ كَانَ بَعِيدًا تَوَقَّفْنَا عَنْهُ وَرَجَعْنَا إِلَى التَّصْدِيق مَعَ التَّنْزِيه . وَمَا كَانَ مِنْهَا مَعْنَاهُ ظَاهِرًا مَفْهُومًا مِنْ تَخَاطُب الْعَرَب حَمَلْنَاهُ عَلَيْهِ لِقَوْلِهِ " عَلَى مَا فَرَّطْت فِي جَنْب اللَّه " فَإِنَّ الْمُرَاد بِهِ فِي اِسْتِعْمَالهمْ الشَّائِع حَقّ اللَّه فَلَا يَتَوَقَّف فِي حَمْله عَلَيْهِ ، وَكَذَا قَوْله " إِنَّ قَلْب اِبْن آدَم بَيْن إِصْبَعَيْنِ مِنْ أَصَابِع الرَّحْمَن " فَإِنَّ الْمُرَاد بِهِ إِرَادَة قَلْب اِبْن آدَم مُصَرَّفَة بِقُدْرَةِ اللَّه وَمَا يُوقِعهُ فِيهِ ، وَكَذَا قَوْله تَعَالَى ( فَأَتَى اللَّهُ بُنْيَانَهُمْ مِنْ الْقَوَاعِد ) مَعْنَاهُ خَرَّبَ اللَّهُ بُنْيَانهمْ ، وَقَوْله ( إِنَّمَا نُطْعِمُكُمْ لِوَجْهِ اللَّه ) مَعْنَاهُ لِأَجْلِ اللَّه وَقِسْ عَلَى ذَلِكَ وَهُوَ تَفْصِيل بَالِغ قَلَّ مَنْ تَيَقَّظَ لَهُ

    Ibn Daqeeq al-Eid informs us that there are two ways to look at this. First, that it’s true upon what God means. And the people that make ta’weel, if it’s not far-fetched, it’s 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.
     
  3. Skillganon

    Skillganon The Serial Repper

    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=
     
  4. Expergefactionist

    Expergefactionist hmmm... Staff Member

    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.
     
  5. asharee_salafi

    asharee_salafi New Member

    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.

    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? :)
     
  6. Madarijas-Salikeen

    Madarijas-Salikeen <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    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 Allaah’s Messenger Salalahu alayhi wa salam about the meaning of anything with which He subhanahu wa ta ala described His Noble Self in the Noble Qur’aan 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-Mawaa’ith wal I’tibaar 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 Ta’teel. None of them approached the Sifaat with any kind of Ta’weel. Unanimously, they held the position that the Sifaat should be accepted as the have come (ie. In the Qur’aan 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 Allaah’s 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-laalkaa’iee, as-saboonee, ibn Abdul barr, al-baihaqee, ath-thahabee, ibn hajar and others. See ath thecae’s 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 Ta’weel 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 Ma’loom 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 http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=3512 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 Malik’s Muwatta . (See Siyar Alaam An-Nubalaa 18:153) rahimullah at ala alayh said: “Ahlu sunnah agreed upon affirming the sifaat that came in the Qur’aan 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 Mu’asasatul 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 Allah’s 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 Allah’s 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 Allah’s Hand- in spite of their enormity are as insignificant as a mustard seed in a man’s hand; and this is a comparison between the heavens and the earths and a mustard seed, not a comparison between Allah’s 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
     
  7. defenderofbusharraf

    defenderofbusharraf Murji'i Scumbag

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

    Athariyyah4EVA
     
  8. Skillganon

    Skillganon The Serial Repper

    What is athariyyah?
     
  9. ibnfaruk

    ibnfaruk New Member

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

    defenderofbusharraf Murji'i Scumbag

    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.
     
  11. Skillganon

    Skillganon The Serial Repper

    Well you got my permission, although I was looking for a comprehensive answer to my question.
     
  12. Expergefactionist

    Expergefactionist hmmm... Staff Member

    Well... fundamentally there are three approaches to God amongst the Muslims:

    1) Athariyya, or textualists/Salafis/Sunnis - those who do not find the apparent meanings of the legal texts opposing sound intellect, irrespective of whether the texts are pertaining to Allah's Attributes, the after life, paradise and hell fire, and the Sharia in its entirety.

    2) 'Aqlaniyya, or rationalists who hold Greek Philosophical principles to be absolute truths, in light of which they argue that legal texts must be re-interpreted. They differ as to what extent one should re-interpret these texts. The Ash'aris and the Maturidis restrict the need for re-interpretation to most of the Attributes but not names and the rest of the Sharia. The Mu'tazila include all the attributes into their scheme of re-interpretation. The philosophers and the Batinis (esoterics) tend to re-interpret the entire Sharia, including the belief in after life, paradise and hell, hudud, etc. All these deviant sects resort to re-interpretation under the guise of ta'wil.

    3) Sufis, or spiritualists, who neither concern themselves with the text nor the ration, but instead take a completely 'spiritual' way to discover God, through various spiritual exercises. As a result, they feel the need to re-interpret the Sharia to make it in line with their spiritual 'discoveries'.
     
  13. tawheedullah

    tawheedullah <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    Asharis are from Ahl us-Sunnah and Al-Qaeda are not Khwaraj.
     
  14. Suhaib Jobst

    Suhaib Jobst 'Amal Ahl al-Madina

    It is a must that we make tafweedh of the Was-Sifaat of Allah (Subhanahu wa-Ta'ala), which is the Ijma of the Sahabah and the Salaf, i.e. their fahm of the Qur'an and Sunnah. Does anyone actually believe Allah would describe Himself with these Attributes, and not Will for His Slaves to interpret them literally, of course without tasbeeh? If one argues in the negative, then where does it all end? One could easily fall into the same errors of the Baatiniyyah, wal-Na'udhu billah.

    That being said, I have read a fatwa by Shaykh Abdullah ibn Ghunayman (hafidahullah) that the Ash'arees and Matureedees are certainly in error on this issue, but they are still from the broad category of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah. Could someone shed some light on this issue?
     
  15. Husain

    Husain Muslim Male

    What is that?

    - Husain.
     
  16. Madarijas-Salikeen

    Madarijas-Salikeen <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    Bismillah ar rahman ar raheem

    Allaah is not to be Described with the attributes of humans and we agree with this. Yet I ask do we have hearing and sight? Yes we do. Does Allaah having Hearing and Sight? Yes He does. Does that mean Allaah is like His creation? No. For Allaah Negated any likeness for Himself when he said 'Laysa kamithlihi shay wa huwas sami al basir" In the second part of the ayah he affirmed Hearing and Seeing. So when we say Allaah has hands we say He has hands that BEFIT HIS MAJESTY and there is no tashbih or similitude with creation.

    What is meant by 'Real hand' is to specify that It is not to be interpreted as Qudrah or Nimah as the mutazilah interpret it denying that Allaah created Adam alayhi salam with His two Hands.

    So saying Real Hand is not us saying that Allaah has bone, nerves, flesh, (hand like ours). For there is nothing comparable to Allaah so the imaginations can imagine all they want but will never imagine the Hand of Allaah as it is for Allaah is unlike creation. He is not described with attributes of creation. Far Exalted is He. So His Face is unlike the face of anything in creation. So much so that if He were to unveil his Face all of creation would be burned up.

    Allaahu akbar what a Mighty Rabb.
     
  17. ibnfaruk

    ibnfaruk New Member

    Assalamualaikum to all, Brother Abu Zubair can you please change the title of the Thread, this is not befitting of Allah swt to be desribed this way!

    I asked you before, what is the problem ?

    salams
     
  18. Break The Cross

    Break The Cross New Member

    Ahl us Sunnah wa Jamah are those who follow the Messenger of Allah and his Companions in belief and action. When you say Asharis are from Ahlus Sunnah, than your saying that the Sahabah were upon the same beliefs as them, which is far from the truth.

    How could the Asharis, who worship a dumb God that cant speak, be from the followers of the best generation? The truth is Asharis are closer to the Shee'ah Rafidha than they are to Ahl us Sunnah.
     
  19. Expergefactionist

    Expergefactionist hmmm... Staff Member

    God having a body is a heretical statement, and it should correctly be attributed to the one who said it (the mubtadi from Tarim). So it neither harms Allah nor us, al-Hamdulillah.
     
  20. defenderofbusharraf

    defenderofbusharraf Murji'i Scumbag

    look at the warped mind and sickness of some people, authobillah, may Allah swt guide these people.
    they accuse u of being a madkhali and come out with venom yet say the ashariyyah r from ahlus sunnah, which is tantamout to extending love to them.
    sickos, u have love for deviants over the people of athariyyah? even if u disagree in some issues, ur sickness has gone that deep? that u cant even have a basic common denominator of bond with the people who hold the true aqeedah.

    weirdos, whatever i may see as the faults of some "jihadis", at least i got some love for their athari beliefs.

    ashariyyah and maturidiyyah r all ways of kufr.
     

Share This Page