Question About Salafi Belief

[Ansari]

Where does shaikh Ibn Uthaimin or any salafi say that the kalam of Allah is "created" (makhluq)?
We say that the Quran is hadeth (not eternal), but we do not say created, nor do we believe it to be created. It being "hadeth" does not necessitate it being created, I already showed how the hudooth of the Quran is not creation.

Haadith = created and you will find this in every dictionary.

It wasn't there, and then it suddenly came into existence according to you. This is what we call created.

Mu'tazila also stated that Kalam came from Allah, and that Allah "created" Kalaam in order to talk with the creation. So you and the Mu'tazila have the exact same belief.

Now bring a quote from the Salaf stating that His Kalaam is HAADITH? You claim to follow the salaf right.

Do you not believe that Allah remains SILENT sometimes? Now bring a quote from the Salaf acknowledging such. I already posted from Ibn Khuzayma and Ash'ari they NEGATED silence for Allah.

[Musleemah]

Haadith = created and you will find this in every dictionary.

Lets see if what you say is true, here is the defintion of "hadath" from classical Arabic dictionaries:

1. "Kitab Al-Ayn" by Al-Khalil al-Farahidi (d. 170s H.) :
حدث :
يقال : صارَ فلان أُحدوثة أي كَثَّروا فيه الأحاديث
وشابٌّ حَدَثٌ وشابَّة حَدَثة : فتيّة في السِّنِّ . والحَدَث من أحداث الدهر شِبْه النازلة والأُحدوثة : الحديث نفسه . والحديث : الجديد من الأشياء
ورجل حِدْث : كثير الحديث . والحَدَث : الإِبْداء

as you can see, there is no where for the word "khalq" or any of its derivatives to be seen.


2. "Tahdhib al-Lugha" by Abu Mansur al-Azhari (d. 370 H.) :
والحَدَثُ: الابداء

and you can check every meaning mentioned under that root (ha da tha) in this book, you will not find the word "khalq" (creating) or any of its derivatives in it. (the book is available online, scanned version, I didn't copy all of it here, because it is too long).


3. "al-Muheet fi Al-Lugha" by As-Saheb bin 'Abbad (d. 385 H.) :
حدث الحَدَثُ والحَدَثانُ من أحْدَاثِ الدَّهْرِ شِبْهُ النّازِلَةِ، وهو أيضاً الإِبْدَاءُ، والفِعْلُ أحْدَثَ. والحَدِيْثُ مَعْروفٌ، حَدَّثَ يُحَدِّثُ وصارَ فلانٌ أُحْدُوْثَةً أكْثَروا فيه الأحادِيْثَ، ورَجُلٌ حَدَثٌ وحَدِثٌ كَثيرُ الأحاديثِ، وحِدِّيْثٌ جَيِّدُ السِّيَاقِ لها. وحِدِّيْثٌ يُزَيِّنُ الحَدِيْثَ. ومُحَدَّثٌ يَرى الرَّأْيَ فيكون كما رأى.
والحَدِيْثُ من الأشْياءِ: المُحْدَثُ. وحَدَثَ الشَّيْءُ، واسْتَحْدَثْتُ أمْراً. وشابٌّ حَدَثٌ، وشابَّةٌ حَدَثَةٌ، وقَوْمٌ حُدْثانٌ. والحُدْثانُ: مَصْدَرُ الشَّيْءِ الحَدِيْثِ. والأحادِيْثُ من الفِقْهِ ونَحْوِه مَعْروفَةٌ. وأحْدَثَ الشَّيْءَ: أبْدَعَه، واسْتَحْدَثَه: مِثْلُه. وهذا حِدْثانُ ما فَعَلَ هذا: أي جَعَلَه حَدِيْثاً. وناقَةٌ مُحْدِثٌ: حَدِيْثَهُ النِّتَاجِ. والحَدَثانُ: الفَأْسُ.
as you can see, it is the same here, no mention of creating or any of its derivatives.

And all of them say that it means: "starting".

I checked a few other dictionaries such as "Lisan al-Arab", "Mu'jam Maqayees al-Lugha" and "al-Qamoos al-Muheet" and none mentioned "creating" or "creation" as a meaning for "hadath".





It wasn't there, and then it suddenly came into existence according to you. This is what we call created.

It did not "suddenly" come into existence, Allah spoke it, it came out of the Essence of the uncreated.
I would like you to address the two points I brought up regarding how the hudooth of the Quran is not creation.



Mu'tazila also stated that Kalam came from Allah, and that Allah "created" Kalaam in order to talk with the creation. So you and the Mu'tazila have the exact same belief.

What do you mean by "came from Allah"?
You surely don't mean that the Mu'tazilah believe that the "created Quran" came out of Allah's Essence, because that is our believe, that the Quran came from Allah's Essence, meaning came out of it, and not that Allah created it.



Now bring a quote from the Salaf stating that His Kalaam is HAADITH? You claim to follow the salaf right.

What do you mean by "kalam"?
If you mean Allah's Attribute of Speech of the Essence, then we believe it to be eternal, and if you mean the individual speeches of Allah (acts of speech) such as the Quran, then I don't know of a statement saying "the Quran is hadeth" (at least haven't come across one yet), but their statements point to that.

One of them is their statement saying that the Quran "kharaja minhu", I would like you to explain to me this statement by them, if it does not mean hudooth, then what else can it mean?



Do you not believe that Allah remains SILENT sometimes?

I believe that Allah speaks when He Wills. I have not yet seen a statement by the pious salaf affirming "silence"; and I have not researched our scholars statements on this specific issue either, I've only researched certain topics related to the subject of Allah's speech, this was not one of them, so I do not wish to discuss it since I lack knowledge in it.
I only want to discuss the issue of hudooth and creation, and I would like to understand the belief of the Asharis in regards to the speech of Allah and kalam nafsi (the questions I've posted in my previous posts).

[Ansari]

Lets see if what you say is true, here is the defintion of "hadath" from classical Arabic dictionaries:

1. "Kitab Al-Ayn" by Al-Khalil al-Farahidi (d. 170s H.) :
حدث :
يقال : صارَ فلان أُحدوثة أي كَثَّروا فيه الأحاديث
وشابٌّ حَدَثٌ وشابَّة حَدَثة : فتيّة في السِّنِّ . والحَدَث من أحداث الدهر شِبْه النازلة والأُحدوثة : الحديث نفسه . والحديث : الجديد من الأشياء
ورجل حِدْث : كثير الحديث . والحَدَث : الإِبْداء

as you can see, there is no where for the word "khalq" or any of its derivatives to be seen.


2. "Tahdhib al-Lugha" by Abu Mansur al-Azhari (d. 370 H.) :
والحَدَثُ: الابداء

and you can check every meaning mentioned under that root (ha da tha) in this book, you will not find the word "khalq" (creating) or any of its derivatives in it. (the book is available online, scanned version, I didn't copy all of it here, because it is too long).


3. "al-Muheet fi Al-Lugha" by As-Saheb bin 'Abbad (d. 385 H.) :
حدث الحَدَثُ والحَدَثانُ من أحْدَاثِ الدَّهْرِ شِبْهُ النّازِلَةِ، وهو أيضاً الإِبْدَاءُ، والفِعْلُ أحْدَثَ. والحَدِيْثُ مَعْروفٌ، حَدَّثَ يُحَدِّثُ وصارَ فلانٌ أُحْدُوْثَةً أكْثَروا فيه الأحادِيْثَ، ورَجُلٌ حَدَثٌ وحَدِثٌ كَثيرُ الأحاديثِ، وحِدِّيْثٌ جَيِّدُ السِّيَاقِ لها. وحِدِّيْثٌ يُزَيِّنُ الحَدِيْثَ. ومُحَدَّثٌ يَرى الرَّأْيَ فيكون كما رأى.
والحَدِيْثُ من الأشْياءِ: المُحْدَثُ. وحَدَثَ الشَّيْءُ، واسْتَحْدَثْتُ أمْراً. وشابٌّ حَدَثٌ، وشابَّةٌ حَدَثَةٌ، وقَوْمٌ حُدْثانٌ. والحُدْثانُ: مَصْدَرُ الشَّيْءِ الحَدِيْثِ. والأحادِيْثُ من الفِقْهِ ونَحْوِه مَعْروفَةٌ. وأحْدَثَ الشَّيْءَ: أبْدَعَه، واسْتَحْدَثَه: مِثْلُه. وهذا حِدْثانُ ما فَعَلَ هذا: أي جَعَلَه حَدِيْثاً. وناقَةٌ مُحْدِثٌ: حَدِيْثَهُ النِّتَاجِ. والحَدَثانُ: الفَأْسُ.
as you can see, it is the same here, no mention of creating or any of its derivatives.

And all of them say that it means: "starting".

I checked a few other dictionaries such as "Lisan al-Arab", "Mu'jam Maqayees al-Lugha" and "al-Qamoos al-Muheet" and none mentioned "creating" or "creation" as a meaning for "hadath".


So you agree there is a "start" so it was NOT present before. Now I ask you: How is it possible for an essential attribute (sifat adh-dhaat) to have a BEGINNING?

Who from the Sahaba, their students etc. stated such? Who from the Salaf stated such? Read these severe statements please saying there is no difference between haadith and makhluq:

Imam al-Ash`ari said in his Maqalat (Ritter ed. p. 541): "The people
of affirmation [of the Attributes] all agree that the meaning of 'created' (makhluq) is the meaning of 'with beginning' (muhdath); and the meaning of muhdath is the meaning of makhluq. This is the truth in my view and it is my position and what I myself say."
...
Al-Bayhaqi narrated from Waki` in al-Asma' wal-Sifat: "Whoever claims that the Qur'an is created has claimed that the Qur'an exists with a beginning (al-qur'an muhdath), and whoever claims the Qur'an exists with a beginning has committed kufr." As cited in Muhammad Miskah al-Ya`qubi, Fatawa Ibn Taymiyya fil-Mizan (p. 390).




What do you mean by "kalam"?
If you mean Allah's Attribute of Speech of the Essence, then we believe it to be eternal, and if you mean the individual speeches of Allah (acts of speech) such as the Quran, then I don't know of a statement saying "the Quran is hadeth" (at least haven't come across one yet), but their statements point to that.

Their statements point to that? That is what Mujassima stated. What happened to sticking to the narrations of the salaf?

Can you tell me who made this division of "individual speeches of Allah"? Who invented it? And how can there be two sorts of Kalam: Kalam of act and Kalam in essense?



I believe that Allah speaks when He Wills. I have not yet seen a statement by the pious salaf affirming "silence"; and I have not researched our scholars statements on this specific issue either, I've only researched certain topics related to the subject of Allah's speech, this was not one of them, so I do not wish to discuss it since I lack knowledge in it.
I only want to discuss the issue of hudooth and creation, and I would like to understand the belief of the Asharis in regards to the speech of Allah and kalam nafsi (the questions I've posted in my previous posts).

The issue of Allah being silent is mentioned in the narrations of the Salaf and in the writings that the Salafis proudly promote. It is mentioned right there in Kitab at-Tawhid and Al-Ibana.

NOW, if you say Allah speaks SOMETIMES, you have affirmed SILENCE for him.

Now who follows the Salaf? Did the Salaf ever affirmed the Qur'an being HAADITH? The Sahaba, their students? Nobody ever did!

[Ansari]

Salafis have the exact same belief as the Mutazilite al-Ka'bi, as mentioned in the Ghunya of Abdul Qaadir Jilaani:

He used to profess the doctrine that the Qur'an is muhdath [produced, originated--and therefore not existing from all eternity], but he did not refer to it as makhluq [created].

http://sunnah.org/aqida/ghunya/mutazilah_part_2.htm

[Ansari]

The Salafi Mujassima do affirm silence (sukut) for Allah. See:

http://www.ahlalh deeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=8826

Now we ask our Salafi Mujassima brethren: who from the Salaf affirmed silence for Allah?

[Ansari]

Explicit statement by the Salafi Mujassima stating that the Qur'an is muhdath:


If you mean Allah's Attribute of Speech of the Essence, then we believe it to be eternal, and if you mean the individual speeches of Allah (acts of speech) such as the Quran, then I don't know of a statement saying "the Quran is hadeth" (at least haven't come across one yet), but their statements point to that.

The above belief is kufr according to the scholars:

Imam Lalaka'i stated that the person who claims the qur'an is muhdath, is a KAAFIR:
قال اللالكائي في شرح أصول اعتقاد أهل السنة: أخبرنا أحمد بن عبيد قال أخبرنا محمد بن الحسين قال حدثنا أحمد بن زهير قال سمعت محمد بن يزيد قلت لوكيع يا أبا سفيان إن هذا الرجل رأيته عندك يزعم أن القرآن مخلوق فقال وكيع: من قال إن القرآن مخلوق فقد زعم أن القرآن محدث ومن زعم أن القرآن محدث فقد كفر.اهـ.


Ibn Kathir has written in his al-Bidayah wa Nihayah 10/361:

وروى البيهقي من طريق إسماعيل بن محمد بن إسماعيل السلمي عن أحمد أنه قال: من قال: القرآن محدث فهو كافر.

Al-Bayhaqi has narrated through the route of Ismail ibn Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Salami from Ahmad that he said: Whoever calls the Qur'an a muhdath is a kafir!

Dhahabi said:
في العلو للحافظ الذهبي أن فضيل بن عياض كان يقول : من زعم أن القرآن محدث فقد كفر ومن زعم أنه ليس من علم الله فهو زنديق

Ibn Hajar said:
قال الحافظ ابن حجر في الفتح : وأخرج ابن أبي حاتم من طريق هشام بن عبيد الله الرازي أن رجلا من الجهمية احتج لزعمه أن القرآن مخلوق بهذه الآية ( وَمَا يَأْتِيهِمْ مِنْ ذِكْرٍ مِنْ رَبِّهِمْ مُحْدَثٍ ) فقال له هشام محدث إلينا محدث إلى العباد، وعن أحمد بن إبراهيم الدورقي نحوه.


See also this Salafi link with all those statements mentioned in the question, with the odd answer trying to prove that Qur'an is Muhdath: http://www.islamweb.net/fatwa/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=134338

From all those scholars of the salaf they come up with Ibn Uthaymin and Bakr ibn Abi Zayd stating that a person is not deviant for stating such!!
وقال الشيخ ابن عثيمين في فتاوى نور على الدرب: من قال إن القرآن محدث، فليس بمبتدع وليس بضال، بل قد قال الله تعالى: مَا يَأْتِيهِمْ مِنْ ذِكْرٍ مِنْ رَبِّهِمْ مُحْدَثٍ إِلَّا اسْتَمَعُوهُ وَهُمْ يَلْعَبُونَ. نعم لو كان المخاطب لا يفهم من كلمة محدث إلا أنه مخلوق، فهنا لا نخاطبه بذلك ولا نقول إنه محدث؛ خشية أن يتوهم ما ليس بجائز.

Why don't you people OPENLY state on your websites that the Qur'an is MUHDATH? Why the fear for the people?

[Ansari]

Here the Salafi scholar Alawi Saqqaf stated in his book on sifaat that Allah is described as have the sifa of "sukut" (silence) according to what suits Him:

قال الشيخ الفاضل علوي السقاف في " صفات الله عز وجل " ( ص 177 ) : يوصف ربنا عَزَّ وجَلَّ بالسُّكوت كما يليق به سبحانه ، لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ البَصِيرُ.وهذا ثابتٌ بالسنة الصحيحة ، وهي صفةٌ فعليَّةٌ اختيارية متعلقة بمشيئته سبحانه وتعالى

His book can be downloaded here: www.dorar.net/files/sbook3.zip

His biography can be found here: http://dorar.net/mushrif

[Musleemah]

Now I ask you: How is it possible for an essential attribute (sifat adh-dhaat) to have a BEGINNING?

Allah's attributes of the Essence have no beginning, they are eternal, and this is our belief.

The Quran is not sifat Dhat (an attribute of the Essence), it is sifat fi'il (attribute of action).
The Attribute of speech that is action (such as the Quran) comes from the Eternal Attribute of Speech that is an attribute of the Essence, thus it is not a separate Attribute.

For more clarification:
Allah has the Attribute of Speech of the Essence that is Eternal, it is Allah's ability to speak as He pleases when He pleases, and it is sounds and letters.
Then there is individual acts of speech (such as the Quran, Injeel, Torah ..etc.), which are af'al (actions), it is Allah's implementation of His Eternal Attribute of the Essence, thus it is not a different Attribute, it is connected to the eternal Attribute of the Essence.
The Attribute of the Essence is Eternal, while its individual acts are not eternal.




Their statements point to that? That is what Mujassima stated. What happened to sticking to the narrations of the salaf?

Here is what the pious salaf said:

السنة لأحمد بن محمد الخلال - (6 / 26)
أخبرني حرب بن إسماعيل الكرماني ؛ قال : ثنا أبو يعقوب إسحاق بن إبراهيم - يعني ابن راهويه - ، عن سفيان بن عيينة ، عن عمرو بن دينار ؛ قال : أدركت الناس منذ سبعين سنة
أدركت أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ومن دونهم يقولون : الله خالق وما سواه مخلوق إلا القرآن فإنه كلام الله منه خرج وإليه يعود .

"Amru bin Dinar said: " I have met the people, since 70 years, I've met the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and who are below them (i.e. Tabi'een) saying: 'Allah is the Creator, and everything other than Hims is created, except the Quran, it is His Speech, from Him it came out (minhu kharaja) and to Him it returns'."


Go ahead and explain what the salaf's above statement means, where they said "from Him it emerged (came out)", and how that does not point to it having a beginning.


.

[Musleemah]

The above belief is kufr according to the scholars:

Imam Lalaka'i stated that the person who claims the qur'an is muhdath, is a KAAFIR:
قال اللالكائي في شرح أصول اعتقاد أهل السنة: أخبرنا أحمد بن عبيد قال أخبرنا محمد بن الحسين قال حدثنا أحمد بن زهير قال سمعت محمد بن يزيد قلت لوكيع يا أبا سفيان إن هذا الرجل رأيته عندك يزعم أن القرآن مخلوق فقال وكيع: من قال إن القرآن مخلوق فقد زعم أن القرآن محدث ومن زعم أن القرآن محدث فقد كفر.اهـ.


Ibn Kathir has written in his al-Bidayah wa Nihayah 10/361:

وروى البيهقي من طريق إسماعيل بن محمد بن إسماعيل السلمي عن أحمد أنه قال: من قال: القرآن محدث فهو كافر.

Al-Bayhaqi has narrated through the route of Ismail ibn Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Salami from Ahmad that he said: Whoever calls the Qur'an a muhdath is a kafir!

Dhahabi said:
في العلو للحافظ الذهبي أن فضيل بن عياض كان يقول : من زعم أن القرآن محدث فقد كفر ومن زعم أنه ليس من علم الله فهو زنديق

Ibn Hajar said:
قال الحافظ ابن حجر في الفتح : وأخرج ابن أبي حاتم من طريق هشام بن عبيد الله الرازي أن رجلا من الجهمية احتج لزعمه أن القرآن مخلوق بهذه الآية ( وَمَا يَأْتِيهِمْ مِنْ ذِكْرٍ مِنْ رَبِّهِمْ مُحْدَثٍ ) فقال له هشام محدث إلينا محدث إلى العباد، وعن أحمد بن إبراهيم الدورقي نحوه.


I already discussed the statement of Imam Wakee' rahimahullah in his saying about Quran being muhdath being kufr, I explained it according to other statements of the pious salaf, as theirs statements are to be understood in harmony with each other.
I say again, he could have meant by "muhadth": muhdath to Allah Azza wa Jal, as is in the last quote you mentioned above, that is kufr, because it is from His Knowledge, as I have explained many times previously, this is in harmony with the statement of Fudail bin Iyad rahimahullah that you quoted.
Now, before you start arguing with me about my above interpretation, you need to explain the statement of the salaf saying that the Quran emerged (came out) from Allah Azza wa Jal, and how it does not point to the Quran having a start.

Another thing, Imam Al-Bukhari rahimahullah affirmed "hadath" for Allah Azza wa Jal, and said that it is not like the "hadath" of creation, he said in his sahih:

{ ما يأتيهم من ذكر من ربهم محدث }
وقوله تعالى
{ لعل الله يحدث بعد ذلك أمرا }
وأن حدثه لا يشبه حدث المخلوقين لقوله تعالى
{ ليس كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير }

There is also a statement by him in "khalq af'al al Ibad" about Allah's actions not being creation, but that will need its own post, maybe later insha Allah.

[amr123]

:salam:

Wow, How many years of formal studies have you guys done on Deen? Or are you guys just copy pasting and giving your own opinions?

[maneatinglizard]

Here is what the pious salaf said:

السنة لأحمد بن محمد الخلال - (6 / 26)
أخبرني حرب بن إسماعيل الكرماني ؛ قال : ثنا أبو يعقوب إسحاق بن إبراهيم - يعني ابن راهويه - ، عن سفيان بن عيينة ، عن عمرو بن دينار ؛ قال : أدركت الناس منذ سبعين سنة
أدركت أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ومن دونهم يقولون : الله خالق وما سواه مخلوق إلا القرآن فإنه كلام الله منه خرج وإليه يعود .

"Amru bin Dinar said: " I have met the people, since 70 years, I've met the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and who are below them (i.e. Tabi'een) saying: 'Allah is the Creator, and everything other than Hims is created, except the Quran, it is His Speech, from Him it came out (minhu kharaja) and to Him it returns'."


:salam:

Quick question:

Are the Injeel, Tawrah, etc. created?

The literal meaning on this statement which you seem to accept implies this.

The statement literally suggests that everything belongs in one of two categories:

1. Uncreated

2. Created

And then states that there are only two things within the first category, i.e. Allah :taala: and the Quran. The necessary conclusion to that would be that all the other sifaat which Salafis term Action Attributes are also created, and this includes even other speeches which Salafis term individual speeches of Allah :taala:, such as the Tawrah, Injeel, etc.

[janaveronikazahra]

salam alikum
great discussion, I admire it.
Sister Musleemah you are very smart.
Great

w salam

[amr123]

salam alikum
great discussion, I admire it.
Sister Musleemah you are very smart.
Great

w salam

:ws: Sister.

Its better not to take knowledge of such 'in-depth' topics from a public forum. Most of the people here have not undergone any formal education on Religious studies. All these copy pasting and 'home-made' fatwas are dangerous and often misleading.

[janaveronikazahra]

:ws: Sister.

Its better not to take knowledge of such 'in-depth' topics from a public forum. Most of the people here have not undergone any formal education on Religious studies. All these copy pasting and 'home-made' fatwas are dangerous and often misleading.

salam,
do not worry brother,
for me it is more like inspiration which question we can deal with - I usually do not make conclusions from public discussions.
Anyway - I also like to follow way how discussion is lead, not saying that this is best example from all sides :-)

w salam and thank you

[amr123]

salam,
do not worry brother,
for me it is more like inspiration which question we can deal with - I usually do not make conclusions from public discussions.
Anyway - I also like to follow way how discussion is lead, not saying that this is best example from all sides :-)

w salam and thank you

:ws:
ok sister.

[Abu Jahid]

:salam:

Here are some Ayat from the Quran al-karim, to show that the words of the Quran are indeed the actual words of ALLAH ta'ala (and NOT just an expression of his words!):


-Surat an-Nisa`, Aya 164:

وَرُسُلاً قَدْ قَصَصْنَاهُمْ عَلَيْكَ مِن قَبْلُ وَرُسُلاً لَّمْ نَقْصُصْهُمْ عَلَيْكَ وَكَلَّمَ ٱللَّهُ مُوسَىٰ تَكْلِيماً

(We have sent) some Messengers We have already told you about, and some other Messengers We did not tell you about, and Allah has spoken to Mūsā verbally

So can anyone after this Aya say that Sayyidina Musa ('alayhi salam) did not speak to ALLAH ta'ala directly (meaniing: without any intermediary)??

- Surat al-A'raf, Aya 144:

قَالَ يٰمُوسَىٰ إِنِّي ٱصْطَفَيْتُكَ عَلَى ٱلنَّاسِ بِرِسَالاَتِي وَبِكَلاَمِي فَخُذْ مَآ آتَيْتُكَ وَكُنْ مِّنَ ٱلشَّاكِرِينَ

He said, “Mūsā, I have chosen you above all men for my messages and for My speaking (to you). So, take what I have given to you, and be among the grateful.”

So here ALLAH ta'ala mentions his speaking to Musa ('alayhi salam) and if it wouldn't have been direct speech, Musa ('alayhi salam) would be no different from his people (i.e. Bani Israil). But look what the Aya says: "I have choosen you above all men".

And if you don't understand what I mean, I hope this qoute from Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) will clarify what I'm trying to say:

وأما قوله في مسألة القرآن فالكلام فيها في فصلين أحدهما في الصوت الذي بدأ بإنكاره.
فنقول ثبت أن موسى سمع كلام الله تبارك وتعالى منه بغير واسطة.
فإنه لو سمعه من شجرة أو حجر أو ملك لكان بنو إسرائيل أفضل منه في ذلك لأنهم سمعوه من موسى نبي الله وهو أفضل من الشجرة والحجر.
فلم سُمّي موسى إذا كليم الرحمن ولم قال الله تعالى: { يا موسى إني اصطفيتك على الناس برسالاتي وبكلامي }، وقال تعالى: { فلما أتاها نودي يا موسى إني أنا ربك } ولا يقول له هذا إلا الله تعالى.

As far his doctrine with regard to the disputed question of the Quran, its discussions may be dealt with in two sections. The first one treats of the divine voice which he began by denying. Our answer to this denial is as follows: It has been established that Moses heard the words of God from God Himself without any intermediary. Indeed, if he had heard it from a tree or a stone or an angel, then the Israelites would have been superior to him in this regard; for they had heard it from Moses, the Prophet of God, and Moses is superior to the tree and the stone. Why then was Moses given the epithet of “he who is spoken to by God”? And why did God say: “O Moses! I have chosen thee above the people with My messages and My speaking to thee”[7:144]? and again: “When he came to it, he was called to: ‘Moses! I am thy Lord.”[20:11] Now no one would say this to him except God.

- Surat Taha, Aya 11-14 :

فَلَمَّآ أَتَاهَا نُودِيَ يٰمُوسَىٰ إِنِّيۤ أَنَاْ رَبُّكَ فَٱخْلَعْ نَعْلَيْكَ إِنَّكَ بِٱلْوَادِ ٱلْمُقَدَّسِ طُوًى وَأَنَا ٱخْتَرْتُكَ فَٱسْتَمِعْ لِمَا يُوحَىۤ إِنَّنِيۤ أَنَا ٱللَّهُ لاۤ إِلَـٰهَ إِلاۤ أَنَاْ فَٱعْبُدْنِي وَأَقِمِ ٱلصَّلاَةَ لِذِكْرِيۤ

So when he came to it, he was called, “O Mūsā, it is Me, your Lord, so remove your shoes; you are in the sacred valley of Tuwā. I have chosen you (for prophet-hood), so listen to what is revealed: Surely, I AM ALLAH. There is no god but Myself, so worship Me, and establish Salāh for My remembrance.

Subhanallah, what for heart trembling Ayat!! Does anything more need to be said?? (And read the rest of this Sura it's really beautiful!)

Who called ("nudiya") Musa ('alayhi salam) and told him "O Musa, it is Me, your Lord"?? And who said " إِنَّنِيۤ أَنَا ٱللَّهُ " ("Surely, I AM ALLAH.") to him?? ALLAH ta'ala!! And look what the Aya says after that: "so listen to what is revealed". It says "so listen" ("fastami'")! After these Ayat have been mentioned, who can deny that ALLAH ta'ala spoke direcly to Musa ('alayhi Salam)? And who after that can deny that he heard the speech of ALLAH ta'ala (the Aya says " فَٱسْتَمِعْ " ("so listen")??

- Surat Maryam, Aya 52:

وَنَادَيْنَاهُ مِن جَانِبِ ٱلطُّورِ ٱلأَيْمَنِ وَقَرَّبْنَاهُ نَجِيّاً

And We called him from the right side of the mount Tūr (Sinai), and We brought him close to communicate in secret

- Surat at-Tawba, Aya 6:

وَإِنْ أَحَدٌ مِّنَ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ ٱسْتَجَارَكَ فَأَجِرْهُ حَتَّىٰ يَسْمَعَ كَلاَمَ ٱللَّهِ ثُمَّ أَبْلِغْهُ مَأْمَنَهُ ذٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لاَّ يَعْلَمُونَ

And if any one of the Mushriks seeks your protection, give him protection until he listens to the Word of Allah, then let him reach his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.

If the words of the Quran are not the actual words of ALLAH ta'ala -as the Asha'irah believe - then why does the Aya say " حَتَّىٰ يَسْمَعَ كَلاَمَ ٱللَّهِ " ("until he listens to the Word of Allah")?? For them the Aya is majazan (metaphorically) and so to them the words of the Quran are not the literal words of ALLAH ta'ala!!
Oh Asha'irah, is this how one treats a book of guidance?? If you're allowed to treat the book of ALLAH ta'ala like this, then why are the modernists not allowed to treat the Ayat of the Quran just like you do?? Does any Aya say that this is majazan? Or does any Aya imply this?? No!

- Surat ar-Rahman, Aya 1-3:

ٱلرَّحْمَـٰنُ عَلَّمَ ٱلْقُرْآنَ خَلَقَ ٱلإِنسَانَ

The RaHmān (The All-Merciful Allah) has taught the Qur’ān. He has created man.

Now look how the Ayat differentiate between the Quran and mankind: It says " عَلَّمَ ٱلْقُرْآنَ " ("has taught the Qur’ān") while when it mentions the mankind it says " خَلَقَ ٱلإِنسَانَ " ("He has created man").
So ALLAH ta'ala says that he created us and when mentioning the Quran ALLAH ta'ala says that He 'azza wa jal "taught" the Quran (i.e. because the Quran is the word of ALLAH ta'ala and it is not created!). Now I ask: Did ALLAH ta'ala really teach the Quran or did we just get an expression of his speech (as the Asha'iriah say)??

- Surat al-Isra`, Aya 105:

وَبِٱلْحَقِّ أَنْزَلْنَاهُ وَبِٱلْحَقِّ نَزَلَ وَمَآ أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلاَّ مُبَشِّراً وَنَذِيراً وَقُرْآناً فَرَقْنَاهُ لِتَقْرَأَهُ عَلَى ٱلنَّاسِ عَلَىٰ مُكْثٍ وَنَزَّلْنَاهُ تَنْزِيلاً

With truth We have sent it (the Qur’ān) down and with truth it descended, and We did not send you but as a bearer of good tidings and as a warner. We have divided the Qur’ān in portions, so that you may recite it to the people gradually, and We have revealed it little by little.

Now I ask: Did ALLAH ta'ala reveal the Quran to us? Yes!! Was it sent down?? Yes!! So did the Quran somehow became different, so that the people of kalam say that the Quran that we know is just an expression of the speech of ALLAH ta'ala?? No, wallahi no!

- Surat al-Baqarah, Aya 185 (not the complete Aya):

شَهْرُ رَمَضَانَ ٱلَّذِيۤ أُنْزِلَ فِيهِ ٱلْقُرْآنُ هُدًى لِّلنَّاسِ وَبَيِّنَاتٍ مِّنَ ٱلْهُدَىٰ وَٱلْفُرْقَانِ

The month of Ramadan is the one in which the Qur’ān was revealed as guidance for mankind, and as clear signs that show the right way and distinguish between right and wrong.

Did ALLAH ta'ala reveal the Quran?? (Yes!) How many Ayat are there where ALLAH ta'ala confirms this?? (Many!) So how did the Quran become different, so that you call it an expression??

- Surat ash-Shura, Aya 52:

وَكَذَلِكَ أَوْحَيْنَآ إِلَيْكَ رُوحاً مِّنْ أَمْرِنَا مَا كُنتَ تَدْرِي مَا ٱلْكِتَابُ وَلاَ ٱلإِيمَانُ وَلَـٰكِن جَعَلْنَاهُ نُوراً نَّهْدِي بِهِ مَن نَّشَآءُ مِنْ عِبَادِنَا وَإِنَّكَ لَتَهْدِيۤ إِلَىٰ صِرَاطٍ مُّسْتَقِيمٍ

In similar way, We have revealed to you a Spirit from Our command. You did not know earlier what was the Book or what was Īmān (true faith), but We have made it (the Qur’ān) a light with which We guide whomsoever We will from among Our servants. And indeed you are guiding (people) to a straight path

- Surat an-Nahl, Aya 102:

قُلْ نَزَّلَهُ رُوحُ ٱلْقُدُسِ مِن رَّبِّكَ بِٱلْحَقِّ لِيُثَبِّتَ ٱلَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَهُدًى وَبُشْرَىٰ لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ

Say, “This has been brought down by RūH-ul-Qudus (the Holy Spirit - Jibra’īl ) from your Lord rightly (as due), so that it may bring firmness to the believers and become guidance and good news for the Muslims.

But according to the people of kalam we just got an expression! While the Aya says that it has been brought down trough Jibril ('alayhi salam) from our Lord (the Aya says: " مِن رَّبِّكَ " ("from your Lord")!!

- Surat Yusuf, Aya 2:

إِنَّآ أَنْزَلْنَاهُ قُرْآناً عَرَبِيّاً لَّعَلَّكُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ

We have sent it down, as an Arabic Qur’an, so that you may understand.

How many times did ALLAH ta'ala describe the Quran to be Arabic?? (8 times!!)
But according to the Asha'irah the uncreated Quran (that what they call "Kalam Nafsi" - "inner speech") has no language!! And so to them the Quran that ALLAH ta'ala revealed is in reality not the real Quran, while for us there is only one Quran and that is the Quran that ALLAH ta'ala described as " قُرْآناً عَرَبِيّاً " ("Arabic Qur’an")!
So whom should we believe?? ALLAH ta'ala and his Ayat or the Asha'irah??

Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahahullah) said:

فكم في القرآن من آية يقول فيها { إن هذا القرآن } وهذا إشارة إلى حاضر.
وكم فيه { ولقد صرفنا هذا في القرآن } { ولقد ضربنا للناس في هذا القرآن } وكم فيه من آية وصفه فيها بأنه { عربي } وكم من آية تحداهم فيها بالإتيان بمثل هذا القرآن أو بسورة مثله، وكم فيه من نسبة الآيات إليه والسور والكلمات.
وقد أوعد الله تعالى من قال هذا قول البشر بإصلائه سقر.
ورد على من قال هو شعر بقوله: { وما علمناه الشعر وما ينبغي له إن هو إلا ذكر وقرآن مبين }.

How many verses are there in the Quran in which God says that “this is the Quran”? Now the word “this” designates something actual. And how many verses as follows: “We have presented to men, in this Qur’an,”[17:89] “We have set before men, in this Quran”[30:58]? How many verses does the Quran contain in which God describes the Quran as being Arabic? And how many verses wherein He defied them to produce the like of this Quran or a single Sura like it? How many times are verses, Suras and words ascribed to the Quran? Indeed, God has threatened that He would cast into hellfire him who says, “this is the word of a mortal.” [74:25-26] And He has refuted him who says that it is poetry, by saying: “We have not taught him poetry, nor would it beseem him. It is only a Reminder and a Clear Quran.”[36:69]

I wrote in another post the following:
_____

Now here Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) actually brings a very strong proof against those who imply that we have two Qurans: He brings the following Aya as Proof: " إن هذا القرآن " (Translation: This is the Quran)

As you see the Aya says " هذا " (this), so - as Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) said - the Aya indicates to something actual!!

Let's see how many times "this Quran" is mentioned in the Quran:

1) Surat Naml, Aya 76:

إِنَّ هَـٰذَا ٱلْقُرْآنَ يَقُصُّ عَلَىٰ بَنِيۤ إِسْرَائِيلَ أَكْثَرَ ٱلَّذِي هُمْ فِيهِ يَخْتَلِفُونَ

2) Surat Rum, Aya 58 :

وَلَقَدْ ضَرَبْنَا لِلنَّاسِ فِي هَـٰذَا ٱلْقُرْآنِ مِن كُلِّ مَثَلٍ وَلَئِن جِئْتَهُمْ بِآيَةٍ لَّيَقُولَنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوۤاْ إِنْ أَنتُمْ إِلاَّ مُبْطِلُونَ

3) Surat Saba, Aya 31:

وَقَالَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ لَن نُّؤْمِنَ بِهَـٰذَا ٱلْقُرْآنِ وَلاَ بِٱلَّذِي بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَلَوْ تَرَىٰ إِذِ ٱلظَّالِمُونَ مَوْقُوفُونَ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ يَرْجِعُ بَعْضُهُمْ إِلَىٰ بَعْضٍ ٱلْقَوْلَ يَقُولُ ٱلَّذِينَ ٱسْتُضْعِفُواْ لِلَّذِينَ ٱسْتَكْبَرُواْ لَوْلاَ أَنتُمْ لَكُنَّا مُؤْمِنِينَ

4) Surat az-Zumar, Aya 27:

وَلَقَدْ ضَرَبْنَا لِلنَّاسِ فِي هَـٰذَا ٱلْقُرْآنِ مِن كُلِّ مَثَلٍ لَّعَلَّهُمْ يَتَذَكَّرُونَ

5) Surat Fussilat, Aya 26:

وَقَالَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ لاَ تَسْمَعُواْ لِهَـٰذَا ٱلْقُرْآنِ وَٱلْغَوْاْ فِيهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَغْلِبُونَ

6) Surat az-Zukhruf, Aya 31:

وَقَالُواْ لَوْلاَ نُزِّلَ هَـٰذَا ٱلْقُرْآنُ عَلَىٰ رَجُلٍ مِّنَ ٱلْقَرْيَتَيْنِ عَظِيمٍ

7) Surat al-Hashr, Aya 21:

لَوْ أَنزَلْنَا هَـٰذَا ٱلْقُرْآنَ عَلَىٰ جَبَلٍ لَّرَأَيْتَهُ خَاشِعاً مُّتَصَدِّعاً مِّنْ خَشْيَةِ ٱللَّهِ وَتِلْكَ ٱلأَمْثَالُ نَضْرِبُهَا لِلنَّاسِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ
_____

Now I ask: Do these Ayat not refer to this Arabic Quran?? Yes, they do refer to this Arabic Quran and no one can deny that!!
And when the Salaf said " القرآن كلام الله غير مخلوق " ( "The Quran is the word of Allah and it is not created"), were they not referring to this Arabic Quran???
Is this Arabic Quran not the real (i.e. uncreated) Quran?? Or is there another Quran without any language???

- Surat an-Nisa`, Aya 87:

ٱللَّهُ لاۤ إِلَـٰهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ لَيَجْمَعَنَّكُمْ إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ ٱلْقِيَامَةِ لاَ رَيْبَ فِيهِ وَمَنْ أَصْدَقُ مِنَ ٱللَّهِ حَدِيثاً

Allah: There is no god but He. He shall certainly gather you towards the Day of Doom. There is no doubt about it. Who is more truthful in his word than Allah?

- Surat an-Nisa`, Aya 122:

وَٱلَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَعَمِلُواْ ٱلصَّالِحَاتِ سَنُدْخِلُهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِن تَحْتِهَا ٱلأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَآ أَبَداً وَعْدَ ٱللَّهِ حَقّاً وَمَنْ أَصْدَقُ مِنَ ٱللَّهِ قِيلاً

Those who believe and do good deeds, We shall admit them to the gardens beneath which rivers flow. They shall live there forever, it being a real promise from Allah; and who is more truthful than Allah in his word?

- Surat al-A'raf, Aya 158:

قُلْ يٰأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّاسُ إِنِّي رَسُولُ ٱللَّهِ إِلَيْكُمْ جَمِيعاً ٱلَّذِي لَهُ مُلْكُ ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلأَرْضِ لاۤ إِلَـٰهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ يُحْيِـي وَيُمِيتُ فَآمِنُواْ بِٱللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ ٱلنَّبِيِّ ٱلأُمِّيِّ ٱلَّذِي يُؤْمِنُ بِٱللَّهِ وَكَلِمَاتِهِ وَٱتَّبِعُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ

(O Prophet Muhammad) Say, “O people, I am a messenger of Allah (sent) to you from the One to whom belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. There is no god but He. He gives life and brings death. So, believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Ummiyy (unlettered) prophet, who believes in Allah and in His words, and follow him, so that you may find the right path.”

Look what the Aya says: It says " ٱلَّذِي يُؤْمِنُ بِٱللَّهِ وَكَلِمَاتِهِ " ("the Ummiyy (unlettered) prophet, who believes in Allah and in His words"). So the words of the Quran are the words of ALLAH ta'ala!! But the people of kalam say it is an expression of the words of ALLAH ta'ala!! Who gave them the right to say such a thing??

- Surat Yasin, Aya 82:

إِنَّمَآ أَمْرُهُ إِذَآ أَرَادَ شَيْئاً أَن يَقُولَ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ

His practice, when He intends to do something, is no more than He says, “Be”, and it comes to be.

But according to the people of kalam ALLAH ta'ala can't say " كُن " ("Be")!! May ALLAH ta'ala guide them!

- Surat Al 'Imran, Aya 47:

قَالَتْ رَبِّ أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لِي وَلَدٌ وَلَمْ يَمْسَسْنِي بَشَرٌ قَالَ كَذَلِكَ ٱللَّهُ يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَآءُ إِذَا قَضَىٰ أَمْراً فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُ كُنْ فَيَكُونُ

She said: “O my Lord, how shall I have a son while no human has ever touched me?” Said He: “That is how Allah creates what He wills. When He decides a matter, He simply says to it ‘Be’, and it comes to be.

And there more Ayat with "كُنْ فَيَكُونُ " (" ‘Be’, and it comes to be ").

- Surat al-Baqarah, Aya 174:

إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ يَكْتُمُونَ مَآ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ مِنَ ٱلْكِتَابِ وَيَشْتَرُونَ بِهِ ثَمَناً قَلِيلاً أُولَـٰئِكَ مَا يَأْكُلُونَ فِي بُطُونِهِمْ إِلاَّ ٱلنَّارَ وَلاَ يُكَلِّمُهُمُ ٱللَّهُ يَوْمَ ٱلْقِيَامَةِ وَلاَ يُزَكِّيهِمْ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ

Verily, those who conceal the Book Allah has revealed, and earn thereby a small price, they eat nothing into their bellies but fire, and Allah will not speak to them on the Day of Judgment, nor will He purify them, and for them there is painful punishment.

Think about this part of the Aya: " وَلاَ يُكَلِّمُهُمُ ٱللَّهُ يَوْمَ ٱلْقِيَامَةِ " ("and Allah will not speak to them on the Day of Judgment").

- Surat al-Hashr, Aya 21:

لَوْ أَنزَلْنَا هَـٰذَا ٱلْقُرْآنَ عَلَىٰ جَبَلٍ لَّرَأَيْتَهُ خَاشِعاً مُّتَصَدِّعاً مِّنْ خَشْيَةِ ٱللَّهِ وَتِلْكَ ٱلأَمْثَالُ نَضْرِبُهَا لِلنَّاسِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ

Had We sent down this Qur’ān to a mountain, you would have seen it humbled, burst apart out of awe
for Allah. We cite such examples for people, so that they may ponder.

Why?? Because the words of this arabic Quran (and there is no other Quran!!) are not nomal words and they are not the words of anyone of the creation and the arabic Quran is not an creation (i.e. it is not an expression!), rather it is the uncreated word of our Creator 'azza wa jal!

And one could bring even more Ayat, but I think this should suffice.

Before anyone responds, please read this:
The Quran is book of guidance!
So know, may ALLAH ta'ala have mercy upon you, that the above mentioned Ayat are not just normal words! They deserve it more to be taken as a Furqan - meaning something that differentiates between right and wrong - than the man-made "'ilm" al-kalam!!

May ALLAH ta'ala guide us all and forgive our sins! Ameen!

:ws:

[Musleemah]

:salam:

Quick question:

Are the Injeel, Tawrah, etc. created?

:ws:

No, because they are the speeches of Allah, and Allah's Attributes, including His Speeches, are not created.



The literal meaning on this statement which you seem to accept implies this.

The statement literally suggests that everything belongs in one of two categories:

1. Uncreated

2. Created

And then states that there are only two things within the first category, i.e. Allah :taala: and the Quran. The necessary conclusion to that would be that all the other sifaat which Salafis term Action Attributes are also created, and this includes even other speeches which Salafis term individual speeches of Allah :taala:, such as the Tawrah, Injeel, etc.

No, because "Allah" includes His Attributes too and not just the Essence; His Attributes are not separate from Him. This would include His actions too because they are His Attributes, and His Speeches are His actions (i.e. Quran, Torah ..etc.).

The reason why the Quran was mentioned with Allah Azza wa Jal in the statement, although it is His Attribute (thus it would automatically included) , is because ahl bidah were saying that the Quran is created (the fitnah of the belief in the creation of the Quran), so they wanted to refute them, and stress that it is not creation, that it came out of Allah Azza wa Jal, thus cannot be created, so they mentioned it. The whole purpose of that statement is to refute those heretics who say that the Quran is created.

[Abu Jahid]

as mentioned in the Ghunya of Abdul Qaadir Jilaani

:salam:

Are you really mentioning Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani (rahimahullah) and his "Ghunya"?? Bro Ansari, if you're Ash'ari or Maturidi in the matter of Kalamullah, than your mentioning of the Shaykh is the biggest mistake you could ever do!

Why? Well, let's see what Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani (rahimahullah) said in "Ghuniyat at-Talibeen":
__________

http://www.asharis.com/creed/assets/images/ghunyah-jilani-quran-harf-sawt.gif

(Chapter): And We Believe that the Qur'an is letters understood and voices heard.

Because through them (letter and voice) does the dumb and silent become speaking (mutakallim), delivering speech (naatiq). And the speech (Kalaam) of Allaah does not depart from that. So whoever rejected "Dhaalik al-Kitaab" (as being letter and voice) then he has been arrogant in rejecting [what] his own perceptive faculty , and is blinded in vision (and insight).

Allaah the Mighty and Majestic said: "Alif Laam Meem. This is the Book (the Qur'an)" (Al-Baqarah 2:1-2), "Haa Meem.", "Taa Seen Meem. These are the verse of the Book." (al-Qasas 28:1-2). He has mentioned letters metonymically for the Qur'an.

And the Most High said, "And if all the trees on the earth were pens and the sea (were ink wherewith to write), with seven seas behind it to add to its (supply), yet the Words of Allah would not be exhausted. Verily, Allah is All-ýMighty, AllýWise." (Luqman 31:27) So He affirmed numerous words for Himself that do not end in their number, and likewise His saying, "Say (O Muhammad). "If the sea were ink for (writing) the Words of my Lord, surely, the sea would be exhausted before the Words of my Lord would be finished, even if we brought (another sea) like it for its aid." (Al-Kahf 18:109).

And the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:

Read the Qur'an for you will be rewarded with ten good deeds for every letter. As for me, I do not say that "Aleef Laam Meem" is a letter, but "Alif" is ten (good deeds), "Laam" is ten (good deeds) and "Meem" is ten (good deeds), and that makes thirty.

And the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said,

The Qur'an was revealed upon seven ahruf (letters, meaning variant readings), all of them are replete, sufficient.

And Allaah, the Most High, said regarding Moses (alayhis salaam), "And (remember) when your Lord called (naadaa) Moses..." (Ash-Shu'ara 26:10), "And We called him (naadaynaahu) from the right side of the Mount, and made him draw near to Us for a talk with him Moses (qarrabnaahu najiyyaa)." (Maryam 19:52). And Allaah, the Most High, said to Moses (alayhis salaam), "Verily! I am Allah! Laa ilaaha illaa Ana (none has the right to be worshipped but I), so worship Me..." (Ta-Ha 20:14).

All of this is not except as a Voice, and it is not permitted that this calling out (nidaa) and this noun (I am "Allaah") and attribute (none has the right to be worshipped) be [for anyone] except Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, as opposed to the others besides Him from the Angels and all other creatures.

And al-Bukhaaree reports in his Saheeh with his chain of narration to Abdullaah bin Anees (radiallaahu anhu) that he said:

I heard the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) saying: The servants will be [resurrected and] gathered together, and He will call them with a Voice, the one who is distant will hear it just like the one who is near, [saying], "[I]I am al-Malik, ad-Dayyaan."

And Abdur-Rahmaan bin Muhammad al-Muhaaribee reported from al-A'mash from Muslim, from Masrooq from Abdullaah (radiallaahu anhu), [that] he said:

When Allaah speaks with revelation, the inhabitants of the heavens hear His Voice, and they fall prostrate until when the fear is removed from their hearts. He (Abdullaah) said: [When] it (the fear) subsides from their hearts, the inhabitants of the heaven say, 'O inhabitants of the heaven (i.e. the Angels), what did your Lord say?' They say, 'The Truth, He said such and such', meaning the revelation (that He spoke with)'.

And from Abdullaah bin al-Harth from Ibn Abbaas (radiallaahu anhumaa) that he said:

Indeed Allaah, the Blessed and Exalted, when He speaks with revelation, the inhabitants of the heavens hear a Voice like the sound of iron when it falls upon the rock, so they fall prostrating to Him anda when the fear is removed from their hearts they say, 'What did your Lord say?' They reply, 'The truth, and He is al-Aliyy (the Most High), al-Kabeer (the Great).
__________

And before anyone starts to play around with words of Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani (rahimahullah) let's qoute what he said after that:
__________

http://www.asharis.com/creed/assets/images/ghunyah-jilani-quran-harf-sawt2.gif

And these verses and narrations prove that the Speech (Kalaam) of Allaah is with a Voice, not like the voices of men, just like His knowledge, power, and remaining attributes do not resemble the attributes of men, then likewise His Voice. And Imaam Ahmad (rahimahullaa) has textually stated the affirmation of Voice (Sawt) in the narration of a group from his companions, may Allaah be pleased with them all,[U] in opposition to what the Ash'arites said, that the Speech (Kalaam) of Allaah is just the meaning established with His Self, and Allaah is the reckoner of every Innovator (mubtadi'), misguided (daall), misguiding others mudill). For Allaah, the Sublime, has never ceased to be mutakallim (one who speaks), and His Speech (Kalaam) comprises all of the meanings of command (amr), prohibition (nahy) and al-istikhbaar (inquiry).
__________

Source: http://www.asharis.com/creed/articles/vvttk-shaykh-abdul-qadir-al-jeelaanee-d-561h-allaah-is-the-reckoner-of-every-ashari-innovator-strayer.cfm

If anyone doesn't trust asharis.com (sometimes the website has not good adab, but their scans are good), then he can go to this link:

http://www.archive.org/details/gonia

One can find the above mentioned qoutes on page 90-91 (look at the arabic numbers [which in reality are indian numbers ;)] - i.e. "٩٠" and "٩١" )!
(If you look at the english numbers [which in reality are arabic numbers] than it's page 88)

:ws:

[Musleemah]

:salam:

I mentioned a few posts back that there are statements by Imam al-Bukhari rahimahullah, affirming that Allah's actions are not created.
These statements prove several things:

1. That Allah's individual speeches (i.e. "kun" ... etc.) are actions.
2. That Allah's actions are His Attributes.
3. That His Actions are not created.
and it also points to the actions being hadeth (i.e. uneternal), as was explained by sh. Anwar Shah Al-Kashmiri al-Hanafi rahimahullah.

(note: the proofs for the above points will have the same color in the below statements)

___

Imam al Bukhari rahimahullah said in his "al-Jame' As-Saheeh", known as "Sahih al-Bukhari" :

باب: ما جاء في تخليق السموات والأرض وغيرها من الخلائق، وهو فعل الرب تبارك وتعالى وأمره، فالرب بصفاته، وفعله، وأمره، وكلامه، وهو الخالق المكون غير مخلوق، وما كان بفعله وأمره وتخليقه وتكوينه فهو: مفعول مخلوق مكوَّن.
"Chapter on: what came regarding the creating of the heavens, the earth, and other than them from creation; and it is the action of the Lord -Tabaraka wa Ta'ala-, and His Command; For the Lord with His Attributes, His Actions, His Commands, and His Speech, with Him being the Creator, IS uncreated; and what came to being (i.e. resulted) because of His Action, His Command, His Creating, and His Formation, then it is maf'ul, created, and formed."

______________


He also said in his book "Khalq Af'al al-Ibad" (2/298) :

وقوله {وَلَا خَلْقَ أَنْفُسِهِمْ} [الكهف: 51] وقد ميز الفعل والنفس، ولم يصر فعله خلقا.

"And His (Allah's) saying: {... nor to the creation of themselves} [18:51], He distinguished between the action (i.e. creation; act of creating) and the self, and His action (i.e. creation; creating) did not become creation.


_______________


He also said in "Khalq Af'al al-Ibad" (2/299) [you will also find this statement of his quoted in Fath al-Bari by Ibn Hajar rahimahullah when discussing his statement that I quoted above]

خلق أفعال العباد (ج2 ص299)
قال أبو عبد الله:
واختلف الناس في الفاعل والمفعول والفعل:
فقالت القدرية: الأفاعيل كلها من البشر ليست من الله.
وقالت الجبرية: الأفاعيل كلها من الله.
وقالت الجهمية: الفعل والمفعول واحد، لذلك قالوا لـ(كن) مخلوق.

وقال أهل العلم: التخليق فعل الله، وأفاعيلنا مخلوقة؛ لقوله تعالى: {وَأَسِرُّوا قَوْلَكُمْ أَوِ اجْهَرُوا بِهِ إِنَّهُ عَلِيمٌ بِذَاتِ الصُّدُورِ (13) أَلَا يَعْلَمُ مَنْ خَلَقَ ...} [الملك: 13، 14] يعني السر والجهر من
القول. ففعل الله صفة الله، والمفعول غيره من الخلق.

Abu Abdullah (i.e. Imam al-Bukhari) said:

"And the people differed in the fa'il (i.e. the doer), the maf'ul (the result of the action), and the fi'il (the action):

The Qadariyyah said: All actions are from creation, and not from Allah.
The Jabriyyah said: All actions are from Allah.
The Jahmiyyah said: The action (fi'il), and its result (the maf'ul) are ONE, that is why they said that "Kun" is created.

And the people of knowledge (i.e. Ahl As-Sunnah) said: The act of creating is the fi'il (i.e. action) of Allah; and our actions are created, due to Allah -The Exalted- saying: {Whether you keep your words secret or say them out loud He knows what the heart contains * Does He who created not then know?} [67:13-14] meaning the hidden and apparent speech (mentioned in the first part of the ayah).
Thus, the action of Allah is the Attribute of Allah, and the maf'ul (i.e. result of the action) is other than Him, from creation." end of quote




The following is the explanation of sh. Muhammad Shah al-Kashmiri of the first statement I quoted in this post, in his commentary on sahih alBukhari "Fayd al-Bari", showing that Imam al-Bukhari rahimahullah shared the same belief as Ibn Taimiyyah rahimahullah in this topic (i.e. the actions of Allah) :


قلتُ: أما كون الباري عزَّ اسمه محلاًّ للحوادث، فأنكره هذا التعبير، غير أن السمعَ وَرَدَ بنسبتها إليه تعالى.
ويرى المتكلِّمون كافةً إلى تلك الأفعالَ كلَّها مخلوقةٌ حادثةٌ.
والحافظُ ابن تَيْمِيَة مع قوله بحدوثهما، لا يقولُ: إنها مخلوقةٌ، ففرَّق بين الحدوث والخلق.
وإليه مال المصنِّفُ، فجعل الأفعالُ حادثةً قائمةً بالباري تعالى على ما يَلِيقُ بشأنه، غير مخلوقةٍ.

"I said: ... All the people of kalam believe that all of those actions are created, uneternal.
As for the Hafidh Ibn Taimiyyah, although he professed their hudooth/uneternality (i.e. the actions), he does not say that they are created; he distinguished between "hudooth" and "creation"; and to this (opinion), the author (i.e. al Bukhari) was inclined, so he made the actions un-eternal (hadetha), subsisting in The Originator (i.e. Allah) -The Exalted- as is befitting of His Status, uncreated." [ Fayd al-Bari (6/574) ]


Before this, sh. Kashmiri discussed the belief of the Asharis, and the belief of the Maturidis, in this issue of Allah's actions, hudooth, and creation.

sh. Kashmiri's "Fayd al-Bari" is available online, scanned version, here:
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=5450

[Ansari]

:salam:

Are you really mentioning Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani (rahimahullah) and his "Ghunya"?? Bro Ansari, if you're Ash'ari or Maturidi in the matter of Kalamullah, than your mentioning of the Shaykh is the biggest mistake you could ever do!

:salam:

Yes, the same ghunya that calls your Salafi belief a Mu'tazilite stance propagated by Al-Ka'bi. I brought it forward since your Salafi Mujassima brethren agree with its version today. So according to the same Abdul Qadir Jilani, your belief of Qur'an being Muhdath and that Allah remains silent (sukut) is KUFR.

[Abu Jahid]

:salam:

Yes, the same ghunya that calls your Salafi belief a Mu'tazilite stance propagated by Al-Ka'bi. I brought it forward since your Salafi Mujassima brethren agree with its version today. So according to the same Abdul Qadir Jilani, your belief of Qur'an being Muhdath and that Allah remains silent (sukut) is KUFR.

:salam:

From where do you know my belief, so that you tell me such things??? I believe the same as our Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani (rahimahullah)!

I asked the following question, and I didn't get any real answer:

Are the words " الم " ("Alif Lam Mim") the actual words of ALLAH ta'ala?? "Yes" or "no"??

But now I have a question, where no one will be able to play around with it. And the question is:

Is the Arabic Quran the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala?? "Yes" or "no"??

:ws:

[Ansari]

:salam:

From where do you know my belief, so that you tell me such things??? I believe the same as our Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani (rahimahullah)!

I asked the following question, and I didn't get any real answer:

Are the words " الم " ("Alif Lam Mim") the actual words of ALLAH ta'ala?? "Yes" or "no"??

But now I have a question, where no one will be able to play around with it. And the question is:

Is the Arabic Quran the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala?? "Yes" or "no"??

:ws:
:salam:
It is your belief because you quote the filhy website and defend the Salafi stance on KalaamAllah.

You believe the same as him? MashaAllah, you take your religion from the khalaf from books written after 400 years after the hijra not even reliably transmitted. So you believe Salafi's are now Mu'tazilites, is that correct?

Yes we stick to the narrations of the Salaf who stated that the Arabic Qur'an is Kalaamullah which is uncreated.

But you go against the Salaf attributing Allah with silence, claiming the Qur'an is MUHDATH, and that His Kalaam stops and begins with uncreated sound and letters, and is divided into fi'l and essence. Woo to you!

None of the Sahaba said so.

[Abu Jahid]

^^

I hope you know that what you're doing right now is not fair! And I'm innocent of your wrong accusations!!

Did you read my post with the Ayat? If you didn't read it, then please read it:
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?73505-Question-About-Salafi-Belief&p=635157&viewfull=1#post635157

That is my belief! And that is the belief of all Atharis!! I believe what Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) believed!!

As for your saying:



Yes we stick to the narrations of the Salaf who stated that the Arabic Qur'an is Kalaamullah which is uncreated.


Then I say: Allahu Akbar!!! So you believe that the Arabic Quran is the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala?? If you're really saying that (and I hope you're saying that, because my question was very clear), then I say alhamdulillah (and I believe that too)!
(But I hope you know that the Ash'aris and Maturidis do NOT believe that the Arabic Quran is the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala!!)

:ws:

[Ansari]

^^

I hope you know that what you're doing right now is not fair! And I'm innocent of your wrong accusations!!
What accusations? You defend the Salafi Mujassima in this topic and post anti-Maturidi/Ashari websites that you defend and then it is suddenly unfair?



Did you read my post with the Ayat? If you didn't read it, then please read it:
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?73505-Question-About-Salafi-Belief&p=635157&viewfull=1#post635157

That is my belief! And that is the belief of all Atharis!! I believe what Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) believed!!

Imam Ahmad never stated Allah speaks sometimes with uncreated sound and letters. Now just to be clear. Answer these questions properly:

1. Do you Allah speaks sometimes and remains silent (sukut) sometimes?
2. Do you affirm silence (sukut) for Allah which is an act of fi'l?
3. Do you call part of His speech muhdath? Does it has a beginning?


As for your saying:

Then I say: Allahu Akbar!!! So you believe that the Arabic Quran is the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala?? If you're really saying that (and I hope you're saying that, because my question was very clear), then I say alhamdulillah (and I believe that too)!
(But I hope you know that the Ash'aris and Maturidis do NOT believe that the Arabic Quran is the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala!!)


Maturidis and Asharis do actually believe this. But Salafi Mujassima propaganda has brainwashed you.

[Musleemah]

:ws:

Yes we stick to the narrations of the Salaf who stated that the Arabic Qur'an is Kalaamullah which is uncreated.

But you go against the Salaf attributing Allah with silence, claiming the Qur'an is MUHDATH, and that His Kalaam stops and begins with uncreated sound and letters, and is divided into fi'l and essence. Woo to you!
None of the Sahaba said so.

You ask for evidences, then when we get you evidences, you ignore them and then post again claiming that they don't exist.

Here are the evidences you asked for (except for the issue of sukoot, which I already declined to discuss because I lack knowledge in it, in addition to not wanting to discuss too many topics at one time) :


1. The evidences for Allah speaking with sounds has been quoted a couple of times in this thread, check the beginning of post #129 (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?73505-Question-About-Salafi-Belief&p=630079&viewfull=1#post630079)

2. The evidence that the Quran is hadeth (i.e. uneternal; has a beginning) is in post
#258 (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?73505-Question-About-Salafi-Belief&p=634920&viewfull=1#post634920)


3. The evidence for Allah's individual speeches (i.e. Quran, kun ..etc.) being Allah's actions, and them (i.e. actions) being uncreated, is found in post #269 (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?73505-Question-About-Salafi-Belief&p=635238&viewfull=1#post635238)


If you disagree with any of these statements being evidence for the beliefs I pointed to, then you need to discuss them and show how my claim is false.

[Abu Jahid]

Maturidis and Asharis do actually believe this. But Salafi Mujassima propaganda has brainwashed you.

So you're saying that Maturidis and Ash'aris believe that the Arabic Quran is the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala (and I hope you're not speaking to me majazan)?? If that is what you're saying, then there are three possibilities:

1) You don't know what the Ash'aris and Maturidis said.

2) You're deceiving yourself.

3) You're trying to deceive me, by affirming my question with "yes", but only majazan (metaphorically).

So which one is it?

:ws:

[Ansari]

You ask for evidences, then when we get you evidences, you ignore them and then post again claiming that they don't exist.

Perhaps you should have realized is that your "evidences" are not deemed as "evidences" for others, but nonsense. Like the "evidence" of the shia is nothing but a load of garbage. You can not accuse others for not acknowledging your so-called "evidences."

[Ansari]

So you're saying that Maturidis and Ash'aris believe that the Arabic Quran is the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala (and I hope you're not speaking to me majazan)?? If that is what you're saying, then there are three possibilities:

1) You don't know what the Ash'aris and Maturidis said.

2) You're deceiving yourself.

3) You're trying to deceive me, by affirming my question with "yes", but only majazan (metaphorically).

So which one is it?

:ws:

I have answered your questions. Can you answer mine so we can all know on which side you are on:

1. Do you Allah speaks sometimes and remains silent (sukut) sometimes?
2. Do you affirm silence (sukut) for Allah which is an act of fi'l?
3. Do you call part of His speech muhdath? Does it has a beginning?

Yes or no is sufficient.

[Musleemah]

Perhaps you should have realized is that your "evidences" are not deemed as "evidences" for others, but nonsense. Like the "evidence" of the shia is nothing but a load of garbage. You can not accuse others for not acknowledging your so-called "evidences."

You asked for statements from the pious salaf that prove our beliefs, and when I get them for you, you say that they are "not deemed as evidences" for you ?!

why don't you just admit that you have no answer to those statements, and you are saying this nonsense to get yourself out of it.
If you truly believe that those statements are not evidences for our beliefs, then EXPLAIN HOW.

[Ansari]

Are you saying that the statements of the pious salaf are "nonsense" and a "load of garbage" ?!
because their statements are the evidences I am speaking about, and you know that.

It is your interpretation that is a load of garbage and conlusion. Not the statements of the reliable scholars from the salaf.

[sunnipress]

It is your interpretation that is a load of garbage and conlusion. Not the statements of the reliable scholars from the salaf.

your interpretation and deceptive half quotes is load of garbage and twisted theology. Stick with the discussion rather than attacking individuals. you haven't still replied on the topic why Buti , Juwayni, Bajuri and Razi all say that there is no difference when it comes to the issue of Quran is created with Asharis and Mutazilites.

Abdul-Kareem ash-Shahrastani (d. 584H), one of the important figures of the Later Ash'aris himself writes that Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari, in this subject of Allaah's speech (Kalaam) and letter and Voice (al-harf was-sawt), that he broke the ijmaa' that existed previously and innovated a third saying not known before. In reality, it was Ibn Kullaab and not al-Ash'ari - but we can look at the saying of ash-Shahrastani (d. 584H) in another article in much detail, it is from his book, "Nihaayat ul-Iqdaam", where he says (p. 177), whilst noting that ash-Shahrastani's statements in characterizing the view of the Salaf are not entirely accurate and precise, but there is enough in what he has said that approximates to what is correct:


فأبدع الأشعري قولاً ثالثاً وقضى بحدوث الحروف وهو خرق الإجماع وحكم بأن ما نقرأه كلام الله مجازاً لا حقيقة وهو عين الابتداع فهلا قال ورد السمع بأن ما نقرأه ونكتبه كلام الله تعالى دون أن يتعرض لكيفيته وحقيقته كما ورد السمع بإثبات كثير من الصفات من الوجه واليدين إلى غير ذلك من الصفات الخبرية

So al-Ash'ari innovated a third saying and judged with the emergence of the letters, and this is the destruction of the ijmaa' (concensus) and he judged that what we read is Allaah's speech only metaphorically (majaazan) not in reality (haqeeqatan) - and this is pure innovation. Why did he not (simply) say that the revelation mentions that what we read and write is the Speech of Allaah without (him) delving into its kaifiyyah (how it is) and its haqeeqah (its reality) - just like in the revelation many attributes have been mentioned such as Face, Two Hands and other than them from the sifaat Khabariyyah.

Abdul-Kareem ash-Shahrastani (d. 584H), one of the important figures of the Later Ash'aris himself writes that Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari, in this subject of Allaah's speech (Kalaam) and letter and Voice (al-harf was-sawt), that he broke the ijmaa' that existed previously and innovated a third saying not known before. In reality, it was Ibn Kullaab and not al-Ash'ari - but we can look at the saying of ash-Shahrastani (d. 584H) in another article in much detail, it is from his book, "Nihaayat ul-Iqdaam", where he says (p. 177), whilst noting that ash-Shahrastani's statements in characterizing the view of the Salaf are not entirely accurate and precise, but there is enough in what he has said that approximates to what is correct:

فأب
دع الأشعري قولاً ثالثاً وقضى بحدوث الحروف وهو خرق الإجماع وحكم بأن ما نقرأه كلام الله مجازاً لا حقيقة وهو عين الابتداع فهلا قال ورد السمع بأن ما نقرأه ونكتبه كلام الله تعالى دون أن يتعرض لكيفيته وحقيقته كما ورد السمع بإثبات كثير من الصفات من الوجه واليدين إلى غير ذلك من الصفات الخبرية

So al-Ash'ari innovated a third saying and judged with the emergence of the letters, and this is the destruction of the ijmaa' (concensus) and he judged that what we read is Allaah's speech only metaphorically (majaazan) not in reality (haqeeqatan) - and this is pure innovation. Why did he not (simply) say that the revelation mentions that what we read and write is the Speech of Allaah without (him) delving into its kaifiyyah (how it is) and its haqeeqah (its reality) - just like in the revelation many attributes have been mentioned such as Face, Two Hands and other than them from the sifaat Khabariyyah.

and Bajori
http://www.asharis.com/creed/assets/images/bayjuri-quran-better-or-prophet.gif
This translates:

And is the Qur'an with the meaning of the wording that is recited more excellent? Or is our leader, Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) [more excellent]. Some of them have held on to what has been reported [that]: "Every letter is better than Muhammad and the family of Muhammad". However it's [authenticity] is not verified as established. And the truth is that he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is more excellent because he is more excellent than every created thing (makhlooq), as is taken from the speech (i.e. commentary) of al-Jalaal al-Mahallee upon the Burdah. And what supports this is that it (the Qur'an) is the action of the reciter and the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is more excellent than the reciter and all of his actions. But it is safer to withhold from the likes of this, for the mind being devoid of this does not harm it. End summarized quote from the Haashiyah of the Shaykh, al-Ameer.


I notice that alot of your types quote Ibn al-Jawzi if he suits with your creed but what you do have to say if Ibn Jawzi declares Kalaam Nafsi as Bidah ( heresy innovation in religion ) are you going to condemn Ibn Jawzi or agree with him in condemnation of the kalam nafsi heresy ?



Read the book Sayd al-Khatir of Ibn Jawzi how he rebukes Abul Hasan Ash'ari:
quote:
و هذا أمر مستقر لم يختلف فيه أحد من القدماء في زمن الرسول صلى الله عليه و سلم و الصحابة رضوان الله عليهم ، ثم دس الشيطان دسائس البدع ، فقال قوم : هذا المشار إليه مخلوق ، فثبت الإمام أحمد رحمه الله ثبوتاً لم يثبته غيره على دفع هذا القول ، لئلا يتطرق إلى القرآن ما يمحو بعض تعظيمه في النفوس ، و يخرجه عن الإضافة إلى الله عز وجل .
و رأى أن إبتداع ما لم يقل فيه لا يجوز إستعماله فقال : كيف أقول ما لم يقل .
ثم لم يختلف الناس في غير ذلك ، إلى أن نشأ علي بن إسماعيل الأشعري فقال مرة بقول المعتزلة ، ثم عن له فإدعى أن الكلام صفة قائمه بالنفس ، فأوجبت دعواه هذه أن ما عندنا مخلوق .
و زادت فخبطت العقائد تعالى فما زال أهل البدع يجوبون في تيارها إلى اليوم .
و الكلام في هذه المسألة مرتب بذكر الحجج و الشبه في كتب الأصول ، فلا أطيل به ههنا ، بل أذكر لك جملة تكفي من أراد الله هداه ،و هو أن الشرع قنع منا بالإيمان جملة ، و بتعظيم الظواهر ، و نهى عن الخوض فيما يتير غبار شبهة ، و لا تقوى على قطع طريقه أقدام الفهم .
و إذا كان قد نهى عن الخوض في القدر فكيف يجوز الخوض في صفات المقدر ؟ . .
و ما ذاك إلا لأحد الأمرين اللذين ذكرتهما ، إما لخوف إثارة شبهة تزلزل العقائد ، أو لأن قوى البشر تعجز عن إدراك الحقائق .
sayd al-khatir of Ibn Jawzi



It is time to recognize that Quran is created doctrine is heresy and innovation.

[Musleemah]

It is your interpretation that is a load of garbage and conlusion. Not the statements of the reliable scholars from the salaf.

Instead of just throwing accusations, why don't you show me the error in my interpretation, and explain how those statements should be understood.

Go ahead, I am waiting for the correct intepretation of those statements, and I am sure there are others too who want to know the correct understanding of those statements.

[Ansari]

Instead of just throwing accusations, why don't you show me the error in my interpretation, and explain how those statements should be understood.

Go ahead, I am waiting for the correct intepretation of those statements, and I am sure there are others too who want to know the correct understanding of those statements.
There is no need since you brought forward irrelevant quotes. Every person who reads those statement will realize there is not a single mention of Qur'an being MUHDATH. Stick to the Salaf.

That is enough for people with a sound mind.

Another funny thing, Bakr ibn Abi Zayd even acknowledged that muhdath can be interpreted as Makhluq:

قال الشيخ بكر أبو زيد في معجم المناهي اللفظية: قال الله تعالى: مَا يَأْتِيهِمْ مِنْ ذِكْرٍ مِنْ رَبِّهِمْ مُحْدَثٍ. {الأنبياء: 2}. أي إن الله تعالى تكلَّم بالقرآن بمشيئته بعد أن لم يتكلم به بعينه، وإن كان قد تكلم بغيره قبل ذلك، ولم يزل سبحانه متكلماً إذا شاء، فالقرآن محدث بهذا المعنى. أما تسمية المبتدعة له محدثاً بمعنى مخلوق فهذا باطل، لا يقول به إلا الجهمية والمعتزلة. فهذا الإطلاق بهذا الاعتبار لا يجوز

Salafis should post on their websites that they BELIEVE that the Qur'an is CREATED in the sense of being a MUHDATH that came from Allah.

NOBODY from the Salafi stated EVER that the Qur'an is a muhdath!!

[Ansari]

Read the book Sayd al-Khatir of Ibn Jawzi how he rebukes Abul Hasan Ash'ari:
quote:
و هذا أمر مستقر لم يختلف فيه أحد من القدماء في زمن الرسول صلى الله عليه و سلم و الصحابة رضوان الله عليهم ، ثم دس الشيطان دسائس البدع ، فقال قوم : هذا المشار إليه مخلوق ، فثبت الإمام أحمد رحمه الله ثبوتاً لم يثبته غيره على دفع هذا القول ، لئلا يتطرق إلى القرآن ما يمحو بعض تعظيمه في النفوس ، و يخرجه عن الإضافة إلى الله عز وجل .
و رأى أن إبتداع ما لم يقل فيه لا يجوز إستعماله فقال : كيف أقول ما لم يقل .
ثم لم يختلف الناس في غير ذلك ، إلى أن نشأ علي بن إسماعيل الأشعري فقال مرة بقول المعتزلة ، ثم عن له فإدعى أن الكلام صفة قائمه بالنفس ، فأوجبت دعواه هذه أن ما عندنا مخلوق .
و زادت فخبطت العقائد تعالى فما زال أهل البدع يجوبون في تيارها إلى اليوم .
و الكلام في هذه المسألة مرتب بذكر الحجج و الشبه في كتب الأصول ، فلا أطيل به ههنا ، بل أذكر لك جملة تكفي من أراد الله هداه ،و هو أن الشرع قنع منا بالإيمان جملة ، و بتعظيم الظواهر ، و نهى عن الخوض فيما يتير غبار شبهة ، و لا تقوى على قطع طريقه أقدام الفهم .
و إذا كان قد نهى عن الخوض في القدر فكيف يجوز الخوض في صفات المقدر ؟ . .
و ما ذاك إلا لأحد الأمرين اللذين ذكرتهما ، إما لخوف إثارة شبهة تزلزل العقائد ، أو لأن قوى البشر تعجز عن إدراك الحقائق .
sayd al-khatir of Ibn Jawzi



Look how funny. First they try to portray Abul Hasan Ash'ari as "one of them" who repented and then they show how one of the later scholars rebuked Ash'ari!! Make up your mind, does he belong to you or not!

And look how funny Abu Alqama and his ilk quote from Sayd al-Khatir. In the same book where he recommends to visit the graves of the pious when one is sick! Is Ibn al-Jawzi al-Quburi suddenly reliable now?

فالأولى للمريد اليوم ألا يزور إلا المقابر ، و لا يقاوض إلا الكتب ، التي قد حوت محاسن القوم .
و ليستعن بالله تعالى على التوفيق لمراضيه ، فإنه إن أراده هيأه لما يرضيه

كثر ضجيجي من مرضي ، و عجزت عن طب نفسي ، فلجأت إلى قبور الصالحين ، و توسلت في صلاحي ، فاجتذبني لطف مولاي بي إلى الخلوة على كراهةمني ، ورد قلبي علي بعد نفور مني ، وأراني عيب ما كنت أوثره

From their own website: http://www.saaid.net/book/open.php?cat=8&book=1016

[Musleemah]

There is no need since you brought forward irrelevant quotes. Every person who reads those statement will realize there is not a single mention of Qur'an being MUHDATH. Stick to the Salaf.

That is enough for people with a sound mind.

For the sake of argument, I will say that my interpretation is wrong, can you now give me the "correct" interpretation of the statements I posted?
so I, and the readers can learn, insha Allah.

I mean the statements in posts #258 and #269

[faqir]

Here the Salafi scholar Alawi Saqqaf stated in his book on sifaat that Allah is described as have the sifa of "sukut" (silence) according to what suits Him:

قال الشيخ الفاضل علوي السقاف في " صفات الله عز وجل " ( ص 177 ) : يوصف ربنا عَزَّ وجَلَّ بالسُّكوت كما يليق به سبحانه ، لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ البَصِيرُ.وهذا ثابتٌ بالسنة الصحيحة ، وهي صفةٌ فعليَّةٌ اختيارية متعلقة بمشيئته سبحانه وتعالى

His book can be downloaded here: www.dorar.net/files/sbook3.zip

His biography can be found here: http://dorar.net/mushrif




Rough translation....


Al-Sheikh Al-Fadil (i.e. fellow pseudo-salafi) 'Alawi Al-Saqqaaf said in 'The Attributes of Allah, Mighty and Majestic' (p.177):

'Our Lord, Mighty and Majestic, bears the Attribute of Silence in a way that befits Him, and there is nothing link unto Him. He is The All-Hearing, The All-Seeing. This is established in the authentic Sunnah and it is a voluntary attribute of action that is attached to His Will, Glorified and Exalted is He....

[Abu Jahid]

:salam:

Here some qoutes from Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) (they're qouted in the book "al-Masa`il wal Rasa`il al-Marwiyyah"):

(Note: When it is said "Abu Abdullah" or "my father", then Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) is meant)

__________

http://www.asharis.com/creed/assets/images/imaam-ahmad-harf-sawt.jpg

I asked my father (rahimahullaah) about a people saying: When Allaah spoke to Moses He did not speak with a Voice. So my father said, "Rather, your Lord, the Mighty and Majestic, spoke with a Voice, these ahaadeeth we narrate them as they have come".

And my father (rahimahullaah) said, "The Hadeeth of Ibn Mas'ood (radiallahu anhu): When Allaah speaks, the Mighty and Majestic, His Voice is heard like the dragging of [iron] chains on rocks". My father said, "And the Jahmiyyah reject this".

And Abu Ya'laa brings with his chain of narration from Abu Bakr al-Khallaal: Narrated to us Muhammad ibn Alee: Narrated to us Ya'qub bin Bukhtaan [saying]: I asked Abu Abdullaah about the one who claims Allaah does not speak with a Voice. He said, "Rather, He, the Sublime, speaks with a voice".
And al-Khallaal relates through another route from Ya'qub with an addition [in wording]: "We relate these ahaadeeth, every hadeeth that has an angle, they [the Jahmites] desire to confuse the people. Whoever claims Allaah did not speak to Moses [i.e. with a voice] is a kaafir (disbeliever)".

And Abu Bakr al-Khallaal relates from al-Marwadhee who said: I heard Abu Abdullaah, and it had been said to him that Abdul-Wahhaab [al-Warraaq] had spoken and said: "Whoever claims that Allaah spoke to Moses without a Voice, then He is a Jahmee, an enemy of Allaah, an enemy of Islaam." So Abu Abdullaah smiled and said, "How excellent is what he said, may Allaah preserve Him.

Abu Ya'laa said: And through the narration of a group [of people] Ahmad has textually stated the affirmation of the Voice.
__________

After these qoutes of Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) are mentioned who wants to reject that the Imam believed that ALLAH ta'ala speaks with sound?? Even if he tries to (by saying "his sayings are not clear enough"), the sayings of Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) will refute him!! Just look at the narration where the direct speech of ALLAH ta'ala with Sayyidina Musa ('alayhi salam) is mentioned!!

And the Ayat which proove that ALLAH ta'ala spoke directly to Musa ('alayhi salam) have already been mentioned in this thread: http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?73505-Question-About-Salafi-Belief&p=635157&viewfull=1#post635157

But we know that the people of Kalam actually do not care what Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) said!! If they would have cared what he (and the rest of the Salaf) said, they wouldn't have indulged in kalam (Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) censured whoever did this and called such an person an innovator)!!

As for the saying of Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah), then this has been already quoted on this thread:



Here is the full quote :

خلق أفعال العباد (ص: 98)
حدثني به أحمد بن إسحاق ثنا الأنصاري ثنا التيمي عن أبي عثمان عن أبي موسى رضي الله عنه قال كنا مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم في سفر فرقينا في عقبة أو ثنية قال كان الرجل منا إذا علاها قال لا إله إلا الله والله أكبر فقال النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم : إنكم لا تنادون أصما ولا غائبا قال وهو على بغلته يعرضها فقال يا أبا موسى أو يا عبد الله ألا أعلمك كلمة من كنوز الجنة قال بلى يا رسول الله قال لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله وذكر عن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم أنه كان يحب أن يكون الرجل خفيض الصوت ويكره أن يكون رفيع الصوت وإن الله عز و جل ينادي بصوت يسمعه من بعد كما يسمعه من قرب فليس هذا لغير الله جل ذكره
قال أبو عبد الله: وفي هذا دليل أن صوت الله لا يشبه أصوات الخلق لأن صوت الله جل ذكره يسمع من بعد كما يسمع من قرب وأن الملائكة يصعقون من صوته فإذا تنادى الملائكة لم يصعقوا
وقال عز و جل (فلا تجعلوا لله أندادا)
فليس لصفة الله ند ولا مثل ولا يوجد شيء من صفاته في المخلوقين

Notice that he explained the "sound" in the hadeeth about Allah calling with a sound, to be Allah's sound that is not like the sounds of creation, and then at the end he mentions about Allah's attributes being not like that of creation, which tells us that he believes that "sound" is from the attributes of Allah

And I wrote the following:



And there are Ahadith and Athar that proove that ALLAH ta'ala speaks with sound. And Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) mentions in his book "Tahrim al-Nadhar fi Kutub Ahl al-Kalam" the Hadith of Abdullah bin Unays (radhiallahu 'anhu) as a proof:

وفي حديث عبد الله بن أنيس رضي الله عنه أن الله تعالى يناديهم يوم القيامة بصوت يسمعه من بعد كما يسمعه من قرب أنا الملك أنا الديان وهو حديث مشهور

In the tradition transmitted by ‘Abd Allah b. Unays, it is related that God will call to the people on the Day of Resurrection with a voice which will be heard by him who is far as well as by him who is near: “I am the King! I am the Requiter!” This is a well-known tradition.


This is the important part of the Hadith:

فَيُنَادِي بِصَوْتٍ يَسْمَعُهُ مَنْ بَعُدَ كَمَا يَسْمَعُهُ مَنْ قَرُبَ : أَنَا الْمَلِكُ ، أَنَا الدَّيَّانُ
And then He will call them out with a voice which will be heard from far and from near: "I am al-Malik, I am al-Dayyan" ("I am the King! I am the Requiter!")

Subhanallah!! This is clear cut Hadith of the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam)!!

And Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) also believed that ALLAH ta'ala speaks with sound (and he also mentioned the Hadith of Abdullah ibn Unays (radhiallahu 'anhu) and Imam Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani (rahimahullah) confirmed this in his "Fath ul-Bari" with the following words:

قوله يسمعه من بعد إشارة إلى انه ليس من المخلوقات لأنه لم يعهد مثل هذا فيهم وبأن الملائكة إذا سمعوه صعقوا كما سيأتي في الكلام على الحديث الذي بعده وإذا سمع بعضهم بعضا لم يصعقوا قالفعلى هذا فصوته صفة من صفات ذاته لا تشبه صوت غيره إذ ليس يوجد شيء من صفاته من صفات المخلوقين هكذا قرره المصنف في كتاب خلق أفعال العباد

His saying, ‘He is heard from far…’, indicates that the voice is not from His creation, for the creation is not known for something like this; and also the angels would unconscious upon hearing the voice, as we will see when discussing the next hadeeth, whereas, if the angels were to hear each other, they would not fall unconscious. Based on this, His voice is an attribute from the attribute of His Essence, which does not resemble any other voice, since none of His attributes are to be found in the attributes of the creation. This is what the author (i.e. Imam al-Bukhari (rahimahullah)) states in Khalq af'al al-'ibad.


To be honest I really can't understand how anyone after these two quotes can say "but the saying of Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) is not clear enough"??

Now please look at what Imam Bukhari said:

وفي هذا دليل أن صوت الله لا يشبه أصوات الخلق لأن صوت الله جل ذكره يسمع من بعد كما يسمع من قرب وأن الملائكة يصعقون من صوته فإذا تنادى الملائكة لم يصعقوا

Is this not clear enough?? He says, that this proove that the voice of ALLAH ta'ala ("Sawt Allah") does not resemble the voice of the creation ("Sawt al-Khalq"), because the voice of ALLAH ta'ala can be heard from far and from near, and the angels loose their consciousness when they hear HIS voice ("yus'aquna min sawtihi"), and if they (i.e. the angels) would call eachother, they would not loose their consciousness.

How can anyone say that he Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) didn't confirm "Sawt" (sound/voice) for ALLAH ta'ala after this has been qouted??? And if anyone says "this is not clear enough", then I say: You're deceiving yourself!! Anyone who can read arabic (or english) and understand what he reads, would never ever say that his saying is unclear!! Why does he say "Sawt Allah" ("voice of Allah") and right after it "Sawt al-Khalq" ("voice of the creation")?? Why does say that with the angels falling uncouncious upon hearing HIS voice??
So instead of denying the words of Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah), just be honest and say "I don't believe the same as Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) in this matter", for this would be more truthful than hiding behind your saying "it is not clear enough"!!

:ws:

[faqir]

And there are Ahadith and Athar that proove that ALLAH ta'ala speaks with sound. And Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) mentions in his book "Tahrim al-Nadhar fi Kutub Ahl al-Kalam" the Hadith of Abdullah bin Unays (radhiallahu 'anhu) as a proof:

وفي حديث عبد الله بن أنيس رضي الله عنه أن الله تعالى يناديهم يوم القيامة بصوت يسمعه من بعد كما يسمعه من قرب أنا الملك أنا الديان وهو حديث مشهور

In the tradition transmitted by ‘Abd Allah b. Unays, it is related that God will call to the people on the Day of Resurrection with a voice which will be heard by him who is far as well as by him who is near: “I am the King! I am the Requiter!” This is a well-known tradition.


This is the important part of the Hadith:

فَيُنَادِي بِصَوْتٍ يَسْمَعُهُ مَنْ بَعُدَ كَمَا يَسْمَعُهُ مَنْ قَرُبَ : أَنَا الْمَلِكُ ، أَنَا الدَّيَّانُ
And then He will call them out with a voice which will be heard from far and from near: "I am al-Malik, I am al-Dayyan" ("I am the King! I am the Requiter!")

Subhanallah!! This is clear cut Hadith of the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam)!!

This Hadith is not a decisive evidence:

See what the Hafiz al-Imam al-Bayhaqi wrote on the tradition transmitted by ‘Abd Allāh ibn Unays (http://tinyurl.com/6gbwb5o)

see also what Imam al-Qurtubi wrote about it in al-Tadhkira fī ahwāl al-mawta wa umūr al-ākhira (http://tinyurl.com/634qcj3)

As for the narrations you've attributed to Imam Ahmad - can you establish their authenticity.

[faqir]

Rough translation....


Al-Sheikh Al-Fadil (i.e. fellow pseudo-salafi) 'Alawi Al-Saqqaaf said in 'The Attributes of Allah, Mighty and Majestic' (p.177):

'Our Lord, Mighty and Majestic, bears the Attribute of Silence in a way that befits Him, and there is nothing like unto Him. He is The All-Hearing, The All-Seeing. This is established in the authentic Sunnah and it is a voluntary attribute of action that is attached to His Will, Glorified and Exalted is He....

There is a book called Al Tabseer Fi Ma'aalim Al Deen which the salafis say is by Imam al-Tabari. In there is a related quote which the Salafi editor objected to:

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f378/faqir/tabarionsilence.gif

One of the brothers who posts here referred to this on his blog quoting Imam al-Tabari as saying “He’s the speaker (al-Mutakallim) upon whom silence is not allowed (i.e. It is negated).”

The salafi editor of this work writes this position is similar to “what the Asharis say regarding Kalam Nafsi” and continues to rejects Imam Tabari's words saying, “It is not allowed to negate silence (sukut).”

He then goes on to try and add some 'spin' to Imam al-Tabari's clear words.

[Abu Jahid]

:salam:

I wrote the following:



I asked the following question, and I didn't get any real answer:

Are the words " الم " ("Alif Lam Mim") the actual words of ALLAH ta'ala?? "Yes" or "no"??

But now I have a question, where no one will be able to play around with it. And the question is:

Is the Arabic Quran the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala?? "Yes" or "no"??


But it seems I was wrong!! It seems no matter how clear a question is, some people always play around with it!

Ansari answered by saying the following (and the question was not just to bro Ansari, but it was to all):


Yes we stick to the narrations of the Salaf who stated that the Arabic Qur'an is Kalaamullah which is uncreated.

Today I realized that Ansari just gave me an deceptive answer and nothing more!

Your answer is not a "Yes"!! If a normal muslim would have told me, what you told me, then it would consider it immediatly as "Yes". But you're form the people of kalam, so I when you answer in this way than this not a "yes"! Why?? Because the Asha'irah/Maturidis say that the this Quran is kalamullah, but they just mean it majazan and not haqiqatan!!

Let's see what al-Taftazani (rahimahullah) - who was Maturidi - said in his Sharh of the Nasafi creed:

And he followed the Qur’an by Speech of Allah, the Exalted, because of what the Shaykhs (i.e. the Maturidiyyah) mentioned from saying < The Qur’an, the Speech of Allah the Exalted, is uncreated > and not to say < The Qur’an is uncreated >, fearing that it may come up to the mind that the thing composed of sounds and letters is eternal, like the Hanbalites opinioned ignorantly, obstinently

So he says, that one should say "the Quran is the speech of Allah, uncreated", but one shouldn't say "the Quran is uncreated"!! So according to the people of kalam these two sayings are not the same!!! (While to every normal muslim it would be the same!)
Now let's look at my question again:
Is the Arabic Quran the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala?? Is it soo difficult, to answer with "Yes, the Arabic Quran is the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala"??? (And I know you won't do that, because that would be against your Aqidah!)

And the reason why I ask this question is because this is something that all of us laymen should know to answer immediatly!! And the Answer is: Yes, the Arabic Quran is the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala!!

But I really ask myself how one should discuss sincerly, if one just gets replies where the other side is not saying what he really means and wants to deceive one by giving deceptive answers!?!?

As for the rejection of the letters:

Reject that as much as you want, and attack us as much as you want, but you be want be able to proove that your stance is correct!!Why?:

"Alif" is a letter and "Lam" is a letter and "Mim" is a letter!! And ALLAH ta'ala says in his book (which is HIS word - ohh and before anyone says "We believe too that it is his words", I say: not just majazan (metaphorically), but haqiqatan!) " الم " ("Alif Lam Mim")!! So the Quran already refutes you!!!

And look what the Prophet (salalallahu 'alayhi wa salam) said (as reported by Imam Al-Tirmidhi (rahimahullah):

من قرأ حرفا من كتاب الله فله به حسنة والحسنة بعشر أمثالها لا أقول الم حرف ولكن ألف حرف ولام حرف وميم حرف

“Whoever reads one letter from the Book of Allaah will earn one good (hasanah) thereby. One good deed is equal to ten good deeds the like of it. I do not say that Alif-Lam-Mim is a letter, but Alif is a letter, Laam is a letter and Meem is a letter.’”

So reject the letters as much as you want!! And accuse of all kind of wrong things, but you won't be able to deny that "Alif Lam Mim" is part of the Quran!!

And your rejection of the letters is enough to show that you do not regard " الم " ("Alif Lam Mim") to be the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala!!

And I say it again:

You do NOT care what Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) said! If you would've cared what he says, you wouldn't have indulged in Kalam!!!! So their is no need for us to bring more statements or to proove anything else from him, since you didn't even follow one of his most important naseehas (i.e. that of not indulging in Kalam), and alhamdulillah Imam Ahmads (rahimahullah) position regarding indulging in Kalam (he regarded whosoever did that an innovator and this is a fact!) is soooo clear, that no one can deny it!!

:ws:

[faqir]

Today I realized that Ansari just gave me an deceptive answer and nothing more!

Your answer is not a "Yes"!! If a normal muslim would have told me, what you told me, then it would consider it immediatly as "Yes". But you're form the people of kalam,

are you autistic?

[Abu Jahid]

are you autistic?

Look, I told you more than once, that I don't want to discuss with you! Is that so difficult to understand?

First stop to defend istighatha bi ghayrillah, then we can discuss!

[faqir]

lol you must be.



You do NOT care what Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) said! If you would've cared what he says, you wouldn't have indulged in Kalam!!!! So their is no need for us to bring more statements or to proove anything else from him, since you didn't even follow one of his most important naseehas (i.e. that of not indulging in Kalam), and alhamdulillah Imam Ahmads (rahimahullah) position regarding indulging in Kalam (he regarded whosoever did that an innovator and this is a fact!) is soooo clear, that no one can deny it!!

says the one whose own faulty kalam leads him to believe that contingent events subsist and originate within Allah's essence.

[Abu Jahid]

lol you must be.

Yeah, whatever.

This is still better than to defend shirk and insult others (as you did in this very thread!).

And by the way:

The Aya " الم " is the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala!!! ;)

[Musleemah]

This Hadith is not a decisive evidence:

See what the Hafiz al-Imam al-Bayhaqi wrote on the tradition transmitted by ‘Abd Allāh ibn Unays (http://tinyurl.com/6gbwb5o)

see also what Imam al-Qurtubi wrote about it in al-Tadhkira fī ahwāl al-mawta wa umūr al-ākhira (http://tinyurl.com/634qcj3)

Thanks but we rather stick with the interpretation of Imam al-Bukhari rahimahullah.



As for the narrations you've attributed to Imam Ahmad - can you establish their authenticity.

The first narration is narrated by His son Abdullah in his book "As-Sunnah" (1/280), and was also narrated by Ibn an-Najjad in his book “Ar-Rad ala Man Yaqulu Al-Quran Makhluq” (p.31) through Imam Abdullah ibn Ahmad, who was his teacher.

[Musleemah]

Look, I told you more than once, that I don't want to discuss with you! Is that so difficult to understand?

First stop to defend istighatha bi ghayrillah, then we can discuss!

Brother, if you see a post like that, ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist, its not worth wasting your time with.

[faqir]

The first narration is narrated by His son Abdullah in his book "As-Sunnah" (1/280), and was also narrated by Ibn an-Najjad in his book “Ar-Rad ala Man Yaqulu Al-Quran Makhluq” (p.31) through Imam Abdullah ibn Ahmad, who was his teacher.

Are they authentic?

Even if you prove decisively that he affirms sawt as being kalam then did he believe like the salafis that contingent events originate within Allah's essence? If he did then can you prove that? And is there any decisive divine text to support your belief?

Did Imam Ahmad attribute Silence to Allah like your salafi brethren? (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?73505-Question-About-Salafi-Belief&p=635997&viewfull=1#post635997)


Thanks but we rather stick with the interpretation of Imam al-Bukhari rahimahullah.
Well at least you accept that the hadith on the subject are open to 'interpretation' indicating that they are not decisive as evidence. Alhamdulillah.

[Musleemah]

Are they authentic?

Both the narration and books are authentic.
And there are other routes for the narration , like through al-Hafidh Adh-Dhahabi, but I don't remember which book of his, I will have to search for it.

[Khalid Williams]

Salam alaykum,

I'm amazed that you folks have almost reached 300 posts of this mind-numbing conversation now, when a simple understanding of the word 'manifestation' (tajalli) would be enough to resolve this issue for anyone blessed with a functioning mind and a stronger desire for understanding than for argumentation. I fear that until this happens, you will continue to talk at cross purposes, repeating an unintelligent debate that has been raging for long enough now. Or do you believe you will settle it in this fashion? This is the very essence of fitna.

Wassalam.

[abd7861]

Salam alaykum,

I'm amazed that you folks have almost reached 300 posts of this mind-numbing conversation now, when a simple understanding of the word 'manifestation' (tajalli) would be enough to resolve this issue for anyone blessed with a functioning mind and a stronger desire for understanding than for argumentation. I fear that until this happens, you will continue to talk at cross purposes, repeating an unintelligent debate that has been raging for long enough now. Or do you believe you will settle it in this fashion? This is the very essence of fitna.

Wassalam.

Assalamu Alaikum

Brother Khalid, May Allah Ta'ala bless you with more Ma'rifah. This thread has delved into waters that a Mu'min should not unnecessarily cross. Is it not simply enough to affirm the Greatness and Exaltedness of Allah Azza Wa Jal? Is it not enough to affirm that nothing is comparable unto Him? His Speech is uncreated just as He is. Is this not enough? The Mu'min is not tasked to believe in anything more than this. We are living in times where every single Mu'min needs to be united with his Muslim brother/sister. The Ummah is being ravaged, torn and shredded into a million pieces by its enemies both within and without. The Honour of this Ummah is being held aloft by a select band of warriors who have been denounced by the majority of the Ummah.

I will finish with two quotes from Aqidah Tahawiyyah which if believed in with full conviction will Insha'Allah suffice for the Mu'min on the day of Resurrection.

"The Qur'an is the word of Allah. It came from Him as speech without it being possible to say how. He sent it down on His Messenger as revelation. The believers accept it, as absolute truth. They are certain that it is, in truth, the word of Allah. It is not created, as is the speech of human beings, and anyone who hears it and claims that it is human speech has become an unbeliever. Allah warns him and censures him and threatens him with Fire when He says, Exalted is He:
`I will burn him in the Fire.' (al-Muddaththir 74:26)
When Allah threatens with the Fire those who say
`This is just human speech' (al-Muddaththir 74:25)
we know for certain that it is the speech of the Creator of mankind and that it is totally unlike the speech of mankind. "

And

"We ask Allah to make us firm in our belief and seal our lives with it and to protect us from variant ideas, scattering opinions and evil schools of view such as those of the Mushabbihah, the Mu'tazilah, the Jahmiyyah the Jabriyah, the Qadriyah and others like them who go against the Sunnah and Jama'ah and have allied themselves with error. We renounce any connection with them and in our opinion they are in error and on the path of destruction.
We ask Allah to protect us from all falsehood and we ask His Grace and Favour to do all good. "


This argument needs to end as there is going to be ill feeling created between the posters. Each group believes that it is correct and no one will cede ground. Each will think he/she has scored points and is 'winning' the debate. I understand that this is an indepth Aqeedah section but the debate has now spiralled out of control and senior members of this forum (Brother Faqir, Brother Abu Jahid al Iraqi and Sister Musleemah) are accusing each other. We are talking about the Dhaat of Allah Ta'ala which should be treated with the utmost reverence.

May Allah Ta'ala grant us all understanding of His Deen and bless us with His Rahmah.

Was Salaam

[Abu Yunus]

Salam alaykum,

I'm amazed that you folks have almost reached 300 posts of this mind-numbing conversation now, when a simple understanding of the word 'manifestation' (tajalli) would be enough to resolve this issue for anyone blessed with a functioning mind and a stronger desire for understanding than for argumentation. I fear that until this happens, you will continue to talk at cross purposes, repeating an unintelligent debate that has been raging for long enough now. Or do you believe you will settle it in this fashion? This is the very essence of fitna.

Wassalam.

Jazak-Allahu khayran.

People, take heed.

May Allah forgive us.

[maneatinglizard]

:salam:

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem as if anything was resolved, but :insh: someone may have benefited from this thread.

[Abu Jahid]

:salam:

The creed of Imam al-Tabari (rahimahullah) regarding the book of ALLAH ta'ala (as qouted by Imam al-Lalaka`i (rahimahullah)):
__________

http://www.asharis.com/creed/assets/images/at-tabari-quran-creed.gif

The Creed of Abu Ja'far Muhammad bin Jareer at-Tabari

Ubaydullaah bin Muhammad bin Ahmad informed us - reading to him - he said: Al-Qaadee Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Kaamil informed us, saying: Abu Ja'far Muhammad bin Jareer said:

The first of that which we begin with regarding that is the Speech of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic and His Revelation, since they are from the meanings of His Tawheed.

So what is correct of the speech regarding that, in our view, is that it is the Speech of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, it is not created in whichever manner it may be written or when it is recited, in whatever place it may be recited, whether it is found in the heaven or upon the earth, however it may be preserved - whether written in the Lawh il-Mahfoodh (the Preserved Tablet) or in the copies of the children of the Qur'anic schools, or inscribed on a stone and written on paper or leaf, whether memorized in the heart, or spoken by the tongue.

Whoever says other than this, or claims there is a Qur'an in the earth or in the heaven other than the Qur'an that which we recite with our tongues, and which we write in the masaahif (copies of the Qur'an), or who believes this in his heart or who conceals such a belief in his heart, or who professes it with his tongue, then he is a kaafir whose blood and wealth is lawful and who is free from Allaah and Allaah is free from him - due to the saying of Allaah, lofty be His praise:

Nay! This is a Glorious Qur'an (Inscribed) in Al-Lawh Al-Mahfuz (The Preserved Tablet)! (Al-Buruj 85:21-22)

And He said, and His saying is the truth:

And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur'an).. (At-Tawbah 9:6)

So He informed us, lofty be His praise that it is in the Preserved Tablet, written, and that it is heard from the tongue of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and it is a single Qur'aan, heard from Muhammad and written in the Preserved Tablet, and likewise, memorized in the hearts, and recited upon the tongues of the shuyookh (old) and the children (young).

So whoever reports or quotes from us, or fabricates a saying against us, or claims against us that we say anything other than that, then upon him is the curse of Allaah and His Anger, and the curse of those who curse, [and the curse of] the Angels, and mankind, altogether. Allaah will not accept any effort or goodness from him, will expose and disgrace him in front of all of the witnesses on the day that the excuses of the oppressors will not benefit them, they will have the curse and they will have the evil abode.
__________

:ws:

[Abu Jahid]

The Salafi Mujassima do affirm silence (sukut) for Allah. See:

http://www.ahlalh deeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=8826

Now we ask our Salafi Mujassima brethren: who from the Salaf affirmed silence for Allah?

Are you trying to deceive the people? Did you even read the thread? Did you read the long qoute from Imam Ibn Taymiyya (rahimahullah)??

And did you read this?:

قال معالي الشيخ صالح في شرح الاربعين النووية ص 325.:
----------------------------------------
قال : , وسكت عن أشياء رحمة لكم غير نسيان فلا تبحثوا عنها -
.
"سكت عن أشياء": يعني: أن الله سكت،
وهذا السكوت الذي وصف الله -جل وعلا -به ليس هو السكوت المقابل للكلام، يقال: تكلم وسكت، وإنما هذا سكوت يقابل به إظهار الحكم، فالله -جل وعلا -سكت عن التحريم، بمعنى لم يحرم، لم يظهر لنا أن هذا حرام، فالسكوت هنا من قبيل الحكم، سكوت عن الحكم، ليس سكوتا عن الكلام،فغلط على هذا من قال: إن هذه الكلمة يستدل بها على إثبات صفة السكوت لله -جل وعلا -،
وهذا مما لم يأت في نصوص السلف في الصفات، وهذا الحديث وأمثاله لا يدل على أن السكوت صفة؛ لأن السكوت قسمان:
الاول : سكوت عن الكلام، وهذا لا يوصف الله -جل وعلا -به، بل يوصف الله -سبحانه وتعالى- بأنه متكلم، ويتكلم كيف شاء، وإذا شاء، متى شاء، وأما صفة السكوت عن الكلام، فهذه لم تأت في الكتاب ولا في السنة، فنقف على ما وقفنا عليه، يعني: على ما أوقفنا الشارع عليه، فلا نتعدى ذلك.

والقسم الثاني: من السكوت، السكوت عن إظهار الحكم، أو عن إظهار الخبر وأشباه ذلك، فلو فرض -مثلا- أن أنا أمامكم الآن، وأتكلم باسترسال، سكت عن أشياء، وأنا مسترسل في الكلام، بمعنى أني لم أظهر لكم أشياء أعلمها، تتعلق بالأحاديث التي نشرحها، وسكوتي في أثناء الشرح عن أشياء لم أظهرها لكم، أوصف فيه بالسكوت؟

فتقول -مثلا-: فلان سكت في شرحه عن أشياء كثيرة، لم يبدها لأجل أن المقام لا يتسع لها، مع أني متواصل الكلام، فإذاً لا يدل السكوت، يعني: في هذا، يعني: السكوت عن إظهار الحكم عن السكوت الذي هو صفة، والله -جل وعلا -له المثل الأعلى، فنصفه بما وصف به نفسه، أو وصفه به رسوله r .
لا نتجاوز القرآن والحديث، فنصفه بالكلام، ولا نصفه بالسكوت الذي هو يقابل به الكلام، وإنما يجوز أن تقول: إن الله -جل وعلا -سكت عن أشياء، بمعنى لم يظهر لنا حكمها، .

Is it really necessary to deceive the people, if you're really on the truth?

[Abu Jahid]

:salam:

Here is an interesting article from islamqa, which I think is relevant to this thread:

__________

Question:


ما حكم وصف القرآن بأنه كلام الله القديم؟

Answer:


الحمد لله
أولا :
القرآن الكريم كلام الله تعالى : ألفاظه وحروفه ومعانيه ؛ منه بدأ ، وإليه يعود ، تكلم الله تعالى به ، وسمعه منه جبريل عليه السلام ، وأنزله على محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم . قال سبحانه : ( إِنَّهُ لَقُرْآنٌ كَرِيمٌ فِي كِتَابٍ مَكْنُونٍ لَا يَمَسُّهُ إِلَّا الْمُطَهَّرُونَ تَنْزِيلٌ مِنْ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ ) الواقعة/77- 80 ، وقال : ( الم تَنْزِيلُ الْكِتَابِ لَا رَيْبَ فِيهِ مِنْ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ ) السجدة/ 1، 2 ، وقال : ( تَنْزِيلُ الْكِتَابِ مِنَ اللَّهِ الْعَزِيزِ الْحَكِيمِ ) الزمر/ 1.
وهو من جملة كلامه ، الذي هو صفة من صفاته ، فمن قال : مخلوق ، فهو كافر ، هذا ما يعتقده أهل السنة والجماعة ، خلافا لما عليه أهل الزيغ والانحراف .
قال الطحاوي رحمه الله في عقيدته المشهورة : " وأن القرآن كلام الله ، منه بدأ بلا كيفية قولا، وأنزله على رسوله وحيا ، وصدقه المؤمنون على ذلك حقا ، وأيقنوا أنه كلام الله تعالى بالحقيقة ، ليس بمخلوق ككلام البرية. فمن سمعه فزعم أنه كلام البشر فقد كفر، وقد ذمّه الله وعابه وأوعده بسقر، حيث قال تعالى: (سأصليه سقر) فلما أوعد الله بسقر لمن قال : (إن هذا إلا قول البشر) علمنا وأيقنا أنه قول خالق البشر، ولا يشبه قول البشر " انتهى.
وقال ابن قدامة رحمه الله : " ومن كلام الله سبحانه : القرآن العظيم ، وهو كتاب الله المبين ، وحبله المتين ، وصراطه المستقيم ، وتنزيل رب العالمين ، نزل به الروح الأمين ، على قلب سيد المرسلين ، بلسان عربي مبين ، منزّل غير مخلوق ، منه بدأ وإليه يعود ، وهو سور محكمات ، وآيات بينات ، وحروف وكلمات ، من قرأه فأعربه فله بكل حرف عشر حسنات ، له أول وآخر ، وأجزاء وأبعاض ، متلو بالألسنة ، محفوظ في الصدور ، مسموع بالآذان ، مكتوب في المصاحف ، فيه محكم ومتشابه ، وناسخ ومنسوخ ، وخاص وعام ، وأمر ونهي { لَا يَأْتِيهِ الْبَاطِلُ مِنْ بَيْنِ يَدَيْهِ وَلَا مِنْ خَلْفِهِ تَنْزِيلٌ مِنْ حَكِيمٍ حَمِيدٍ } فصلت/ 42، وقوله تعالى : { قُلْ لَئِنِ اجْتَمَعَتِ الْإِنْسُ وَالْجِنُّ عَلَى أَنْ يَأْتُوا بِمِثْلِ هَذَا الْقُرْآنِ لَا يَأْتُونَ بِمِثْلِهِ وَلَوْ كَانَ بَعْضُهُمْ لِبَعْضٍ ظَهِيرًا } الإسراء/ 88 .
وهو هذا الكتاب العربي الذي قال فيه الذين كفروا : { لَنْ نُؤْمِنَ بِهَذَا الْقُرْآنِ } سبأ /31 ، وقال بعضهم : { إِنْ هَذَا إِلَّا قَوْلُ الْبَشَرِ } المدثر/ 25، فقال الله سبحانه : { سَأُصْلِيهِ سَقَرَ } المدثر/ 26 ... ولا خلاف بين المسلمين في أن من جحد من القرآن سورة أو آية أو كلمة أو حرفا متفقا عليه أنه كافر ، وفي هذا حجة قاطعة على أنه حروف " انتهى
"لمعة الاعتقاد" ص (28-22) .
ومعنى قول أهل السنة : " منه بدأ " : أن الله تعالى تكلم به ، فظهوره وابتداؤه من الله تعالى .
ومعنى قولهم : " وإليه يعود " : أنه يرفع من الصدور والمصاحف في آخر الزمان ، فلا يبقى في الصدور منه آية ولا في المصاحف كما جاء ذلك في عدة آثار .
وللحافظ ضياء الدين المقدسي ( ت: 643هـ ) رحمه الله رسالة حول هذه المسألة ، بعنوان : " اختصاص القرآن بالعود إلى الرحمن " .
ولأهل البدع مقالات أخرى كثيرة مخالفة لما دل عليه صريح المعقول ، وصحيح المنقول في هذا الباب ، يمكن مراجعتها ومعرفة ردود أهل العلم عليها في كتب أهل السنة المصنفة في هذا الباب ، ومنها مصنفات خاصة بالرد على أهل البدع في صفة الكلام ، مثل : البرهان في مسألة القرآن ، وحكاية المناظرة في القرآن ، كلاهما لموفق الدين ابن قدامة ، صاحب المغني ، رحمه الله ، ولشيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحمه الله كتب ورسائل عديدة فيما يتعلق بصفة الكلام من مسائل ، فيمكن مراجعة المجلد الثاني عشر من مجموع فتاواه ، ومن كتبه المهمة في ذلك كتاب التسعينية ، رد على الأشاعرة بدعهم في صفة الكلام من نحو من تسعين وجها .
وأما المصنفات المعاصرة ، فقد أفرد هذه المسألة بالتأليف الشيخ عبد الله الجديع في كتابه : العقيدة السلفية في كلام رب البرية ، وهو كتاب نافع مفيد في بابه .
ثانيا :
وصف القرآن بالقدم ، أو وصف كلام الله تعالى بأنه قديم ، يراد به معنيان :
الأول : أنه غير مخلوق ، كما تقدم ؛ وأن جنس الكلام ، في حق الله تعالى ، قديم ، لم يزل متكلما ، متى شاء ، وكيف شاء ، ويكلم من عباده من شاء . وهذا حق ، وهذا هو مأخذ من أطلق " القِدَم " في حق القرآن ، أو في حق كلام الله تعالى عامة ، من أهل السنة .
ومن هؤلاء : أبو القاسم اللالكائي في كتابه " شرح أصول اعتقاد أهل السنة والجماعة "
قال (2/224) : " سياق ما روي عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ، مما يدل على أن القرآن من صفات الله القديمة " .
ثم قال (2/227) : " ما روي من إجماع الصحابة على أن القرآن غير مخلوق " .
وممن أطلق ذلك أيضا : ابن قدامة ـ رحمه الله ـ في لمعة الاعتقاد . قال (15) :
" ومن صفات الله تعالى أنه متكلم بكلام قديم يسمعه منه من شاء من خلقه ، سمعه موسى عليه السلام منه من غير واسطة ، وسمعه جبريل عليه السلام ، ومن أذن له من ملائكته ورسله ، وأنه سبحانه يكلم المؤمنين في الآخرة ويكلمونه ، ويأذن لهم فيزورونه ، قال الله تعالى : { وَكَلَّمَ اللَّهُ مُوسَى تَكْلِيمًا } [ النساء : 164 ] ، وقال سبحانه : { يَا مُوسَى إِنِّي اصْطَفَيْتُكَ عَلَى النَّاسِ بِرِسَالَاتِي وَبِكَلَامِي } [ الأعراف : 144 ] ، وقال سبحانه : { مِنْهُمْ مَنْ كَلَّمَ اللَّهُ } [ البقرة : 253 ] ، وقال سبحانه : { وَمَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ أَنْ يُكَلِّمَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَّا وَحْيًا أَوْ مِنْ وَرَاءِ حِجَابٍ } [ الشورى : 51 ] ، وقال سبحانه : { فَلَمَّا أَتَاهَا نُودِيَ يَا مُوسَى }{ إِنِّي أَنَا رَبُّكَ فَاخْلَعْ نَعْلَيْكَ إِنَّكَ بِالْوَادِي الْمُقَدَّسِ طُوًى } [ طه : 11 - 12 ] ، وقال سبحانه : { إِنَّنِي أَنَا اللَّهُ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا أَنَا فَاعْبُدْنِي } [ طه : 14 ] ، وغير جائز أن يقول هذا أحد غير الله ... " انتهى .
قال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحمه الله :
" السلف قالوا : القرآن كلام الله منزل غير مخلوق وقالوا لم يزل متكلما إذا شاء . فبينوا أن كلام الله قديم ، أي : جنسه قديم لم يزل .
ولم يقل أحد منهم : إن نفس الكلام المعين قديم ، ولا قال أحد منهم القرآن قديم .
بل قالوا : إنه كلام الله منزل غير مخلوق .
وإذا كان الله قد تكلم بالقرآن بمشيئته ، كان القرآن كلامه ، وكان منزلا منه غير مخلوق ، ولم يكن مع ذلك أزليا قديما بقدم الله ، وإن كان الله لم يزل متكلما إذا شاء ؛ فجنس كلامه قديم .
فمن فهم قول السلف وفرق بين هذه الأقوال زالت عنه الشبهات في هذه المسائل المعضلة التي اضطرب فيها أهل الأرض " انتهى مجموع الفتاوى (12/54) .
وقال ـ رحمه الله ـ أيضا :
" وكلام الله : تكلم الله به بنفسه ، تكلم به باختياره وقدرته ، ليس مخلوقا بائنا عنه . بل هو قائم بذاته ، مع أنه تكلم به بقدرته ومشيئته ، ليس قائما بدون قدرته ومشيئته .
والسلف قالوا : لم يزل الله تعالى متكلما إذا شاء ؛ فإذا قيل : كلام الله قديم ; بمعنى أنه لم يصر متكلما بعد أن لم يكن متكلما ، ولا كلامه مخلوق ، ولا معنى واحد قديم قائم بذاته ; بل لم يزل متكلما إذا شاء فهذا كلام صحيح .
ولم يقل أحد من السلف : إن نفس الكلام المعين قديم. وكانوا يقولون : القرآن كلام الله ، منزل غير مخلوق ، منه بدأ وإليه يعود .
ولم يقل أحد منهم : إن القرآن قديم ، ولا قالوا : إن كلامه معنى واحد قائم بذاته ، ولا قالوا : إن حروف القرآن أو حروفه وأصواته قديمة أزلية قائمة بذات الله ، وإن كان جنس الحروف لم يزل الله متكلما بها إذا شاء ; بل قالوا : إن حروف القرآن غير مخلوقة وأنكروا على من قال : إن الله خلق الحروف " انتهى من الفتاوى (12/566-567) .
والمعنى الثاني : أن القرآن معنى ، أو معنى وحروف ، تكلم الله بها في الأزل ، ثم لم يتكلم بعدها ، وهذا من بدع الأشاعرة ومن وافقهم من أهل الكلام ، التي أرادوا بها الخروج من بدعة المعتزلة والجهمية القائلين بخلق القرآن .
فمن قال في القرآن ، أو غيره من صفات الله تعالى وأفعاله الاختيارية : إنه قديم ، وأراد ذلك فمراده باطل ، ثم إن اللفظ الذي أطلقه مجمل غير مأثور .
ولأجل هذا الاحتمال الباطل الذي يحتمله إطلاق هذا اللفظ ، ولأجل أنه غير مأثور ، كان الراجح هنا ألا يطلق لفظ القدم على القرآن ، بل يقال فيه ما قال السلف : القرآن كلام الله ، غير مخلوق .
قال شيخ الإسلام رحمه الله :
" وأتباع السلف يقولون : إن كلام الله قديم ، أي : لم يزل متكلما إذا شاء ، لا يقولون : إن نفس الكلمة المعينة قديمة كندائه لموسى ونحو ذلك .
لكن هؤلاء [ يعني : الأشاعرة ومن وافقهم ] اعتقدوا أن القرآن وسائر كلام الله قديم العين ، وأن الله لا يتكلم بمشيئته وقدرته . ثم اختلفوا :
فمنهم من قال : القديم هو معنى واحد ، هو جميع معاني التوراة والإنجيل والقرآن ؛ وأن التوراة إذا عبر عنها بالعربية صارت قرآنا ، والقرآن إذا عبر عنه بالعبرية صار توراة : قالوا : والقرآن العربي لم يتكلم الله به ، بل إما أن يكون خلقه في بعض الأجسام ، وإما أن يكون أحدثه جبريل أو محمد ؛ فيكون كلاما لذلك الرسول ، ترجم به عن المعنى الواحد القائم بذات الرب ، الذي هو جميع معاني الكلام .
ومنهم من قال : بل القرآن القديم هو حروف ، أو حروف وأصوات ، وهي قديمة أزلية قائمة بذات الرب أزلا وأبدا ...؛ إذا كلم موسى أو الملائكة أو العباد يوم القيامة فإنه لا يكلمه بكلام يتكلم به بمشيئته وقدرته حين يكلمه ، ولكن يخلق له إدراكا يدرك ذلك الكلام القديم اللازم لذات الله أزلا وأبدا .
وعندهم لم يزل ولا يزال يقول : { يا آدم اسكن أنت وزوجك } و : { يا نوح اهبط بسلام منا وبركات عليك } و { يا إبليس ما منعك أن تسجد لما خلقت بيدي } ونحو ذلك وقد بسط الكلام على هذه الأقوال وغيرها في مواضع .
والمقصود أن هذين القولين لا يقدر أحد أن ينقل واحدا منهما عن أحد من السلف ؛ أعني الصحابة والتابعين لهم بإحسان وسائر أئمة المسلمين المشهورين بالعلم والدين ، الذين لهم في الأمة لسان صدق ، في زمن أحمد بن حنبل ولا زمن الشافعي ولا زمن أبي حنيفة ولا قبلهم . وأول من أحدث هذا الأصل هو أبو محمد عبد الله بن سعيد بن كلاب ... " الفتاوى (17/85)
وعليه فمن قال : القرآن قديم ، أو كلام الله قديم ، وأراد المعنى الأول : أن القرآن ، وسائر كلام الله تعالى ، منزل من عنده غير مخلوق ، ومع ذلك فهو متعلق بمشيئته واختياره، فمراده صحيح ، وإن كان الأولى والأسلم في ذلك أن يقتصر على الألفاظ الواردة عن السلف ، السالمة من الإجمال واحتمال المعاني الباطلة .
وإن أراد المعنى الثاني ونفى أن يتعلق كلام الله تعالى بمشيئته واختياره ، فمراده باطل ، واللفظ الذي أطلقه ـ أيضا ـ مبتدع .
وانظر أيضا : منهاج السنة النبوية ، لشيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحمه الله (5/419-421) .
والله أعلم .

الإسلام سؤال وجواب
__________

Source: http://www.isla mqa.com/ar/ref/100585

:ws:

[Abu Jahid]

:salam:

So what now has become clear is, that the Asha'irah regard " الم " ("Alif Lam Mim") as created speech (wal 'yadhubillah)!! And not just that: they regard the whole Quran that we know as created!!

To them only the meaning of the Arabic Quran is uncreated, while the Quran as we know it, is created!! Therefore we say: Instead of pointing at others and attacking others and giving deceptive answers, first correct yourself!! How dare you to regard " الم " ("Alif Lam Mim") as created and then attack others??

And note that believing, that " الم " ("Alif Lam Mim") or any other Aya from the Arabic Quran is the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala, is something that every muslim must believe! It is not an expression nor an paraphrase (as the people of kalam want us to believe)!

And just to see the mentality of the people of kalam, just look at this thread:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?53660-Two-Hadeeth-a)-A-Palace-with-four-doors-b)-Allah-will-recite-Surah-ar-Rahmaan&p=454964&viewfull=1#post454964

So according to them ALLAH ta'ala can not recite his own words... we seek refuge from such a thinking!!
And therefore the brother rightly said:


Brother,

Are you saying that Surah ar-Rahmaan (as mentioned in the narration) is not the Speech of Allah? Can't Allah recite His Own Speech?

After reading this, I really ask myself weather you belief that ALLAH ta'ala spoke directly to Sayyidina Musa ('alayhi salam) or not??? And the Ayat of the Quran proove clearly that ALLAH ta'ala spoke to Sayyidina Musa ('alayhi salam) without any intermediary! And the Ayat have already been mentioned:




-Surat an-Nisa`, Aya 164:

وَرُسُلاً قَدْ قَصَصْنَاهُمْ عَلَيْكَ مِن قَبْلُ وَرُسُلاً لَّمْ نَقْصُصْهُمْ عَلَيْكَ وَكَلَّمَ ٱللَّهُ مُوسَىٰ تَكْلِيماً

(We have sent) some Messengers We have already told you about, and some other Messengers We did not tell you about, and Allah has spoken to Mūsā verbally

So can anyone after this Aya say that Sayyidina Musa ('alayhi salam) did not speak to ALLAH ta'ala directly (meaniing: without any intermediary)??

- Surat al-A'raf, Aya 144:

قَالَ يٰمُوسَىٰ إِنِّي ٱصْطَفَيْتُكَ عَلَى ٱلنَّاسِ بِرِسَالاَتِي وَبِكَلاَمِي فَخُذْ مَآ آتَيْتُكَ وَكُنْ مِّنَ ٱلشَّاكِرِينَ

He said, “Mūsā, I have chosen you above all men for my messages and for My speaking (to you). So, take what I have given to you, and be among the grateful.”

So here ALLAH ta'ala mentions his speaking to Musa ('alayhi salam) and if it wouldn't have been direct speech, Musa ('alayhi salam) would be no different from his people (i.e. Bani Israil). But look what the Aya says: "I have choosen you above all men".

And if you don't understand what I mean, I hope this qoute from Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) will clarify what I'm trying to say:

وأما قوله في مسألة القرآن فالكلام فيها في فصلين أحدهما في الصوت الذي بدأ بإنكاره.
فنقول ثبت أن موسى سمع كلام الله تبارك وتعالى منه بغير واسطة.
فإنه لو سمعه من شجرة أو حجر أو ملك لكان بنو إسرائيل أفضل منه في ذلك لأنهم سمعوه من موسى نبي الله وهو أفضل من الشجرة والحجر.
فلم سُمّي موسى إذا كليم الرحمن ولم قال الله تعالى: { يا موسى إني اصطفيتك على الناس برسالاتي وبكلامي }، وقال تعالى: { فلما أتاها نودي يا موسى إني أنا ربك } ولا يقول له هذا إلا الله تعالى.

As far his doctrine with regard to the disputed question of the Quran, its discussions may be dealt with in two sections. The first one treats of the divine voice which he began by denying. Our answer to this denial is as follows: It has been established that Moses heard the words of God from God Himself without any intermediary. Indeed, if he had heard it from a tree or a stone or an angel, then the Israelites would have been superior to him in this regard; for they had heard it from Moses, the Prophet of God, and Moses is superior to the tree and the stone. Why then was Moses given the epithet of “he who is spoken to by God”? And why did God say: “O Moses! I have chosen thee above the people with My messages and My speaking to thee”[7:144]? and again: “When he came to it, he was called to: ‘Moses! I am thy Lord.”[20:11] Now no one would say this to him except God.

- Surat Taha, Aya 11-14 :

فَلَمَّآ أَتَاهَا نُودِيَ يٰمُوسَىٰ إِنِّيۤ أَنَاْ رَبُّكَ فَٱخْلَعْ نَعْلَيْكَ إِنَّكَ بِٱلْوَادِ ٱلْمُقَدَّسِ طُوًى وَأَنَا ٱخْتَرْتُكَ فَٱسْتَمِعْ لِمَا يُوحَىۤ إِنَّنِيۤ أَنَا ٱللَّهُ لاۤ إِلَـٰهَ إِلاۤ أَنَاْ فَٱعْبُدْنِي وَأَقِمِ ٱلصَّلاَةَ لِذِكْرِيۤ

So when he came to it, he was called, “O Mūsā, it is Me, your Lord, so remove your shoes; you are in the sacred valley of Tuwā. I have chosen you (for prophet-hood), so listen to what is revealed: Surely, I AM ALLAH. There is no god but Myself, so worship Me, and establish Salāh for My remembrance.

Subhanallah, what for heart trembling Ayat!! Does anything more need to be said?? (And read the rest of this Sura it's really beautiful!)

Who called ("nudiya") Musa ('alayhi salam) and told him "O Musa, it is Me, your Lord"?? And who said " إِنَّنِيۤ أَنَا ٱللَّهُ " ("Surely, I AM ALLAH.") to him?? ALLAH ta'ala!! And look what the Aya says after that: "so listen to what is revealed". It says "so listen" ("fastami'")! After these Ayat have been mentioned, who can deny that ALLAH ta'ala spoke direcly to Musa ('alayhi Salam)? And who after that can deny that he heard the speech of ALLAH ta'ala (the Aya says " فَٱسْتَمِعْ " ("so listen")??

- Surat Maryam, Aya 52:

وَنَادَيْنَاهُ مِن جَانِبِ ٱلطُّورِ ٱلأَيْمَنِ وَقَرَّبْنَاهُ نَجِيّاً

And We called him from the right side of the mount Tūr (Sinai), and We brought him close to communicate in secret


Here is the full comment: http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?73505-Question-About-Salafi-Belief&p=635157&viewfull=1#post635157

And if you want, you can read what Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) says in his "al-Radd 'ala al-Jahmiyya wal Zanadiqa" regarding the matter of ALLAH ta'ala speaking directly to Musa! You can also read what he says about the speech of ALLAH ta'ala.

You can read the book here:

http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AF_%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89_%D8%A7 %D9%84%D8%AC%D9%87%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D9%88%D8%A7% D9%84%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%82%D8%A9_%D9%81%D 9%8A%D9%85%D8%A7_%D8%B4%D9%83%D9%88%D8%A7_%D9%81%D 9%8A%D9%87_%D9%85%D9%86_%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%B4%D8%A7%D 8%A8%D9%87_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A2%D9%86_%D 9%88%D8%AA%D8%A3%D9%88%D9%84%D9%88%D9%87_%D8%B9%D9 %84%D9%89_%D8%BA%D9%8A%D8%B1_%D8%AA%D8%A3%D9%88%D9 %8A%D9%84%D9%87#.D8.A5.D8.AB.D8.A8.D8.A7.D8.AA_.D8 .A3.D9.86_.D8.A7.D9.84.D9.84.D9.87_.D9.83.D9.84.D9 .85_.D9.85.D9.88.D8.B3.D9.89_.D8.B9.D9.84.D9.8A.D9 .87_.D8.A7.D9.84.D8.B3.D9.84.D8.A7.D9.85

Or: http://tinyurl.com/3tjubsh

The Salaf (radhiallahu 'anhum) said:

القرآن كلام الله غير مخلوق

The Quran is the speech of ALLAH and it's not created

And they said (regarding the Quran):

منه بدأ وإليه يعود

From HIM it emanated and to HIM it will return

ALLAH ta'ala says in Surat Yasin, Aya 82:

إِنَّمَآ أَمْرُهُ إِذَآ أَرَادَ شَيْئاً أَن يَقُولَ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ

His practice, when He intends to do something, is no more than He says, “Be”, and it comes to be.

And we believe, that ALLAH ta'als speaks as he wills and whenever he wills and that he is still mutakallim (a speaker) and he never seizes to be mutakallim and this is the position of Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah)!

And we believe that the Arabic Quran is the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala!! And we believe that ALLAH ta'ala spoke directly to Sayyidina Musa ('alayhi salam) as he informed us in his book!

May ALLAH ta'ala forgive our sins and guide us to the straight path!

:ws:

[Ansari]

Are you trying to deceive the people? Did you even read the thread? Did you read the long qoute from Imam Ibn Taymiyya (rahimahullah)??


It seems your own Salafi Mujassima scholars differ on the meaning of sukut. Deal with them first.

Is Ibn Taymiyya from the Salaf? NO.

You claim to follow the salaf, now I ask you again to defend the belief of the Mujassima with straight-forward references:

- Who from the Salaf affirmed SUKUT for Allah?
- Who from the Salaf called the Qur'an MUHDATH?

By the way, Imam Pazdawi called you and your ilk even more worse than those who call the Qur'an created:

والكرامية والحنابلة قالوا: إنه - أي القرآن- غير مخلوق ولكن قالوا: إنه حادث ، وهو شر من القول بالمخلوق

The Karramiya and the Hanabila [Mujassima] said: The Qur'an is uncreated but they say: It is MUHDATH. And that is more worse than the stance that it is created!

[Abu Jahid]

Is Ibn Taymiyya from the Salaf? NO.

Do you even understand arabic?? Did Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) affirm sukut (i.e. the opposite of kalam)?? No!!

ALLAH ta'ala has been eternally mutakallim and HE 'azza wa jal speaks as HE wills and whenever HE wills!! Do I need to know more?? No!!

So keep your deceptive answers to yourself!

:ws:

[Musleemah]

By the way, Imam Pazdawi called you and your ilk even more worse than those who call the Qur'an created:

والكرامية والحنابلة قالوا: إنه - أي القرآن- غير مخلوق ولكن قالوا: إنه حادث ، وهو شر من القول بالمخلوق

The Karramiya and the Hanabila [Mujassima] said: The Qur'an is uncreated but they say: It is MUHDATH. And that is more worse than the stance that it is created!

You missed this thread:
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?74803-Imam-At-Tabari-and-Allah-s-Speech-quot-Kun-quot

And make sure to read what sh. Kashmiri said regarding the difference between hadeth/muhdath and makhluq (post #10 in that thread).

[Ansari]

Do you even understand arabic?? Did Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) affirm sukut (i.e. the opposite of kalam)?? No!!

ALLAH ta'ala has been eternally mutakallim and HE 'azza wa jal speaks as HE wills and whenever HE wills!! Do I need to know more?? No!!

So keep your deceptive answers to yourself!

:ws:
Yes, he DOES affirm the word and sifa SUKUT for Allah, regardless of how he interprets it.

Now I ask you AGAIN:

Who from the Salaf affirmed SUKUT as a sifa for Allah?
Who from them called the Qur'an HAADITH?

You claim to follow the salaf, yet you are unable to bring forward proper statements from the Salaf.

[sunnipress]

Ansari is just on a rampage writing without even reading or understanding.

Who is this Pazdawi ? Was he from the Salaf ? It seems Ansari has no clue about scholars who wrote on this subject like Imam Anwar Shah Kashmiri ? But was Kashmiri from Salaf ?

was Ibn Hajar Asqalani from salaf ? was Nawawi from Salaf ? was Iji, Bajuri, Baqillani , from the Salaf ?

[Musleemah]

Ansari is just on a rampage writing without even reading or understanding.

Who is this Pazdawi ? Was he from the Salaf ? It seems Ansari has no clue about scholars who wrote on this subject like Imam Anwar Shah Kashmiri ? But was Kashmiri from Salaf ?

was Ibn Hajar Asqalani from salaf ? was Nawawi from Salaf ? was Iji, Bajuri, Baqillani , from the Salaf ?

I quoted him from the salaf such as Imam al-Bukhari rahimahullah, but then he said that my interpretation is garbage, so then I asked him what the correct interpretation of Imam Bukhari's statement was, but I got no answer from him, he just ignored it and kept on repeating his question.

[Abu Jahid]

Yes, he DOES affirm the word and sifa SUKUT for Allah, regardless of how he interprets it.


You shouldn't let your hate against the Hanablia make you insincere to this degree!!

Learn to read!! Imam Ibn Taymiyya (rahimahullah) says in his "Sharh Aqidadat al-Asfhaniyya":

ولا نقول إنه ساكت في حال ومتكلم في حال من حيث حدوث الكلام

As for you mentioning the Karramiya together with the Hanabila, then I say: This is great injustice!! The Karramiya are not upon what the Hanablia are upon, not in the matter of Kalamullah, nor in the matter of Asmat and Sifat in general!!

And I say it again:

We believe that ALLAH ta'ala has been eternally mutakallim (a speaker) and he speaks as HE wills and whenever HE wills!

PS: Read the article from islamqa!

[Ansari]

Ansari is just on a rampage writing without even reading or understanding.

Who is this Pazdawi ? Was he from the Salaf ? It seems Ansari has no clue about scholars who wrote on this subject like Imam Anwar Shah Kashmiri ? But was Kashmiri from Salaf ?

was Ibn Hajar Asqalani from salaf ? was Nawawi from Salaf ? was Iji, Bajuri, Baqillani , from the Salaf ?

The difference is that you people CLAIM to follow the scholars of the Salaf. You claim to stop where the Salaf stopped which is a BIG LIE. Everybody reading this thread can see that you make up kalaami terms and affirm attributes that the first 3 generations NEVER EVER spoke about.

[Ansari]

You shouldn't let your hate against the Hanablia make you insincere to this degree!!

Learn to read!! Imam Ibn Taymiyya (rahimahullah) says in his "Sharh Aqidadat al-Asfhaniyya":

ولا نقول إنه ساكت في حال ومتكلم في حال من حيث حدوث الكلام

As for you mentioning the Karramiya together with the Hanabila, then I say: This is great injustice!! The Karramiya are not upon what the Hanablia are upon, not in the matter of Kalamullah, nor in the matter of Asmat and Sifat in general!!

And I say it again:

We believe that ALLAH ta'ala has been eternally mutakallim (a speaker) and he speaks as HE wills and whenever HE wills!

PS: Read the article from islamqa!

Your hatred aganst the true scholars of the salaf is apparent for everybody.

You claim to follow Imam Ahmad: WHERE did he affirm with an authentic sanad حدوث الكلام?!? Where did he affirm that He speaks "sometimes"?

And what does sometimes mean? What does it mean when He is not speaking?

Your own Salafi brethren agree with affirming SUKUT!!

[Musleemah]

You shouldn't let your hate against the Hanablia make you insincere to this degree!!

Learn to read!! Imam Ibn Taymiyya (rahimahullah) says in his "Sharh Aqidadat al-Asfhaniyya":

ولا نقول إنه ساكت في حال ومتكلم في حال من حيث حدوث الكلام

As for you mentioning the Karramiya together with the Hanabila, then I say: This is great injustice!! The Karramiya are not upon what the Hanablia are upon, not in the matter of Kalamullah, nor in the matter of Asmat and Sifat in general!!


Brother, what you quoted isn't Ibn Taimiyyah's words, it is what Ibn Taimiyyah -rahimahullah- transmitted from Abu Abdullah Ibn Hamid, you got them mixed up.
And here is Ibn Taimiyyah's explanation of Ibn Hamid's statement (taken from his book "Dar' Ta`arud al-Aql wa An-Naql 1/274) :


قلت : قول ابن حامد : ( ولا نقول إنه ساكت في حال أو متكلم في حال من حيث حدوث الكلام )
يريد به أنا لا نقول : إن جنس كلامه حادث في ذاته كما تقوله الكرامية، من أنه كان ولا يتكلم، ثم صار يتكلم بعد أن لم يكن متكلما في الأزل، ولا كان تكلمه ممكنا.

So they are about two different sukoots, one that is Allah speaking after not speaking at all, and not being able to speak, which is negated from Allah Azza wa Jal; and one that is Allah speaking when He Wills.

[Abu Jahid]

^^

:salam:

Yes, sister I know that the words I qouted are the words of Imam Ibn Hamid (rahimahulllah). And Imam Ibn Taymiyya (rahimahullah) cited him in his "Sharh Aqidat al-Asfahaniyya" and agreed with his words and that's why I qouted the quote.
The Karramiya regarded the genus of speech of ALLAH ta'ala as being hadith (meaning: that ALLAH ta'ala was not a speaker and then became a speaker... wal 'yadhubillah!!) and this belief is batil and against the position of Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah)!!
Rather ALLAH ta'ala has been eternally mutakallim and HE 'azza wa jal speaks as HE wills and whenever HE wills and this is the madhab of Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah)!! And the Arabic Quran is the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala no matter how much the people of kalam deny it!!

As for you Ansari: Go and learn arabic!! The qoute I brought was rejecting that the genus of speech of ALLAH ta'ala is hadith (and the Karramiya regarded it as hadith) and you want me to bring a quote from Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) affirming it?!? Do you even understand what you're saying?

[Ansari]

As for you Ansari: Go and learn arabic!! The qoute I brought was rejecting that the genus of speech of ALLAH ta'ala is hadith (and the Karramiya regarded it as hadith) and you want me to bring a quote from Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) affirming it?!? Do you even understand what you're saying?

It seems you are not even able to properly go through your Arabic own books and mix up different quotes. Ibn Taymiyya affirmed sukut for Allah in several of his works. Several Salafi scholars such as Muqbil and others affirm Sukut for Allah too. He also affirmed the Qur'an being haadith.

Musleemah corrected you so pay heed to the advice of your own Salafi brethren and sisters if you do not believe me.

[Abu Yunus]

Referring back to the quote from Imam al-Tabari found in post #303, I always avoid affirming two Qurans (even when the thought enters my mind through such discussions), lest I fall under his judgment.

But similarly, one should always avoid saying that the Quran is muhdath (originated), lest one falls under the judgments of Imam Wakiy' and Imam Ahmad.

It is best to take the middle ground in such matters, by ensuring that one does not stray too far from the safe, sound and unambiguous statements of the Righteous Salaf.

That is my general advice, so that perhaps the discussion will become more amicable and less precarious.

[Abu Yunus]

Another thing, Imam Al-Bukhari rahimahullah affirmed "hadath" for Allah Azza wa Jal, and said that it is not like the "hadath" of creation, he said in his sahih:

{ ما يأتيهم من ذكر من ربهم محدث }
وقوله تعالى
{ لعل الله يحدث بعد ذلك أمرا }
وأن حدثه لا يشبه حدث المخلوقين لقوله تعالى
{ ليس كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير }

Simple explanation: Allah's Action (يحدث) does not resemble our actions.

This statement from Imam al-Bukhari does not at all support the false claim that the Quran is muhdath (originated), and indeed the Righteous Salaf firmly opposed such false claims.

[Abu Yunus]

So my salafi brethren were right when they said that today's Asharis do not believe in real sight and hearing for Allah Azza wa Jal, that the "sight" and "hearing" they "affirm" for Allah is actually the Attribute of Knowledge. But to hear that "speech" is also Knowledge in their beliefs ! that is new to me, I guess I will have to research it in Ashari texts when I have time to, insha Allah.
But isn't it deceptive of you to say that Allah has 7 Attributes when it is only 4 Attributes? since "sight", "hearing", and "speech", are not 3 attributes, but one attribute, each describing an aspect of that one attribute (i.e. the attribute of Knowledge).

I wonder if this is the belief of today's Maturidi's too, or only today's Asharis.

And I wonder if brother Abu Yunus and brother maneatinglizard share this belief too? I mean in regards to Allah's: sight, hearing and speech; all being the Attribute of Knowledge, and not 3 different attributes.

In answer to your last question, directed at me:

No - the belief you are describing, if affirmed, would entail denial of Allah's Attributes of Sight, Hearing and Speech (in my opinion).

I seek refuge in Allah from denying any of Allah's Perfect Attributes (:taala:).

[Ansari]

As for you Ansari: Go and learn arabic!! The qoute I brought was rejecting that the genus of speech of ALLAH ta'ala is hadith (and the Karramiya regarded it as hadith) and you want me to bring a quote from Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) affirming it?!? Do you even understand what you're saying?

Here and in his other posts, the Salafi seems to be deny that his own ilk affirm Haadith and Silence for the speech of Allah. The Salafis affirmed it right here for Allah, and even Ibn Taymiyya affirmed it:

In his collection of Fatawa he clearly affirmed sukut for Allah with the CONSENSUS:

في مجموع الفتاوى (6/179) : (قلت في حديث سلمان عن النبي : "الحلال ما أحل الله في كتابه والحرام ما حرم الله في كتابه وما سكت عنه فهو مما عفا عنه" رواه أبو داود ، وفي حديث أبى ثعلبة عن النبي "إن الله فرض فرائض فلا تضيعوها وحدد حدوداً فلا تعتدوها وحرم محارم فلا تنتهكوها وسكت عن أشياء رحمة لكم من غير نسيان فلا تسألوا عنها" ويقول الفقهاء في دلالة المنطوق والمسكوت وهو ما نطق به الشارع وهو الله ورسوله وما سكت عنه تارة تكون دلالة السكوت أولى بالحكم من المنطوق وهو مفهوم الموافقة وتارة تخالفه وهو مفهوم المخالفة وتارة تشبهه وهو القياس المحض . فثبت بالسنة والاجماع أن الله يوصف بالسكوت لكن السكوت يكون تارة عن التكلم وتارة عن إظهار الكلام وإعلامه

Then he tries to prove with Ibn Taymiyya's word that he did not believe in speech of Allah being HAADITH, which shows that you are not educated about the beliefs of Ibn Taymiyya at all.

Another interesting quote from your reliable work sharh al-aqida al-asfahaniyya

وأما دعواك أن تفسير القيوم الذي لا يزول عن مكانه ولا يتحرك فلا يقبل منك هذا التفسير إلا بأمر صحيح مأثور عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أو عن بعض أصحابه أو التابعين لأن الحي القيوم يفعل ما يشاء ويتحرك إذا شاء ويهبط ويرتفع إذا شاء ويقبض ويبسط ويقوم ويجلس إذا شاء لأن ذلك أمارة ما بين الحي والميت لأن كل متحرك لا محالة حي وكل ميت غير متحرك لا محالة ومن يلتفت إلى تفسيرك وتفسير صاحبك مع تفسير نبي الرحمة ورسول رب العزة إذ فسر نزوله مشروطا منصوصا ووقت له وقتا موضوحا لم يدع لك ولا لأصحابك فيه لبسا ولا عويصا

i.e. Allah can "sit" (yajlis) if He wants to, and "moves" if he wants to.

Now tell me WHERE the Salaf said so? Just say you follow the later day scholars and don't pretend to be following the salaf!!

[Musleemah]

Simple explanation: Allah's Action (يحدث) does not resemble our actions.

This statement from Imam al-Bukhari does not at all support the false claim that the Quran is muhdath (originated), and indeed the Righteous Salaf firmly opposed such false claims.

Brother
you said that hadath in Imam al Bukhari's statements mean's Allah's actions, which is correct.
Now I would like to ask you, what was Imam alBukhari's belief regarding Allah's actions?
Did He believe them to created or uncreated?
and did he believe Allah's individual speeches such as "kun" to be from Allah's actions or not?

I would also like you to tell me your belief in regards to Allah's actions, are they created or uncreated?
Are they from the Attributes of Allah or not?

[faqir]

Here is what the pious salaf said:

السنة لأحمد بن محمد الخلال - (6 / 26)
أخبرني حرب بن إسماعيل الكرماني ؛ قال : ثنا أبو يعقوب إسحاق بن إبراهيم - يعني ابن راهويه - ، عن سفيان بن عيينة ، عن عمرو بن دينار ؛ قال : أدركت الناس منذ سبعين سنة
أدركت أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ومن دونهم يقولون : الله خالق وما سواه مخلوق إلا القرآن فإنه كلام الله منه خرج وإليه يعود .

"Amru bin Dinar said: " I have met the people, since 70 years, I've met the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and who are below them (i.e. Tabi'een) saying: 'Allah is the Creator, and everything other than Him is created, except the Quran, it is His Speech, from Him it came out (minhu kharaja) and to Him it returns'."


Go ahead and explain what the salaf's above statement means, where they said "from Him it emerged (came out)", and how that does not point to it having a beginning.


.

I'm not sure who exactly from the sahaba or tabi'in we are supposed to be establishing a point of `aqida from here?! There is also a weak hadith (again unfit to establish the basis of one's belief!) with similar wording which was explained by al-Hafidh Imam al-Bayhaqi which I'll post here although it is pointless to be discussing it. [see under heading 'Allah's Speech']

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f378/faqir/Bayhaqi3.jpg

[faqir]

Secondly, in regards to the issue of the Quran being muhdath (i.e. new; not eternal; has a starting point) :

Something being "muhdath" (i.e. new; not eternal) does not necessitate it being created, in regards to Allah's acts of speech such as the Quran; how?

1. What it consists of (i.e. its meanings and its letters) is eternal , the meanings are from the Eternal Attribute of Knowledge, and the letters are from Allah's Eternal Attribute of Speech of the Essence.
The Salaf used this argument (i.e. the Quran being from the Knowledge of Allah) against the belief that the Quran is created.

2. It (i.e. The Quran) emerged (i.e. came out) of Allah's Essence (i.e. Allah speaking it), as was stated by the pious Salaf when they said "kharaja minhu". And what comes from Allah's Essence cannot be creation, because Allah is uncreated.
The Righteous Salaf used this argument too against the ones who believed the Quran to be created.

The Quran is muhdath because Allah spoke it at a certain moment, and not because it is created.

Leaving aside your incorrect interpretation of the statements from the salaf (who we are supposedly meant to be establishing a point of Aqida from?!?).... from our perspective your position is still wrong. The mere fact that something is 'new' means it did not exist and then it came into existence. No matter how you dress this up there is no getting away from the fact that it must, therefore, be created. And if you run from this then you cannot run from acknowledging change within Allah's entity - and I'm sorry I don't believe in a God subject to change.

[Musleemah]

I'm not sure who exactly from the sahaba or tabi'in we are supposed to be establishing a point of `aqida from here?!

The Sahaba -radiyallahu anhum- and Tabi'een did not differ in the fundamentals of aqeedah for you to ask which one of them we are supposed to establish a point of aqeedah from.
Unless I misunderstood your question?



There is also a weak hadith (again unfit to establish the basis of one's belief!) with similar wording which was explained by al-Hafidh Imam al-Bayhaqi which I'll post here although it is pointless to be discussing it.


Yes, al Bukhari rahimahullah did mention the hadeeth and pointed out that it is weak, but affirmed its meaning to be correct. (source: his book "khalq af'al al Ibad")



Leaving aside your incorrect interpretation of the statements from the salaf

You know, I am tired of hearing about my interpretation being "incorrect", while not getting a "correct" interpretation of those authentic statements of the pious salaf.

So I am waiting for you, or brother Ansari, who claimed my interpretation to be false, to give me the correct interpretation of the salaf's statements about the Quran emerging (kharaja) from Allah Azza wa Jal.



(who we are supposedly meant to be establishing a point of Aqida from?!?)

The Righteous Salaf in general, as they didn't differ in the fundamentals of aqeedah as a whole.



.... from our perspective your position is still wrong. The mere fact that something is 'new' means it did not exist and then it came into existence. No matter how you dress this up there is no getting away from the fact that it must, therefore, be created. And if you run from this then you cannot run from acknowledging change within Allah's entity - and I'm sorry I don't believe in a God subject to change.

Well, to us, and the pious salaf, the emergence of Allah's Knowledge as Speech, is not creation, because His Knowledge is eternal, and the Salaf used this argument against the Jahmis who professed the creation of the Quran.

[Abu Yunus]

Brother
you said that hadath in Imam al Bukhari's statements mean's Allah's actions, which is correct.
No, that is not actually what I said.

Imam al-Bukhari is explaining the preceding Quranic verse and indicating that Allah's Action ("يحدث" as mentioned in the verse) does not resemble our actions (despite descriptions with the same verb "يحدث").

Of course, in addition to that, it is certainly true that none of Allah's Actions resemble our actions.


Now I would like to ask you, what was Imam alBukhari's belief regarding Allah's actions?
Did He believe them to created or uncreated?
He believed Allah's Actions to be uncreated from what I have read.


and did he believe Allah's individual speeches such as "kun" to be from Allah's actions or not?
I don't know this.


I would also like you to tell me your belief in regards to Allah's actions, are they created or uncreated?
Are they from the Attributes of Allah or not?
Allah's Actions are uncreated and from His Attributes, related to His eternal Attribute of Takwin (as is the Maturidi position).

[Abu Yunus]

You know, I am tired of hearing about my interpretation being "incorrect", while not getting a "correct" interpretation of those authentic statements of the pious salaf.

So I am waiting for you, or brother Ansari, who claimed my interpretation to be false, to give me the correct interpretation of the salaf's statements about the Quran emerging (kharaja) from Allah Azza wa Jal.

I already answered this in post #227, but you chose not to read it (along with my subsequent posts responding to your quotes from the Righteous Salaf).

[Abu Yunus]

Here is what the pious salaf said:

السنة لأحمد بن محمد الخلال - (6 / 26)
أخبرني حرب بن إسماعيل الكرماني ؛ قال : ثنا أبو يعقوب إسحاق بن إبراهيم - يعني ابن راهويه - ، عن سفيان بن عيينة ، عن عمرو بن دينار ؛ قال : أدركت الناس منذ سبعين سنة
أدركت أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ومن دونهم يقولون : الله خالق وما سواه مخلوق إلا القرآن فإنه كلام الله منه خرج وإليه يعود .

"Amru bin Dinar said: " I have met the people, since 70 years, I've met the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and who are below them (i.e. Tabi'een) saying: 'Allah is the Creator, and everything other than Hims is created, except the Quran, it is His Speech, from Him it came out (minhu kharaja) and to Him it returns'."


Go ahead and explain what the salaf's above statement means, where they said "from Him it emerged (came out)", and how that does not point to it having a beginning.

By quoting this, are you trying to convince us that the Quran (Allah's uncreated Speech) is other than Him!?!

I would have preferred that you bring a full scholarly commentary on this statement, rather than throwing it out amongst the people.

[maneatinglizard]

By quoting this, are you trying to convince us that the Quran (Allah's uncreated Speech) is other than Him!?!

I would have preferred that you bring a full scholarly commentary on this statement, rather than throwing it out amongst the people.

:salam:

That statement doesn't make much sense if understood according to Salafi Aqeeda to begin with.

If we understand it in the Salafi way, then:

1. The Quran is other than Allah :taala: (i.e. a separate entity).
2. Is the only thing that is uncreated other than Allah :taala:

However, this also suggests that:

1. If the other speeches of Allah :taala: (since Salafis believe in separate individual speeches), and indeed any other of the originated actions Salafis ascribe to Allah :taala:, are other than Allah :taala:, like the Quran, then they are created, because the statement is pretty clear in negating uncreatedness for everything except Allah :taala: and the Quran.

2. If the other speeches and actions of Allah :taala: are not separate entities, then they are uncreated, but the Quran is still made out to be some sort of Jesus (according to Christian belief) like entity, which is not like the other speeches of Allah :taala: in not being separate from Allah :taala:, but still somehow uncreated.

[faqir]

Musleemah, the correct interpretation was given in that scan I posted - read under Allah's Speech. It also explains why you interpretation is incorrect. And yes, you've misunderstood my question but I've not got the time to explain at present. Can you comment on what I wrote in 325. Particularly the second implication of your belief - change in Allah's entity.

[janaveronikazahra]

Salam alikum,
I appologize in the advance as my question will be little bit OT and aso might sound very ignorat, but i cant help myseldf I have no one here to ask, so I use this opposrtunity:
I understand that our salafi brothers and sisters follow the way of life of first muslims. They try to be as much fundamental as it goes. On the other hand does it not mean that they must overlook some hadith or may be the wider meaning of hadith? I mean for example - they strictly require women stay home, but as I know it is not forbidden for woman to make work for society or take job if her husband is OK with that. I mean the conditions at time of first muslims were different, they were under permanent threat (OK in a way it is the case nowdays too....), but should not we accept real conditions?
I appologize once again for my ignorance if I am deeply incorrect here.

w salam

[Musleemah]

Can you comment on what I wrote in 325. Particularly the second implication of your belief - change in Allah's entity.

What "change" happened in Allah's Essence when Allah spoke the Quran (the Quran emerged from Him)?
Allah did not acquire a new Attribute by Him Speaking the Quran, because Allah's actions of speech are His implementation of His Eternal Attribute of Speech, they are not a separate Attribute. Nor did an existing Attribute change into another attribute, Allah's Attributes are as they were, nothing of them changed.

[Musleemah]

There is also a weak hadith (again unfit to establish the basis of one's belief!) with similar wording which was explained by al-Hafidh Imam al-Bayhaqi which I'll post here although it is pointless to be discussing it. [see under heading 'Allah's Speech']

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f378/faqir/Bayhaqi3.jpg

I've seen al-Bayhaqi's -rahimahullah- interpretation of the salaf's statement "minhu kharaja", and its wording isn't much different than what we say and believe, but I am assuming he intends with his saying: "wujda minhu bi 'an takallama bihi", is that Allah spoke the Quran with created letters?
meaning he is interpreting "kharaja" to mean "created" ?
Is that what you understood from his interpretation of the statement?




Regarding the statement "kharaja minhu", then I simply understand from this that Allah manifested His uncreated Speech to His creatures (through speaking), and indeed this is supported by the interpretation from Imam Ahmad that you quoted: "Him (Allah) speaking it (i.e. the Quran)".

Is your explanation the same as what I mentioned above to faqir?
In other words, do you mean by "manifested" = expressing the Quran with created speech/letters?



If you understand from the statement "kharaja minhu" that the uncreated Speech of Allah somehow "left" or "departed" or "exited" from His Essence, then please provide an interpretation from the Righteous Salaf that justifies this.


Our understanding of "minhu kharja" (from Him it emerged) is Allah speaking His Knowledge with His Attribute of Speech (i.e. expressing His Knowledge with His uncreated letters), it does not mean that the Quran, as the speech of Allah was inside Allah, then exited , leaving His Essence, Exalted be Allah.

Imam Uthman Ad-Darimi rahimahullah said in his "Naqd" (2/692):

فيقال لهذا المعارض ولإمامه الثلجي: قد فهمنا مرادك إنما تريد نفي الكلام عن الله تعالى مشنعا بذكر الجوف: فأما خروجه من الله فلا يشك فيه إلا من أنكر كلامه، لأن الكلام يخرج من المتكلم لا محالة. وأما أن نصفه بالجوف كما ادعيت علينا زورا فإنا نجله عن ذلك وهو المتعالي عنه لأنه الأحد الصمد كما قال، ومن زعم أنه لم يخرج منه إلا كخروج عطاء الرجل من قبله، فقد أقر بأنه كلام غيره وكلام غيره مخلوق لا يجوز أن يضاف إليه صفة ...

[Musleemah]

:salam:

That statement doesn't make much sense if understood according to Salafi Aqeeda to begin with.

If we understand it in the Salafi way, then:

1. The Quran is other than Allah :taala: (i.e. a separate entity).
2. Is the only thing that is uncreated other than Allah :taala:

:ws:

This will be answered in my reply to brother Abu Yunus insha Allah.

Edit: here it is:
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?73505-Question-About-Salafi-Belief&p=638936&viewfull=1#post638936



However, this also suggests that:

1. If the other speeches of Allah :taala: (since Salafis believe in separate individual speeches), and indeed any other of the originated actions Salafis ascribe to Allah :taala:, are other than Allah :taala:, like the Quran, then they are created, because the statement is pretty clear in negating uncreatedness for everything except Allah :taala: and the Quran.


I've already addressed this doubt you have in a previous reply of mine to you, you either didn't read it, or you forgot about it, and in that case, here it is (post #267) :

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?73505-Question-About-Salafi-Belief&p=635158&viewfull=1#post635158



No, because "Allah" includes His Attributes too and not just the Essence; His Attributes are not separate from Him. This would include His actions too because they are His Attributes, and His Speeches are His actions (i.e. Quran, Torah ..etc.).

The reason why the Quran was mentioned with Allah Azza wa Jal in the statement, although it is His Attribute (thus it would automatically be included) , is because ahl bidah were saying that the Quran is created (the fitnah of the belief in the creation of the Quran), so they wanted to refute them, and stress that it is not creation, that it emerged from Allah Azza wa Jal, thus cannot be created, so they mentioned it. The whole purpose of that statement is to refute those heretics who say that the Quran is created.

[Musleemah]

By quoting this, are you trying to convince us that the Quran (Allah's uncreated Speech) is other than Him!?!.

No, because "illa" (i.e. except) in the statement is a disconnected exception = "istithna munqate3" (# 3 stands for the letter `Ayn), which means that the excluded is not from the group/category of the "excluded from" (i.e. other than Him -the Exalted-).

It is like the exception (istithna') in Allah's saying: {We said to the angels, ‘Prostrate to Adam!’ and they prostrated, with the exception of Iblis (Satan). He refused and was arrogant and was one of the disbelievers.} [2:34]
Notice that the excluded from group is the Angels, and the exception is Iblis, and he is not from the Angels, he is from the Jinn [Quran 18:50]. The exception in this ayah is a discontinued/disconnected one (istithna munqate3).
You can read about it in Arabic grammer books.

Thus, the Quran is not from "other than Allah". It is Allah's Speech, which emerged from Him; as is stated by the righteous salaf.

[Musleemah]

No, that is not actually what I said.

Imam al-Bukhari is explaining the preceding Quranic verse and indicating that Allah's Action ("يحدث" as mentioned in the verse) does not resemble our actions (despite descriptions with the same verb "يحدث").

Can you explain the difference between my statement on what you meant, and what you said above? because I don't get how it is different.


I don't know this.

Imam al-Bukhari said in "Khalq Af'al al-Ibad" (2/299) :

واختلف الناس في الفاعل والمفعول والفعل:
فقالت القدرية: الأفاعيل كلها من البشر ليست من الله.
وقالت الجبرية: الأفاعيل كلها من الله.
وقالت الجهمية: الفعل والمفعول واحد، لذلك قالوا لـ(كن) مخلوق.

وقال أهل العلم: التخليق فعل الله، وأفاعيلنا مخلوقة؛ لقوله تعالى: {وَأَسِرُّوا قَوْلَكُمْ أَوِ اجْهَرُوا بِهِ إِنَّهُ عَلِيمٌ بِذَاتِ الصُّدُورِ (13) أَلَا يَعْلَمُ مَنْ خَلَقَ ...} [الملك: 13، 14] يعني السر والجهر من
القول. ففعل الله صفة الله، والمفعول غيره من الخلق.

Translation:

"And the people differed in the doer (fa'il), the result of the action (maf'ul), and the action (fi'il):

The Qadariyyah said: All actions are from creation, and not from Allah.
The Jabriyyah said: All actions are from Allah.
The Jahmiyyah said: The action (fi'il), and its result (the maf'ul) are ONE, that is why they said that "Kun" is created.

And the people of knowledge (i.e. Ahl As-Sunnah) said: The act of creating is the fi'il (i.e. action) of Allah; and our actions are created, due to Allah -The Exalted- saying: {Whether you keep your words secret or say them out loud He knows what the heart contains * Does He who created not then know?} [67:13-14] meaning the hidden and apparent speech (mentioned in the first part of the ayah).
Thus, the action of Allah is the Attribute of Allah, and the maf'ul (i.e. result of the action) is other than Him, from creation." end of quote

Notice the statement of the Jahmiyyah, about the action and its result being the same (i.e. One), they didn't differentiate between them, thus they said that both are created (i.e."kun" and its result are both created).
This proves that Imam al-Bukhari rahimahullah believe "kun" to be an action of Allah's.



Allah's Actions are uncreated and from His Attributes, related to His eternal Attribute of Takwin (as is the Maturidi position).

I will have to read more on this belief in Maturidi aqeedah before I can comment on it , insha Allah.

[Abu Jahid]

Ansari, forget for one second what Imam ibn Taymiyya (rahimahullah) said (he did nothing more than to affirm the Hadith of the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam)).

You people of kalam have even a problem how ALLAH ta'ala describes himself in his book and how the Prophet (salallahu a'layhi wa salam) describes ALLAH ta'ala and that's why you reject the dhahir (apparent) of these descriptions (because the dhahir is tashbih and kufr to you)!!
Now I ask: Since when are the descriptions of ALLAH ta'ala by HIMSELF 'azza wa jal and bis his messenger (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) kufr and tashbih, so that you reject the dhahir (apparent) of these descriptions?
You people hear the Sifat and the first thing you do is to imagine the Sifat of ALLAH ta'ala as if they're the Sifat of the creation (hashalillah!!!) and then you tell yourself "this is wrong" (and indeed it is wrong!) so you reject the dhahir, because the first thing you think of is kufr! (The 'Ulamah have forbidden to imagine ALLAH ta'ala!)
Why don't you simply believe in the Sifat without imaging the Sifat of ALLAH ta'ala? Because then your head would not go to think of tashbih and then you wouldn't reject the dhahir of the Sifat!

ALLAH ta'ala says that HE made Istawa (i.e. rose over) over the throne. What do you people say: "We have to reject the apparent, because it's kufr!"
ALLAH ta'ala says that HE created Adam ('alayhi salam) with his hands. What do you say: "The dahir is kufr and tashbih, we have to reject the dhahir!"
The Prophet ('alayhi afdhal assalati wa salam) said that ALLAH ta'ala descends ("yanzilu rabbuna") to the first heaven in the last third of the night. What do you say: "We have to make Ta`wil or Tafwidh otherwise we will fall into kufr and tashbih!"
The Sahaba (radhiallahu 'anhum) said that ALLAH ta'ala is above seven heavens ("fawqa sab' samawat"). Have we ever heard you describing ALLAH ta'ala with this? NO! If anyone says to you "ALLAH ta'ala is above seven heavens", you accuse him of tajsim and say "ALLAH ta'ala exists without place" (and it is a correct statement, but you use it in order to reject the 'uluw of ALLAH ta'ala) 100 times!
So to you the dhahir of the Sifat of ALLAH ta'ala, that are mentioned in the Quran al-karim and the Sunnah, is kufr... wal 'yadhubillah!!
To you Tawhid in Asmat was Sifat means to reject the 10 categories of Aristotle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_%28Aristotle%29#The_Praedicamenta) for ALLAH ta'ala and that's it!

Ohh and Ansari, you reminded me of the narration of one of the Salaf (and the narration is mentioned by Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) in his "Khalq Af'al al-'Ibad" and I'm sure you already know the narration):

وقال الفضيل بن عياض : إذا قال لك جهمي أنا أكفر برب يزول عن مكانه فقل انا أومن برب يفعل ما يشاء

And Fudhayl bin 'Iyadh said: If a Jahmi says to you "I disbelieve in a Lord who moves from His place", then say to him: "I believe in a Lord who does what He wishes".
__________


Let's come back to the topic of the thread:

Ansari, did you read the article of islamqa: http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?73505-Question-About-Salafi-Belief&p=637789&viewfull=1#post637789

And please read this: http://www.asharis.com/creed/articles/bvhjb-did-the-salaf-believe-the-quran-came-into-existence-from-non-existence---from-the-doubts-of-the-jahmite-asharis.cfm

(Note: I don't agree with adab of the website.)

And now you can attack us as much as you want, but don't forget that you and your scholars regard " الم " ("Alif Lam Mim") as created speech and not we!!

[Ansari]

Ansari, forget for one second what Imam ibn Taymiyya (rahimahullah) said (he did nothing more than to affirm the Hadith of the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam)).

You people of kalam have even a problem how ALLAH ta'ala describes himself in his book and how the Prophet (salallahu a'layhi wa salam) describes ALLAH ta'ala and that's why you reject the dhahir (apparent) of these descriptions (because the dhahir is tashbih and kufr to you)!!

Look at you. You were first TERRIBLY wrong in claiming that Ibn Taymiyya did not believe in sukut and haadith, and then you jump suddenly to a WHOLE DIFFERENT topic.

It seems you need to discover your own aqida first. Now you claim Ibn Taymiyya affirmed what was stated in the hadith and that you follow the salaf:

Now I ask you again: WHERE did the Salaf affirm SUKUT and HAADITH? Where did they affirm thay He speaks "sometimes"?

[Abu Jahid]

I don't know weather you misunderstand me or weather you're acting as if you do not understand me??

Read what I told you:



Ansari, did you read the article of islamqa: http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?73505-Question-About-Salafi-Belief&p=637789&viewfull=1#post637789

And please read this: http://www.asharis.com/creed/articles/bvhjb-did-the-salaf-believe-the-quran-came-into-existence-from-non-existence---from-the-doubts-of-the-jahmite-asharis.cfm

(Note: I don't agree with adab of the website.)


ALLAH ta'ala speaks as HE wills and when HE wills and if you're rejecting that, then this your problem not mine!

انا أومن برب يفعل ما يشاء

I believe in a Lord who does what He wishes

ALLAH ta'ala says:

وَهُوَ ٱلْغَفُورُ ٱلْوَدُودُ ذُو ٱلْعَرْشِ ٱلْمَجِيدُ فَعَّالٌ لِّمَا يُرِيدُ

And He is the Most-Forgiving, the Most-Loving, the Master of the Throne, the Glorious. He is ever doer of what He intends.

Surat al-Buruj, Aya 14-16

ALLAH ta'ala is Fa'alun lima yurid!!

[Ansari]

I don't know weather you misunderstand me or weather you're acting as if you do not understand me??

You are incredibly vague. First you denied sukut (the word only, regardless of its interpretation) and haadith for Allah, while it was proven that Ibn Taymiyya and other Salafi scholars that they affirm it.

So I ask you: Do you affirm hawaadith existing with Allah? DO you affirm sukut?


انا أومن برب يفعل ما يشاء

I believe in a Lord who does what He wishes

So your Lord can sit on the throne if He wants to? Make a child if He wants to?

The answer of Fudayl was refuting the JAHMI belief of Nuzul, that it would mean that Allah moves and is in a makaan.

But it seems you believe that Allah is also in a makaan, which is also kufr.

[Abu Jahid]

Make a child if He wants to?

Astaghfirallah!!


But it seems you believe that Allah is also in a makaan, which is also kufr.

Where did I say this?? Or is believing that ALLAH ta'ala is above seven heavens the same as believing in makan to you? If yes, then you're accusing the Sahaba of Kufr!!
ALLAH ta'ala is not inside his creation! And if you say "But makan is a creation!"! Then I say: Yes, but I already told you that ALLAH ta'ala is not inside his creation, so why are you accusing me of tajsim?

I won't discuss with you anymore! You just throw accusations around you! It seems you just want to "win" this discussion and I'm not interested in such a discussion!

[Sulaiman84]

:salam:

Brother Ansari,

Could you or brother faqir post some definitions on what is laazim and mustahil regarding these aspects of Aqeedah? I think it would give clarity to many things that have been said here.

I saw a brief explanation on youtube by Abdur Rahman Sandalani but I don't have any material on it.

:jazak:

[Ansari]

Astaghfirallah!!



Where did I say this?? Or is believing that ALLAH ta'ala is above seven heavens the same as believing in makan to you? If yes, then you're accusing the Sahaba of Kufr!!
ALLAH ta'ala is not inside his creation! And if you say "But makan is a creation!"! Then I say: Yes, but I already told you that ALLAH ta'ala is not inside his creation, so why are you accusing me of tajsim?

I won't discuss with you anymore! You just throw accusations around you! It seems you just want to "win" this discussion and I'm not interested in such a discussion!

Can't you even answer simple the question that you FIRST negated SUKUT and HAADITH, and now you seem to affirm it? So WHAT is your belief now?

You used the quote of Fudayl claiming that he MOVES. But in the same sentence the Jahmi believes in a MAKAN and ZAWAL.

And perhaps you don't know, but Salafis believe in al-makan al-adami. Which is the same as believing in a place.

[Abu Jahid]

Ansari, I rejected that ALLAH ta'ala wasn't mutakallim and then became mutakallim (as the Karramiya believe)! Rather ALLAH ta'ala has been eternally mutakallim!
And ALLAH ta'ala speaks as HE wills and when HE wills and this is what I said all the time and this is what I believe and nothing from what I believe has changed!! If you love to play around with what I said, then feel free to do so, but don't accuse me after playing around with my words and changing what I intended!

Subhanallah, do you think this is somehow a competition??

Regarding the narration of Fudhail bin 'Iyadh (rahimahullah): I claimed nothing, I just said that you reminded me of the narration! But hey Ansari has to "beat" me (because I'm an "evil mujassim" to him), so he has the right to put things into my mouth that I didn't say!

And I told you that I won't discuss with you anymore, because you love to play around with every word I say! Is this your strategy so that we forget that you regard the Arabic Quran as created speech??

I told you to read this:



Ansari, did you read the article of islamqa: http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?73505-Question-About-Salafi-Belief&p=637789&viewfull=1#post637789

And please read this: http://www.asharis.com/creed/articles/bvhjb-did-the-salaf-believe-the-quran-came-into-existence-from-non-existence---from-the-doubts-of-the-jahmite-asharis.cfm

(Note: I don't agree with adab of the website.)

[baytul-herz]

:ws:

Allah did not create His Speech, while He Created us, we are His creation, while His speech (Quran ..etc.) is His Attribute.

Allah's Attributes (including His speech that He spoke) are not separate from Allah, they are from His Essence, while creation are a separate entity. Allah created us, but we did not come from His divine Essence, contrary to His speech, it comes from His divine Essence.
I hope that answers your question.

1. You say that Allah spoke the Qur'an.
2. then you say = Allah's Attributes (including His speech that He spoke) are not separate from Allah, they are from His Essence
3. And then you say the Qur'an is NOT eternal?
4. you are saying that the Qur'an,which is apart of allah's essence originated.
5.you're saying that allah's essence originated.

[Musleemah]

1. You say that Allah spoke the Qur'an.
2. then you say = Allah's Attributes (including His speech that He spoke) are not separate from Allah, they are from His Essence
3. And then you say the Qur'an is NOT eternal?
4. you are saying that the Qur'an,which is apart of allah's essence originated.
5.you're saying that allah's essence originated.

You got it wrong.
What we mean by Allah's speech (i.e. individual speeches/acts of speech/Quran, kun ..etc.) not being separate from Allah Azza wa Jal, is that it emerged from Him Ta'ala (i.e. Allah spoke it), and creation do not come Allah's Essence, they come into existence as a separate entitiy from Allah Azza wa Jal, while His speech comes (emerges) from His Essence.
And something that emerges (has a starting point, which is Him speaking it) cannot be eternal.
This belief is based on the Righteous Salaf's authentic statements stating that Allah's speech, the Quran, emerged "kharaja" from Allah Azza wa Jal (and in another narration: "started from Him"), thus it cannot be created, as it comes from the uncreated. Their statements have been quoted in this thread. If you are unable to find it, then let me know and I will get them for you insha Allah.

[baytul-herz]

You got it wrong.
What we mean by Allah's speech (i.e. individual speeches/acts of speech/Quran, kun ..etc.) not being separate from Allah Azza wa Jal, is that it emerged from Him Ta'ala (i.e. Allah spoke it), and creation do not come Allah's Essence, they come into existence as a separate entitiy from Allah Azza wa Jal, while His speech comes (emerges) from His Essence.
And something that emerges (has a starting point, which is Him speaking it) cannot be eternal.
This belief is based on the Righteous Salaf's authentic statements stating that Allah's speech, the Quran, emerged "kharaja" from Allah Azza wa Jal (and in another narration: "started from Him"), thus it cannot be created, as it comes from the uncreated. Their statements have been quoted in this thread. If you are unable to find it, then let me know and I will get them for you insha Allah.

So you're saying that there are two types of speech,one that is spoken pre-eternal,and one that is emerged from this pre-eternal speech as sound. So you're saying that the Qur'an emerged from eternal speech into sound,you're saying that the qur'an existed as speech pre-eternally and became sound. You're saying that the Qur'an is eternal.

I don't know why you keep using the word emerged.....if something emerges it either comes from non-existence into existence,or it has emerged always existing..... if the Qur'an emerged and it was never non-existence,then you are saying that the Qur'an is eternal.

Please provide the book,its publisher,and the statements in Arabic including page number.

[Musleemah]

So you're saying that there are two types of speech,one that is spoken pre-eternal,and one that is emerged from this pre-eternal speech as sound. So you're saying that the Qur'an emerged from eternal speech into sound,you're saying that the qur'an existed as speech pre-eternally and became sound. You're saying that the Qur'an is eternal.

I don't know why you keep using the word emerged.....if something emerges it either comes from non-existence into existence,or it has emerged always existing..... if the Qur'an emerged and it was never non-existence,then you are saying that the Qur'an is eternal.

Please provide the book,its publisher,and the statements in Arabic including page number.

I will answer you in the other thread insha Allah, as I prefer to discuss one issue in one thread instead of two.

I mean this thread:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?74803-Imam-At-Tabari-and-Allah-s-Speech-quot-Kun-quot

[baytul-herz]

I will answer you in the other thread insha Allah, as I prefer to discuss one issue in one thread instead of two.

I mean this thread:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?74803-Imam-At-Tabari-and-Allah-s-Speech-quot-Kun-quot


NP dear sis.

[akabirofdeoband]

Brother ansari

I'm not well versed in this topic at all.
But some of your points seem quite radical

What do our senior ulema say about the modern day salafi ideas
Do they goto the degree that you do?

I'm not talking about each specific idea but the whole mass of beliefs put together

[suleimanibnsalim]

What do you expect when we have people talking about a 'general' kalam of Allah, and then specific words with 'originate' from Allah's essence??? Isn't that the exact thing they accuse us of? Believing in two qur'ans!

[maneatinglizard]

Brother ansari

I'm not well versed in this topic at all.
But some of your points seem quite radical

What do our senior ulema say about the modern day salafi ideas
Do they goto the degree that you do?

I'm not talking about each specific idea but the whole mass of beliefs put together

:salam:

I think it ranges from the specific focus of the scholar.

The ones who specialize in Fiqh tend to focus on the Salafis who reject Taqleed and attack Hanafi Fiqh (primarily Ahlul Hadith and Western Salafis), while the Aqeeda specialists are much more focused on the Salafi Aqeeda experts (mostly the Saudi Salafis, as well as the Mutaqadimeen movement). There are also the Tasawwuf focused scholars who tend to avoid these issues altogether, and the Hadith experts, although I don't know how they figure into the issue.

This is why you see Deobandi Ulema from the Subcontinent focusing most of their efforts on the Fiqh side of the equation as well as refuting Brelwis, as the Salafis from the Subcontinent are primarily focused on Fiqh issues themselves, while the Western Deobandi Ulema tend to discuss Aqeeda issues as well, due to the efforts to spread Salafi Aqeeda in the West.