PDA

View Full Version : Imam At-Tabari and Allah's Speech "Kun"



Musleemah
16-07-2011, 12:42 PM
:salam:

I just wanted to mention that Imam At-Tabari rahimahullah believed in Allah's individual kalam (acts of speech, and not the attribute of the Essence which is eternal) being hadeth (i.e. uneternal), because he said in his tafseer that creation comes into existence at the same moment Allah says "kun"; meaning that when Allah says "kun", creation is there, it does not come into existence before or after "kun", but with it.

I will post his statement on this later, with translation, insha Allah.


Here it is, the Arabic text first, then the translation, then the scans.


Arabic Text:

وَأَوْلَى الأَقْوَالِ بِالصَّوَابِ فِي قَوْلِهِ : {وَإِذَا قَضَى أَمْرًا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُ كُنْ فَيَكُونُ} أَنْ يُقَالَ : هُوَ عَامٌّ فِي كُلِّ مَا قَضَاهُ اللَّهُ وَدبَرَهُ ، لِأَنَّ ظَاهِرَ ذَلِكَ ظَاهِرُ عُمُومٍ ، وَغَيْرُ جَائِزٍ إِحَالَةُ الظَّاهِرِ إِلَى الْبَاطِنِ مِنَ التَّأْوِيلِ بِغَيْرِ بُرْهَانٍ لِمَا قَدْ بَيَّنَّا فِي كِتَابِنَا : كِتَابُ الْبَيَانِ عَنْ أُصُولِ الأَحْكَامِ وَإِذْ كَانَ ذَلِكَ كَذَلِكَ ، فَأَمْرُ اللَّهِ جَلَّ وَعَزَّ لِشَيْءٍ إِذَا أَرَادَ تَكْوِينَهُ مَوْجُودًا بِقَوْلِهِ : {كُنْ}

فِي حَالِ إِرَادَتِهِ جل ثناؤه إِيَّاهُ مَكُونًا ، لاَ يَتَقَدَّمُ وُجُودَ الَّذِي أَرَادَ إِيجَادَهُ وَتَكْوِينَهُ إِرَادَتَهُ إِيَّاهُ ، وَلاَ أَمْرُهُ بِالْكَوْنِ وَالْوُجُودِ ، وَلاَ يَتَأَخَّرُ عَنْهُ . فَغَيْرُ جَائِزٍ أَنْ يَكُونَ الشَّيْءُ مَأْمُورًا بِالْوُجُودِ مُرَادًا كَذَلِكَ إِلاَّ وَهُوَ مَوْجُودٌ ، وَلاَ أَنْ يَكُونَ مَوْجُودًا إِلاَّ وَهُوَ مَأْمُورٌ بِالْوُجُودِ مُرَادٌ كَذَلِكَ . وَنَظِيرُ قَوْلِهِ : {وَإِذَا قَضَى أَمْرًا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُ كُنْ فَيَكُونُ} قَوْلُهُ : {وَمِنْ آيَاتِهِ أَنْ تَقُومَ السَّمَاءُ وَالأَرْضُ بِأَمْرِهِ ثُمَّ إِذَا دَعَاكُمْ دَعْوَةً مِنَ الأَرْضِ إِذَا أَنْتُمْ تَخْرُجُونَ} بِأَنَّ خُرُوجَ الْقَوْمِ مِنْ قُبُورِهِمْ لاَ يَتَقَدَّمُ دُعَاءَ اللَّهِ ، وَلاَ يَتَأَخَّرُ عَنْهُ.



Translation:

The most correct view regarding Allah's saying: {When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, "Be," and it is.} [2:117] is to say: it is general in everything that Allah decreed and administered, because the apparent of that is generality, and it is not permissable to interpret the apparent to a hidden meaning of taweel without evidence, due to the reason I mentioned in my book "Kitab al-Bayan 'an Usool al-Ahkam".
And if this is the case, then Allah's -Ta'ala Dhikruh- command for a thing, if he willed its formation/existence, is with His saying {kun}. In the moment of His Will -Jal Thana'uh- for it to become, the existence of that which He willed its formation does not proceed His Will for it, nor His command (i.e. kun) for it to be, nor does it delay; because it is not possible that a thing be commanded to exist except that it is existent, and willed so; nor (is it possible) that it be existent except that it be commanded to exist, and willed so. And like His saying {When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, "Be," and it is.} is His saying: {Among His Signs is that heaven and earth hold firm by His command. Then, when He calls you forth from the earth, you will emerge at once.} [30:25], The emergence of the people from their graves does not precede Allah's call to them, nor does it delay."

[Tafsir at-Tabari (2/469-470) Tahqiq: AtTurki - Dar Hajer]




Scans (vol2 pg.469-470) :




http://i56.tinypic.com/o6fiuc.jpg



http://i56.tinypic.com/2d1v6lt.jpg

maneatinglizard
17-07-2011, 06:42 AM
:salam:

That doesn't really imply that Imam Tabari :rahma: believed in originated speeches for Allah :taala:.

Musleemah
17-07-2011, 11:11 AM
:salam:

That doesn't really imply that Imam Tabari :rahma: believed in originated speeches for Allah :taala:.

:ws:

I am not sure if you misread what he said, or you didn't understand how I came to the conclusion that he believes that Allah's individual acts of speech such as "kun", are uneternal (hadeth), but let me explain to you how his statement shows that he believes "kun" to be uneternal (i.e. hadeth).

Imam At-Tabari rahimahullah said that when Allah commands something to come into existence with "kun", that thing's existence does not precede Allah's Will and Command (i.e. kun) nor does it delay/succeed it; that things' existence happens with Allah's Will and Command, not before nor after.


Now, I believe there are two possible interpretations for this statement of his:

1. That Allah's Command "Kun" is one and eternal, thus his statement would mean the creation's existence is also eternal, since it does not come into exitence before NOR after kun, but with it = eternal.

2. That Allah's Command "kun" is not eternal, and that every moment Allah Wills to create something, He says to it "kun", and it is there.

With no doubt, the first interpretation is not Imam At-Tabari's belief, because that would be saying that creation is eternal which is impossible and kufr.

But we have no doubt that Imam At-Tabari rahimahullah does not believe Allah's speech "kun" to be created, thus his belief in this is the same as that of Imam al-Bukhari rahimahullah (Link (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?73505-Question-About-Salafi-Belief&p=635238&viewfull=1#post635238)), that Allah's acts of speech, such as "kun", is hadeth and uncreated.



p.s. If anyone is going to reply to this post objecting, then plz object with evidence, or at least an interpretation you believe is more correct for Imam at-Tabari's tafsir of the ayah, but no useless comments please.

tls
17-07-2011, 11:21 AM
^^^
what you say doesn't make any sense, a change always happen in a time, are you saying that Allah himself follow time which is his own creation?

faqir
17-07-2011, 12:40 PM
:ws:

I am not sure if you misread what he said, or you didn't understand how I came to the conclusion that he believes that Allah's individual acts of speech such as "kun", are uneternal (hadeth), but let me explain to you how his statement shows that he believes "kun" to be uneternal (i.e. hadeth).

Imam At-Tabari rahimahullah said that when Allah commands something to come into existence with "kun", that thing's existence does not precede Allah's Will and Command (i.e. kun) nor does it delay/succeed it; that things' existence happens with Allah's Will and Command, not before nor after.


Now, I believe there are two possible interpretations for this statement of his:

1. That Allah's Command "Kun" is one and eternal, thus his statement would mean the creation's existence is also eternal, since it does not come into exitence before NOR after kun, but with it = eternal.

2. That Allah's Command "kun" is not eternal, and that every moment Allah Wills to create something, He says to it "kun", and it is there.

With no doubt, the first interpretation is not Imam At-Tabari's belief, because that would be saying that creation is eternal which is impossible and kufr.

But we have no doubt that Imam At-Tabari rahimahullah does not believe Allah's speech "kun" to be created, thus his belief in this is the same as that of Imam al-Bukhari rahimahullah (Link (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?73505-Question-About-Salafi-Belief&p=635238&viewfull=1#post635238)), that Allah's acts of speech, such as "kun", is hadeth and uncreated.



p.s. If anyone is going to reply to this post objecting, then plz object with evidence, or at least an interpretation you believe is more correct for Imam at-Tabari's tafsir of the ayah, but no useless comments please.

:salam:

Your quote has nothing to do with the attribution of Silence to Allah. Please take your discussion to the relevant thread. Btw, some scholars have also quoted Imam al-Ash'ari as saying that the existence of the universe is linked with the address: Be. I guess you will now add him to your camp also based on your 'interpretation'!!?!:lol:

Musleemah
17-07-2011, 02:33 PM
Btw, some scholars have also quoted Imam al-Ash'ari as saying that the existence of the universe is linked with the address: Be. I guess you will now add him to your camp also based on your 'interpretation'!!?!:lol:

:ws:

No, because my conclusion was not based on him believing that creation was created with "Be" (i.e. Kun), it is based on the part where he says that creation's existence does not precede Allah's command "kun" and His Will for it to exist , nor does it succeed it (delay). And I already explained that in my previous post.


I will ask the mods to move my posts and the replies to it to a new thread, insha Allah.

Musleemah
17-07-2011, 02:35 PM
^^^
what you say doesn't make any sense, a change always happen in a time, are you saying that Allah himself follow time which is his own creation?

"Time" here is not creation (i.e. day and night), it is the measurement between two events.
Its a concept, so it has no real existence.

faqir
18-07-2011, 12:06 AM
al-salam `alaikum

At first glance it appears that Imam al-Tabari's position can be interpreted accurately by reading the following from Mufti Shafi'i's english tafsir translation:

LINK (http://www.classicalislamgroup.org/index.php?view=tafseer/s2-v116to117)

English - Ma'ariful Qur'an - Mufti Shafi Usmani RA - Vol - 1
Surah Al-Baqarah - 2 : Verses 116 - 117
Verses 116 - 117

And they say: "Allah has got a son." Pure is He. Instead, to Him belongs all that there is in the heavens and the earth. All stand obedient to Him. Originator of the heavens and the earth, when He decides a matter, to it He simply says: "Be", and it comes to be. (Verses 116 - 117)

As the Holy Qur'an reports in some other verses, some of the Jews called the Prophet Uzayr (Ezra (A.S)) the son of God, as did the Christians in the case of Sayyidna 'Isa (Jesus (A.S)) and most of them still do, while the mushrikin of Makkah considered the angels to be the daughters of God. These two verses show the absurdity of such assertions. For, even on rational grounds, it is totally impossible that God should have offspring. Were it at all possible, the situation would necessarily involve either of the two alternative characteristics -- the offspring would belong either to the same genus as the father does, or to a different genus. If it belongs to a different genus, that obviously is a defect, while God should in order to be God, be free of all defects -- as reason itself requires, and as Verse 116 affirms. If the offspring belongs to the same genus, that too is a contradiction in terms, for God has no equal and no existent can belong to the same genus as He does. Let us explain what we mean. God alone is the Necessary Being (Al-Dhat al-Wajib), and hence necessarily carries within Himself the Attributes of Perfection which are peculiar to Him alone and which cannot exist in any one other than God. Now, if we deny a necessary attribute to a certain being, we automatically deny the existence of that being. So, no one other than God can be a necessary being. Insofar as "necessity" is in itself the essence of the Ultimate Reality, or an inalienable quality of the Ultimate Reality, any one other than God cannot share the Reality with Him. Hence, it would be a plain and simple contradiction in terms of claim that any one other than God can belong to the same genus.

Having refuted the false claims of the Jews, the Christians and the mushrikin, the two verses proceed to demonstrate how and why the Attributes of Perfection are peculiar to Allah Himself and Him alone. Firstly, all that exists in heaven or earth belongs to Allah. Secondly, everything is also subservient to Him -- in the sense that no one can interfere with His omnipotence (for example, with His power to create and to destroy), even if some men may be lax in obeying the injunctions of the Shari'ah. Thirdly, He is the Creator and the Inventor of the skies and of the earth. Fourthly, His power of creation is so mighty that when He wishes to do something (for example, wishes to create something), He does not need any instruments or helpers -- all that He does is to say, "Be", and the thing becomes what He wishes it to be. These four qualities are not to be found in anyone other than Allah. In fact, even those who attributed offspring to Him, believed in this truth. Thus, their claims to the contrary stand finally refuted.

The two verses give rise to certain other important considerations.

(1) If Allah has chosen to assign certain tasks to certain angels (for example, sending down rain or bringing to the creatures their nourishment), or has chosen to employ causes, materials or physical forces in order to produce certain effects, He has done so in His wisdom. So, it is neither permissible nor proper that men should look upon these angels or causes or physical forces as being effective agents in themselves, and turn to them for help in their need.

(2) The commentator al-Baydawi has remarked that, Allah being the First Cause of the things, the earlier Shari'ahs had allowed the use of the title "Father" for Him, but that the ignorant misunderstood and distorted the sense of "Fatherhood" so badly that to entertain such a belief or to apply this title to Allah has now been declared to be an act of infidelity (Kufr). As this practice can lead to all kinds of doctrinal disorders, it is no longer permissible to employ this particular word or a similar expression with reference to Allah.

[As for creation taking place through the Divine Command, "Be", we would like to add a note, following the example of Maulana Ashraf 'Ali Thanavi in his "Bayan al-Qur'an", for the benefit of those who happen to be interested in Western philosophy, or in Christian theology, or, worst of all, in the writings of the Orientalists and their translations of Sufi texts. Let us begin by saying that it is a mystery - and we are using the word "mystery", not in the debased and the modern sense, but in the original meaning of the term which implies that certain realities are altogether beyond the reach of human understanding, and that certain other realities cannot and must not, even when partially or wholly understood, be given out to those who have no aptitude for receiving them, and that with regard to them it is advisable "to keep one's lips closed." In these matters, when and what one chooses to reveal is ultimately not the question of liberalism or democratism or egalitarianism, but that of "spiritual etiquette." Having repeated the warning given by Maulana Thanavi himself, we shall do no more than explaining what "Bayan al-Qur'an" says on the subject.

Regarding this particular mystery, there is a difference of approach between the two groups of the Mutakallimin (the masters of al-'Ilm al-Kalam or dialectical theology). According to the Asha'ri group, "Be, and it comes to be"( : Kun fa Yakun) is a metaphorical or allegorical expression. That is to say, the phrase does not signify that Allah actually addressed an existent and commanded it "to be", but it is an allegorical illustration of His omnipotence, suggesting that there is no interval between an act of will on His part and its realization. The commentator al-Baydawi has adopted this view. But, according to the Maturidi group, the phrase literally means what it says.

This approach to the subject, however, produces a difficult problem. A command is given only to an existent. If a thing does not exist at all, how can Allah address it? On the other hand, if a thing does already exist, it is superfluous to command it "to be." The problem can easily be resolved if we keep two considerations in mind. Firstly, this command does not belong to the order of Tashri': ( : legislation) which requires the addressee to exist in actual fact and to possess understanding; it belongs to the order of Takwin ( : creation) which is concerned with giving existence to non-existents.

This explanation, in its turn, brings us into the thick of a controversy that has muddled a great deal of Western philosophy and theology. We refer to the question of "creation arising out of nothingness" (Ex Nihilo), and the second of our two considerations will clarify it. It is usual enough to place "existence" ( : Wujud) in opposition to "nothingness or non-existence" (Adam : 'Adam). But it has also been said that non-existence does not exist. For, Allah is omniscient, and Divine Knowledge comprehends everything that has been, or is, or will be, so that what does not yet exist according to our reckoning, does already exist in Divine Knowledge. To use a different expression, everything past, present or future has its "pure" and "subtle" counterpart in Divine Knowledge. If Western terminology should be more easily comprehensible to some of our readers, we can call these Prototypes, Numbers, or Essences, or Ideas or Archetypes, but each time we will have to give a more refined and a higher signification to these terms than Pythagoras or Plato ever did. The Sufis, however, call them "Al-A'yan al-Thabitah." With the help of this explanation we can see that when Allah wishes to create a thing, He commands its Essence, which already exists in His Knowledge, "to be", and it "comes to be" — that is to say, comes to be actualised in the world. Thus, "creation" does not arise out of "nothingness." Before a thing comes to exist as an "actuality" in the world, it already exists as a "potentiality" in Divine Knowledge. It is this "potentiality" to which the Divine Command "Be" is addressed. Hence, it is equally true to say that Essences do not exist, and to say that Essences do exist. The first statement pertains to the knowledge of the creatures, and the second to the Divine Knowledge.

At the end, we shall again insist that no good can come out of unnecessarily meddling with such delicate questions, specially if the purpose is no more than to seek a new sensation.]

There is also a section on this subject by Sh. Sa'id Foudah in his commentary of Ibn Kamal Basha's text but Insha'Allah, time allowing, I'll post more.

was-salam

Musleemah
18-07-2011, 02:36 PM
Regarding this particular mystery, there is a difference of approach between the two groups of the Mutakallimin (the masters of al-'Ilm al-Kalam or dialectical theology). According to the Asha'ri group, "Be, and it comes to be"( : Kun fa Yakun) is a metaphorical or allegorical expression. That is to say, the phrase does not signify that Allah actually addressed an existent and commanded it "to be", but it is an allegorical illustration of His omnipotence, suggesting that there is no interval between an act of will on His part and its realization. The commentator al-Baydawi has adopted this view. But, according to the Maturidi group, the phrase literally means what it says.

This approach to the subject, however, produces a difficult problem. A command is given only to an existent. If a thing does not exist at all, how can Allah address it? On the other hand, if a thing does already exist, it is superfluous to command it "to be." The problem can easily be resolved if we keep two considerations in mind. Firstly, this command does not belong to the order of Tashri': ( : legislation) which requires the addressee to exist in actual fact and to possess understanding; it belongs to the order of Takwin ( : creation) which is concerned with giving existence to non-existents.

This explanation, in its turn, brings us into the thick of a controversy that has muddled a great deal of Western philosophy and theology. We refer to the question of "creation arising out of nothingness" (Ex Nihilo), and the second of our two considerations will clarify it. It is usual enough to place "existence" ( : Wujud) in opposition to "nothingness or non-existence" (Adam : 'Adam). But it has also been said that non-existence does not exist. For, Allah is omniscient, and Divine Knowledge comprehends everything that has been, or is, or will be, so that what does not yet exist according to our reckoning, does already exist in Divine Knowledge. To use a different expression, everything past, present or future has its "pure" and "subtle" counterpart in Divine Knowledge. If Western terminology should be more easily comprehensible to some of our readers, we can call these Prototypes, Numbers, or Essences, or Ideas or Archetypes, but each time we will have to give a more refined and a higher signification to these terms than Pythagoras or Plato ever did. The Sufis, however, call them "Al-A'yan al-Thabitah." With the help of this explanation we can see that when Allah wishes to create a thing, He commands its Essence, which already exists in His Knowledge, "to be", and it "comes to be" — that is to say, comes to be actualised in the world. Thus, "creation" does not arise out of "nothingness." Before a thing comes to exist as an "actuality" in the world, it already exists as a "potentiality" in Divine Knowledge. It is this "potentiality" to which the Divine Command "Be" is addressed. Hence, it is equally true to say that Essences do not exist, and to say that Essences do exist. The first statement pertains to the knowledge of the creatures, and the second to the Divine Knowledge.

At the end, we shall again insist that no good can come out of unnecessarily meddling with such delicate questions, specially if the purpose is no more than to seek a new sensation.][/COLOR][/COLOR]

:ws:
Thanks for sharing.
But I am still not clear on the belief of Maturidis regarding this matter.

What is the Maturidis belief regrading "kun"?

- Do they believe it to be an attribute of Allah's?
- Is it created or uncreated?
- Do they believe "kun" to be the eternal speech of Allah? or do they believe it to be hadeth?
- Is the coming of creation into existence with "kun", after "kun", or with "kun"? Meaning is there delay between "kun" and creation's existence, or no delay?

Musleemah
18-07-2011, 03:14 PM
While searching in sh. Muhammad Anwar Shah Kashmiri al-Hanafi's "Fayd al Bari", his commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari, trying to find some info on Maturidi beliefs regarding "Kun fa Yakoon", I came across an explanation from him -rahimahullah- on the difference between hadeth (i.e. emergent; uneternal) and makhluq (created).
So I thought to share it since it is related to the discussion.



The Arabic text (vol. 6 pg. 589) :

نعم، كلام المصنف ليس إلا في اللفظي، ومع ذلك تلك الحوادث القائمة ليست مخلوقة. واستبعد الحافظ: فقال: إن في إثبات حدوثها، ونفي كونها مخلوقة تناقضا، لأنه لا فرق بين الحادث والمخلوق.

قلتُ: وهذا إنما نشأ من عدم اطلاعه على اصطلاح القدماء، فإن المخلوق عندهم هو المحدث المنفصل، أما إذا كان قائما لفاعله، فلا يقال له: إنه مخلوق. وهذا عين اللغة، فإنك تقول: قام زيد، وقعد عمرو، ولا تقول: خلق زيد القيام، وخلق عمرو القعود، وذلك لأن القيام والقعود، وإن كانا حادثين، إلا أنهما ليسا بمنفصلين عن زيد، وعمرو، فالشيء إذا قام بفاعله، فهو حادث غير مخلوق.
والعجب من الحافظ حيث خفي عليه هذا الاصطلاح الجلي، فإن بين اللفظين بونا بعيدا. ألا ترى أن المحدث قد أطلقه القرآن بنفسه، فقال تعالى:
{ما يأتيهم من ذكر من ربهم محدث}...إلخ (الأنبياء:2)
وأما المخلوق، فقد نقل عن أبي حنيفة وصاحبيه: أن من قال بخلق القرآن فقد كفر، هكذا نقله البيهقي في كتاب "الأسماء والصفات". فالمحدث ورد في القرآن، وإطلاق المخلوق أفضى إلى الكفر.
وإذا دريت الفرق بينهما، هان عليك إطلاق الحاديث على القرآن، مع نفي المخلوق عنه، ولم يبق بينهما تناقض.



The Translation:

(After speaking about the types of speech and kalam nafsi, he said:)

"Yes, the statement of the author (i.e. al-Bukhari) is only about the uttered word ([kalam] Lafdhi), and even with that, those subsisting hawadeth (i.e. occurances of speech) are not created. And the Hafith (i.e. Ibn Hajar) ruled this out, saying: 'In affirming its hudooth (i.e. un-eternity; having a starting point), and negating it being created, is contradiction, because there is no difference between what is hadeth (un-eternal; an incident/occurance) and created'.

I (al Kashmiri) said: This has occured due to his unawarness of the terminology of the early scholars, because what is created, in their view, is the uneternal that is separate (al-hadeth al-munfasel), but if it is subsisting in its doer, then it is not called: creation.
And this is the very essence of the [arabic] language; for you say: "Zayd stood" and "Amr sat", and you don't say: "Zayd created standing", nor "Amr created sitting", and that is because standing and sitting, although occurances/incidents (hadeth), are not separate from Zayd and Amr. When a thing is subsisting in its doer, then it is an uncreated occurance (hadeth ghayru makhluq).

And it is surprising from the Hafidth that this clear terminology was hidden from him, because between these two words there is a very big difference; do you not see that "al-muhdath" (i.e. un-eternal; new) was a term used by the Quran itself, Allah Ta'ala said: {Never cometh there unto them a new reminder from their Lord ... } [21:2]. As for [the term] "created", then it is has been transmitted that Abu Hanifah and his two companions [said] that whoever says of the creation of the Quran, then he has disbelieve. This is how al-Bayhaqi transmitted it in the book "Al-Asma wa Sifat".
So [the term] "al-Muhdath" was used in the Quran, and applying [the term] makhluq (i.e. created) lead to disbelief. Thus, if you know/understand the difference between them, it becomes easier for you to use the word "hadeth" on the Quran, while negating creation from it, and there becomes no contradiction between them."

["Fayd al-Bari" by Muhammad A. Shah al-Kashmiri (6/589)]



Note: [I]What I quoted above is not about the belief of sh. Kashmiri in this matter, as it is still not clear to me what he believes regarding it. The only purpose of what I posted above, is to show the difference between hadeth and makhluq (created), and that there is no contradiction between them; in addition to showing that this is the understanding and belief of the earlier generations of Muslim scholars, which includes Imam al-Bukhari and at-Tabari, rahimahullah.




The Scanned Page:

The scanned version of the book can be downloaded from here:
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=5450 (the following page is from vol. 6)


http://i56.tinypic.com/24nk3rp.jpg

sabm90
18-07-2011, 03:19 PM
Why are we getting into such meticulous details btw..??
Actually im able to understand NOTHING :D

Musleemah
18-07-2011, 04:36 PM
Why are we getting into such meticulous details btw..??
Actually im able to understand NOTHING :D

Because our beliefs have been attacked regarding this matter, and we are accused for believing in the creation of the Quran, which is disbelief, and this issue cannot be cleared without going into details.
As for you not being able to understand it, then that is understandable.

sabm90
19-07-2011, 06:14 PM
Is someone accusing you of believieng that Quran is created..?? :S
One of my friends who's a salafi puts the blame on deobandis (me) that u guys are in line with the mutazilah with regards to belief that Quran is created..!!

faqir
19-07-2011, 06:37 PM
:ws:
Thanks for sharing.
But I am still not clear on the belief of Maturidis regarding this matter.

What is the Maturidis belief regrading "kun"?

- Do they believe it to be an attribute of Allah's?
- Is it created or uncreated?
- Do they believe "kun" to be the eternal speech of Allah? or do they believe it to be hadeth?
- Is the coming of creation into existence with "kun", after "kun", or with "kun"? Meaning is there delay between "kun" and creation's existence, or no delay?

as-salam `alaikum

Can I recommend you look into the Maturidi belief regarding Takwin. [Imam al-Tabari mentions the word saying, when He wills its takwin. . . ]

As for 'Kun', based on my understanding of the article, it is the timeless command of eternal existentiation, unfolding to us within the confines of time.

The remainder of your questions are answered in the excerpt I posted.

was-salam.

tls
19-07-2011, 07:58 PM
"Time" here is not creation (i.e. day and night), it is the measurement between two events.
Its a concept, so it has no real existence.

The "concept of time" comes with past,present and future and their boundaries which would be meaningless for Allah(SWT).

Musleemah
19-07-2011, 10:12 PM
as-salam `alaikum

Can I recommend you look into the Maturidi belief regarding Takwin. [Imam al-Tabari mentions the word saying, when He wills its takwin. . . ]
:ws:
I read a brief explanation of the attribute of Takwin in Maturidi belief in sh. Kashmiri's "Fayd al Bari".

The act of creating (i.e. a thing's coming into existence) is a linkage to that Attribute in Maturidi belief, while in Ashari belief, it is the linkage of the Attribute of Ability (i.e. Qudra)
correct?





The remainder of your questions are answered in the excerpt I posted.

was-salam.

Are there Tafseer books upon the Maturidi belief? maybe I can find some more explanation in them.

faqir
19-07-2011, 10:23 PM
Yes, but I would recommend the chapter in Sharh Aqa'id al-Nasafi. In it the author also deals with the contention that if creating were eternal then the eternity of things created must be posited.

Musleemah
19-07-2011, 10:26 PM
Is someone accusing you of believieng that Quran is created..?? :S

Yes, because we believe that Allah spoke the Quran to Jibreel who delivered it to Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, thus the Quran in our belief is not pre-eternal (i.e. Allah did not speak the Quran pre-eternally). Because of this, ones who oppose our belief, such as some (or maybe many, not sure) in this forum, say that we believe that the Quran is created because they believe that everything that is emergent is created, even though we believe and state clearly that we do not believe the Quran is created, and that its emergence does not necessitate it being created, and I quoted sh. Muhammad Shah Kashmiri's explanation of the difference between hadeth (i.e. emergent) and creation (see post #10 in this thread).

faqir
19-07-2011, 10:51 PM
And it is surprising from the Hafidth [Ibn Hajar] that this clear terminology was hidden from him, because between these two words there is a very big difference; do you not see that "al-muhdath" (i.e. un-eternal; new) was a term used by the Quran itself, Allah Ta'ala said: {Never cometh there unto them a new reminder from their Lord ... } [21:2]. As for [the term] "created", then it is has been transmitted that Abu Hanifah and his two companions [said] that whoever says of the creation of the Quran, then he has disbelieve. This is how al-Bayhaqi transmitted it in the book "Al-Asma wa Sifat".
So [the term] "al-Muhdath" was used in the Quran, and applying [the term] makhluq (i.e. created) lead to disbelief. Thus, if you know/understand the difference between them, it becomes easier for you to use the word "hadeth" on the Quran, while negating creation from it, and there becomes no contradiction between them."



Seems a very strange proof to me! The Qur'an refers to "a new reminder" (dhikr) in the indefinite and not to itself as being muhdath. How then can he adduce this aya as a proof?!

I know you like quotes so I'll even mention that Imam Ahmad pointed this very point out as narrated by Abu `Uthman al-Sabuni from Salih ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal from his father in Sirat al-Imam (p. 38).

Questioner: "{Never comes there unto them a new (muhdath) reminder from their Lord} (21:2). Can something new be anything but created?" Imam Ahmad: "Allah said: {Sad. By the Qur'an that contains the Reminder} (38:1). 'The' reminder is the Qur'an, while the other verse does not say 'the'."

Another version states that he answered: "It is possible that it is the Qur'an's revelation to us (tanziluhu ilayna) that is muhdath, not the dhikr itself." Both narrated by al-Bayhaqi cf. Ibn Kathir in al-Bidaya (10:342-343). translation source (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-25587.html)

Abu Yunus
19-07-2011, 10:56 PM
I quoted sh. Muhammad Shah Kashmiri's explanation of the difference between hadeth (i.e. emergent) and creation (see post #10 in this thread).

I am not convinced by the Shaykh's explanation, nor by his criticism of Ibn Hajar.

Since he brings examples of intransitive verbs ("Zayd stood" and "Amr sat") to further his point, I am surprised that he doesn't bring any cases of intransitive verbs from the Quran and Ahadith used to describe the Actions of Allah.

faqir
19-07-2011, 11:27 PM
thus the Quran in our belief is not pre-eternal (i.e. Allah did not speak the Quran pre-eternally). Because of this, ones who oppose our belief, some (or maybe many, not sure) in this forum, say that we believe that the Quran is created because they believe that everything that is emergent is created, even though we believe and state clearly that we do not believe the Quran is created, and that its emergence does not necessitate it being created,

Well that is because to us anything that is not pre-eternal has a starting point of existence in time and thus must be Allah's creation.

Musleemah
20-07-2011, 01:10 AM
Seems a very strange proof to me! The Qur'an refers to "a new reminder" (dhikr) in the indefinite and not to itself as being muhdath. How then can he adduce this aya as a proof?!

I know you like quotes so I'll even mention that Imam Ahmad pointed this very point out as narrated by Abu `Uthman al-Sabuni from Salih ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal from his father in Sirat al-Imam (p. 38).

Questioner: "{Never comes there unto them a new (muhdath) reminder from their Lord} (21:2). Can something new be anything but created?" Imam Ahmad: "Allah said: {Sad. By the Qur'an that contains the Reminder} (38:1). 'The' reminder is the Qur'an, while the other verse does not say 'the'."

Another version states that he answered: "It is possible that it is the Qur'an's revelation to us (tanziluhu ilayna) that is muhdath, not the dhikr itself." Both narrated by al-Bayhaqi cf. Ibn Kathir in al-Bidaya (10:342-343). translation source (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-25587.html)

I know those statements, but I have not yet checked their authenticity, and if they are authentic, then it means that there is a difference in opinion amongest the salaf in the interpretation of the ayah.
Because Abu Ubaid al Qasim bin Sallam (d. 224 H.) interpreted "dhikr" in the ayah to mean the Quran, but he explained that it is new to the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, when Allah thought him what he did not know. (check "Khalq af'al al Ibad by Imam Al-Bukhari rahimahullah)
And Hisham bin Ubaidellah Ar-Razi (d.201 H.) said about the ayah, that the Quran is muhdath (new) to us, and not to Allah Azza wa Jal.
So Adh Dhahabi rahimahullah commented saying: "Because it is from His Knowledge, and His Knowledge is eternal, and the slaves knowledge is from Him, Allah Ta'la said: {Ar-Rahman, Taught the Quran} [55:1-2]."

What al Hafidh Adh-Dhahabi rahimahullah said is the same as what Imam AlQasim bin Sallam said.

And there is Imam al-Bukhari rahimahullah, when he quoted the ayah in his sahih, he said that the Hadath of Allah is not like the hadath of creation.

Thus, as you see, some of the pious salaf affirmed the "dhikr" in the ayah, which was described with hudooth, to be the Quran, but that its hudooth is to us, and not to Allah Azza wa Jal.

And note that this hudooth, according to who interpreted it to be the Quran, cannot be interpreted to mean "creation", because the salaf were replying the the Jahmis using this ayah to prove the Quran being created, thus interpreting "muhdath" in the ayah to mean "created", defeats the purpose.



I am not convinced by the Shaykh's explanation, nor by his criticism of Ibn Hajar.

He is showing how the belief of Imam al-Bukhari rahimahullah in the hudooth of the actions of Allah does not contradict his belief in them being uncreated. And his explanation is correct according to the Arabic language, since someone's acts are not his (the doers) creation, like the examples the shaikh brought.
And the reason why "Zayd's" and "Amr's" actions are created is because they themselves are created Allah created them and their actions; and not because they created their actions, the doer does not create his actions, that is what sh. Kashmiri was saying.
While Allah's actions, although emergent, are not creation because Allah is not created, and His actions are His Attributes and not His creation, as Imam al-Bukhari stated.

And note that in the arabic classical dictionaries, hadath is never defined as "created", because there is a difference in their meaning, created is more specific than muhdath.



Since he brings examples of intransitive verbs ("Zayd stood" and "Amr sat") to further his point, I am surprised that he doesn't bring any cases of intransitive verbs from the Quran and Ahadith used to describe the Actions of Allah.

I am not sure I get what you are saying, but the following are intransitive verbs attributed to Allah Azza wa Jal in the texts: Nuzool (descending), Ghadab (anger), Istiwa (rising) and many other actions (lazim).
a question: what does the verb being intransitive or transitive have anything to do with his explanation of there being a difference between hadeth and makhluq?

faqir
20-07-2011, 07:29 AM
it means that there is a difference in opinion amongest the salaf in the interpretation of the ayah.

Once again you've established that the evidence you base your creed on is not decisive and open to interpretation.

You don't even need to look at your quotes - you only need to read the aya to establish that.

Musleemah
20-07-2011, 10:44 AM
Once again you've established that the evidence you base your creed on is not decisive and open to interpretation.

You don't even need to look at your quotes - you only need to read the aya to establish that.

I thought you would say that.
Your conclusion is wrong, because their difference is in the interpreting of the word "dhikr" in the ayah, if it is refering to the Quran or something else, and not in their belief in the emergence of the Quran, as there are authentic statements by them, that the Quran emerged (kharaja) from Allah Azza wa Jal (note: there are other statements from a number of the salaf on the Quran's emergence from Allah, the one I quoted previously isn't the only one).

A question to you:
Where is your evidence that the Salaf believed the Quran to be eternal/qadeem? Is there any authentic statement by the first 3 generations affirming the Quran, to be eternal/qadeem?

faqir
20-07-2011, 04:34 PM
:salam:

I think you missed the point. The so-called evidence from the qur'an you've cited is not decisive. You don't need a quote from the salaf to see that - you can just read it! And I'm afraid I don't go around collecting quotes of salaf nor can I be bothered to do that.

Musleemah
20-07-2011, 09:56 PM
And I'm afraid I don't go around collecting quotes of salaf nor can I be bothered to do that.

:ws:

I wasn't expecting from you to go around collecting quotes from the salaf.
Since you guys were so sure that the Salaf believed the Quran to be qadeen/eternal like you believe, I thought you already had evidence from the salaf's statements to support your claim.

Abu Yunus
20-07-2011, 11:54 PM
:ws:

I wasn't expecting from you to go around collecting quotes from the salaf.
Since you guys were so sure that the Salaf believed the Quran to be qadeen/eternal like you believe, I thought you already had evidence from the salaf's statements to support your claim.

There are the decisive statements of Imam Ahmad, Imam Wakiy' and Imam Ibn Khuzaymah, and these statements are decisive because they were said as precise judgments against innovators.

And they should be given preference over the less decisive statements, which you keep bringing and are more open to interpretation.

You still have not addressed the statement of Imam Ibn Khuzaymah, from what I have seen.

Abu Yunus
20-07-2011, 11:56 PM
From the first post:


فِي حَالِ إِرَادَتِهِ جل ثناؤه

I am wondering why the above has been translated as:


In the moment of His Will -Jal Thana'uh

My understanding is that the phrase "فِي حَالِ" has broader meanings than "In the moment".

And this is important because the current translation (with "In the moment of His Will") seems to affirm that God's Will is in time, while I am not convinced that such an affirmation is present in the original Arabic of Imam At-Tabari.

baytul-herz
21-07-2011, 12:55 AM
:ws:
Thanks for sharing.
But I am still not clear on the belief of Maturidis regarding this matter.

What is the Maturidis belief regrading "kun"?

- Do they believe it to be an attribute of Allah's?
- Is it created or uncreated?
- Do they believe "kun" to be the eternal speech of Allah? or do they believe it to be hadeth?
- Is the coming of creation into existence with "kun", after "kun", or with "kun"? Meaning is there delay between "kun" and creation's existence, or no delay?

Yes we believe it is an attribute of Allah.
Uncreated.
Yes it is Eternal.

Regarding your last point this delves into the concept of Allah's actions originating or being eternal. We say that the speech of Allah is associated with his essence (Qa'im bi dhatihi) and thus cannot be something new or originated.

Musleemah
21-07-2011, 10:36 AM
From the first post:



I am wondering why the above has been translated as:



My understanding is that the phrase "فِي حَالِ" has broader meanings than "In the moment".

And this is important because the current translation (with "In the moment of His Will") seems to affirm that God's Will is in time, while I am not convinced that such an affirmation is present in the original Arabic of Imam At-Tabari.

Firstly, I checked different meanings for the word, and choose what I believed to fit with the context, if you think there is a word more fitting to translate "hal" to, then go ahead and suggest it !
Its annoying when you complain or critisize something, then don't mention what you believe is the correct interpretation or translation !

Secondly, that word isn't the decisive proof that I meant for Imam Tabari's belief in the emergence of Allah's speech "kun".
I clearly explained in my post #3 (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?74803-Imam-At-Tabari-and-Allah-s-Speech-quot-Kun-quot&p=637206&viewfull=1#post637206) what the decisive proof is, with explanation of how it is proof. Please make sure you at least read the posts of the first page of the thread before replying, I dislike repeating myself over and over.

Here it is:



Imam At-Tabari rahimahullah said that when Allah commands something to come into existence with "kun", that thing's existence does not precede Allah's Will and Command (i.e. kun) nor does it delay/succeed it; that things' existence happens with Allah's Will and Command, not before nor after.


Now, I believe there are two possible interpretations for this statement of his:

1. That Allah's Command "Kun" is one and eternal, thus his statement would mean the creation's existence is also eternal, since it does not come into exitence before NOR after kun, but with it = eternal.

2. That Allah's Command "kun" is not eternal, and that every moment Allah Wills to create something, He says to it "kun", and it is there.

With no doubt, the first interpretation is not Imam At-Tabari's belief, because that would be saying that creation is eternal which is impossible and kufr.

But we have no doubt that Imam At-Tabari rahimahullah does not believe Allah's speech "kun" to be created, thus his belief in this is the same as that of Imam al-Bukhari rahimahullah (Link (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?73505-Question-About-Salafi-Belief&p=635238&viewfull=1#post635238)), that Allah's acts of speech, such as "kun", is hadeth and uncreated.


p.s. If anyone is going to reply to this post objecting, then plz object with evidence, or at least an interpretation you believe is more correct for Imam at-Tabari's tafsir of the ayah, but no useless comments please.

Musleemah
21-07-2011, 10:37 AM
Yes we believe it is an attribute of Allah.
Uncreated.
Yes it is Eternal.

Regarding your last point this delves into the concept of Allah's actions originating or being eternal. We say that the speech of Allah is associated with his essence (Qa'im bi dhatihi) and thus cannot be something new or originated.

:jazak:
for the answers.

Musleemah
21-07-2011, 01:08 PM
There are the decisive statements of Imam Ahmad, Imam Wakiy' and Imam Ibn Khuzaymah, and these statements are decisive because they were said as precise judgments against innovators.

Firstly, Imam Ibn Khuzaimah rahimahullah was not from the generations of the salaf, thus his statements are judged by the statments of the pious salaf, if it agrees with it, then we accept it, if not then we don't.

As for Imam Ahmad's statement that you referred to as being a decisive one for the belief that the Quran as the speech is eternal, then I don't know which statement you are talking about.


As for Imam Wakee's statement, it is not decisive for your belief in the speech of Allah, the Quran, being qadeem/eternal.
Because it could be interpreted to mean: "muhdath to Allah", as is the explanation of the other salaf such as Imam al Qasim bin Sallam, and Ubaidullah bin Hisham ar-Razi.
Because when someone says that Quran is created, then it entails that the Quran is new to Allah Azza wa Jal, because it had no existence at all, neither its meanings nor its letters were existent, it is all new. And that in turn, entails that Allah's Knowledge is created, since the meanings of the Quran is Allah's Knowledge, and this is what Imam Ahmad stated in one of his speeches, reported in "As-Sunnah" by Abu Bakr al-Khallal; he (Imam Ahmad) said:

القرآن كلام الله ليس بمخلوق ، ومن زعم أن القرآن مخلوق فقد كفر لأنه يزعم أن علم الله مخلوق ، وأنه لم يكن له علم حتى خلقه.

Translation: "The Quran is the speech of Allah uncreated, and whoever claims that the Quran is created, then he has disbelieved, because he has claimed that the Knowledge of Allah is created, and that He did not have Knowledge until he created it."

There are several other statements by Imam Ahmad rahimahullah similar to this one, about the belief in the creation of the Quran necessitating that Allah's Knowledge is created.

This is contrary to the belief of the Quran being emergent uncreated, it does not nessitate the Knowledge of Allah being created, because the meanings and letters of the Quran are eternal, and what is emergent is the Quran as the speech of Allah (i.e. Him speaking it).
As I've explained before, before Allah spoke the Quran, its meanings were Allah's Knowledge, and its letters are from His Eternal Attribute of Speech of the Essence. The emergence of the Quran is Allah expressing His Knowledge with His eternal Attribute of Speech (i.e. letters and sounds). Thus, the Quran is not new to Allah, since its meanings are eternal.
This is the difference between the belief in the Quran being muhdath that is created, and the belief that the Quran is muhdath not in terms of creation (i.e. uncreated).

In addition to that, there is a statement by Imam Wakee' stating that the Quran emerged (kharaja) from Allah -Azza wa Jal-.



And they should be given preference over the less decisive statements, which you keep bringing and are more open to interpretation.

Their statements about Allah's speech, the Quran, emerging from Allah, are decisive. The word "kharaja" cannot be interpreted to mean that Allah created words to express His eternal speech, or any other interpretation that includes "creating" in it, because the purpose of those statements by the pious salaf was to refute the Jahmi's claim that Allah's speech, the Quran, is created.

sunnipress
21-07-2011, 03:29 PM
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

عقيدة معمر بن أحمد بن محمد بن زياد أبو منصور الاصبهاني

، وإن القران كلام الله عزوجل ، ووحيه وتنزيله ، تكلم به وهو غير مخلوق ، منه بدا وإليه يعود ، ومن قال : إنه مخلوق فهو كافر بالله جهمي ، ومن وقف في القران فقال : لا أقول : مخلوق ولا غير مخلوق فهو واقفي جهمي ، ومن قال : لفظي بالقران مخلوق فهو لفظي جهمي ولفظي بالقران وكلامي بالقران وقراءتي وتلاوتي للقران قران ، والقران حيثما تلي وقرئ وسمع وكتب وحيثما تصرف فهو غير مخلوق ..........






The creed of the Sufi Master Abu Mansur al-Isbahani (d. 418 AH) has been reported by Abul Qasim al-Taymi al-Isbahani (d. 535 AH) in his book, al-hujjah fi bayan al-mahajjah (247:1), from his shaykh, Ahmad bin Abdul Ghaffar bin Ashtah al-Isbahani (d. 491 AH)

Sufi Master Abu Mansur Mu'amar was student of Musnad al Waqt Imam Hafidh Tabarani

Abu Yunus
21-07-2011, 11:45 PM
Firstly, Imam Ibn Khuzaimah rahimahullah was not from the generations of the salaf, thus his statements are judged by the statments of the pious salaf, if it agrees with it, then we accept it, if not then we don't.

Wait a moment!

Do you say that Imam al-Tabari is from the Righteous Salaf?

According to this very brief article, these two Imams lived in exactly the same era (give or take one year): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Khuzaymah.

I'll aim to respond to your other posts in due course, particularly your so-called "decisive proof" (from post #3 and repeated in post #30) which could only be considered a proof by someone unable to properly comprehend that Allah (:taala:) is transcendent beyond time.

But I am quite busy at the moment, so please excuse me if I don't respond immediately.

Musleemah
22-07-2011, 12:51 AM
Wait a moment!

Do you say that Imam al-Tabari is from the Righteous Salaf?

According to this very brief article, these two Imams lived in exactly the same era (give or take one year): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Khuzaymah.

Nope, and I never claimed he was from the generations of the pious salaf, but, with no doubt, both of them are from the scholars of Ahl Assunnah.

My proofs for the aqeedah of the Salaf were from the Salaf's statements which I've posted in previous posts in this thread, and the other thread.



But I am quite busy at the moment, so please excuse me if I don't respond immediately.

No problem, your excused.

baytul-herz
22-07-2011, 02:47 AM
Nope, and I never claimed he was from the generations of the pious salaf, but, with no doubt, both of them are from the scholars of Ahl Assunnah.

My proofs for the aqeedah of the Salaf were from the Salaf's statements which I've posted in previous posts in this thread, and the other thread.




No problem, your excused.

Sister if you believe that Allah's speech is associated with his essence,then are you saying that the word "kun" came into existence from non-existence?

maneatinglizard
22-07-2011, 09:13 AM
:salam:


As for Imam Wakee's statement, it is not decisive for your belief in the speech of Allah, the Quran, being qadeem/eternal.

If it isn't muhdath, then it would have to be eternal or nonexistent. A thing without a beginning either never existed, or has always existed. And no one claims the former.


Because it could be interpreted to mean: "muhdath to Allah", as is the explanation of the other salaf such as Imam al Qasim bin Sallam, and Ubaidullah bin Hisham ar-Razi.

What is "muhdath to Allah" even mean? Muhdath to His Knowledge? Because nothing is muhdath to His Knowledge. We aren't muhdath in that sense either (as Allah :taala: has always had complete Knowledge), and neither is anything at all.


Because when someone says that Quran is created, then it entails that the Quran is new to Allah Azza wa Jal, because it had no existence at all, neither its meanings nor its letters were existent, it is all new.

Again, I'm not getting what this means. What does it mean that something is "new to Allah?" Do you mean extra-mental existence?


This is contrary to the belief of the Quran being emergent uncreated, it does not nessitate the Knowledge of Allah being created, because the meanings and letters of the Quran are eternal, and what is emergent is the Quran as the speech of Allah (i.e. Him speaking it).

But the salaf specifically censured the belief that the Quran is emergent.


In addition to that, there is a statement by Imam Wakee' stating that the Quran emerged (kharaja) from Allah -Azza wa Jal-.

He clearly couldn't have been referring to the Quran being muhdath if he made takfir of the one who says that.


Their statements about Allah's speech, the Quran, emerging from Allah, are decisive.

How can they be decisive if even you admitted that they were meant to refute the idea that the Quran was created, and not to establish that the Quran "came out of Allah" :taala:?


The word "kharaja" cannot be interpreted to mean that Allah created words to express His eternal speech, or any other interpretation that includes "creating" in it, because the purpose of those statements by the pious salaf was to refute the Jahmi's claim that Allah's speech, the Quran, is created.

So because one belief involving creation was deviant, it is impossible that the correct belief involves creation in a different way? This doesn't make sense.

I guess one thing I'm wondering right now is what is the difference between an uncreated sound or word and a created one?

Musleemah
22-07-2011, 01:58 PM
I guess one thing I'm wondering right now is what is the difference between an uncreated sound or word and a created one?

The uncreated sound (Allah's sound) is from Allah's Eternal Attribute of Speech of the Essence, it is not separate from Him Ta'ala; and it can be heard from afar like it can be heard from up close, its greater than the sounds of creation, it cannot be compared.
While created sounds are from the created speech of creation, it cannot be heard from afar like it can be heard from up close.

Same is said about uncreated letters, they are from the eternal Attribute of Speech of the Essence, it is not separate from Allah Azza wa Jal, and Allah's words have no ending to them {Say: ‘If all the sea was ink to write down the Words of my Lord, it would run out long before the Words of my Lord ran out,’ even if We were to bring the same amount of ink again.} [18:109]

Musleemah
22-07-2011, 02:32 PM
Sister if you believe that Allah's speech is associated with his essence,then are you saying that the word "kun" came into existence from non-existence?

To me, saying "came into existence after non-existence" means that its meanings and letters came into existence after complete non-existence, which is false, and its not our belief. Yes, "kun' as a speech wasn't there until Allah spoke it. But the meanings and letters were existent eternally.
For more clarification:
kun 's meanings and letters are from Allah's Eternal Attribute of Knowledge (the meanings), and the Eternal Attribute of Speech (the letters). Allah spoke the meanings with the letters as His Speech "kun", at the moment He Willed to create something. Thus it is not created, because "created" means that "kun" with its letters and meanings were all non-existent completely, and then came into existence separately from Allah Azza wa jal.
But "kun", that is emergent from Allah uncreated, came from His Essence, and is not separate from Him -The Exalted-. In Addition to its meanings and letters being from His Eternal Attributes of Knowledge, and Speech.
We believe "kun" to be emergent, meaning that Allah spoke it, and not that Allah created it.

If you read my previous posts on the topic, it might become a little clearer.

Musleemah
22-07-2011, 02:59 PM
:salam:

:ws:


What is "muhdath to Allah" even mean? Muhdath to His Knowledge? Because nothing is muhdath to His Knowledge. We aren't muhdath in that sense either (as Allah :taala: has always had complete Knowledge), and neither is anything at all.


"Muhdath" to Allah means: new to Allah,as it had no existence at all before Allah created it, not its meanings nor its letters.

Imam Ahmad said, as reported in "As-Sunnah" by Abu Bakr al-Khallal:

القرآن كلام الله ليس بمخلوق ، ومن زعم أن القرآن مخلوق فقد كفر لأنه يزعم أن علم الله مخلوق ، وأنه لم يكن له علم حتى خلقه.

Translation:
"The Quran is the speech of Allah uncreated, and whoever claims that the Quran is created, then he has disbelieved, because he has claimed that the Knowledge of Allah is created, and that He did not have Knowledge until he created it." <end of quote>

Explanation: Since the Quran is meanings and letters, saying that it is created would mean that ALL of it (i.e. meanings and letters) was non-existent before Allah created. Which would entail that Allah's Knowledge is created, because the meanings of the Quran are Allah's Knowledge, as stated in the Quran and affirmed by the pious salaf.

Note: When I say "from His Knowledge" it means that it is part of the Attribute of Knowledge, and not that Allah has Knowledge of it, as Allah has knowledge of everything, including us, His creation.


But believing that the Quran is "muhdath" (i.e. emergent)in terms of Allah speaking it and NOT in terms of creation, does not entail the creation of its meanings and letters, because its meanings and letters are from Allah's Eternal Attributes of Knowledge and Speech.



But the salaf specifically censured the belief that the Quran is emergent.

The Pious salaf, including Imam Wakee' rahimahullah stated that the Quran "kharaja" from Allah, and "kharaja" means "emerged", but this emergence is Allah speaking the Quran, and not creation.



He clearly couldn't have been referring to the Quran being muhdath if he made takfir of the one who says that.


What he meant by "muhdath" that is kufr, is "muhdath to Allah" (i.e. new to Allah) which is created speech; he did not meaning "muhdath" that is uncreated, which is Allah speaking the Quran.

My interpretation of "muhdath" in the statement of Imam Wakee' as "muhdath to Allah", and not "muhdath" meaning His act of speaking, is based on:

1. Him using "muhdath" meaning: created, and I've explained how its creation entails it being new to Allah Azza wa Jal (i.e. muhdath to Him), which in turn entails His Knowledge being created, and this fits with Imam Ahmad's statement quoted above.
While "muhdath" meaning: Allah speaking it after not having spoken it, does not entail it being new (muhdath) to Allah (because it is from His Knowledge), it only means that it is new (muhdath) to us, since we had no knowledge of it until Allah taught it to us by revealing it to us through Him speaking it.
Allah Ta'ala said: {The Most Merciful, Taught the Quran} [55:1],

Now, someone might say: "Allah saying: {Taught the Quran} means that He taught it to us by expressing His self-speech (i.e. eternal kalam nafsi) with created letters, thus "Taught" in the ayah means "created" letters for the Quran for us to learn his eternal self-speech".
My answer: This cannot be possible. Interpreting "Taught" ('Allama) in the ayah to mean "created" is not possible, because Allah Azza wa Jal said after that ayah {Created man} [55:3], Allah differentiated between "Taught" and "Created": {Taught the Quran, Created man}.
Imam Ahmad rahimahullah used this ayah as evidence for the Quran being uncreated, and so did other scholars.
Thus, Allah's teaching the Quran is by Him revealing it to us through Him Speaking it, and not through creating a word- speech (kalam lafdhi) to express the self-speech (kalam nafsi).

2. Him stating himself that the Quran emerged (kharaja) from Allah Azza wa Jal.
3. The other salaf's explanation that the hudooth of the Quran is to us, and not to Allah Azza wa Jal.
Thus, I interpreted his statement in harmony with the other Salaf's statements and His own statements.



So because one belief involving creation was deviant, it is impossible that the correct belief involves creation in a different way? This doesn't make sense.

The salaf negated the Quran being created period. There is no one way of creation that is wrong, and another that is OK. There is no statement from the pious salaf supporting such a thing, on the contrary, they used all types of evidences to show that the Quran is not created in ANYWAY, they even stated that it is uncreated in all ways.

The two great Imams of the Salaf, the companions of Imam Ahmad rahimahullah, the two best friends: Imam Abu Zur'ah Ar-Razi (d. 264 AH) and Abu Hatim Ar-Razi (d. 277 AH) said:

«أدركنا العلماء في جميع الأمصار -حجازًا وعراقا وشاما ويمنا- فكان من مذهبهم:
...
والقرآن كلام الله غير مخلوق بجميع جهاته.

“We have reached the Scholars in all the lands – The Hijaz, Iraq, Sham and Yemen –, and from their Madhhab was:
...
The Qur’an is the Kalam (speech) of Allah, it is uncreated from all its sides/angles (jihat)."

This is taken from a long answer by these two imams, which can be found here (http://as-salaf.com/article.php?aid=65&lang=en), it includes its chain and its sources (check the footnotes in that article), and its chain is sound.


Also, Imam Muhamad bin Abdullah bin Al-Mubarak al-Mukharrimi (died 255 AH), a trustworthy Imam from the Imams of Sunnah, a student of Imam Wakee', and a teacher of Imam al-Bukhari, said:

القرآن كلام الله غير مخلوق على كل الجهات

"The Quran is the Speech of Allah, uncreated in all angles/sides/ways (jihat)."

[reported by al-Khallal in his book "As-Sunnah" (7/111) with a sahih chain]

baytul-herz
22-07-2011, 07:33 PM
To me, saying "came into existence after non-existence" means that its meanings and letters came into existence after complete non-existence, which is false, and its not our belief. Yes, "kun' as a speech wasn't there until Allah spoke it. But the meanings and letters were existent eternally.
For more clarification:
kun 's meanings and letters are from Allah's Eternal Attribute of Knowledge (the meanings), and the Eternal Attribute of Speech (the letters). Allah spoke the meanings with the letters as His Speech "kun", at the moment He Willed to create something. Thus it is not created, because "created" means that "kun" with its letters and meanings were all non-existent completely, and then came into existence separately from Allah Azza wa jal.
But "kun", that is emergent from Allah uncreated, came from His Essence, and is not separate from Him -The Exalted-. In Addition to its meanings and letters being from His Eternal Attributes of Knowledge, and Speech.
We believe "kun" to be emergent, meaning that Allah spoke it, and not that Allah created it.

If you read my previous posts on the topic, it might become a little clearer.

To say the word "kun" wasn't there until Allah spoke it is the same thing as saying it came into existence from non-existence.
You are saying that his speech(action) existed but nothing was spoken yet,this my dear sister is a logical contradiction.
The only way for the meaning to be eternal without being spoken is for it to exist within his knowledge.
That is like saying Allah SWT created Adam AS ,but adam doesn't exist yet, doesn't make any sense whatsoever.



The definition of speech is emergence from knowledge into kalam. If you say Allah's Kalam is eternal,then you must say that this "emergence" is also eternal as YOU just agreed that "emergence" is speech. You are confusing Ilm with Kalam,both are associated with essence however only one is an action(kalam), our speech is vibrations(sound) and Allah's speech is associated with his essence.

Emergence from nothing= Created. Emergence from what is already existing=Action,in this case Kalam.

ash-Shawkaanee says in Fath Al-Qadeer “The imams of the Sunnis were right in their forbiddance in answering the call to the saying ‘the Qur’an is created’ or ‘emergent’.”

Musleemah
22-07-2011, 09:14 PM
You are saying that his speech(action) existed but nothing was spoken yet,this my dear sister is a logical contradiction.

Hold on, I did not say that the action of speaking existed but noting was spoken yet, I don't know where you understood this in my post.



The only way for the meaning to be eternal without being spoken is for it to exist within his knowledge.
That is like saying Allah SWT created Adam AS ,but adam doesn't exist yet, doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Allah's Knowledge is meanings, while Adam alayhi wa sallam is not, Adam is a separate entity. Allah has knowledge of Adam alayhi assalam, while the meanings of the Quran are themselves the Knowledge of Allah, and not just Allah having knowledge of them like he has knowledge of Adam alayhi assalam.

For clarification:
When I say: "Bears eat honey".
The meanings of this sentence came from my knowledge, as those meanings are part of my knowledge.
But are the bears and honey existing in my knowledge? did they come from my knowledge? No, I only have knowledge of them, while their existence is separate from me, they are a separate entity.
But the meanings of that sentence/speech is my knowledge, it is existent in my knowledge, it is part of me and not separate from me.
And my speech is me speaking or expressing my knowledge (i.e. meanings) with words.



The definition of speech is emergence from knowledge into kalam. If you say Allah's Kalam is eternal,then you must say that this "emergence" is also eternal as YOU just agreed that "emergence" is speech. You are confusing Ilm with Kalam,both are associated with essence however only one is an action(kalam), our speech is vibrations(sound) and Allah's speech is associated with his essence.

Ok, let me clarify our belief regarding Allah's Attribute of Speech.
We believe that Allah's Attribute of Speech is dhatiti fi'li, meaning its both of the Essence and action.
The Attribute of Speech of the Essence is eternal, while the acts of speech (i.e. "kun/be", the Quran, Allah speaking to Musa at mount Tur ..etc.) are emergent (uneternal), they are Allah's implementation or practice (if it is the correct word to use) of the eternal Attribute of the Essence, thus it is not a separate Attribute, but comes from it.
Allah's Attribute of the Speech of the Essence is:
- Allah's ability to speak.
- It is (eternal) sound and letters.

The acts of speech are Allah speaking His Knowledge (meanings) with sounds and letters (from the eternal Attribute of Speech of the Essence).
Allah speaks at Will, thus his actions of speech are not eternal.
- Allah Azza wa Jal didn't speak to Musa alayhi assalam pre-eternally, before Musa even existed. Allah spoke to Him at mount Tur = emergent/muhdath/un-eternal.
- Allah Azza wa Jal doesn't tell something to come into existent with "kun" pre-eternally. When Allah Wills for something to Exist, He commands it then at that moment of His Will for it to exist: "Be" and it becomes, there is no delay in any of it, all happens together = emergent/hadeth/un-eternal.
But Allah's will and command (i.e. speech "kun/be") are not created, while what came into existence with them (for example: Adam alayhi assalam), is created.

baytul-herz
22-07-2011, 10:06 PM
Hold on, I did not say that the action of speaking existed but noting was spoken yet, I don't know where you understood this in my post.




Allah's Knowledge is meanings, while Adam alayhi wa sallam is not, Adam is a separate entity. Allah has knowledge of Adam alayhi assalam, while the meanings of the Quran are themselves the Knowledge of Allah, and not just Allah having knowledge of them like he has knowledge of Adam alayhi assalam.

For clarification:
When I say: "Bears eat honey".
The meanings of this sentence came from my knowledge, as those meanings are part of my knowledge.
But are the bears and honey existing in my knowledge? did they come from my knowledge? No, I only have knowledge of them, while their existence is separate from me, they are a separate entity.
But the meanings of that sentence/speech is my knowledge, it is existent in my knowledge, it is part of me and not separate from me.
And my speech is me speaking or expressing my knowledge (i.e. meanings) with words.




Ok, let me clarify our belief regarding Allah's Attribute of Speech.
We believe that Allah's Attribute of Speech is dhatiti fi'li, meaning its both of the Essence and action.
The Attribute of Speech of the Essence is eternal, while the acts of speech (i.e. "kun/be", the Quran, Allah speaking to Musa at mount Tur ..etc.) are emergent (uneternal), they are Allah's implementation or practice (if it is the correct word to use) of the eternal Attribute of the Essence, thus it is not a separate Attribute, but comes from it.
Allah's Attribute of the Speech of the Essence is:
- Allah's ability to speak.
- It is (eternal) sound and letters.

The acts of speech are Allah speaking His Knowledge (meanings) with sounds and letters (from the eternal Attribute of Speech of the Essence).
Allah speaks at Will, thus his actions of speech are not eternal.
- Allah Azza wa Jal didn't speak to Musa alayhi assalam pre-eternally, before Musa even existed. Allah spoke to Him at mount Tur = emergent/muhdath/un-eternal.
- Allah Azza wa Jal doesn't tell something to come into existent with "kun" pre-eternally. When Allah Wills for something to Exist, He commands it then at that moment of His Will for it to exist: "Be" and it becomes, there is no delay in any of it, all happens together = emergent/hadeth/un-eternal.
But Allah's will and command (i.e. speech "kun/be") are not created, while what came into existence with them (for example: Adam alayhi assalam), is created.

All you're doing is repeating what you said.

This is what you keep saying = "Ok, let me clarify our belief regarding Allah's Attribute of Speech.
We believe that Allah's Attribute of Speech is dhatiti fi'li, meaning its both of the Essence and action.
The Attribute of Speech of the Essence is eternal, while the acts of speech (i.e. "kun/be", the Quran, Allah speaking to Musa at mount Tur ..etc.) are emergent (uneternal),"


You said that the attribute of speech(which is an action btw) is eternal,but its emergence(action) is uneternal? This makes absolutely zero sense.

Like I said I know what you're thinking,you're thinking of speech as ilm and saying its meanings are eternal which is true,but you are equating it to speech and saying it is emergent.

Speech is an action as you said,but you're saying that speech can exist without it being an action,**which is false**..... as this is an intrinsic attribute of speech. Just like "creating" is intrinsically an action.


Speech=Action.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>If I asked you the difference between Ilm and speech before it was an action(w/e that means) you could not logically tell me the difference

Musleemah
22-07-2011, 11:07 PM
You said that the attribute of speech(which is an action btw) is eternal,but its emergence(action) is uneternal? This makes absolutely zero sense.
Did you even read my post?
I told you that the Attribute of speech of the Essence (NOT action) is eternal.
and I clearly said that the action of speech is emergent (UN-eternal) = muhdath.

Eternal = Attribute of the Essence.
Un-eternal/emergent = the action.


Like I said I know what you're thinking,you're thinking of speech as ilm and saying its meanings are eternal which is true,but you are equating it to speech and saying it is emergent.
No, speech and ilm (knowledge) are two different attributes.
The Attribute of Knowledge is meanings, while the Attribute of speech (of the Essence) is sounds and letters.
The acts of speech (i.e. the Quran , Kun ..etc.) are meanings + letters.



Speech is an action as you said

Individual speeches, such as the Quran, are actions (emergent/un-eternal), but not Allah's eternal Attribute of Speech, as it is of the Essence, and not action.
I've already explained it in my previous post with detail. Please re-read it.


but you're saying that speech can exist without it being an action,**which is false**
No, that is not what I said, and I don't know where you understood that from my post !
I said that there is speech that is an attribute of the Essence (i.e. the ability to speak), and the act of speaking (i.e. the practice/implementation of that attribute of the Essence; individual speeches).
The same with the attribute of "khalq" (creation/creating), Allah's eternal attribute of Creating that is of the Essence, is Allah's ability to create as He wills, when He wills.
While the action of creating, is emergent/uneternal, and its His implementation/practice of His eternal Attribute of Creation.

baytul-herz
22-07-2011, 11:15 PM
Did you even read my post?
I told you that the Attribute of speech of the Essence (NOT action) is eternal.
and I clearly said that the action of speech is emergent (UN-eternal) = muhdath.

Eternal = Attribute of the Essence.
Un-eternal/emergent = the action.


No, speech and ilm (knowledge) are two different attributes.
The Attribute of Knowledge is meanings, while the Attribute of speech (of the Essence) is sounds and letters.
The acts of speech (i.e. the Quran , Kun ..etc.) are meanings + letters.




Individual speeches, such as the Quran, are actions (emergent/un-eternal), but not Allah's eternal Attribute of Speech, as it is of the Essence, and not action.
I've already explained it in my previous post with detail. Please re-read it.


No, that is not what I said, and I don't know where you understood that from my post !
I said that there is speech that is an attribute of the Essence (i.e. the ability to speak), and the act of speaking (i.e. the practice/implementation of that attribute of the Essence; individual speeches).
The same with the attribute of "khalq" (creation/creating), Allah's eternal attribute of Creating that is of the Essence, is Allah's ability to create as He wills, when He wills.
While the action of creating, is emergent/uneternal, and its His implementation/practice of His eternal Attribute of Creation.


Subhanallah you are repeating what you're saying again.....

This is what you said=
-------------------------
Eternal = Attribute of the Essence.
Un-eternal/emergent = the action.
No, speech and ilm (knowledge) are two different attributes.
The Attribute of Knowledge is meanings, while the Attribute of speech (of the Essence) is sounds and letters.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




And this is what I said=
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
but you're saying that speech can exist without it being an action,**which is false**
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And you responded=
----------------------------------------------------
No, that is not what I said
-----------------------------------------------------



You just said that the action is >UNETERNAL! <

Sister this doesn't make any sense.

baytul-herz
22-07-2011, 11:23 PM
Also sister, I won't go into the issue of "letters" and "sounds" as I want you to discuss this aspect of kalam with me.

maneatinglizard
22-07-2011, 11:40 PM
Did you even read my post?
I told you that the Attribute of speech of the Essence (NOT action) is eternal.
and I clearly said that the action of speech is emergent (UN-eternal) = muhdath.

Eternal = Attribute of the Essence.
Un-eternal/emergent = the action.


No, speech and ilm (knowledge) are two different attributes.
The Attribute of Knowledge is meanings, while the Attribute of speech (of the Essence) is sounds and letters.
The acts of speech (i.e. the Quran , Kun ..etc.) are meanings + letters.




Individual speeches, such as the Quran, are actions (emergent/un-eternal), but not Allah's eternal Attribute of Speech, as it is of the Essence, and not action.
I've already explained it in my previous post with detail. Please re-read it.


No, that is not what I said, and I don't know where you understood that from my post !
I said that there is speech that is an attribute of the Essence (i.e. the ability to speak), and the act of speaking (i.e. the practice/implementation of that attribute of the Essence; individual speeches).
The same with the attribute of "khalq" (creation/creating), Allah's eternal attribute of Creating that is of the Essence, is Allah's ability to create as He wills, when He wills.
While the action of creating, is emergent/uneternal, and its His implementation/practice of His eternal Attribute of Creation.

:salam:

So you are saying that Allah :taala: has always had the ability to speak (which is what you call the Eternal Attribute of Speech of the Essence), but until He spoke for the first time, he had never spoken before?

Wouldn't this mean that He was silent even though He had the ability to speak (before the first instance of originated speech)?

maneatinglizard
22-07-2011, 11:42 PM
The uncreated sound (Allah's sound) is from Allah's Eternal Attribute of Speech of the Essence, it is not separate from Him Ta'ala; and it can be heard from afar like it can be heard from up close, its greater than the sounds of creation, it cannot be compared.
While created sounds are from the created speech of creation, it cannot be heard from afar like it can be heard from up close.

Same is said about uncreated letters, they are from the eternal Attribute of Speech of the Essence, it is not separate from Allah Azza wa Jal, and Allah's words have no ending to them {Say: ‘If all the sea was ink to write down the Words of my Lord, it would run out long before the Words of my Lord ran out,’ even if We were to bring the same amount of ink again.} [18:109]

:salam:

Okay, when I recite the Quran, since the sounds have a source and can only be heard from a limited distance, then they are created, right?

baytul-herz
22-07-2011, 11:47 PM
:salam:

Okay, when I recite the Quran, since the sounds have a source and can only be heard from a limited distance, then they are created, right?

Ask her to define sound as well.

maneatinglizard
23-07-2011, 12:05 AM
:ws:



"Muhdath" to Allah means: new to Allah,as it had no existence at all before Allah created it, not its meanings nor its letters.

Allah :taala: has always had Complete Knowledge, which includes created beings like me and you. So how does it make sense to say that anything is new to Allah :taala:, when He already Knew of everything before it ever existed?

Even a creation is not "new" to Allah :taala:, unless you mean by "new" "extra-mental existence," or "instantiation."


Note: When I say "from His Knowledge" it means that it is part of the Attribute of Knowledge, and not that Allah has Knowledge of it, as Allah has knowledge of everything, including us, His creation.

What is the difference? If Allah :taala: has knowledge of something, then it would be "from His Knowledge" as well.


The Pious salaf, including Imam Wakee' rahimahullah stated that the Quran "kharaja" from Allah, and "kharaja" means "emerged", but this emergence is Allah speaking the Quran, and not creation.

I don't think you've mentioned the statement of Imam Waki` :rahma: yet.



What he meant by "muhdath" that is kufr, is "muhdath to Allah" (i.e. new to Allah) which is created speech; he did not meaning "muhdath" that is uncreated, which is Allah speaking the Quran.

But there is no proof that he even believed in such a thing as "uncreated muhdath," as you interpret his statements. If he believed that the Quran was a kind of muhdath, then why was he so careless that he made a decisive statement of takfir on the one who believes that the Quran was muhdath, when he would have had the same belief? It doesn't make sense that the salaf were that careless in sensitive Aqeeda discussions.


My interpretation of "muhdath" in the statement of Imam Wakee' as "muhdath to Allah", and not "muhdath" meaning His act of speaking, is based on:

1. Him using "muhdath" meaning: created,

So this establishes that a meaning of muhdath as the salaf understood it was indeed created.


and I've explained how its creation entails it being new to Allah Azza wa Jal (i.e. muhdath to Him), which in turn entails His Knowledge being created, and this fits with Imam Ahmad's statement quoted above.

But he equivocated saying that the Quran was created to saying that the Quran was muhdath, so what entails from one statement also entails from the other. In other words, saying that Quran is muhdath leads to the same problematic conclusions.


While "muhdath" meaning: Allah speaking it after not having spoken it, does not entail it being new (muhdath) to Allah (because it is from His Knowledge), it only means that it is new (muhdath) to us, since we had no knowledge of it until Allah taught it to us by revealing it to us through Him speaking it.

But you still say that Quran is muhdath, and Imam Waki` :rahma: made a very severe statement against the one who says that. Even if you say that the components of the Quran were eternal, you are still ultimately claiming that the Quran itself is muhdath, and Imam Waki`'s statement was directed towards the one who said that.


2. Him stating himself that the Quran emerged (kharaja) from Allah Azza wa Jal.
3. The other salaf's explanation that the hudooth of the Quran is to us, and not to Allah Azza wa Jal.
Thus, I interpreted his statement in harmony with the other Salaf's statements and His own statements.

But they are not in harmony. You say that the Quran is not eternal, and came into existence after non-existence. Imam Waki` very clearly warned against saying that the Quran is muhdath. If it is not muhdath, then it is either eternal or non-existent (there is no other possibility).

So it's clear from his statement that the Quran has to be eternal, and what is important is that he did not say "its meaning and letters" or anything like that, but rather the Quran itself.

maneatinglizard
23-07-2011, 12:06 AM
Ask her to define sound as well.

:salam:

I believe I already have somewhere.

I think she said something like "what is heard by the ears" or something like that.

Musleemah
23-07-2011, 03:21 PM
:salam:

Okay, when I recite the Quran, since the sounds have a source and can only be heard from a limited distance, then they are created, right?

:ws:
My sound and yours are created because we are created, every part of us, everything that emerges from us, is created.



Ask her to define sound as well.

He already asked me about it in another thread about a week ago (or maybe longer), and it was discussed there.

Musleemah
23-07-2011, 03:33 PM
Subhanallah you are repeating what you're saying again.....

Because you keep repeating what I did not say, so either you did not understand what I was saying, or I misunderstood what you were saying.




And this is what I said=
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
but you're saying that speech can exist without it being an action,**which is false**
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You left out the first part of your sentence, you said:
<< Speech is an action as you said,but you're saying that speech can exist without it being an action,**which is false**>>

There is the individual speeches (i.e. the Quran, Kun ..etc.), and the Attribute of Speech of the Essence.
I am assuming that your statement above is speaking about the individual speeches, such as the Quran, and not the Attribute of Speech of the Essence, correct?
or do you mean something else?
I need to make sure that I understand your statement to be able to answer you correctly.

Musleemah
23-07-2011, 04:49 PM
Allah :taala: has always had Complete Knowledge, which includes created beings like me and you. So how does it make sense to say that anything is new to Allah :taala:, when He already Knew of everything before it ever existed?

The meanings of the Quran are literally Allah's Knowledge, it literally existed in His Knowledge, because it is His Knowledge.
This is not the case with us, and all of creation, since we are not Allah's Knowledge, we are not His Attribute of Knowledge, we are only in His Knowledge meaning that He has knowledge of us.

Thus saying that the Quran is created, means that those meanings were missing from Allah's Knowledge since they had no existence = Allah didn't have that knowledge until He created it, as Imam Ahmad rahimahullah explained.



But there is no proof that he even believed in such a thing as "uncreated muhdath," as you interpret his statements. If he believed that the Quran was a kind of muhdath, then why was he so careless that he made a decisive statement of takfir on the one who believes that the Quran was muhdath, when he would have had the same belief? It doesn't make sense that the salaf were that careless in sensitive Aqeeda discussions.


He specifically spoke about muhdath that is created, He mentioned about claiming the Quran to be created necessitating that it is muhdath, and this muhdath can only mean "muhdath to Allah", and not "muhdath" meaning Allah speaking it, because the second muhdath isn't creation. He specifically spoke about the hudooth that is creation. Every creation is muhdath, but not every muhdath is creation, "muhdath" is a more general term, that is why "creation" or "creating/ed" isn't mentioned as the meaning for "hadath" in the Arabic dictionaries.
we've also discussed in the other thread, the difference between muhdath that is creation, and muhdath that is not

What I explained above and in my previous posts, fits with the other statements of the pious salaf who did not negate the Quran being muhdath, but explained that it is muhdath (new) to us and not to Allah Azza wa Jal, because it is His Knowledge.

.


so what entails from one statement also entails from the other. In other words, saying that Quran is muhdath leads to the same problematic conclusions.


No it doesn't, unless the person meant by "muhadth" creation, but if he meant by it: the emergence of Allah's speech (i.e. Allah's act of speaking) uncreated, then it does not entail that, and I've alreadly explained how it doesn't, please go back and reread it.




So it's clear from his statement that the Quran has to be eternal

You forgot about the pious salaf's statements stating that the Quran emerged "kharaja" from Allah, and in another narration: "bada'a" (started) from Allah Azza wa Jal.
Tell me, how do you fit these narrations with your claim that the Quran is eternal?

baytul-herz
24-07-2011, 02:27 AM
Because you keep repeating what I did not say, so either you did not understand what I was saying, or I misunderstood what you were saying.




You left out the first part of your sentence, you said:
<< Speech is an action as you said,but you're saying that speech can exist without it being an action,**which is false**>>

There is the individual speeches (i.e. the Quran, Kun ..etc.), and the Attribute of Speech of the Essence.
I am assuming that your statement above is speaking about the individual speeches, such as the Quran, and not the Attribute of Speech of the Essence, correct?
or do you mean something else?
I need to make sure that I understand your statement to be able to answer you correctly.

Non-sense.
There are individual speeches? And then there is the attribute(*Eternal Action*) of speech of the essence? This is what you're saying? Again my dear sister *this has no meaning*. You keep repeating this *contradiction*.

You just literally separated the qur'an from the essence of Allah,you just discriminated between the Qur'an and the essence of speech,a discrimination that should not of taken place.You have just given Allah an origin of action.

And you keep repeating this contradiction......
The only way for there to exist speech is that it is SPOKEN(action).


IF however you mean that this attribute is only the ABILITY to speak that exists within Allah's essence,and you are saying that the qur'an and Allah's kalam is uneternal,then you have done yourself a great disservice understanding this issue and have said that Allah's actions have originated,outhubillah.


premise 1. All of Allah's speech is apart of his essence.
premise 2.The Qur'an is Allah's speech.
conclusion 3. The Qur'an is apart of allah's essence.

premise 1.Allah's essence is eternal
premise 2.Qur'an/Kalam Allah is apart of Allah's essence
conclusion 3. The Qur'an is eternal.

If we argue on these points I think we can progress our discussion.

maneatinglizard
24-07-2011, 06:08 AM
Non-sense.
There are individual speeches? And then there is the attribute(*Eternal Action*) of speech of the essence? This is what you're saying? Again my dear sister *this has no meaning*. You keep repeating this *contradiction*.

You just literally separated the qur'an from the essence of Allah,you just discriminated between the Qur'an and the essence of speech,a discrimination that should not of taken place.You have just given Allah an origin of action.

And you keep repeating this contradiction......
The only way for there to exist speech is that it is SPOKEN(action).


IF however you mean that this attribute is only the ABILITY to speak that exists within Allah's essence,and you are saying that the qur'an and Allah's kalam is uneternal,then you have done yourself a great disservice understanding this issue and have said that Allah's actions have originated,outhubillah.


premise 1. All of Allah's speech is apart of his essence.
premise 2.The Qur'an is Allah's speech.
conclusion 3. The Qur'an is apart of allah's essence.

premise 1.Allah's essence is eternal
premise 2.Qur'an/Kalam Allah is apart of Allah's essence
conclusion 3. The Qur'an is eternal.

If we argue on these points I think we can progress our discussion.

:salam:

I don't think they accept deductions as valid forms of argument.

maneatinglizard
24-07-2011, 06:09 AM
:ws:
My sound and yours are created because we are created, every part of us, everything that emerges from us, is created.




He already asked me about it in another thread about a week ago (or maybe longer), and it was discussed there.

:salam:

Alright, so when I recite the Quran, the sounds that come out of my mouth, and are heard by others nearby, are created, yes or no?

maneatinglizard
24-07-2011, 06:55 AM
The meanings of the Quran are literally Allah's Knowledge, it literally existed in His Knowledge, because it is His Knowledge.

This is not the case with us, and all of creation, since we are not Allah's Knowledge, we are not His Attribute of Knowledge, we are only in His Knowledge meaning that He has knowledge of us.

It's from His Knowledge, right?

Just like everything about the creation (all of it's specifications and attributes, not it's physical form) are from His Knowledge.

So again, what's the difference between saying that the meanings of the Quran are from the Knowledge of Allah :taala:, and saying that Allah :taala: has complete Knowledge of the creation?


Thus saying that the Quran is created, means that those meanings were missing from Allah's Knowledge since they had no existence = Allah didn't have that knowledge until He created it, as Imam Ahmad rahimahullah explained.

If by Quran you mean its meanings, then saying it is originated means the exact same thing, since origination entails non-eternal existence. Since you've already agreed that the Quran is not eternal, then if saying that the Quran is created (i.e. brought into existence from non-existence) entails that the knowledge of the Quran is created, then saying that the Quran is originated (i.e. brought into existence from non-existence) would entail the same thing.


He specifically spoke about muhdath that is created,

No he didn't, the statement of takfir refers to muhdath in general, not "created muhdath" only, if there even is such a thing.

If it was permissible to call the Quran muhdath, then his takfir would have been directly upon the one saying it was created, and not through explaining that calling the Quran created necessitates that it is also muhdath.

Your explanation of the statement makes no sense.


He mentioned about claiming the Quran to be created necessitating that it is muhdath, and this muhdath can only mean "muhdath to Allah", and not "muhdath" meaning Allah speaking it, because the second muhdath isn't creation. He specifically spoke about the hudooth that is creation.

But you haven't even proven that there is such a thing as the second kind of muhdath.


Every creation is muhdath, but not every muhdath is creation, "muhdath" is a more general term, that is why "creation" or "creating/ed" isn't mentioned as the meaning for "hadath" in the Arabic dictionaries.
we've also discussed in the other thread, the difference between muhdath that is creation, and muhdath that is not

What I explained above and in my previous posts, fits with the other statements of the pious salaf who did not negate the Quran being muhdath, but explained that it is muhdath (new) to us and not to Allah Azza wa Jal, because it is His Knowledge.

None of the explanations have ever been able to actually differentiate between a muhdath thing and a created thing.


No it doesn't, unless the person meant by "muhadth" creation, but if he meant by it: the emergence of Allah's speech (i.e. Allah's act of speaking) uncreated, then it does not entail that, and I've alreadly explained how it doesn't, please go back and reread it.

But it does. If there was no issue with calling the Quran muhdath, then Imam Waki` :rahma: would never have made takfir on the one who says it, especially if the only reason he was doing it was to make takfir on the ones who say it is created, as you claim.

Your interpretation of his statement makes no sense.

You claim that he made takfir on the one who says that the Quran is created, and yet if that was his intent, he would have simply stated that, and not have made takfir upon the one who says something that could potentially be permissible.


You forgot about the pious salaf's statements stating that the Quran emerged "kharaja" from Allah, and in another narration: "bada'a" (started) from Allah Azza wa Jal.
Tell me, how do you fit these narrations with your claim that the Quran is eternal?

I'm not talking about those statements.

I am talking about Imam Waki`'s clear (very clear) statement which can lead to no other conclusion other than the Quran being eternal.

Musleemah
24-07-2011, 01:12 PM
:salam:

Alright, so when I recite the Quran, the sounds that come out of my mouth, and are heard by others nearby, are created, yes or no?

:ws:
Your sound reciting the Quran is created.

Musleemah
24-07-2011, 01:59 PM
Non-sense.
There are individual speeches? And then there is the attribute(*Eternal Action*) of speech of the essence? This is what you're saying? Again my dear sister *this has no meaning*. You keep repeating this *contradiction*.

Instead of answering my question, in order for me to give you a clear answer, you start accusing me of contradictions ...etc.
If you had answered me and clarified what you were talking about, then I would have clarified to you the matter.

The reason why you think it is a contradiction is because you misunderstood what I meant by "attribute of speech that is of the Essence and of Action". You interpreted it to mean that the eternalAttribute of speech is of the Essence and Action, thus you thought that the "action" part is also eternal, that is why you thought that I was contradicting myself when I said that the actions of speech are emergent and not eternal. (it took me a while to figure out this misunderstanding of yours).

If you go back to my post where I explained our belief regarding Allah's speech, you will see that I did not say "Allah's ETERNAL attribute of speech is of the Essence and Action", I said:
<<We believe that Allah's Attribute of Speech is dhatiti fi'li, meaning its both of the Essence and action.>>

I only said "attribute of speech" without "eternal", because the Attribute of Speech has two aspects, one that is eternal and one that is emergent. This is why I said that the Attribute of speech is "of the Essence and action".
The eternal one is the Attribute of the Essence, while the emergent is the acts of speech, and the emergent acts are the implementation or practice (if it is the right word to use) of the eternal Attribute of the Essence.
There are attributes that are only of the Essence, such as knowledge, ability, face .. etc.
And there are attributes that are only of Action such as: nuzool, istiwa .. etc.
While attributes such as peech and of khalq (creating/creation) are both of the Essence and of Action, because they have two aspects, one is eternal (that of the Essence), and one is emergent (the Action).

I hope this clarifies it.
If it doesn't then please explain which part is not clear, but without resorting to attacks.


You just literally separated the qur'an from the essence of Allah,you just discriminated between the Qur'an and the essence of speech,a discrimination that should not of taken place.You have just given Allah an origin of action.

No, the Quran did not separate from Allah's Essence, it only emerged from it as His Speech, and speech does not separate from its speaker and become a separate entity, this does not even happen with creation let alone Allah Azza wa Jal !



The only way for there to exist speech is that it is SPOKEN(action).

Yes, a speech is speech because it is spoken (action).




premise 1. All of Allah's speech is apart of his essence.
premise 2.The Qur'an is Allah's speech.
conclusion 3. The Qur'an is apart of allah's essence.

Wrong
All of Allah's speeches emerge from Allah's Essence, and this emergence is Allah speaking it, and not it coming into existence as a separate entity (i.e. creation). Thus, it is not apart from Allah Azza wa Jal.


Two questions for you brother:
- What is the bases for your beliefs?
- Whose understanding of the texts should we follow?

Musleemah
24-07-2011, 03:05 PM
It's from His Knowledge, right?

Just like everything about the creation (all of it's specifications and attributes, not it's physical form) are from His Knowledge.

So again, what's the difference between saying that the meanings of the Quran are from the Knowledge of Allah :taala:, and saying that Allah :taala: has complete Knowledge of the creation?

The difference is that the meanings of Quran are literally Allah's Knowledge, while me and you are not; thus the non-existence of the meanings of the Quran = the non-exitence of Allah's Knowledge, as the meanings of the Quran are literally His Knowledge.
While our non-existence does not necessitate that because we are not Allah's Knowledge, we are only IN His knowledge, meaning he has knowledge of us.

Now you might say: well Allah had knowledge of the Quran, with its meanings and letters, before creating it, like he has knowledge of creation.
The answer is: If that was the case, then the Quran would not be created, because the knowledge of Allah that is the meanings of the Quran are existent, thus it would mean that it is not created, because its meanings are existent.
That is why I said that believing the Quran is "created" necessitates that Allah's Knowledge was not existent until Allah created it (i.e. the Quran), as Imam Ahmad rahimahullah explained.




If by Quran you mean its meanings, then saying it is originated means the exact same thing, since origination entails non-eternal existence. Since you've already agreed that the Quran is not eternal, then if saying that the Quran is created (i.e. brought into existence from non-existence) entails that the knowledge of the Quran is created, then saying that the Quran is originated (i.e. brought into existence from non-existence) would entail the same thing.

The Quran is meanings and letters.
The emergence of the Quran from Allah as His speech, does not necessitate its meanings being non-existent, because it is the Knowlege of Allah, and Allah's Knowledge is eternal. The emergence of the Quran, the Speech of Allah (meanings + letters) is Allah speaking His Eternal Knowledge with His Eternal letters and sounds = the Quran the Speech of Allah. I've already explained this so many times.



If it was permissible to call the Quran muhdath, then his takfir would have been directly upon the one saying it was created, and not through explaining that calling the Quran created necessitates that it is also muhdath.
The reason he included "muhdath" in this statement, is to show that the belief in the creation of the Quran necessitates that it be muhdath to Allah Azza wa Jal, thus he was killing two birds with one stone: giving a verdict for the one who says that Quran is created + showing the falsehood that such a belief entails.
His statement fits with the statement of Imam Ahmad rahimahullah when he said that the belief in the creation of the Quran necessitates that Allah's Knowledge is created (i.e. it is new to Allah).
They were just worded differently, but the same meaning. It also fits with the statements of the salaf who said that the Quran is muhdath to us and not to Allah Azza wa Jal.

As I said over and over, the statements of the pious salaf are to be understood in HARMONY with each other.

Your interpretation of Imam Wakee's statement makes it contradictory to the statements of many of the salaf that Allah's speech is emergent and started from Allah Azza wa Jal uncreated. And the ones who did not reject the describing of the Quran as muhdath, but clarified that it is muhdath to us and not Allah Azza wa Jal.



But you haven't even proven that there is such a thing as the second kind of muhdath.

The statements of the pious salaf not rejecting the describing of the Quran as muhdath, and explaining it to mean "muhdath to creation", in addition to their agreement that the Quran emerged (kharaja) and started (bada'a) from Allah Azza wa Jal, and that what emerges from Allah cannot be created; is enough evidence.



None of the explanations have ever been able to actually differentiate between a muhdath thing and a created thing.

And you have not showed how those explanations do NOT differentiate between them, in order for me to accept your rejection of them.



I'm not talking about those statements.
I am talking about Imam Waki`'s clear (very clear) statement which can lead to no other conclusion other than the Quran being eternal.

Do you believe that Imam Wakee' rahimahullah had a different belief than the rest of the Righteous Salaf, including the Sahabah, in this matter?

baytul-herz
24-07-2011, 05:14 PM
Thank you for your response sister.

Instead of answering my question, in order for me to give you a clear answer, you start accusing me of contradictions ...etc.
If you had answered me and clarified what you were talking about, then I would have clarified to you the matter.

I've answered you repeatedly,you keep making the same error and contradiction,you keep cutting Allah's speech into two parts/types.


You said:
The reason why you think it is a contradiction is because you misunderstood what I meant by "attribute of speech that is of the Essence and of Action". You interpreted it to mean that the eternalAttribute of speech is of the Essence and Action, thus you thought that the "action" part is also eternal, that is why you thought that I was contradicting myself when I said that the actions of speech are emergent and not eternal. (it took me a while to figure out this misunderstanding of yours).

My response:
Sister this is non-sense. You are making the same error, ALL speech is ACTION. If you say the word speech,you automatically are referring to an action that is done,we are clear on that,that is good. Thus if Allah SWT has speech that is associated with his essence,it is an action by DEFAULT that is eternal because it is associated with his essence. Sister this is a very clear point.....

You said:
If you go back to my post where I explained our belief regarding Allah's speech, you will see that I did not say "Allah's ETERNAL attribute of speech is of the Essence and Action", I said:
We believe that Allah's Attribute of Speech is dhatiti fi'li, meaning its both of the Essence and action

My reponse:
*scratches head* You said in your first sentence that you did not say that Allah's eternal attribute of speech/action is of the essence,and now you're telling me in your second sentence that Allah's attribute of speech is dhatiti fi'li,and its both of the essence and action but yet is not eternal ? This is wrong,anything that is apart of the dhat is eternal.... every single Muslim believes this.

You said:
I only said "attribute of speech" without "eternal", because the Attribute of Speech has two aspects, one that is eternal and one that is emergent.

My response:

Sister you're saying that Allah SWT spoke eternally,and now you're saying that this speech which is spoken pre-eternally emerged into sounds. You are doing nothing here but giving Allah an origin of action just so you can justify your belief in sound. You have said that Allah has an origin of action,and we know that action is an attribute,and thus you are saying that Allah has emerged an attribute of speaking to musa a.s. .......... ALL of allahs attributes/actions are eternal.....

You said:
This is why I said that the Attribute of speech is "of the Essence and action".
The eternal one is the Attribute of the Essence, while the emergent is the acts of speech, and the emergent acts are the implementation or practice (if it is the right word to use) of the eternal Attribute of the Essence.

My response:
I answered these points above already. Let me ask you a question however,how could you have the audacity to say that Allah's eternal speech became sound? Did Allah's essence become sound(non-essence)?

You said:
I hope this clarifies it.
If it doesn't then please explain which part is not clear, but without resorting to attacks.

My response:
Never insulted or attacked you.

You said/responded:
Wrong
All of Allah's speeches emerge from Allah's Essence, and this emergence is Allah speaking it, and not it coming into existence as a separate entity (i.e. creation). Thus, it is not apart from Allah Azza wa Jal.
Two questions for you brother:
- What is the bases for your beliefs?
- Whose understanding of the texts should we follow?


You just said that Allah's speech emerges,but it isn't separate from him. If it isn't separate from him it is associate with his essence/dhat So you just agreed to my first premise.
You keep repeating and contradicting yourself,and you think I'm must be misunderstanding you. No sister I understand you just fine,your statements do not make any sense. Lets stick to the points I've mentioned so we don't have to type so much.

My beliefs are based upon the Qur'an,Sunnah,and the salaf as salih and the ulema who defended and codified the aqeedah from the khalaf. If you are wondering for which specific belief ask.

May Allah reward you and raise your rank in jannah.

maneatinglizard
24-07-2011, 10:31 PM
:ws:
Your sound reciting the Quran is created.

:salam:

That isn't exactly a clear answer to my question, but I'll assume (and you can correct me if I'm wrong), that you are saying that the sounds that come out of my mouth and are heard by those around me are created sounds.

So, if the Quran is uncreated sounds, is what they are hearing the Quran or not?

maneatinglizard
24-07-2011, 11:20 PM
The difference is that the meanings of Quran are literally Allah's Knowledge, while me and you are not;

The important thing here is that you say that the meanings of the Quran, and not the Quran itself, are from the Knowledge of Allah :taala:. But are not the meanings of everything from the Knowledge of Allah :taala:, yes or no?


thus the non-existence of the meanings of the Quran = the non-exitence of Allah's Knowledge, as the meanings of the Quran are literally His Knowledge.

Who is this meant to refute? I've never even heard of anyone who claims that the "meanings of the Quran" were ever non-existent.


While our non-existence does not necessitate that because we are not Allah's Knowledge, we are only IN His knowledge, meaning he has knowledge of us.

You seem to constantly flip between the Quran being an originated speech and it being from the Knowledge of Allah :taala:.


Now you might say: well Allah had knowledge of the Quran, with its meanings and letters, before creating it, like he has knowledge of creation.
The answer is: If that was the case, then the Quran would not be created, because the knowledge of Allah that is the meanings of the Quran are existent, thus it would mean that it is not created, because its meanings are existent.

Are there meanings that are not included in the Knowledge of Allah :taala:?


That is why I said that believing the Quran is "created" necessitates that Allah's Knowledge was not existent until Allah created it (i.e. the Quran), as Imam Ahmad rahimahullah explained.

If this is true, then believing it came into existence (the Quran, not the meanings. Please pay attention to this), necessitates the exact same thing.


The Quran is meanings and letters.
The emergence of the Quran from Allah as His speech, does not necessitate its meanings being non-existent, because it is the Knowlege of Allah, and Allah's Knowledge is eternal. The emergence of the Quran, the Speech of Allah (meanings + letters) is Allah speaking His Eternal Knowledge with His Eternal letters and sounds = the Quran the Speech of Allah. I've already explained this so many times.

It doesn't matter if you explain it a million times, if it doesn't make sense, with all due respect.

You say the Quran is not eternal. This necessitates that it came into existence, whether or not its meanings and sounds were eternally existent or not. Note here that according to you the Quran is not its sounds and meanings, but rather is composed of them. So it doesn't matter if its constituent components are eternal, its composition itself is originated, as in that composition never existed before it came to be at a certain point in time. So whether or not you say that the meanings or sounds of the Quran are eternal, the Quran itself did not exist before it was spoken. There was nothing that could be pointed to and called "Quran."

Now, what is the difference between this belief and the belief that the Quran was created? Please answer honestly, as a person could very easily say the exact same thing you say and merely replace "muhdath" with "makhlooq," without bringing a change at all to the meaning of what is stated.


The reason he included "muhdath" in this statement, is to show that the belief in the creation of the Quran necessitates that it be muhdath to Allah Azza wa Jal, thus he was killing two birds with one stone: giving a verdict for the one who says that Quran is created + showing the falsehood that such a belief entails.

The falsehood it entails is that the Quran is muhdath period. If he meant "muhdath to Allah :taala:" he would have said it, and not have inadvertently made takfir on himself and the rest of the Salaf, as your interpretation suggests.

And I don't think you actually explained what "muhdath to Allah" even means, unless I missed one of your posts. Is it extra-mental existence (i.e. it enters into the realm of existence from previously being possible), or something else?


They were just worded differently, but the same meaning. It also fits with the statements of the salaf who said that the Quran is muhdath to us and not to Allah Azza wa Jal.

Which of the salaf used the word "muhdath" for the Quran?


As I said over and over, the statements of the pious salaf are to be understood in HARMONY with each other.

What you're doing is not harmonizing the meanings, but rather distorting the saying to fit into your already established beliefs.

If I said the following:

"Walking is a type of movement, and movement necessitates contingency."

Would you think that only walking necessitates contingency, or all movement? Because I clearly said "movement," and not "walking" when mentioning what entails. Because your interpretation is exactly the same as interpreting my statement in that way. It's clearly erroneous and nonsensical, and every honest person without preconceived notions of what the "true belief" is will accept that.


Your interpretation of Imam Wakee's statement makes it contradictory to the statements of many of the salaf that Allah's speech is emergent and started from Allah Azza wa Jal uncreated. And the ones who did not reject the describing of the Quran as muhdath, but clarified that it is muhdath to us and not Allah Azza wa Jal.

Who did not reject that statement?


And you have not showed how those explanations do NOT differentiate between them, in order for me to accept your rejection of them.

A created thing = A thing that came into existence from previous non-existence.

An originated thing = A thing that came into existence from previous non-existence.

Any thing that is originated is necessarily created, because the two mean the exact same thing.

By the way, I don't think you even explained the difference between the Salafi belief in the Quran and the Christian belief in Jesus, which I brought to attention here:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?73505-Question-About-Salafi-Belief&p=632505&viewfull=1#post632505


Do you believe that Imam Wakee' rahimahullah had a different belief than the rest of the Righteous Salaf, including the Sahabah, in this matter?

No. I don't think any of the Salaf believed that the Quran was originated, or else we would have heard of someone admonishing Imam Wak` :rahma: for making takfir of them.

Musleemah
25-07-2011, 03:13 PM
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.

No, that is not what I am saying.
I told you several times that the eternal attribute of speech is Allah's ability to speak, it is not actions of speech, thus your saying that I mean "one that is spoken pre-eternally" is incorrect, because it is not an act of speech, but the ability to speak.


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

The Quran did not come to be until Allah spoke it, as it is the speech of Allah, and Allah did not speak it pre-eternally, He spoke it when He willed to reveal it us.
But the meanings of the Quran came from Allah's eternal Attribute of Knowledge, while the letters and sounds are from the eternal Attribute of Speech. Thus, the Quran's meanings and letters are not created nor new to Allah Azza wa Jal.



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.

Emerged meaning spoken.
When one speaks, his speech emerges/comes out of him.
And the emergence of Allah's Speech from Him is in a manner befitting His majesty, not like ours.



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

Imam Amr bin Dinar (d. 126 AH) from many of the sahabah -radiyallahu anhum- and Tabi'een -rahimahum Allah:
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 .

... [Chain of narration/sahih] ... Amr bin Dinar said: "I have reached people since seventy years, I have reached the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and who are below them (i.e. Tabi'een), saying: <Allah is the Creator, and other than Him is created, except for the Quran, for it is the Speech of Allah, from Him it emerged/came out (kharaja), and to Him it returns>.

(Source: "As-Sunnah" by Abu Bakr al-Khallal (6/26) Tahqiq: Atiyah Az=Zahrani. Publisher: Dar ArRayah - Riyadh. Second edition - 1994. Link for download: http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=1377)


Imam Sufyan Ath-Thawri (d. 161 AH) said:
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
القرآن كلام الله غير مخلوق منه بدأ وإليه يعود من قال غير هذا فهو كفر
"In the Name of Allah the Most Beneficient the Most Merciful; The Quran is the Speech of Allah uncreated, from Him it began (bada'a) and to Him it returnes; whoever says other than this, then it is disbelief".
([I]Source: "Sharh Usool I'tiqad Ahl Assunnah wal Jama'ah" by Al-Lalika'i Ash-Shafi'i (1/151) Tahqiq: Ahmad Hamdan. Second edition - 1411 H. Link for download: http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=1640)


Imam al-Bukhari rahimahulah:
وإن قال قائل : فقد روي عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : إنكم لن ترجعوا إلى الله بشيء أفضل مما خرج منه.
قيل له : أليس القرآن خرج منه , فخروجه منه ليس كخروجه منك , إن كنت تفهم .
مع أن هذا الخبر لا يصح لإرساله وانقطاعه .

Translation: "If someone said: 'It has been narrated that the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said: <You will not return to Allah with anything that is better than what emerged/came out of Him.> It is said to him: didn't the Quran emerge/come out of Him, then its coming out of Him isn't like its coming out of you, if you comprehend; although the narration is unauthentic because its chain is broken."
(Source: "Khalq Af'al Al-Ibad" by al-Bukhari (2/263) Tahqiq: Fahd al-Fehaid. Publisher: Dar Atlas Al-khadra, First edition = 2005. Link for download: http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=2780 )

Note that Imam Bukhari didn't mention the inauthenticity of the report until after he explained its meaning, because its meaning is correct, even though the report is inauthentic according to his chain of the report. If its meaning wasn't correct, he would have said immediatly that it is false and inauthentic.


Imam Sufyan Ibn 'Uyaynah (d. 198 AH) said:
قال الحافظ بن أبي حاتم: حدثنا محمد بن الفضل بن موسى، حدثنا محمد بن منصور الجواز، قال: رأيت سفيان بن عيينة سأله رجل: ما تقول في القرآن ؟ قال: كلام الله، منه خرج، وإليه يعود.
...[chain of narration].. Muhammad bin Mansour al Jawaz said: "I saw Sufyan bin Uyaynah when a man asked him: 'What do you say regarding the Quran?' He said: 'The Speech of Allah, from Him it emerged (kharaja), and to Him it returns'."
(Source: "Siyar 'Alam An-Nubala" by Adh-Dhahabi (8/466) Tahqiq: Shuaib al-Arnaut and others. Publisher: Ar-Resala. Download link: http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=591)


Imam Ahmad rahimahullah explained that the Quran's emergence from Allah, is Him speaking it.

Musleemah
25-07-2011, 03:49 PM
My response:
Sister this is non-sense. You are making the same error, ALL speech is ACTION. If you say the word speech,you automatically are referring to an action that is done,we are clear on that,that is good. Thus if Allah SWT has speech that is associated with his essence,it is an action by DEFAULT that is eternal because it is associated with his essence. Sister this is a very clear point.....

There is the Attribute of Speech (ability to speak) , and there is speech (i.e. individual speechs/acts of speech).

Muteness is the INability to speak, and not the absence of the act of speaking.
Not speaking = silent, and not "mute".
Thus a person has the attribute of speech, which is his ability to speak, and this is part of one's essence (not action). Then there is the act of speaking (action) which is the implementation or practice of that attribute of speech (the ability to speak).




Sister you're saying that Allah SWT spoke eternally,and now you're saying that this speech which is spoken pre-eternally emerged into sounds. You are doing nothing here but giving Allah an origin of action just so you can justify your belief in sound. You have said that Allah has an origin of action,and we know that action is an attribute,and thus you are saying that Allah has emerged an attribute of speaking to musa a.s. .......... ALL of allahs attributes/actions are eternal.....

show me where I said "Allah SPOKE eternally" ?
You won't find it, because I never said it, nor do I believe it. My explanation at the beginning of this post should be enough for you to understand the issue more clearly, hopefully (insha Allah).
As for the belief in sound, it is already proven by the texts, and authentic statements from the pious salaf, so I have no reason to use "logic" to prove it, and our beliefs are not based on logic to begin with, but at the same time it does not go against reason.



My response:
I answered these points above already. Let me ask you a question however,how could you have the audacity to say that Allah's eternal speech became sound? Did Allah's essence become sound(non-essence)?

Where did I ever say that Allah's "eternal speech" become sound?
Allah's eternal Attribute of speech is not action in our belief, as I've explained clearly.
Allah's acts of speech, such as the Quran, are emergent and not eternal.

Allah spoke the Quran with His Sound that Is His Attribute uncreated. This is our belief.



You just said that Allah's speech emerges,but it isn't separate from him. If it isn't separate from him it is associate with his essence/dhat So you just agreed to my first premise.

When you speak, does your speech separate from you and become a separate entity?
No.
The "acts of speech" 's association with the essence is its emergence from it.



My beliefs are based upon the Qur'an,Sunnah,and the salaf as salih and the ulema who defended and codified the aqeedah from the khalaf.

That's good, alhamduilllah.

Now, in order for this discussion to not go into circles, and to be fruitful, we need to see what the texts say with the understanding of the pious salaf.
I posted for you the evidence for our belief that Allah's individual speechs/acts of speech, such as the Quran, are emergent/ with a starting point, and not eternal (my previous post).
Please check them, then let me know what you understood from them and if you believe that they prove our belief in this issue, or not, and why (i.e. explain the reason for your answer).


May Allah reward you and raise your rank in jannah.

Ameen, and to you too.

Musleemah
25-07-2011, 04:02 PM
:salam:

That isn't exactly a clear answer to my question, but I'll assume (and you can correct me if I'm wrong), that you are saying that the sounds that come out of my mouth and are heard by those around me are created sounds.

:ws:
Yes, the sounds coming from your mouth are created, because it is your (creation's) sound.


So, if the Quran is uncreated sounds, is what they are hearing the Quran or not?

The Quran is uncreated letters. The words that you hear from the recitors are the uncreated Quran, but the sounds you hear from them, are created, because it is their sounds.

The Sound that is uncreated is Allah's sound when He speaks. The sound that Musa alayhi assalam heard when Allah spoke to Him is the uncreated sound, it is Allah's sound.

Abu Jahid
25-07-2011, 05:28 PM
:salam:

What our Ash'ari brothers are doing in this thread and in other thread is just trying to "turn the tables"! They're trying to act as if we're the ones who regard the Quran as created and they're the ones who say that it's uncreated, while the truth is, that it is the other way around!
Let me remind everyone what the two sides believe:

__________

Atharis believe:

... that the Arabic Quran is the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala! Nothing of it is created!! The Arabic Quran is literally the speech of ALLAH ta'ala!!

Ash'aris believe:

... that the Arabic Quran is created speech and an expression of the speech of ALLAH ta'ala. They call the Quran as Kalamullah but only metaphorically and not literally! Only the meaning of the Quran that subsists in the ALLAH ta'ala is uncreated, but the Arabic Quran is created to them! And the speech of ALLAH ta'ala is one meaning according to them and not several meanings.
__________

Now you can keep on discussing as you wish, but you're forgetting where the essence of the difference lies:

To us the Arabic Quran is literally the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala and to you it is not!

And I tell you something else: I'm very sure that most people don't even understand what you're discussing about in this thread. But everyone will understand the difference between regarding the Quran as literal speech of ALLAH ta'ala (which means that this Arabic Quran IS the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala) and between saying that it's not the literal speech of ALLAH ta'ala (which means that this Arabic Quran is not the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala)!

Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) regarded the Quran as the literal speech of ALLAH ta'ala and if anyone doubts that then let him read his "Al-Radd 'ala al-Jahmiyya wal Zanadiqa"!!

You can read it 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

And anyone who does not regard the Arabic Quran as the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala, then he never ever can say that he's upon what Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) was upon, nor can he claim that he's upon what the Salaf where upon!!

Inshallah I will qoute some things of the above mentioned book of Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah).

:ws:

Musleemah
25-07-2011, 07:28 PM
Who is this meant to refute? I've never even heard of anyone who claims that the "meanings of the Quran" were ever non-existent.

The Jahmiyyah believed the whole Quran to be created, they didn't affirm an attribute of speech for Allah Azza wa Jal. Neither do the Mu'tazilah. So the statement of Imam Ahmad and others of the Righteous salaf was to refute their belief in the creation of the Quran, telling them what their belief necessitates/entails (i.e. the creation of Allah's Knowledge), which is disbelief.



You seem to constantly flip between the Quran being an originated speech and it being from the Knowledge of Allah :taala:.

Quran is Allah's Knowledge in the sense that it contains Allah's Knowledge (i.e. the meanings).
While the whole Quran (meanings + letters) is Allah's speech.



Are there meanings that are not included in the Knowledge of Allah :taala:?
I am not talking about what Allah has knowledge of, I've explained this to you many times.
I am talking about Allah's Attribute of Knowledge.
The meanings of Allah's speech is Allah's Knowledge (literally), while creation, and the meanings of their speeches are NOT Allah's Knowledge, but Allah has knowledge of them.

I am not going to explain this again (insha Allah), I've explained it clear enough, I don't think I can explain it any clearer than this.




Note here that according to you the Quran is not its sounds and meanings, but rather is composed of them. So it doesn't matter if its constituent components are eternal, its composition itself is originated, as in that composition never existed before it came to be at a certain point in time. So whether or not you say that the meanings or sounds of the Quran are eternal, the Quran itself did not exist before it was spoken. There was nothing that could be pointed to and called "Quran."

Yes but, those meanings and letters of the Quran (together) were not "created by Allah Azza wa Jal, they were SPOKEN by Him Ta'ala, its meanings and letters came from Allah's Knowledge and His Eternal Attribute of Speech. While creation do not emerge from Allah's Essence, they come into existence separately from Allah Azza wa Jal, they are a separate entity.
The Quran, Allah's Speech, emerges from Allah Ta'ala, and isn't a separate entity.



And I don't think you actually explained what "muhdath to Allah" even means, unless I missed one of your posts. Is it extra-mental existence (i.e. it enters into the realm of existence from previously being possible), or something else?


I explained it in several posts. Do a search in this thread for "new to Allah".


Which of the salaf used the word "muhdath" for the Quran?
Imam Al-Bukhari rahimahullah affirm "hadath" (the root for the word "muhdath") for Allah Azza wa Jal, he said that Allah's "hadath" is not like the hadath of creation (source: Sahih al-Bukhari), he said this after quoted ayah (21:2), which is the same ayah where 2 others from the salaf said that it means 'muhdath/new to us" and not to Allah Azza wa Jal. They did not reject the description of the Quran as "muhdath', but explained what "muhdath" means in the ayah.
Imam Al-Bukhari rahimahullah meant by "hadath": Allah's actions, as He believed Allah's actions to have a beginning (i.e. muhdath), as we do. This was confirmed by sh. Muhammad Anwar Shah Kashmiri in his explanation of Imam Bukhari's belief in this matter in his commentary on sahih al-Bukhari (it was quoted in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd page of this thread).

In addition to that, there are the statements of many of the pious salaf stating that the Quran is the speech of Allah -Azza wa Jal- that emerged from Him (quoted at the end of post #65 in this thread).




A created thing = A thing that came into existence from previous non-existence.

An originated thing = A thing that came into existence from previous non-existence.

"Hadath" (the root of the word "muhadth") in the Arabic language means: "to start", and "new" is also from the meanings of its derivatives. But "created" isn't from its meanings.
Muhdath is more general than created. "Creation" is a specific "muhdath".



What you're doing is not harmonizing the meanings, but rather distorting the saying to fit into your already established beliefs.
....
No. I don't think any of the Salaf believed that the Quran was originated, or else we would have heard of someone admonishing Imam Wak` :rahma: for making takfir of them.

Since you don't believe that Imam Wakee' had a different belief than the rest of the Salaf, and you believe his statement to mean "muhdath" in general (every muhdath), then go ahead and explain to us the meaning of the statements of the pious salaf which I quoted at the end of post #65 (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?74803-Imam-At-Tabari-and-Allah-s-Speech-quot-Kun-quot&p=641765&viewfull=1#post641765) , in harmony with the statement of Imam Wakee's.

Explain to us how the statements in post #65 do not entail the Quran being emergent/uneternal, as you claim.

Musleemah
25-07-2011, 07:50 PM
Now you can keep on discussing as you wish, but you're forgetting where the essence of the difference lies:

:ws:

:jazak: brother

What I am discussing with them is the belief regarding the emergence of the Quran, if the pious salaf believed it to be emergent or not, and if this emergence is created or not.
I am hoping we will reach a conclusion at the end of the discussion, or at least someone will benefit from the discussion, even if we do not reach an agreement at the end of it.

Musleemah
25-07-2011, 08:08 PM
At this point, what can you honestly say to a Christian who says that Jesus is both eternal and muhdath, with only the flesh and blood body that they believe was crucified being originated? In fact, I'm pretty sure that the early Christian theologians actually took this exact position regarding their belief in Jesus. What can be said to them?

Before I answer your question, I need some more information about their belief in this:
- Do Christians say that Jesus's body is created?
- Which part of Jesus is eternal? is it his soul? or is it something else?
- Was that eternal part of Jesus inside Jesus's body when he was on earth, or was it subsisting in God (exalted Be Allah) while the body was on earth? or was it somewhere else?
- Is this the belief of Christians who say that Jesus is God's son (Exalted Be Allah), or the ones who believe that Jesus is God Himself (Exalted Be Allah) ?

baytul-herz
25-07-2011, 08:57 PM
Thank you for your response sister Muslimah.

I'm not going to quote everything you said as we have discussed it already. We are going in circles as you said.


You said:
Muteness is the INability to speak, and not the absence of the act of speaking.
Not speaking = silent, and not "mute".
Thus a person has the attribute of speech, which is his ability to speak, and this is part of one's essence (not action). Then there is the act of speaking (action) which is the implementation or practice of that attribute of speech (the ability to speak).


My response:

So you're saying that Allah SWT had the ability to speak eternally, however his words (Kun,Qur'an,Speech to musa a.s.) was emergent as sound.

I have a few questions.

1.Is Kun,Qur'an,and Speech to Musa a.s. associated with his essence? And if it is, are you saying that apart of his essence is emergent?
And if you are saying it isn't apart of his essence,then is not everything besides Allah's essence created?

2.And if you say that there are two types of words/speech/letters,that which was spoken eternally/apart of essence,and that which is emergent as sounds then you have given redundancy to Allah and you have given him an origin of action. If not,and you say only the ability is eternal and the speech is emergent,then you have given an origination to the actions of Allah.

3.Next,was Allah silent at one point?

4.And my last question to you is,is the action of emerging speech not an attribute? And if you say yes,then how could you say that allah has an attribute that begins?
And if you say no,then how can action not be an attribute?

baytul-herz
25-07-2011, 09:03 PM
:salam:

What our Ash'ari brothers are doing in this thread and in other thread is just trying to "turn the tables"! They're trying to act as if we're the ones who regard the Quran as created and they're the ones who say that it's uncreated, while the truth is, that it is the other way around!
Let me remind everyone what the two sides believe:

__________

Atharis believe:

... that the Arabic Quran is the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala! Nothing of it is created!! The Arabic Quran is literally the speech of ALLAH ta'ala!!

Ash'aris believe:

... that the Arabic Quran is created speech and an expression of the speech of ALLAH ta'ala. They call the Quran as Kalamullah but only metaphorically and not literally! Only the meaning of the Quran that subsists in the ALLAH ta'ala is uncreated, but the Arabic Quran is created to them! And the speech of ALLAH ta'ala is one meaning according to them and not several meanings.
__________

Now you can keep on discussing as you wish, but you're forgetting where the essence of the difference lies:

To us the Arabic Quran is literally the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala and to you it is not!

And I tell you something else: I'm very sure that most people don't even understand what you're discussing about in this thread. But everyone will understand the difference between regarding the Quran as literal speech of ALLAH ta'ala (which means that this Arabic Quran IS the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala) and between saying that it's not the literal speech of ALLAH ta'ala (which means that this Arabic Quran is not the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala)!

Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) regarded the Quran as the literal speech of ALLAH ta'ala and if anyone doubts that then let him read his "Al-Radd 'ala al-Jahmiyya wal Zanadiqa"!!

You can read it 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

And anyone who does not regard the Arabic Quran as the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala, then he never ever can say that he's upon what Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) was upon, nor can he claim that he's upon what the Salaf where upon!!

Inshallah I will qoute some things of the above mentioned book of Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah).

:ws:


I usually don't call Muslims this,but you my friend are a jahil.

You accuse us of saying that the Qur'an is not literal speech, provide your evidence

faqir
25-07-2011, 10:55 PM
:ws:

The Sound that is uncreated is Allah's sound when He speaks. The sound that Musa alayhi assalam heard when Allah spoke to Him is the uncreated sound, it is Allah's sound.

:salam:

I know you've got a few other questions to answer first but I was just wondering if you are saying that this uncreated Attribute of Allah which you call uncreated sound made actual physical contact with Musa's (alayh salam) sense organ?

What then of the implication of connection of an uncreated attribute with creation and its indwelling within it?

maneatinglizard
26-07-2011, 03:08 AM
:salam:


:ws:
Yes, the sounds coming from your mouth are created, because it is your (creation's) sound.

Are the symbols read from the mushaf that are then interpreted into sounds created or uncreated?


The Quran is uncreated letters.

You previously said it was uncreated letters and sounds.

Then you said it was meanings and sounds.

Now you say it is letters.

Which is it?

Can I have a definition of what you mean when you say "Quran?" Because it doesn't seem like you're being very consistent i this regard.


The words that you hear from the recitors are the uncreated Quran, but the sounds you hear from them, are created, because it is their sounds.

Are we hearing two things at the same time, or one?

Said another way, do we hear words, or do we interpret sounds that are heard and understand them to be words?

maneatinglizard
26-07-2011, 03:33 AM
The Jahmiyyah believed the whole Quran to be created, they didn't affirm an attribute of speech for Allah Azza wa Jal.

Did they claim that the knowledge that the Quran contains was new to Alla :taala: or not?


Neither do the Mu'tazilah.

As far as I know they didn't believe the knowledge of the Quran to be new to Allah :taala:.


Quran is Allah's Knowledge in the sense that it contains Allah's Knowledge (i.e. the meanings).

Humans contain blood. Can I call them blood?

No, and so you can't call the meanings of the Quran "Quran," either, otherwise you would believe that the Quran is eternal and this entire discussion would never have occured.


While the whole Quran (meanings + letters) is Allah's speech.

And so the Quran didn't exist before it was spoken. It's meanings and letters did, but it itself didn't.

By the way, are the eternal, uncreated letters that you ascribe to Allah Arabic letters, or another language? Or are they of no language?

Also, is the Arabic language created or uncreated?


I am not talking about what Allah has knowledge of, I've explained this to you many times.

You've explained it, but it doesn't make sense. What is the difference between "having knowledge of a meaning," and that meaning "being from one's knowledge?"


I am talking about Allah's Attribute of Knowledge.

So am I. Are there meanings not that are not included in His Knowledge?


The meanings of Allah's speech is Allah's Knowledge (literally), while creation, and the meanings of their speeches are NOT Allah's Knowledge, but Allah has knowledge of them.

If Allah :taala: has knowledge of them, then how are they not from His Knowledge? What's the difference?



Yes but, those meanings and letters of the Quran (together) were not "created by Allah Azza wa Jal, they were SPOKEN by Him Ta'ala, its meanings and letters came from Allah's Knowledge and His Eternal Attribute of Speech.

Whit a belief like this, how could you blame a person for saying:

God has an attribute called "Fathering" through which He fathered an uncreated son called Jesus?

Replace "Fathering" with "Speech," "son" with "speech," and "Jesus" with "Quran" and would you not arrive at your exact belief?


While creation do not emerge from Allah's Essence, they come into existence separately from Allah Azza wa Jal, they are a separate entity.

So did the Quran come into existence inside Allah :taala:?


I explained it in several posts. Do a search in this thread for "new to Allah".

Could you link me to the posts, as I've read through the entire thread without finding an explanation.


Imam Al-Bukhari rahimahullah affirm "hadath" (the root for the word "muhdath") for Allah Azza wa Jal, he said that Allah's "hadath" is not like the hadath of creation (source: Sahih al-Bukhari),

How is the hadath you describe to Allah :taala: different from our hadath?


"Hadath" (the root of the word "muhadth") in the Arabic language means: "to start", and "new" is also from the meanings of its derivatives. But "created" isn't from its meanings.
Muhdath is more general than created. "Creation" is a specific "muhdath".

Both mean "to bring into existence from non-existence."

They're synonyms.


Since you don't believe that Imam Wakee' had a different belief than the rest of the Salaf, and you believe his statement to mean "muhdath" in general (every muhdath), then go ahead and explain to us the meaning of the statements of the pious salaf which I quoted at the end of post #65 (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?74803-Imam-At-Tabari-and-Allah-s-Speech-quot-Kun-quot&p=641765&viewfull=1#post641765) , in harmony with the statement of Imam Wakee's.

I'm not scholar, so I wont do that, but I know that they couldn't have meant that the Quran is muhdath, or someone somewhere would have criticized Imam Waki` :rahma: for his takfir.

maneatinglizard
26-07-2011, 03:55 AM
I'm no expert in Christian theology, so I may have some of these answers wrong. Also, please note that the theological issues Christians dealt with were not the same as those faced by Muslims, so they may not even think about some of these things, let alone having an answer for them.


Before I answer your question, I need some more information about their belief in this:
- Do Christians say that Jesus's body is created?

I believe so, but they may say it is not created, as they say that Jesus is not created.


- Which part of Jesus is eternal? is it his soul? or is it something else?

His "divine nature"


- Was that eternal part of Jesus inside Jesus's body when he was on earth, or was it subsisting in God (exalted Be Allah) while the body was on earth? or was it somewhere else?

They say that the divine nature of Jesus is the of the same essence of the father and holy spirit, and it is one god (Na`udhubillah). I'm not sure if they give his "divine nature" a location or not.


- Is this the belief of Christians who say that Jesus is God's son (Exalted Be Allah), or the ones who believe that Jesus is God Himself (Exalted Be Allah) ?

All Trinitarians (i.e. all the major sects of Christianity) believe that Jesus is the "son", who together with the "father" and "holy spirit" are one god of one essence (Na`dhubillah).

Musleemah
26-07-2011, 04:07 PM
:ws:

I will answer your questions insha Allah, but not today, as I am feeling tired, and need to have a short break. Maybe tomorrow or, hopefully, not later than the day after, insha Allah.

Abu Jahid
26-07-2011, 06:49 PM
I usually don't call Muslims this,but you my friend are a jahil.

You accuse us of saying that the Qur'an is not literal speech, provide your evidence

:salam:

I understand why you react in this way.
And if you regard the Arabic Quran as the literal speech of ALLAH ta'ala (as all normal muslims do), then I say may ALLAH ta'ala bless you and protect you!

But then you're not upon what the Asha'irah are upon and then it would be better not to discuss on their behalf, because according to them you're commiting tashbih if you regard the Arabic Quran as the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala!!

As for providing evidence:
Brother, did you not read the other thread?? I asked them weather they regard " الم " ("Alif Lam Mim") as the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala and I didn't get an simple "Yes, "Alif Lam Mim" is the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala"!! Why? Because saying this would go against their Aqidah!
And I asked them weather they regard the Arabic Quran as the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala and I didn't get an simple "Yes, the Arabic Quran is the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala"!! Why? Well again, it's against their Aqidah!
All I got when I asked the above mentioned questions were deceptive answers!

And tell me brother do you understand what their (i.e. the Asha'irah) saying "Allah speaks without letters" means? This means that they do not regard the Arabic Quran as the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala!
And you can look what the Ash'ari 'Ulama said! They said that only the meaning of the Quran that subsists in ALLAH ta'ala is uncreated and that the speech of ALLAH ta'ala is one meaning! And it's a fact that this is what they said and I'm not making things up!

And I wrote in the other thread:
__________

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!!
__________

So it is more than clear that according to them " الم " ("Alif Lam Mim") is not the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala!! It's just an expression of the speech of ALLAH ta'ala to them and not the speech of ALLAH ta'ala itself!

And not just that: According to them ALLAH ta'ala is not even able to say " الم " ("Alif Lam Mim") nor is he able to say " كن " ("Kun" Translation: Be!) and ALLAH ta'ala is high above what they say about him!! We ask: And who then said "Alif Lam Mim" and who says "Kun" whenever he decides a matter and it becomes to be?? Did ALLAH ta'ala create the Aya "Alif Lam Mim"??
According to them "Alif Lam Mim" and "Kun" are created and whoever believes that these are the literal words of ALLAH ta'ala has committed tashbih according to them!!
And the truth is, that what they're saying is tashbih in itself (I will explain why inshallah)!

And I'm not making any injustice to them when I mention this, rather they're doing injustice to themselves and to other by believing this!!

What you people of Kalam are doing is nothingelse than diminishing the Quran al karim in the heart of the muslims by making people believe that the Arabic Quran is not the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala (wal 'yadhubillah!)!!

baytul-herz
26-07-2011, 10:22 PM
:salam:

I understand why you react in this way.
And if you regard the Arabic Quran as the literal speech of ALLAH ta'ala (as all normal muslims do), then I say may ALLAH ta'ala bless you and protect you!

But then you're not upon what the Asha'irah are upon and then it would be better not to discuss on their behalf, because according to them you're commiting tashbih if you regard the Arabic Quran as the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala!!

As for providing evidence:
Brother, did you not read the other thread?? I asked them weather they regard " الم " ("Alif Lam Mim") as the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala and I didn't get an simple "Yes, "Alif Lam Mim" is the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala"!! Why? Because saying this would go against their Aqidah!
And I asked them weather they regard the Arabic Quran as the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala and I didn't get an simple "Yes, the Arabic Quran is the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala"!! Why? Well again, it's against their Aqidah!
All I got when I asked the above mentioned questions were deceptive answers!

And tell me brother do you understand what their (i.e. the Asha'irah) saying "Allah speaks without letters" means? This means that they do not regard the Arabic Quran as the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala!
And you can look what the Ash'ari 'Ulama said! They said that only the meaning of the Quran that subsists in ALLAH ta'ala is uncreated and that the speech of ALLAH ta'ala is one meaning! And it's a fact that this is what they said and I'm not making things up!

And I wrote in the other thread:
__________

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!!
__________

So it is more than clear that according to them " الم " ("Alif Lam Mim") is not the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala!! It's just an expression of the speech of ALLAH ta'ala to them and not the speech of ALLAH ta'ala itself!

And not just that: According to them ALLAH ta'ala is not even able to say " الم " ("Alif Lam Mim") nor is he able to say " كن " ("Kun" Translation: Be!) and ALLAH ta'ala is high above what they say about him!! We ask: And who then said "Alif Lam Mim" and who says "Kun" whenever he decides a matter and it becomes to be?? Did ALLAH ta'ala create the Aya "Alif Lam Mim"??
According to them "Alif Lam Mim" and "Kun" are created and whoever believes that these are the literal words of ALLAH ta'ala has committed tashbih according to them!!
And the truth is, that what they're saying is tashbih in itself (I will explain why inshallah)!

And I'm not making any injustice to them when I mention this, rather they're doing injustice to themselves and to other by believing this!!

What you people of Kalam are doing is nothingelse than diminishing the Quran al karim in the heart of the muslims by making people believe that the Arabic Quran is not the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala (wal 'yadhubillah!)!!


You're idea of literal, is sound waves and shapes of letters,this is where you make your mistake.
We say Allah's speech does contain Alif lam mim but not in sound,we say he said kun,but not in sound waves.As sound waves are vibrations of matter,sound must be high or low......you are attributing to Allah something that should not be.

We say Allah's speech is uncreated,and is not consisted sound,as his speech is eternal and apart of his essence,and sound is not apart of Allahs essence as sound is a material event.

maneatinglizard
26-07-2011, 11:36 PM
:ws:

I will answer your questions insha Allah, but not today, as I am feeling tired, and need to have a short break. Maybe tomorrow or, hopefully, not later than the day after, insha Allah.

:salam:

Take your time. You don't have to respond immediately to any of my questions (or even at all, really, though the discussion is helpful to me at least).

Abu Jahid
27-07-2011, 12:28 PM
You're idea of literal, is sound waves and shapes of letters,this is where you make your mistake.
We say Allah's speech does contain Alif lam mim but not in sound,we say he said kun,but not in sound waves.As sound waves are vibrations of matter,sound must be high or low......you are attributing to Allah something that should not be.


Tell me where did I mention "sound waves" and where did I mention "shapes of letters" in my post??

As for "shape of letters": Didn't you read the other thread? How many times should we say that the shapes of the letters are created?? And how many times should we say that our actions are created and that our act of reciting is created until you (Asha'irah or people who think they're Asha'irah) stop asking the same question again and again? The shapes of the letters are created and our voice is created and our actions are created and no one denied this!

As for "sound waves": Where did we mention "waves" just tell me?? We don't know the Kayf ("how") of the Sifat of ALLAH ta'ala nor do we ask about them, but what we know is that the Sifat of ALLAH ta'ala are in no way like that of the creation!! And saying "waves" and similar things is going into the Kayf, which is haram!
So please don't put things into my mouth that I didn't say nor believe!

And know I remind you again that we're talking about the Sifat of ALLAH ta'ala and not the Sifat of the creation, so that you make such false analogies, which are only applicable to the creation!

When the Salaf said that the Quran is the speech of ALLAH ta'ala the Jahmiyya rejected that! You know why?
They used a similiar logic like you did! They said if the Quran is the speech of ALLAH ta'ala, this means that ALLAH ta'ala must have a larynx and a tongue (hashalillah!!) and therefore they said, that they reject that the Quran is the speech of ALLAH ta'ala!
Now I ask: Why is a tongue and an larynx necessary to speak? Are we speaking of an creation or about the CREATOR 'azza wa jal? These analogies are applicable to the creation and not to ALLAH ta'ala!
So when the Salaf showed the Ayat prooving that the Quran is the speech of ALLAH ta'ala (and the Salaf rejected their batil analogy), the Jahmiyya said: Okay, it is the speech of ALLAH ta'ala, but it is created and it's like "Baytallah" (House of Allah) (meaning that it is called "kalamullah", but it's created just like "baytallah" is created!)
The Salaf replied, that the Quran is not just the speech of ALLAH ta'ala, but it's also uncreated! And this was also the reason why Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) would not accept anyone just saying "The Quran is the speech of Allah" ("al-quran kalamullah") without adding right after this "and it is not created" ("ghayr makluq")!
Notice that none of the Salaf said "Allah speaks without sound and letters"! And no one of them replied the Jahmiyya and the Mu'tazila by saying such a thing! Rather it is known that Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) believed that ALLAH ta'ala speaks with sound and letters! And he regarded the Quran as the literal speech of ALLAH ta'ala and nothing from the Quran is created!!

As for the letters:

1) "Alif Lam Mim" is an Aya of the Quran and therefore rejecting the letters is like rejecting the Aya!

2) ALLAH ta'ala descibed the Quran more than once as being Arabic! So the Arabic Quran is the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala! And rejecting the letters is like calling the Arabic Quran as created!

As for sound:

ALLAH ta'ala says in his book that HE 'azza wa jal spoke directly to Sayyidina Musa ('alayhi salam)!!

And I alread mentioned the Ayat which clearly proove that ALLAH ta'ala spoke directly to Musa ('alayhi salam) in the other thread:



-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 know I ask: Did Musa ('alayhi salam) hear his Lord 'azza wa jal speaking to him directly without any intermediary? (Yes he did!!) Didn't Musa ('alayhi salam) hear the speech of ALLAH ta'ala directly from ALLAH ta'ala himself!?! If anyone answers with "no, he didn't hear Allah himself", then he has rejected the above mentioned Ayat and ask I him a question: Why did ALLAH ta'ala mention HIS speaking to Musa ('alayhi salam) as something special?
If anyone says that ALLAH ta'ala made him to understand his words, then he is rejecting direct speech, because that what he claims is not direct speech! And if you're saying something created spoke to Musa ('alayhi salam), then you're also rejecting the Aya!
And if you say, that Musa ('alayhi salam) heard something created, you have belied the Ayat of ALLAH ta'ala!!
So why is so difficult to accept the sound (without making false analogies)?? Did not Musa ('alayhi salam) hear ALLAH ta'ala himself?
Can't ALLAH ta'ala be heard?? I hope you know that if you believe that He 'azza wa jal can't be heard, then you're implying that ALLAH ta'ala is mute (astaghfirallah)!! And if anyone says: "We didn't say that Allah is mute", then I say: "You said HE 'azza wa jal can't be heard and with your saying you belied his Ayat and you called him mute even if you do not use the word "mute"!"

And by the way: If we would use the same false analogies of the Asha'irah, we would have also to reject the Ru`yah (seeing) of ALLAH ta'ala by the people of Jannah with their eyes!! And the Asha'irah do affirm the Ru`yah, but if they would use the same logic they use regarding sound (meaning: ALLAH ta'ala can be heard! And the biggest proof for this is Musa ('alayhi salam) who heard the speech of our Lord 'azza wa jal directly from HIMSELF subhanahu wa ta'ala), they would have also to reject the Ru`yah!!

So ALLAH ta'ala will be seen by the people of Jannah, but ALLAH ta'ala can't be heard?? Is this what you're saying? Why are you affirming the one and rejecting the other??
__________



Baytul-herz I've a question regarding your saying "We say Allah's speech does contain Alif lam mim":

Do you believe that the Aya "Alif Lam Mim" is uncreated??

:ws:

faqir
27-07-2011, 02:21 PM
I'm no expert in Christian theology, so I may have some of these answers wrong. Also, please note that the theological issues Christians dealt with were not the same as those faced by Muslims, so they may not even think about some of these things, let alone having an answer for them.



I believe so, but they may say it is not created, as they say that Jesus is not created.



His "divine nature"



They say that the divine nature of Jesus is the of the same essence of the father and holy spirit, and it is one god (Na`udhubillah). I'm not sure if they give his "divine nature" a location or not.



All Trinitarians (i.e. all the major sects of Christianity) believe that Jesus is the "son", who together with the "father" and "holy spirit" are one god of one essence (Na`dhubillah).

My understanding from Musleemah of the Salafi position: although each of the individual words occur one after another after non-existence, their type, or their gender is eternal and without a beginning, uncreated.

What about then if an atheist says yes, if the above is intellectually possible - we also believe similarly that the universe is evolving - one event occuring after another after non-existence - and the universe too is without a beginning.

Abu Jahid
27-07-2011, 03:16 PM
:bism:

:salam:

The scholars of the Asha'irah said that only the meaning of the Quran that subsists in ALLAH ta'ala is uncreated (while they regard the Arabic Quran that we know as an expression of the speech of ALLAH ta'ala but not the speech of ALLAH ta'ala itself) and the speech of ALLAH ta'ala is one indivisible meaning and not meanings according to them!!

This belief is wrong and one just has to understand what their saying means and one will know how wrong this belief of theirs is!

Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) attacked their belief in this matter and beautifully refuted them in his book "al-Munadhara fil Quran" (you can read it here: http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B8%D8%B1%D8%A9_% D9%81%D9%8A_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A2%D9%86)!

And the above mentioned belief of theirs is nothing else than to regard the Arabic Quran as created (astaghfirallah!)!

So first they said: Only the meaning of the Quran that subsists in ALLAH ta'ala is uncreated.

So we say: So did the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) get created speech?

How many times ALLAH ta'ala calls the Quran as "revelation"?? Didn't ALLAH ta'ala reveal the Quran?? Didn't ALLAH ta'ala send it down through Jibril ('alayhi salam) to the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam)?? So what did the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) get?? Created speech???

And as if this not enough misguidance, they said further: And the speech of ALLAH ta'ala is one indivisble meaning!

We say: May ALLAH ta'ala protect us from this belief! This is belieing the Ayat of ALLAH ta'ala!!

Have the Ayat that speak about Jannah the same meaning as the Ayat about Janannam?? Has the story of people of the Kahf the same meaning as the story of Yusuf ('alayhi salam)?? If one learns one Aya of the Quran, has one learned all Ayat of ALLAH ta'ala?
The Injil and the Tawra are also the speech of ALLAH ta'ala!! So is the Tawra and the the Injil and the Quran the same?? When one translates the Quran into Hebrew, does it become the Tawra??

Do you see how wrong their statement is!!

So with these two beliefs they have called the Quran that we know completely as created!! Why? First they said "it is only the meaning that is uncreated" and thereby saying that the whole Arabic Quran is created! And then they said "the meaning of Allahs speech subsists in him and is one indivisible meaning"!
Know wait: The Quran that we know is NOT one indivisble meaning!!!!! And not just that we also know that the Injil and the Tawra is also his speech!! But they're saying that the speech of ALLAH ta'ala is one indivisible meaning!!
Do you understand know what they're saying??
What they're basically saying is that what was revealed to Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) is created!! Nothing of the uncreated speech of ALLAH ta'ala has been sent down (astaghfirallah!!!!) according to them!!

So with their statements they even imply that not even the meaning was been sent down!! If anyone wants to tell me "This is not what we said!", then I tell him:

Is the Quran that we know one indivisble meaning or meanings?? It is meanings (this is fact which no one can deny), but you say that the uncreated speech is one indivisible meaning and thereby you even rejected the meanings of the Quran that we know!!

Let me ask two questions:

1) Is the Quran that was revealed to the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) Arabic? As matter of fact it is Arabic! And anyone will say that no matter which Aqidah he is upon!

2) Is the Arabic Quran that was revealed to the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) one indivisible meaning or meanings? As matter of fact it is meanings and not one indivisible meaning. And anyone will have to answer meanings no matter which Aqidah he is upon!

So as a matter of fact the Quran al-karim that we know is Arabic and it is meanings (and not one indivisible meaning)! Until here everyone has to agree with me!!

Okay, then tell me why are you saying that only the meaning of the Quran that subsist in ALLAH ta'ala and this meaning is one indivisible meaning is uncreated?
If this is not regarding the Quran as created, then what is it then?
Again (just to make sure that everyone understands it): The Quran that we know is Arabic and the Quran that we know is not one indivisible meaning. And you said that only the meaning is uncreated AND that the speech of ALLAH ta'ala is one indivisible meaning and thereby you called the Quran that we know as created!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Because our Quran is Arabic and our Quran is not one indivisible meaning, but you're saying the opposite about the speech of ALLAH ta'ala, so their is no other conclusion, than that you regard the Arabic Quran as created!!

:inna:

May ALLAH ta'ala protect us from 'Ilm al-Kalam and guide it's people!! Ameen!

Wallahu a'lam!

(Ps: Inshallah if I've time I will post some statements by Imam Ahmad (rahimhullah).)

faqir
27-07-2011, 08:59 PM
Inshallah if I've time

Obviously you have plenty of time to write your repetitive garbage over and over. If anyone can be bothered to read all of it they should be awarded a medal.


The scholars of the Asha'irah said that only the meaning of the Quran that subsists in ALLAH ta'ala is uncreated (while they regard the Arabic Quran that we know as an expression of the speech of ALLAH ta'ala but not the speech of ALLAH ta'ala itself) and the speech of ALLAH ta'ala is one indivisible meaning and not meanings according to them

I only needed to get this far to realise that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

One simple quote from an Ash'ari to illustrate your idiocy. Ibn Furak said: “Two things are heard during the recitation of the reader: the voice of the reader, and the speech of Allah, the Exalted.”

Every single Ash'ari believes that the Arabic Qur'an is KalamAllah / Allah's speech. Similarly the syriac Injil is KalamAllah. The Tawrah is KalamAllah.

So first of all you need to get some basic facts correct. Then come back when you have graduated from your nappy and understood the difference between the preternal Attribute and the revealed texts.

Let me break it down for you anyhow in the dim hope that you may understand something.

alif laam laam ha, makes what?

Allah.

So are those letters the dhat of Allah you worship?

No they are an expression of the eternal dhat.

Similarly Ahl al-Sunna say that the Arabic terms revealed to the Prophet (s) are expressions of the eternal Kalam of Allah (i.e. His attribute) and both the eternal Kalam of Allah is called Allah's Speech and the revealed terms are called the speech of Allah.

Like I already explained the same can be said of the syriac terms of the Injil or the Tawrah, etc - they are also called KalamAllah. What is meant depends on the context in which it is used.

From where can one get this understanding?

Allah says in Surah Fath aya 15:

yureedoona an yubaddiloo kalama Allahi

Here Allah is saying the blasphemers wanted to pervert Kalam Allah.

This is obviously in reference to the revealed speech - this is not in reference to the Attribute of Allah's Dhaat.

In Surah Kahf Aya 109 Allah says:

Qul law kana albahru midadan likalimati rabbee lanafida albahru qabla an tanfada kalimatu rabbee walaw ji/na bimithlihi madadan

Say: "If the ocean were Ink (wherewith to write out) The words of my Lord, Sooner would the ocean be Exhausted than would the words Of my Lord, even if we Added another ocean Like it, for its aid."

Here Kalimat Rabee is obviously in reference to Allah's endless speech and not the revealed terms of the Qur'an or the Injil or Torah which you could easily write with an ocean of ink.

So KalamAllah has two meanings - one the revealed texts, the other the eternal attribute of Allah's essence.

I hope that is clear for you.

Similarly, as al-Izz ibn Abd al-Salam explained in al-Mulha fi I'tiqad Ahl al-Haqq, "the word Qur'an applies both in the divine Law and in language, to the beginningless object of description (al-wasf al-qadīm); but it also applies to the contingent recitation (al-qirā’a al-hāditha).

Allah said: Upon Us rest the putting together thereof and its qur’ān. (75:17) That is: its recitation.

For the act of recitation (al-qirā’a) is different from what is being read (al-maqrū’): the act of recitation is of recent origin in time while what is being recited is beginningless.

Similarly, when we remember or mention Allah, our remembrance is of recent origin while what is remembered is beginningless."

Although I doubt any of this will register in your head at least it may register in the heads of anyone else confused by your twaddle.

Now instead of embarrassing yourself anymore can I recommend you use your precious time you keep reminding us you are short of for some other purpose.


Edit: I only started reading Abu Jahid's earlier post above and it did not take me long to come across more lunacy from him.


We don't know the Kayf ("how") of the Sifat of ALLAH ta'ala nor do we ask about them, but what we know is that the Sifat of ALLAH ta'ala are in no way like that of the creation!!

:lol: here this lunatic is accusing us of delving into the kayf of the sifat of Allah and suggesting that we are the ones likening His Attribute of speech to creation. All this from the idiot who himself delves into the kayf of Allah's Speech informing us that Allah speaks with letters and sounds. This is, of course, just like His creation.

We, on the other hand, like Imam Abu Hanifa say:

ويتكلم لا آكلامنا ونحن نتكلم بالآلات والحروف والله تعالى يتكلم بلا آلة ولاحروف

Allah is attributed with Kalam that is not like our speech.

We speak with letters, exits and organs but Allah’s Kalam is without any letter and without any organ.

baytul-herz
28-07-2011, 03:41 AM
This is what I see is common to the salafi position. They strip intrinsic meanings to words and then apply them to Allah SWT. How can sound not be sound waves?

That is like saying matter exists,but it has no shape. These are intrinsic attributes to these terms that you are stripping away from the words.

We say Allah SWT speech is uncreated,you say that is isn't created but it originated,law hawla wala quwatta illah billah.....every originated thing is created,is it not?

If you say that Allah's kalam is not eternal,you have given silence to your lord and have showed your ignorance.

maneatinglizard
28-07-2011, 03:56 AM
This is what I see is common to the salafi position. They strip intrinsic meanings to words and then apply them to Allah SWT. How can sound not be sound waves?

That is like saying matter exists,but it has no shape. These are intrinsic attributes to these terms that you are stripping away from the words.

We say Allah SWT speech is uncreated,you say that is isn't created but it originated,law hawla wala quwatta illah billah.....every originated thing is created,is it not?

If you say that Allah's kalam is not eternal,you have given silence to your lord and have showed your ignorance.

:salam:

This is exactly the problem, as they claim to attribute the "literal meaning," but then only accept parts of the literal meaning, while rejecting others.

The same thing happens with hand. A literal hand is a type of limb, period. So if you negate limb, you negate the literal meaning of hand, and yet they claim this isn't true.

maneatinglizard
28-07-2011, 03:58 AM
My understanding from Musleemah of the Salafi position: although each of the individual words occur one after another after non-existence, their type, or their gender is eternal and without a beginning, uncreated.

What about then if an atheist says yes, if the above is intellectually possible - we also believe similarly that the universe is evolving - one event occuring after another after non-existence - and the universe too is without a beginning.

:salam:

Don't they believe that creation (as a genus) is eternal anyways? So they would be agreeing with the Greek philosophers and atheists there.

Note: If I've misrepresented the Salafi position, please let me know so that I could edit this post.

Abu Jahid
28-07-2011, 01:07 PM
Faqir, why do you insult me? Is it because you fear that the people will know your Aqidah?

First: Did the Ashar'irah say, that only the meaning that subsists in ALLAH ta'ala (i.e. Kalam Nafsi) is uncreated? Yes, they did!
Did the Asha'irah say that the speech of ALLAH ta'ala (meaning: Kalam Nafsi) is one indivisible meaning? Yes, they did!

Second: You cited me as "Jahil", right? Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) wrote the book "al-Munadhara fil Quran" against the Ashar'irah. I know that you don't regard his Aqidah as correct, but I think you won't deny that we was a 'Alim and that he was not a Jahil, right? So did he write a book against an non-existent belief/position?? No!! He had discussed with the Asha'irah and then wrote the book!

Third: You mentioned a quote that you and other Ash'aris attribute to Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah). I don't believe that it's his words! "Alif" is a letter and "Lam" is a letter and "Mim" is a letter and ALLAH ta'ala says in his book " الم " ("Alif Lam Mim")! So saying that ALLAH ta'ala speaks without letters, is like saying that the Aya " الم " ("Alif Lam Mim") is created and Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah) did NOT regard this Aya or any other Aya of the Quran to be created!! He was upon the same Aqidah as the rest of the Salaf, who all believed that all Ayat of the Quran are uncreated!

Fourth: "Thanks" for your "clarification", but I already understand what you're saying and what the Ash'ari position is! (With your "clarification" you just affirmed what I said!)

You said that the Asha'irah call the Arabic Quran as kalamullah (speech of ALLAH ta'ala) and they also call the Injil and Tawra as Kalamullah, right? Okay, now go and read my posts again and you will see that I didn't deny that, rather I affirmed that!
Yes, the Asha'irah do call the Arabic Quran as "Kalamullah", but so did the Mu'tazila! They also said the Quran is kalamullah, but they also said that it's created!

And you regard ALL Ayat as created, but tell me why are you not openly saying what you believe?? Are you afraid that all people will know that you regard " الم " ("Alif Lam Mim") and all other Ayat of the Quran as created??
Why do you not just openly say "The meaning that subsists in ALLAH ta'ala is uncreated and "Alif Lam Mim" is created" (and this is exactly what you believe!!!)??
Are you ashamed of it? If you belief is right, why are you not teaching it to us and say openly what you believe?? Why are you not openly proclaiming what you regard as the truth?? Or do you not want us to be "guided"??

Fifth: Let's ask some questions:

Is the Aya " الم " ("Alif Lam Mim") created or uncreated??

Is the Aya " فَقَاتِلْ فِي سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ لاَ تُكَلَّفُ إِلاَّ نَفْسَكَ وَحَرِّضِ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَسَى ٱللَّهُ أَن يَكُفَّ بَأْسَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ وَٱللَّهُ أَشَدُّ بَأْساً وَأَشَدُّ تَنكِيلاً " (Translation: So, fight in the way of Allah. You are not responsible but for yourself, and persuade the believers (to fight in Allah’s way). It is likely that Allah will prevent the mischief of those who disbelieve. Allah is the strongest in power and the mightiest in punishing." [Surat an-Nisa`, Aya 84]) created or uncreated??

Is the Aya " إِذْ قَالَ يُوسُفُ لأَبِيهِ يٰأَبتِ إِنِّي رَأَيْتُ أَحَدَ عَشَرَ كَوْكَباً وَٱلشَّمْسَ وَٱلْقَمَرَ رَأَيْتُهُمْ لِي سَاجِدِينَ " (Translation: (It happened) when Yūsuf said to his father, “My father, I saw (in dream) eleven stars and the Sun and the Moon; I saw them all fallen prostrate before me.’’ [Surat Yusuf, Aya 4]) created or uncreated??

Ohh and please don't answer by saying "They're kalamullah", for even a Mu'tazili could answer by saying that! I'm not asking weather it's kalamullah or not. What I'm asking is weather the mentioned Ayat are created or uncreated??

It's realy a simple question! (And I could ask the same question with all Ayat of the Quran.)

faqir
28-07-2011, 07:37 PM
Is the Aya " الم " ("Alif Lam Mim") created or uncreated??

Is the Aya " فَقَاتِلْ فِي سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ لاَ تُكَلَّفُ إِلاَّ نَفْسَكَ وَحَرِّضِ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَسَى ٱللَّهُ أَن يَكُفَّ بَأْسَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ وَٱللَّهُ أَشَدُّ بَأْساً وَأَشَدُّ تَنكِيلاً " (Translation: So, fight in the way of Allah. You are not responsible but for yourself, and persuade the believers (to fight in Allah’s way). It is likely that Allah will prevent the mischief of those who disbelieve. Allah is the strongest in power and the mightiest in punishing." [Surat an-Nisa`, Aya 84]) created or uncreated??

Is the Aya " إِذْ قَالَ يُوسُفُ لأَبِيهِ يٰأَبتِ إِنِّي رَأَيْتُ أَحَدَ عَشَرَ كَوْكَباً وَٱلشَّمْسَ وَٱلْقَمَرَ رَأَيْتُهُمْ لِي سَاجِدِينَ " (Translation: (It happened) when Yūsuf said to his father, “My father, I saw (in dream) eleven stars and the Sun and the Moon; I saw them all fallen prostrate before me.’’ [Surat Yusuf, Aya 4]) created or uncreated??

Depends - if an ordinary individual asked this question it would suffice to say: al-Qur'an kalam Allah ghayru makhluq. All of what you posted from the qur'an is Allah's speech, uncreated. And nothing need have been added to that - and that was how the pious salaf would have left it.

But when an innovating Hashwi who likens Allah to His creation and claims that Allah's Speech like that of His creation is by means of letters asks you this question then it is important to explain to him that letters and words are haadith but Allah's Attribute of Speech which does not consist of letters is not.

Had you understood my previous post you would not need to keep posting your 'questions' in tutti frutti colored posts.



ويتكلم لا آكلامنا ونحن نتكلم بالآلات والحروف والله تعالى يتكلم بلا آلة ولاحروف.
والحروف مخلوقة وآلام الله تعالى غير مخلوق

baytul-herz
28-07-2011, 09:27 PM
Faqir, why do you insult me? Is it because you fear that the people will know your Aqidah?

First: Did the Ashar'irah say, that only the meaning that subsists in ALLAH ta'ala (i.e. Kalam Nafsi) is uncreated? Yes, they did!
Did the Asha'irah say that the speech of ALLAH ta'ala (meaning: Kalam Nafsi) is one indivisible meaning? Yes, they did!

Second: You cited me as "Jahil", right? Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) wrote the book "al-Munadhara fil Quran" against the Ashar'irah. I know that you don't regard his Aqidah as correct, but I think you won't deny that we was a 'Alim and that he was not a Jahil, right? So did he write a book against an non-existent belief/position?? No!! He had discussed with the Asha'irah and then wrote the book!

Third: You mentioned a quote that you and other Ash'aris attribute to Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah). I don't believe that it's his words! "Alif" is a letter and "Lam" is a letter and "Mim" is a letter and ALLAH ta'ala says in his book " الم " ("Alif Lam Mim")! So saying that ALLAH ta'ala speaks without letters, is like saying that the Aya " الم " ("Alif Lam Mim") is created and Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah) did NOT regard this Aya or any other Aya of the Quran to be created!! He was upon the same Aqidah as the rest of the Salaf, who all believed that all Ayat of the Quran are uncreated!

Fourth: "Thanks" for your "clarification", but I already understand what you're saying and what the Ash'ari position is! (With your "clarification" you just affirmed what I said!)

You said that the Asha'irah call the Arabic Quran as kalamullah (speech of ALLAH ta'ala) and they also call the Injil and Tawra as Kalamullah, right? Okay, now go and read my posts again and you will see that I didn't deny that, rather I affirmed that!
Yes, the Asha'irah do call the Arabic Quran as "Kalamullah", but so did the Mu'tazila! They also said the Quran is kalamullah, but they also said that it's created!

And you regard ALL Ayat as created, but tell me why are you not openly saying what you believe?? Are you afraid that all people will know that you regard " الم " ("Alif Lam Mim") and all other Ayat of the Quran as created??
Why do you not just openly say "The meaning that subsists in ALLAH ta'ala is uncreated and "Alif Lam Mim" is created" (and this is exactly what you believe!!!)??
Are you ashamed of it? If you belief is right, why are you not teaching it to us and say openly what you believe?? Why are you not openly proclaiming what you regard as the truth?? Or do you not want us to be "guided"??

Fifth: Let's ask some questions:

Is the Aya " الم " ("Alif Lam Mim") created or uncreated??

Is the Aya " فَقَاتِلْ فِي سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ لاَ تُكَلَّفُ إِلاَّ نَفْسَكَ وَحَرِّضِ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَسَى ٱللَّهُ أَن يَكُفَّ بَأْسَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ وَٱللَّهُ أَشَدُّ بَأْساً وَأَشَدُّ تَنكِيلاً " (Translation: So, fight in the way of Allah. You are not responsible but for yourself, and persuade the believers (to fight in Allah’s way). It is likely that Allah will prevent the mischief of those who disbelieve. Allah is the strongest in power and the mightiest in punishing." [Surat an-Nisa`, Aya 84]) created or uncreated??

Is the Aya " إِذْ قَالَ يُوسُفُ لأَبِيهِ يٰأَبتِ إِنِّي رَأَيْتُ أَحَدَ عَشَرَ كَوْكَباً وَٱلشَّمْسَ وَٱلْقَمَرَ رَأَيْتُهُمْ لِي سَاجِدِينَ " (Translation: (It happened) when Yūsuf said to his father, “My father, I saw (in dream) eleven stars and the Sun and the Moon; I saw them all fallen prostrate before me.’’ [Surat Yusuf, Aya 4]) created or uncreated??

Ohh and please don't answer by saying "They're kalamullah", for even a Mu'tazili could answer by saying that! I'm not asking weather it's kalamullah or not. What I'm asking is weather the mentioned Ayat are created or uncreated??

It's realy a simple question! (And I could ask the same question with all Ayat of the Quran.)
1. Every single Muslim who believes that speech is apart of Allah's essence,must believe it is eternal. So yes we say that the kalam of Allah is eternal and uncreated,the Qur'an is kalam allah so likewise it is eternal. However when we are speaking about sound waves,ink on paper,shapes of letters,these are obviously created.

2. Ibn Qudamah (raheemullah) is not your ally friend,so I wouldn't cite him it would only hurt you. He was far from what you ascribed to him,he preserved the narrations from ahmad b. hanbal(raheemullah) regarding his aqidah for all to see. Ibn Qudamah said that the hanabilah relegated the meanings of the mutashabih ayaats to Allah SWT.

The salafies at Islamic-awakening responded that the narrations were sahih,but that they only relegated the reality of the meanings. Relegating the reality of the meanings is exactly what we are saying,they think because he used the word "reality" (haqiqa) it means the kayf of the literal meaning.
Haqqah means reality,haqiqa means more along the lines of true or real. Even if he meant reality it means the exact same thing. So Ibn qudamah said that he and the rest of the hanbalis relegated the true meaning to Allah,exactly matching our belief. This is what happens when you try to create bid'ah in deen,you have to run around in circles and rest your entire creed on a phrase or two you can't even understand. Ibn qudamah disagreed with us on certain things,but he defiantly wasn't a mujassim.

3.The people who say the Qur'an is not eternal and is "emergent" from among the salafies are attributing to Allah an action,and are saying that his words aren't eternal just his ability to speak is eternal,hence they say Allah was SILENT whether they know it or not. La ilaha il allah,and they call us ahlul bid'ah?


My question to you is "Abu jahid", was Allah silent?

maneatinglizard
29-07-2011, 03:29 AM
:salam:

I believe they have already affirmed silence for Allah :taala: on this very thread.

Even though their affirmation or otherwise matters little when it is a necessity of their creed, as they claim Allah :taala: speaks at points in time. The necessity is that Allah :taala: was silent before the first time He spoke, and silent thereafter whenever He wasn't speaking.

Ahlussunnah
29-07-2011, 05:00 AM
2. Ibn Qudamah (raheemullah) is not your ally friend,so I wouldn't cite him it would only hurt you. He was far from what you ascribed to him,he preserved the narrations from ahmad b. hanbal(raheemullah) regarding his aqidah for all to see. Ibn Qudamah said that the hanabilah relegated the meanings of the mutashabih ayaats to Allah SWT.

The salafies at Islamic-awakening responded that the narrations were sahih,but that they only relegated the reality of the meanings. Relegating the reality of the meanings is exactly what we are saying,they think because he used the word "reality" (haqiqa) it means the kayf of the literal meaning.
Haqqah means reality,haqiqa means more along the lines of true or real. Even if he meant reality it means the exact same thing. So Ibn qudamah said that he and the rest of the hanbalis relegated the true meaning to Allah,exactly matching our belief. This is what happens when you try to create bid'ah in deen,you have to run around in circles and rest your entire creed on a phrase or two you can't even understand. Ibn qudamah disagreed with us on certain things,but he defiantly wasn't a mujassim.

It amazes me when some people try to dilute a matter in such an easy way. Did affirming jihhah al-Uluww constitute tajsim according to asha'ira? Did Allah's (SWT) speech constitute sound and letters? Should we affirm the attributes on its apparent (Zahir)? What would you say about such a person who held these beliefs? Mujassim?
All these were the beliefs of Ibn Qudamah. He wrote books in affirmation of direction to Allah, speech of Allah, in prohibition of ilm al-Kalam. All these things are sufficient for Ash'ari to declare a person mushabbih. All Ibn Qudama family, which include Muwaffaqudden, Ibn Abdul Hadi, Ibn al-Mubrad, is known for their anti-ash'ari stance. I leave with some links:
http://www.saheefah.org/2006/10/01/ibn-qudamas-censure-of-the-asharis/
http://www.saheefah.org/2006/09/01/asharis-believe-quran-is-created-and-ibn-qudamas-refutation/
http://www.saheefah.org/2006/09/01/ibn-qudama-on-tafwid/

Now against all these things all just you have is some ambiguous statements of Ibn Qudamah which could be undertood in different ways. His statement regarding Tafwidh could be understand as tafwidh of the detail of its meaning. Same goes for statement of Dhahabi, Mar'i Al-Hanbali and Ahmed Al-Ghumari. Ahmed Al-Ghumari has similar statement but he affirms the attributes explicitly on it apparent and consider Ash'ari to be heretics and also suggest books of Ibn Qayyim as authentic aqida books. Dhahabi's belief are known such that he was rejected as a teacher of Daar al hadith becaus he was not an ash'ari. If he was a mufawwidh then why could not he be an ash'ari? Instead of giving a solution to these apparently seeming contradicting statements you are mocking those who try to give you a solution by reconciling between these statements.

Ahlussunnah
29-07-2011, 05:09 AM
:salam:

I believe they have already affirmed silence for Allah :taala: on this very thread.

Even though their affirmation or otherwise matters little when it is a necessity of their creed, as they claim Allah :taala: speaks at points in time. The necessity is that Allah :taala: was silent before the first time He spoke, and silent thereafter whenever He wasn't speaking.

wa'alaikum assalam.
Does that mean Allah never spoke to Musa (as), because he was at the Toor during a specific time. Qur'an states that Allah spoke with Musa ''wa kallamallahu musa takleema''.

baytul-herz
29-07-2011, 06:13 AM
It amazes me when some people try to dilute a matter in such an easy way. Did affirming jihhah al-Uluww constitute tajsim according to asha'ira? Did Allah's (SWT) speech constitute sound and letters? Should we affirm the attributes on its apparent (Zahir)? What would you say about such a person who held these beliefs? Mujassim?
All these were the beliefs of Ibn Qudamah. He wrote books in affirmation of direction to Allah, speech of Allah, in prohibition of ilm al-Kalam. All these things are sufficient for Ash'ari to declare a person mushabbih. All Ibn Qudama family, which include Muwaffaqudden, Ibn Abdul Hadi, Ibn al-Mubrad, is known for their anti-ash'ari stance. I leave with some links:
http://www.saheefah.org/2006/10/01/ibn-qudamas-censure-of-the-asharis/
http://www.saheefah.org/2006/09/01/asharis-believe-quran-is-created-and-ibn-qudamas-refutation/
http://www.saheefah.org/2006/09/01/ibn-qudama-on-tafwid/

Now against all these things all just you have is some ambiguous statements of Ibn Qudamah which could be undertood in different ways. His statement regarding Tafwidh could be understand as tafwidh of the detail of its meaning. Same goes for statement of Dhahabi, Mar'i Al-Hanbali and Ahmed Al-Ghumari. Ahmed Al-Ghumari has similar statement but he affirms the attributes explicitly on it apparent and consider Ash'ari to be heretics and also suggest books of Ibn Qayyim as authentic aqida books. Dhahabi's belief are known such that he was rejected as a teacher of Daar al hadith becaus he was not an ash'ari. If he was a mufawwidh then why could not he be an ash'ari? Instead of giving a solution to these apparently seeming contradicting statements you are mocking those who try to give you a solution by reconciling between these statements.



You are playing games here my friend,lets go through the links (yes I have read them now and also before).

We have said time and time again there was misunderstandings between Ibn qudamah and the Ash'ari regarding the Qur'an. But that doesn't mean he took the attributes literally like Dhahabi and Ibn taymiyyah (May allah raise their ranks).

You say that Ibn qudamah makes tafweed of only SOME details of the meanings,this is a lie with no proof. He says clearly that he relegates the reality of the meaning to Allah,he didn't say "some" or a "little" of the meaning.

Now to your links.

‘These texts and the like, the chain of which has been authenticated, and the narrators of which are upright, we believe in them, and do not reject them nor deny them, nor do we give them a ta’wil which opposes their dhahir.’

Where the book number? Where is the page number? Where is the Arabic? That link you gave has NO page numbers or real references.....

BTW,Dhahir here doesn't mean literal it means apparent.

Ibn qudamah says that we do not make Ta'wil (intepretation) of a verse that doesn't go astray of the dhahir meaning. I hate to break it to you my friend but every single ashari/maturidi believes this.......

For example,when Allah says "I created Adam with my hands". A non-dhahir Ta'wil of this verse would be to say "Adam here stands for all of mankind,the name adam is used metaphorically" < That is a Ta'wil that corrupts the dhahir of the verse,I.E. the apparent meaning.

Here is an example of how we follow the dhahir of the verses. If I used a metaphor and said "Allah is nearer to you than your jugular vein", I ask you right now would you take the DHAHIR(apparent,obvious) meaning or the LITERAL meaning? And what is the dhahir meaning,the dhahir meaning is that Allah knows everything that you do.

You have brought nothing new.

baytul-herz
29-07-2011, 06:22 AM
wa'alaikum assalam.
Does that mean Allah never spoke to Musa (as), because he was at the Toor during a specific time. Qur'an states that Allah spoke with Musa ''wa kallamallahu musa takleema''.

Subhanallah these are the same arguments that the philosophers used. Allah spoke to musa,but his speech is not originated,as all originated things are created,why can't you people understand that?

The author of your website posted a supposed quote from ibn qudamah .

* One of them said to Ibn Qudamah: I affirm that this Mushaf is actually the Quran, but it is not the eternal Quran, to which Ibn Qudamah replied: ‘So, do we have two Qurans?!


Are you telling me that the ink on the paper,and the paper itself is eternal? La hawla wala quwatta illah billah. What part of that mushaf is eternal? Only the MEANING is eternal,hence we say that the Qur'an is no doubt eternal,but the ink/paper/etc is not.

Ahlussunnah
29-07-2011, 07:03 AM
The qoute was taken from Lum'ah. You can read it here: http://www.al-eman.com/library/book/book-display.htm?id=162&indexId=1588&showContent=true#s1

He clearly prohibits ta'weel of sifat other than on its apparent. Now as for your explaination on Zahir then i don't really disagree with it, but the fact is Istaila is not zahir of istawa and al-Quwwah is not the Zahir of Al-yad.
Note that Ibn Qudama, in the same Lum'ah based on which you are trying to make him a mufawwidh, affirmed explicitly sound and letter for Allah's kalam. He also said that Allah's kalam was initiated (bad'a). You can read it, it would only take you five to ten minutes for reading the full book.

You also said that Ibn Qudamah was not someone who affirmed sifat literally LIKE IBN TAYMIYA AND DHAHABI. Now Dhahabi have similar statements like Ibn Qudamah which appears to be in support of Tafwidh al ma'ana, but still he is a literalist for you. Why? Probably because the content of his writing testifies to it. Same is the case for ibn qudama. He held same views as of Ibn Taymiya, however their might be some disagreement (like whether verses of sifat are mutashabih or not) in some detail which are not enough significant to class them in different groups.

Ahlussunnah
29-07-2011, 07:33 AM
Subhanallah these are the same arguments that the philosophers used. Allah spoke to musa,but his speech is not originated,as all originated things are created,why can't you people understand that?


It doesn't suit an Ash'ari of accusing us of using Philosophers views, while your own methodology comes from the golden chain like haddathana al-Ash'ari 'an al-Mu'tazali 'an al-Jahmi 'an al-falsafi mawqufan and sometimes marfoo'an from shaytan (doubt from al-Jahmi).

Now to actual issue, i don't think you have added something reasonable as it is expected from the flag bearers of ilm al kalam. We all know Allah was mutakallim since eternity and this is our belief. But His kalam is related to His Will and Power. So He speaks whenever He wants. His kalam is heard as it was heard by Musa on the Tur and the angels. Qur'an is clear in this regard. Allah told angels that He was going to create a successor. He was not telling this to angels since eternity because in that case you would be implying that Allah did some useless things. Wal 'iyadh billah.

maneatinglizard
29-07-2011, 03:33 PM
It doesn't suit an Ash'ari of accusing us of using Philosophers views, while your own methodology comes from the golden chain like haddathana al-Ash'ari 'an al-Mu'tazali 'an al-Jahmi 'an al-falsafi mawqufan and sometimes marfoo'an from shaytan (doubt from al-Jahmi).

Now to actual issue, i don't think you have added something reasonable as it is expected from the flag bearers of ilm al kalam. We all know Allah was mutakallim since eternity and this is our belief. But His kalam is related to His Will and Power. So He speaks whenever He wants. His kalam is heard as it was heard by Musa on the Tur and the angels. Qur'an is clear in this regard. Allah told angels that He was going to create a successor. He was not telling this to angels since eternity because in that case you would be implying that Allah did some useless things. Wal 'iyadh billah.

:salam:

Last I heard it was Ibn Taymiyyah :rahma: reviving the beliefs of the philosophers such as the pre-eternality of creation and the infinite divisibility of matter.

maneatinglizard
29-07-2011, 03:36 PM
wa'alaikum assalam.
Does that mean Allah never spoke to Musa (as), because he was at the Toor during a specific time. Qur'an states that Allah spoke with Musa ''wa kallamallahu musa takleema''.

No. it doesn't and I have no idea where you got that from.

The creation may be temporal, but Allah :taala: is not.

Let me ask you something: Can Allah :taala: speak outside of the dimension of time or is He bound by it?

Abu Jahid
29-07-2011, 06:37 PM
2. Ibn Qudamah (raheemullah) is not your ally friend,so I wouldn't cite him it would only hurt you. He was far from what you ascribed to him,he preserved the narrations from ahmad b. hanbal(raheemullah) regarding his aqidah for all to see. Ibn Qudamah said that the hanabilah relegated the meanings of the mutashabih ayaats to Allah SWT.

Believe me, you don't have to tell me what Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) believed. He is one of my favorite scholars and do you think I'm qouting him all the time without knowing what he believed??

I 've question to you: Did you read some of his works regarding Aqidah?
Or do you base your understanding upon the words of some insincere and dishonest Ash'aris (note: I'm not saying that Ash'aris are dishonest, but there are some dishonest people among them just like there are dishonest people among Salafis; ohh and I don't consider myself "Salafi"!) who try to act as if Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) was a Mufawidh??

Wait, I will "hurt" myself ;):

Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) said in his "Tahrim al-Nadhar fi Kutub al-Kalam":

__________

وقال حنبلي سألت أبا عبد الله أحمد بن محمد بن حنبل رضي الله عنه عن هذه الأحاديث التي تروي أن الله تبارك وتعالى يرى وأنه ينزل إلى سماء الدنيا وأنه يضع قدمه وما أشبه ذلك. فقال أبو عبد الله رضي الله عنه: نؤمن بها ونصدق بها ولا نرد منها شيئا إذا كانت بأسانيد صحاح، ولا نرد على الرسول قوله، ونعلم أن ما جاء به الرسول حق ولا يوصف الله تعالى بأكثر مما وصف به نفسه بلا حد ولا غاية ليس كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير. فنقول كما قال ونصفه كما وصف نفسه لا نتعدى ذلك ولا نزيل عنه صفة من صفاته لشناعة شنعت.نؤمن بهذه الأحاديث ونقرها ونمرها كما جاءت بلا كيف ولا معنى إلا على ما وصف به نفسه تبارك وتعالى وهو كما وصف نفسه سميع بصير بلا حد ولا تقدير. صفاته منه وله. لا نتعدى القرآن والحديث والخبر ولا نعلم كيف ذاك إلا بتصديق الرسول وتثبيت القرآن.

A Hanbali has said: I asked Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Hanbal about those traditions which relate that God will be seen, that He descends to the heaven closest to the earth, and that He sets His foot down, and other relations similar to these. Whereupon, Abu ‘Abd Allah answered: We believe in them, and accept them as true, without rejecting any part of them, when their chains of transmitters are sound; nor do we refuse the statements of the Apostle, for we know that what he has brought to us is true. God should not be described in excess of His own description of Himself, boundless and immeasurable: “There is nothing anything like Him! He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” [42:11] Therefore, we say exactly what He has said, and describe Him as He has described Himself without going beyond His description, nor removing from Him any of His attributes merely for fear of some possible slander which might be levelled against us. We believe in these traditions, we acknowledge them, and we allow them to pass intact as they have come down to us, without being able to understand the how of them (bila kayf), nor to fathom their intended sense (wa la ma’na) except in accordance with His own description of Himself; and He is, according to His own description, the Hearing, the Seeing, boundless and immeasurable. His attributes proceed from Him and are His own. We do not go beyond the Quran or the traditions from the Prophet and his Companions; nor do we know the how of these (kayf), save by the acknowledgment of the Apostle and the continuation of the Quran.
__________

Now I won't explain to you what Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) intended by his saying "wa la ma'na" (by the way: "ma'na" is an ambigous term... even in English "meaning" is an amigous term, for example it could also refer to defintions), instead of that I will tell you the follwing:

It seems as if ALLAH ta'ala has blinded the eyes and the hearts of the people of kalam!! Read which traditions where mentioned to Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah): "God will be seen"!!

The Atharis and the Ash'aris both agree that ALLAH ta'ala will be seen by the people of Jannah with their eyes. So both accept the dhahir in this matter.

But there also other traditions mentioned, where you wouldn't accept the dhahir (like the nuzul (descending) of ALLAH ta'ala).

Now there are only two possibilities (and there is no third possibility!):

1) Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) did not affirm the dhahir of all mentioned traditions, which means that he did not believe in the Ru`yah (i.e. that the people of Jannah will see ALLAH ta'ala with their eyes).

2) Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) did affirm the dhahir (apparent) meanings of all mentioned traditions, while knowing that the Sifat of ALLAH ta'ala are in no way like that of the creation and that there is nothing like ALLAH 'azza wa jal!

The first possibility is rejected, because we all know that Imam Ahmad affirmed the Ru`yah! So the second possibility is the truth!!

By the way bro baytul-herz: The things that you said regarding the meaning of "dhahir" were mostly correct! "Dhahir" means apparent ! And Imam Qudamah (rahimahullah) said in his "Rawhda":
__________

القسم الثاني الظاهر وهو ما يسبق إلى الفهم منه عند الإطلاق معنى مع تجويز غيره وإن شئت قلت ما احتمل معنيين هو في أحدهما أظهر

The second type: al-Dhahir, and that is the meaning that comes first to the mind when uttered, while other meanings might also be possible. If you wish, you may say: That which has two possible meanings, one of them more obvious than the other
__________

When ALLAH ta'ala says "al-rahmanu 'ala 'arshi istawa", what's the apparent meaning? The apparent is that ALLAH ta'ala rose above the throne (in a manner that suits Him)! If someone says that this means "istawla" (conquer) or similar things, then he has rejected the dhahir meaning, because that what he made is considered as ta`wil!! Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) said in his "Tahrim al-Nadhar":
__________

الوجه التاسع أن المتأول يجمع بين وصف الله تعالى بصفة ما وصف بها نفسه ولا أضافها إليها وبين نفي صفة أضافها الله تعالى إليه.

فإذا قال معنى استوى استولى فقد وصف الله تعالى بالاستيلاء والله تعالى لم يصف بذلك نفسه ونفى صفة الاستواء مع ذكر الله تبارك وتعالى لها في القرآن في سبعة مواضع.

أفما كان الله سبحانه وتعالى قادرا على أن يقول استولى حتى جاء المتكلف المتأول فتطرف وتحكم على الله سبحانه وعلى رسوله تعالى الله عما يقول الظالمون علوا كبيرا.


Ninth: The allegorical interpreter combines the ascription to God of an attribute which He did not ascribe or adjoin to Himself, with the negation of an attribute which God did adjoin to Himself. When the allegorical interpreter says, “the intended sense of ‘rising over’ (istawa) is ‘to gain mastery over,’ ” he is ascribing to God the attribute of ‘gaining mastery over’ (istawla). But God did not ascribe this attribute to Himself. He is also negating the attribute of ‘rising over’ (istawa), notwithstanding its reiteration by God in the Quran in seven places.
Now, was not God capable of saying istawla until the meddlesome allegorical interpreter came along affecting cleverness and defying God and His Apostle? - Supremely exalted is He above that which the wrongdoers say of Him!
__________

Now the Ash'aris (of today) say that it's okay to make ta`wil and say it means "istawla" (conquer/taking control) or one just says "I don't know the meaning of istawa at all and I reject the dhahir" (i.e. making tafwidh).

Now why does Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) say that the one who makes Ta`wil of "istawa" makes 2 wrong things??? According to the logic of the Mufawidha such a person made no mistake at all (or at most 1 mistake)!

Let's see what the two mistakes are:

First mistake: Describing ALLAH ta'ala with something that he didn't describe himself!
Second mistake: Rejecting something that ALLAH ta'ala has described himself!!

And there are some among the Mufawidh Ash'aris who say: Make tafwidh and not ta`wil!
According to these Ash'aris such a person made only one mistake - i.e the first one, but he didn't fall into the second one! Why? Because the Mufawidh himself doesn't accept the dhahir meaning and says "I don't know the meaning at all"!!

So why does Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) say that the person who makes ta`wil of "istawa" as "istawla" has rejected something that ALLAH ta'ala has described himself? Because such a person has rejected the dhahir of "istawa" by making ta`wil and the dhahir of it is "rose above"!
So in the moment you say "istiwa" means "conquer" or you say "yad" means "power" or similar things you have already made 2 great mistakes according to Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah)!!!

I could write more, but I think it's better to come back to the topic of the thread.


We have said time and time again there was misunderstandings between Ibn qudamah and the Ash'ari regarding the Qur'an.

Who told you that he had misunderstandings regarding what the Ash'aris believed regarding the Quran?? Where it the same insincere Asha'irah (note: I'm not saying that all Asha'irah are insincere) who told you that he was a Mufawidh?
Have you read his book "al-Munadara fil Quran" (you can read it here: http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B8%D8%B1%D8%A9_% D9%81%D9%8A_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A2%D9%86) to know weather he had a misunderstanding regarding what they believed??
The only thing that could be said is, that he is really very very harsh against Ash'aris! (Sometimes it's really a little bit too much harshness.)

I hope you're not denying that Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) believed that ALLAH ta'ala speaks with sound and letters or that he regarded the wording (lafdh) of the Quran as uncreated (i.e. to him " الم " is uncreated)!! Because it's a matter of fact that he believed that the wording of the Quran is uncreated and that ALLAH ta'ala speaks with sound and letters!!

:ws:

baytul-herz
29-07-2011, 07:52 PM
Abu Jahid al-Iraqi :Believe me, you don't have to tell me what Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) believed. He is one of my favorite scholars and do you think I'm qouting him all the time without knowing what he believed??

I 've question to you: Did you read some of his works regarding Aqidah?
Or do you base your understanding upon the words of some insincere and dishonest Ash'aris (note: I'm not saying that Ash'aris are dishonest, but there are some dishonest people among them just like there are dishonest people among Salafis; ohh and I don't consider myself "Salafi"!) who try to act as if Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) was a Mufawidh??


He is also a scholar that I admire,so what is your point? Yes I have read his works regarding Aqidah,all you can do is call us dishonest and complain.



Abu Jahid al-Iraqi : Wait, I will "hurt" myself ;):

Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) said in his "Tahrim al-Nadhar fi Kutub al-Kalam":

__________

وقال حنبلي سألت أبا عبد الله أحمد بن محمد بن حنبل رضي الله عنه عن هذه الأحاديث التي تروي أن الله تبارك وتعالى يرى وأنه ينزل إلى سماء الدنيا وأنه يضع قدمه وما أشبه ذلك. فقال أبو عبد الله رضي الله عنه: نؤمن بها ونصدق بها ولا نرد منها شيئا إذا كانت بأسانيد صحاح، ولا نرد على الرسول قوله، ونعلم أن ما جاء به الرسول حق ولا يوصف الله تعالى بأكثر مما وصف به نفسه بلا حد ولا غاية ليس كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير. فنقول كما قال ونصفه كما وصف نفسه لا نتعدى ذلك ولا نزيل عنه صفة من صفاته لشناعة شنعت.نؤمن بهذه الأحاديث ونقرها ونمرها كما جاءت بلا كيف ولا معنى إلى على ما وصف به نفسه تبارك وتعالى وهو كما وصف نفسه سميع بصير بلا حد ولا تقدير. صفاته منه وله. لا نتعدى القرآن والحديث والخبر ولا نعلم كيف ذاك إلا بتصديق الرسول وتثبيت القرآن.

A Hanbali has said: I asked Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Hanbal about those traditions which relate that God will be seen, that He descends to the heaven closest to the earth, and that He sets His foot down, and other relations similar to these. Whereupon, Abu ‘Abd Allah answered: We believe in them, and accept them as true, without rejecting any part of them, when their chains of transmitters are sound; nor do we refuse the statements of the Apostle, for we know that what he has brought to us is true. God should not be described in excess of His own description of Himself, boundless and immeasurable: “There is nothing anything like Him! He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” [42:11] Therefore, we say exactly what He has said, and describe Him as He has described Himself without going beyond His description, nor removing from Him any of His attributes merely for fear of some possible slander which might be levelled against us. We believe in these traditions, we acknowledge them, and we allow them to pass intact as they have come down to us, without being able to understand the how of them (bila kayf), nor to fathom their intended sense (wa la ma’na) except in accordance with His own description of Himself; and He is, according to His own description, the Hearing, the Seeing, boundless and immeasurable. His attributes proceed from Him and are His own. We do not go beyond the Quran or the traditions from the Prophet and his Companions; nor do we know the how of these (kayf), save by the acknowledgment of the Apostle and the continuation of the Quran.

Either you don't understand arabic,or you are lying. He says clearly بلا كيف ولا معنى إلى على ما وصف به نفسه تبارك وتعالى وهو كما وصف نفسه سميع بصير بلا حد ولا تقدير. صفاته منه وله. لا نتعدى القرآن والحديث والخبر ولا نعلم كيف ذاك إلا بتصديق الرسول وتثبيت القرآن.

He says : Without how or MEANING( Bila kayf wala ma'na) ,where does he say " nor to fathom their intended sense".

Why are you lying?





Abu Jahid al-Iraqi :Now I won't explain to you what Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) intended by his saying "wa la ma'na" (by the way: "ma'na" is an ambigous term... even in English "meaning" is an amigous term, for example it could also refer to defintions), instead of that I will tell you the follwing:

It seems as if ALLAH ta'ala has blinded the eyes and the hearts of the people of kalam!! Read which traditions where mentioned to Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah): "God will be seen"!!

What do you mean? You just tried to explain to me what he intended by mistranslating the text,my friend I'm lebanese I read arabic, so when I read your translation I thought this guy has to be kidding me.

MA'NA is mutashabih? No my jahil friend,ma'na means ma'na. See how they have to twist and make excuses to the point where they are calling words what they don't mean.... Ma'na means MEANING! It isn't ambiguous he is saying clearly he believe in them with how or meaning to what allah SWT described himself with.

You mistranslated the bottom portion ! Or you don't understand arabic!



Abu Jahid al-Iraqi :The Atharis and the Ash'aris both agree that ALLAH ta'ala will be seen by the people of Jannah with their eyes. So both accept the dhahir in this matter.

But there also other traditions mentioned, where you wouldn't accept the dhahir (like the nuzul (descending) of ALLAH ta'ala).

Now there are only two possibilities (and there is no third possibility!):

1) Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) did not affirm the dhahir of all mentioned traditions, which means that he did not believe in the Ru`yah (i.e. that the people of Jannah will see ALLAH ta'ala with their eyes).

2) Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) did affirm the dhahir (apparent) meanings of all mentioned traditions, while knowing that the Sifat of ALLAH ta'ala are in no way like that of the creation and that there is nothing like ALLAH 'azza wa jal!

The first possibility is rejected, because we all know that Imam Ahmad affirmed the Ru`yah! So the second possibility is the truth!!


Again you keep translating dhahir as literal,dhahir can mean literal but it depends on the context. We keep explaining to you that when Ibn qudamah says dhahir,he means the obvious meaning.
Literal meanings like "Real hand" or "real shin" is not the obvious meaning! Do you know why? Please read this part carefully. Ibn qudamah relagted the ta'wil to Allah SWT based upon the 7th verse of surah imran, "and none know their ta'wil except allah", hence he never made ta'wil. But if he did make ta'wil he is saying that this ta'wil should not corrupt the intended meaning.




Abu Jahid al-Iraqi :By the way bro baytul-herz: The things that you said regarding the meaning of "dhahir" were mostly correct! "Dhahir" means apparent ! And Imam Qudamah (rahimahullah) said in his "Rawhda":
__________

القسم الثاني الظاهر وهو ما يسبق إلى الفهم منه عند الإطلاق معنى مع تجويز غيره وإن شئت قلت ما احتمل معنيين هو في أحدهما أظهر

The second type: al-Dhahir, and that is the meaning that comes first to the mind when uttered, while other meanings might also be possible. If you wish, you may say: That which has two possible meanings, one of them more obvious than the other

Again the dhahir meaning,the meaning that first comes to mind is not the literal meaning. For example "Allah is nearer to you than your jugular vein" the first meaning that comes to mind is not literal....Likewise with Allah creating adam with his hands,Allah SWT does not have limbs,fingers,thumbs,back,feet.

You keep taking out of context what he said.



الوجه التاسع أن المتأول يجمع بين وصف الله تعالى بصفة ما وصف بها نفسه ولا أضافها إليها وبين نفي صفة أضافها الله تعالى إليه.

فإذا قال معنى استوى استولى فقد وصف الله تعالى بالاستيلاء والله تعالى لم يصف بذلك نفسه ونفى صفة الاستواء مع ذكر الله تبارك وتعالى لها في القرآن في سبعة مواضع.

أفما كان الله سبحانه وتعالى قادرا على أن يقول استولى حتى جاء المتكلف المتأول فتطرف وتحكم على الله سبحانه وعلى رسوله تعالى الله عما يقول الظالمون علوا كبيرا.


Ninth: The allegorical interpreter combines the ascription to God of an attribute which He did not ascribe or adjoin to Himself, with the negation of an attribute which God did adjoin to Himself. When the allegorical interpreter says, “the intended sense of ‘rising over’ (istawa) is ‘to gain mastery over,’ ” he is ascribing to God the attribute of ‘gaining mastery over’ (istawla). But God did not ascribe this attribute to Himself. He is also negating the attribute of ‘rising over’ (istawa), notwithstanding its reiteration by God in the Quran in seven places.
Now, was not God capable of saying istawla until the meddlesome allegorical interpreter came along affecting cleverness and defying God and His Apostle? - Supremely exalted is He above that which the wrongdoers say of Him!


I'm tired of commenting on your comments because you keep repeating yourself,if the people reading this scroll up they can clearly see we already explained it to you.
So I'm going to be commenting on the quotes you gave from here on out.

Again,Ibn Qudamah did not like to make ta'wil(interpretation) of the verse. He relegated the meaning to Allah and did not interpret it. So if we came to Ibn qudamah today and said "wajih" means such and such,he will say "Allah did not say that,we believe in them without how or meaning/ta'wil".

He is saying in that quote clearly that interpretation should not be made,he isn't saying what you are saying. He is saying that by making ta'wil you are describing Allah with something he did not and removing the effectiveness of the word istiwa by giving it one meaning which he did not use. Again the Ashari/maturidi agree with this that the ma'na is not known exactly,but when confronted with literalists and innovators we can give possible meanings as long as they don't venture away from the dhahir

May allah give us both the understanding

baytul-herz
30-07-2011, 12:47 AM
The author at Asharis.com(Website trying to refute ahlus sunnah) is trying to refute that Ahmad b.hanbal raheemullah denied that Allah had a body,limbs,and parts.


asharis.com

The Imam and hadith master (hafiz) Ahmad ibn al-Husayn al-Bayhaqi (d. 458/1066) relates in his Manaqib al-Imam Ahmad [The memorable actions of Imam Ahmad], through his chain of narrators that:Ahmad condemned those who said Allah was a "body," saying, "The Names of things are taken from the Shari'a and the Arabic language. The language's possessors have used this word for something that has height, breadth, thickness, construction, form, and composition, while Allah Most High is beyond all of that, and may not be termed a "body" because of being beyond any meaning of embodiedness [emphasis mine]. This has not been conveyed by the Shari'a, and so is refuted"

Firstly: Note how the Jahmee coward mentions that al-Bayhaqi relates "through his chain of narrators that: Ahmad condemned those who ...", so the English reader gets the impression al-Bayhaqi is quoting a chain of narration directly to Imaam Ahmad. However, in the Arabic we see that al-Bayhaqi is quoting with his chain of narration only to Abu al-Fadl al-Tamimi (d. 410H) who is the one [allegedly] ascribing to Imaam Ahmad what he is ascribing.

As you can see he is trying to remove this statement from the imam by saying that Abu al fadl Al tamiami is ascribing a lie to Ahmad b. hanbal raheemullah.


Asharis.com
In I'tiqad Imam Ahmad bi Riwaya Tamimi (page 4) the Imam is quoted as saying
Allah ta'ala has Yadayn. They are attributes of His Essence which are not two limbs, nor two composite parts, nor a body...

وكان يقول إن لله تعالى يدين وهما صفة له في ذاته ليستا بجارحتين وليستا بمركبتين و لا جسم ولا من جنس الأجسام ولا من جنس المحدود والتركيب ولا الأبعاض والجوارح
As we said Abu al-Fadl al-Tamimi (d. 410H) is not citing with an isnaad, in this book all he does is to say "Imaam Ahmad used to say..." and then he puts his own interpretations of what he thinks Imaam Ahmad was upon, when the reality is otherwise.

Here he has a problem by saying that Allah does not have limbs,nor parts,nor a body. He is saying that it is wrong to deny them or affirm them. Are you honestly going to tell me we don't have to deny that Allah has limbs?


asharis.com

And he used to say: Allaah, the Exalted has two hands and they are an attribute of His in His essence. They are not two limbs and nor two composite parts, and nor a body (jism) and nor from the genus of ajsaam (bodies) and from the genus of mahdud (confined, delimited things) and tarkib (composition) and nor parts (ab'aad) or limbs (jawaarih).

This is the language of pure Ahl al-Kalaam,...................................

This is the language of Ahl al kalaam? To deny that Allah has parts,limbs,or a body?


تَعَالَى اللَّهُ عَنِ الحُدُودِ وَالغَاياتِ، وَالأَرْكانِ وَالأَدَواتِ، لاتَحْوِيهِ الجِهَاتُ السِّتُّ كَسَائِرِ المُبْتَدَعاتِ

-Aqeedah at tahawiyyah.

He is beyond having limits placed on Him, or being restricted, or having parts or limbs. Nor is He contained by the six directions as all created things are.


asharis.com
The above quotes are from [B] Abu Ya'laa's Ibtaal al-Ta'weelaat. And al-Khallāl also reports with his isnād from Muhammad bin Ibrāhīm al-Qaysī, who said:

I said to Ahmad bin Hanbal, 'It is narrated about Ibn al-Mubārak that it was said to him, 'How do we know our Lord?' and he replied, 'Above (fī) the seventh heaven, upon His Throne with a demarcation (bi haddin)''. So Ahmad said, 'This is how it is with us'

Yasir Qadhi (salafi) says : "The book (i.e. Ibtaal al-Ta'weelaat Li Akhbaar al-Sifaat by Qadi Abu Ya'laa) is known in that its author - May Allah Forgive us and him - exaggerated in Ithbaat and spoke of what is inappropriate. He is excused because he was not a specialist in Hadith and thus brought weak and fabricated Hadith (to prove Sifaat).

Ibn Taymiyyah and others have mentioned this."

Ahlussunnah
30-07-2011, 02:24 AM
:salam:

Last I heard it was Ibn Taymiyyah :rahma: reviving the beliefs of the philosophers such as the pre-eternality of creation and the infinite divisibility of matter.

wa'alaikum assalam.
If you don't know the difference between Qudum l-'Aalam and tasalsul al-Hawadith then i feel sorry for you and your 'ilm.

Ahlussunnah
30-07-2011, 02:41 AM
No. it doesn't and I have no idea where you got that from.

The creation may be temporal, but Allah :taala: is not.

Let me ask you something: Can Allah :taala: speak outside of the dimension of time or is He bound by it?

You are the one who said that salafi belief implied that Allah speak at a point in time while some other time he remain silent. That was your implied from salafi. So from your belief i implied that Allah did not speak to Musa because that would mean Allah was speaking in a time frame and Musa couldn't have heard him as human hear through sound and Allah doesn't speak with sound and letters. Same goes for all what Allah speak in the past during a specific time. If you say Allah was speaking to Moses since eternity then that would mean Allah was doing some useless act which does not befit His Majesty. And there is no question of creation being temporal or not, we all know creations are not eternal.
As for your question then it depends on how you define the time. Its not existent outside the mind and its just an imaginary concept to understand the actions etc. Wallahu A'alam

Abu Jahid
30-07-2011, 03:47 PM
:bism:

To baytul-herz:

The translation is not mine, but I really don't see how "intended sense" is wrong? To me the qoute would make no difference weather one translates it as "intended sense" or as "meaning"!

As for you saying that ma'na is ma'na and that "ma'na" means "meaning": Could you tell me where I denied that or where I said "ma'na" doesn not mean "meaning"?? First understand what the other said is saying, and then answer!

I will explain it to you again:
When it says in the Quran "wujuhun jawma idhin nadhira ila rabbiha nadhira" (it is in Surat al-Qiyamah), then when one says: This means that the people (of Jannah) will see ALLAH ta'ala with their eyes (and this is the belief of Atharis and Ash'aris)!
Now is this not believing in a meaning? Yes it is! Which meaning is this? The dhahir (apparent)! And one relegates everything else to ALLAH ta'ala!
Is saying "it means that the people of Jannah will see ALLAH ta'ala with their eyes" tafwidh?? NO! (Because it would be tafwidh one says: "I don't know the meaning at all"). So in this case the Asha'irah accept also the dhahir just like we do, but they don't do this with all Sifat!
So Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) accepted the dhahir and relegated everything else to ALLAH ta'ala! This means he did the same with "yanzilu rabbuna" ( "our lord descends" as the Prophet ('alahyi afdhal assalati wa salam) said as reported in Bukhari and Muslim) and with all Ayat and Ahadith about the Sifat of ALLAH ta'ala!

As for you saying that Dhahir does not mean literal: Do you even care to read what I said?? I affirmed that and I said that your saying regarding this is correct! Dhahir can mean haqiqi (literal), but can also mean majazi (metaphorical), while mostly it's literal. I already posted the definition of dhahir by Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) and he says that dhahir is the first meaning comes to the mind!! So the one who affirms the dhahir has accepted automatically one meaning and that is the dhahir meaning while he relegates everything else to ALLAH ta'ala!

Imam Ibn Qudamah rahimahullah) said in his "Dham al-Ta`wil":

__________

فإن قيل فقد تأولتم آيات وأخبارا فقلتم في قوله تعالى ( وهو معكم أين ما كنتم ) أي بالعلم ونحو هذا من الآيات والأخبار فيلزمكم ما لزمنا قلنا نحن لم نتأول شيئا وحمل هذه اللفظات على هذه المعاني ليس بتأويل لأن التأويل صرف اللفظ عن ظاهره وهذه المعاني هي الظاهر من هذه الألفاظ بدليل أنه المتبادر إلى الأفهام منها وظاهر اللفظ هو ما يسبق إلى الفهم منه حقيقة كان أو مجازا

If it is said: "You made ta’wil of verses and reports, for instance, you said
with respect to Allah’s statement: { He is with you wherever you are } [57:4], meaning:
with His knowledge, and the like of these verses and reports, and therefore,
your arguments are as much applicable to you as us."

We say: We did not make ta’wil of anything, for to hold such texts in these
meanings is not at all ta’wil, because ta’wil is to change the meaning of a
word from its dhahir, and what we say here is the dhahir of the wording, that
is, what comes first to the mind from that text, irrespective of whether it
is haqiqa or majaz.
__________

Now why did they tell to Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) that since he accepted the majazi meaning his argument against them (i.e not to make ta`wil) is also applicable to him? Because Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) accepted in other Sifat the literal meaning while in this case he accepted the metaphorical meaning. So Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) explained to them that in both cases he only accepted the dhahir and that dhahir contains both haqiqi and majazi, but what is important is that is the first meaning that comes to mind (i.e. if there are two meanings, than the first possible one is the dhahir!)!

If one would make tafwidh of the Aya, then one has simply to say "I don't know the meaning at all" (and the Asha'irah also do not make tafwidh of this Aya)! While Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) accepted a meaning and that is the dhahir!

As for my saying that the word "meaning" is ambigous (which you misunderstood), then I will try to explain what I meant:

The word meaning can refer to more than one thing: For example it can refer really only to the meaning of something, for example: What's meaning of bayt in English? It means house!

But it can refer also to a definition, for example: What's the meaning of Yad?:
One could say "it means hand" (which would be like the first case with bayt meaning house and this is the obvious and clear meaning in language), but one can also say "it's a limb", which is already a defintion!!
Now when one uses the word meaning (or ma'na) it can refer to both and that's exactly why I said it's ambigous!

And I say it again: There is difference between making tafwidh and between accepting the dhahir (because the one who accepts the dhahir has already accepted one meaning and that's the dhahir), while the mufawidh says "I don't know the meaning at all" and "I will treat this description of ALLAH ta'ala as if I don't understand the language of the description"!

Here an example: Imam Ibn Qudamaha (rahimahullah) said in his "Ithbat Sifat al-'Uluw":

__________

فإن الله تعالى وصف نفسه بالعلو في السماء ووصفه بذلك رسوله محمد خاتم الانبياء وأجمع على ذلك جميع العلماء من الصحابة الأتقياء والأئمة من الفقهاء وتواترت الأخبار بذلك على وجه حصل به اليقين وجمع الله تعالى عليه قلوب المسلمين وجعله مغروزا في طباع الخلق اجمعين فتراهم عند نزول الكرب بهم يلحظون السماء بأعينهم ويرفعون نحوها للدعاء أيديهم وينتظرون مجئ الفرج من ربهم وينطقون بذلك بألسنتهم لا ينكر ذلك إلا مبتدع غال في بدعته

Indeed Allah ta'ala has described Himself with being elevated ('uluw) above the heavens and his messenger Muhammad, the last of the prophets, described him with that. And the scholars from the pious companions and the Imams from the jurists held a consencus regarding this. The reports concerning that became so numerous, that a level of certainty was achieved. Allah ta'ala united the hearts of the Muslims on this issue, and made it a part of the natural instincts of the whole creation, and therefore, you notice them when some calamity befalls them that they look with their eyes to the sky, and raise their hands towards it for supplication, waiting for alleviation of calamity from their Lord, while their utter this with their tongues. No one denies this except a innovator, fanatic in his inovation.
__________

Now tell us is this tadwidh or accepting the dhahir, what Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) said in the above qoute??? This is accepting the dhahir without any doubt!!

Now when ALLAH ta'ala says that he made "istawa 'ala al-'arsh", what's the dhahir? The dhahir is that ALLAH rose above the throne! Do we need to know anything more? No, we relegate everything else to ALLAH ta'ala! Now when some says it means "to take control" (or similar things), has he accepted the dhahir according to Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah)?? NO!!
And when someone says that it means "to go from a lower point to higher point", is this accepted? No, because he didn't just accept the dhahir and relegated everything else to ALLAH ta'ala (as Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) did), rather he went further that by stating a defintion that applies to the creation and not to the creator 'azza wa jal! Now I ask you is this not also called meaning?? Yes, it is!! But what does it contain? It contains a definition! Do we affirm such things?? NO, because this is haram and this exactly where tashbih begins!!
Now does rising above the throne necessitate Intiqal (=change)? For the creation the answer would be yes, while for the creator 'azza wa jal the answer is no!! Why? Because one cannot apply such definitons to ALLAH ta'ala!!!

When the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) says "yanzilu rabbuna", whats the dhahir? Well the dhahir is simply that ALLAH ta'ala descends!! (And if someone would ask me this in arabic, I would simply say: Well, "yanzilu rabbuna" means "yanzilu rabbuna" is therey anything more to be said? It's recitation is infact it's meaning, so why should I go further than that?!)
If someone says "it means the rahma of ALLAH ta'ala descends", then is this saying acceptable to Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah)?? NO! And here one cannot say that the Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) made tafwidh!! Why? Because accepting the dhahir is already accepting one meaning, while tafwidh is like saying "I don't know the meaning at all"!
And if one says "it means going from higher point to a lower", then we answer: You said more than the dhahir and you're not allowed to apply these definitons to ALLAH ta'ala and it would be better for you (and your Akhirah) if you affirmed the dhahir and wouldn't have gone further!

When ALLAH ta'ala says in the Quran "lima khalqatu bi yadayy" ( in Surat Sad) , what's the dhahir? The dhahir is that ALLAH ta'ala created Adam ('alayhi salam) with his hands!! Now if someone says it means "power", then according to Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) he has already rejected the dhahir!!
And just to show why it wrong to say such thing:
The Aya uses the dual form for "yad", so it means "with my both hands" or "with my two hands", now is it logical to say "with my two powers"? NO!
But let's for the sake of it say it means power, but then we have still a problem! Which one?:
The reason why Iblis didn't make sujud for Sayyidina Adam ('alayhi salam) was that he thought he was better than him, because Adam ('alayhi salam) was created from clay while he was from fire! What had ALLAH ta'ala made clear to him? ALLAH ta'ala made clear to him that Adam ('alayhi salam) is indeed special, why? Because ALLAH ta'ala has created him with his own hands while Iblis was not created with the hands of ALLAH ta'ala!!
If it would mean power, then Iblis could simply say "You've created me also with your power and aditionally I'm from fire, so I'm better"!!
So the one who says it means "power" has lied against ALLAH ta'ala without noticing that! And this is just to show what a huge mistake it is to say other than the dhahir!!
And if someone says "it means limb", then he has also mentioned a defintion (which by the way is also called "meaning") and has gone beyond the dhahir and that what he did is haram and this is exactly where tashbih begins!

And when ALLAH ta'ala describes himself with being "fi sama`" and the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) says that we should be merciful to those on earth and then the one "fi sama`" would be merciful to us (as reported in Abu dawud and Tirmidhi) and when Umm ul-Mu`mineen Zaynab bint Jahsh (radhiallahu 'anha) says that ALLAH ta'ala gave her in marriage to the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) "min fawq sab' samawat" ("from above seven heavens"; as reported in Bukhari and by others) and when Ibn 'Abbas (radhiallahu 'anhu) says to Umm ul-Mumineen 'Aishah (radhiallahu 'anha) "wa anzalallah bara`atik min fawq sab' samawat" ("and Allah sent down your innocence from above seven heavens"; as reported in Musnad Imam Ahmad), then what is the dhahir except that ALLAH ta'ala is above the whole creation??
Is it really necessary to act as if we "don't know the meaning at all" as the Mufawidha do and acting as if these reports where in a language which no one understands?? No!
And if someone says "yes he is above the creation with his might and not with his essence", we say: You have lied against ALLAH ta'ala and Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) has called you an "innovator, fanatic in his innovation"!! And the only problem here is that you imagine ALLAH ta'ala as if he's a creation and that's why you say "only with his might", and ALLAH ta'ala is high above what you say and think about Him!!

Now after this explanation do you understand the difference between accepting the dhahir (and relegating everything else to ALLAH ta'ala and not going beyong the dhahir and this means that one accepted one meaning, which is the dhahir) and between making tafwidh (which means to act as if you don't understand it at all and to treat the discription as if it is in a language that no one understands, but then still saying "it could mean power", "it could mean the descending of rahma", which according to Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) is nothing else than to reject the dhahir!!

If you want to understand what the differce between you and us and the Mushabiha is, then this qoute from Imam al-Dhahabi (rahimahullah) is very good:
__________

المتأخرون من أهل النظر قالوا مقالة مولدة ما علمت أحدا سبقهم بها قالوا هذه الصفات تمر كما جاءت ولا تأول مع إعتقاد أن ظاهرها غير مراد فتفرع من هذا أن الظاهر يعني به أمران

أحدهما أنه لا تأويل لها غير دلالة الخطاب كما قال السلف الإستواء معلوم وكما قال سفيان وغيره قراءتها تفسيرها يعني أنها بينة واضحة في اللغة لا يبتغى بها مضائق التأويل والتحريف وهذا هو مذهب السلف مع إتفاقهم أيضا أنها لا تشبه صفات البشر بوجه إذ الباري لا مثل له لا في ذاته ولا في صفاته

الثاني أن ظاهرها هو الذي يتشكل في الخيال من الصفة كما يتشكل في الذهن من وصف البشر فهذا غير مراد فإن الله تعالى فرد صمد ليس له نظير وإن تعددت صفاته فإنها حق

The latter ones from the speculative theologians (ahl al-nadhar) invented a new belief, I do not know of anyone preceding them in that. They said: ‘These attributes are passed on as they have come and not interpreted (la tu’awwal), while believing that the apparent meaning is not intended. ’ This follows that the apparent meaning (dhahir) could mean two things:

First; that it has no interpretation (ta’wil) except the meaning of the text, as the Salaf said: ‘The rising (al-Istiwa) is known’, or as Sufyan and others said: ‘Its recitation is in fact its interpretation (tafseer)’ – meaning, it is obvious and clear in the language, such that one should not opt for interpretation (ta’wil) or distortion (tahrif). This is the Madhab of the Salaf, while they all agree that they do not resemble the attributes of human beings in any way. For the Bari has no likeness, neither in His essence, nor in His attributes.
Second; that the apparent meaning (dhahir) is what comes to imagination from the attribute, just like an image that is formed in one’s mind of a human attribute.
This is certainly not intended, for Allah is single and self-sufficient who has no likeness. Even if He has multiple attributes, they all are true, however, they have no resemblance or likeness
__________

I think this qoute makes our belief very clear! The "ahl al-nadhar" in the quote are the people who make tafwidh! And the first ones are the Atharis/Hanabila and the second one are the Mushabiha/Mujassima!!
He really explained it very well by saying "it's clear and obvious in the language", may ALLAH ta'ala have mercy upon him!

And before you can play around: I've a point, which is the biggest proof against you:

There was a period of time where Imam Ibn 'Aqil (rahimahullah) was upon a 'Aqidah which the Asha'irah of today regard as "very good" and they say "he was not a Mujassim like the rest of Hanabila"! And guess what Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) said regarding his 'Aqidah in this period?: He said that if we had stayed upon it and wouldn't have repented (because he repented from the 'Aqidah that you regard as "very good"), then he would have regarded him a Zindiq!!! For your info: Calling someone Zindiq is like making Takfir upon him!!
If you don't believe me, then look what Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) said in his "Tahrim al-Nadhar":
__________

أما بعد فإنني وقفت على فضيحة ابن عقيل التي سماها نصيحة، وتأملت ما اشتملت عليه من البدع القبيحة والشناعة على سالكي الطريق الواضحة الصحيحة فوجدتها فضيحة لقائلها قد هتك الله تعالى بها ستره وأبدى بها عورته ولولا أنه قد تاب إلى الله تعالى منها وتنصل ورجع عنها واستغفر الله تعالى من جميع ما تكلم به من البدع أو كتبه بخطه أو صنفه أو نسب إليه لعددناه في جملة الزنادقة وألحقناه بالمبتدعة المارقة.

ولكنه لما تاب وأناب وجب أن تحمل منه هذه البدعة والضلالة على أنها كانت قبل توبته في حال بدعته وزندقته.

ثم قد عاد بعد توبته إلى نص السنة والرد على من قال بمقالته الأولى بأحسن كلام وأبلغ نظام وأجاب على الشبه التي ذكرت بأحسن جواب وكلامه في ذلك كثير في كتب كبار وصغار وأجزاء مفردة وعندنا من ذلك كثير.

فلعل إحسانه يمحو إساءته وتوبته تمحو بدعته فإن الله تعالى يقبل التوبة عن عبادة ويعفو عن السيئات.

ولقد كنت أعجب من الأئمة من أصحابنا الذين كفروه وأهدروا دمه وأفتوا بإباحة قتله وحكموا بزندقته قبل توبته ولم أدر أي شيء أوجب هذا في حقه وما الذي اقتضى أن يبالغوا فيه هذه المبالغة حتى وقفت على هذه الفضيحة.

فعلمت أن بها وبأمثالها استباحوا دمه.

To proceed—I have come upon the scandal (fadiha) of Ibn 'Aqil which he had called “a good counsel;” (nasiha) and, having considered what it contained of vile heretical innovations and atrocious slander against those who pursue the clear and true path, I found it to be a disgrace to its author, for which God had dishonoured him and laid bare his depravity.
Had he not returned to God in penitence for it, had he not cleansed himself and renounced it, had he not asked God’s forgiveness for all the heretical innovations which he had uttered, or written in his own handwriting, or composed into books, or for those of which he had been accused, we would certainly have reckoned him in the ranks of the zanadiqa and associated him with the schismatic inventors of heretical innovations. But since he has returned to God in penitence and amended, this heretical innovation and error of his should be regarded as having occurred before he had made his retractation, while he was still in the state of his heretical innovation and zandaqa. Moreover, he did return after his retractation to the authoritative text of the Sunna and with the best of arguments and the most efficacious of procedures he applied himself to the refutation of those who upheld his former doctrine, giving answer in the best possible way to the false arguments which were cited. His treatment regarding this subject is extensive, committed to large and small books and separate tracts, of which we have a considerable number.

So, perhaps his right-doing will blot out his wrong-doing, and perhaps his repentance will blot out his heretical innovation; for God accepts repentance from His servants and forgives the evil deeds.

I used to wonder at the Imams among our companions who, before Ibn 'Aqil had made his retractation, declared him an unbeliever, deemed his blood fit to be shed, issued legal decisions to permit the taking of his life, and pronounced him a zindiq. But I could not imagine what it was that rendered this procedure necessary in his regard, nor what required that they pursue it to such extremes, until I had come upon this scandal. I knew then that it was because of it, and the likes of it, that they deemed permissible the shedding of his blood.
__________

Do you want to say anything about the 'Aqidah of Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) anymore and that it's similar to yours after seeing that he regard the 'Aqidah that todays Asha' irah call as "good" something which makes one a Zindiq ??
(Note: Yes, his saying is extreme and that the Hanabila made the blood of Imam Ibn 'Aqil (rahimahullah) halal is also extreme to me, but I just posted it to show that there is real difference between him and the Asha'irah!!
By the way: Imam Ibn 'Aqil (rahimahullah) attacked the Ash'ari 'Aqidah after he made Tawba!!)

I could write more, but I will stop here. If you want to discuss further about the 'Aqidah of Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah), then please open a new thread. But to be honest I'm not interested in participating in such a discussion, because I explained to you the position as good as I could already.

Therefore I will come back to the topic of the thread, which is about the Quran. I just want to write some comments (and they will inshallah clarify the Ash'ari postion on the Quran completely) and then I don't think I will be able to write after it more comments, because of Ramadhan.

baytul-herz
30-07-2011, 11:31 PM
All this person is doing is copying and pasting,and then commenting on what is posted. So Insha'allah I will comment on the quotes and what is being said from the Imam as Abu jahid's opinions are irrelevant.


Abu Jahid:
When it says in the Quran "wujuhun jawma idhin nadhira ila rabbiha nadhira" (it is in Surat al-Qiyamah), then when one says: This means that the people (of Jannah) will see ALLAH ta'ala with their eyes (and this is the belief of Atharis and Ash'aris)!


وجُوه ٌ ٌ يَوْمَئِذ ٍ نَاضِرَة ٌ
إِلَى رَبِّهَا نَاظِرَة ٌ

Surah Qiyama,verse 22.
Literal translation = their faces that day radiant,looking at their lord.

This verse does not contain a mutashabih attribute and thus is irrelevant. The meaning is that we will look at our lords Indeed as this is the only meaning,so it isn't "ambigious" in that sense. However the manner at which we look at Allah will not like we are looking at a "body" with sight. If you say that Allah is a body or he will look like a body,then you know what you are my friend.


Abu Jahid:
فإن قيل فقد تأولتم آيات وأخبارا فقلتم في قوله تعالى ( وهو معكم أين ما كنتم ) أي بالعلم ونحو هذا من الآيات والأخبار فيلزمكم ما لزمنا قلنا نحن لم نتأول شيئا وحمل هذه اللفظات على هذه المعاني ليس بتأويل لأن التأويل صرف اللفظ عن ظاهره وهذه المعاني هي الظاهر من هذه الألفاظ بدليل أنه المتبادر إلى الأفهام منها وظاهر اللفظ هو ما يسبق إلى الفهم منه حقيقة كان أو مجازا

If it is said: "You made ta’wil of verses and reports, for instance, you said
with respect to Allah’s statement: { He is with you wherever you are } [57:4], meaning:
with His knowledge, and the like of these verses and reports, and therefore,
your arguments are as much applicable to you as us."

We say: We did not make ta’wil of anything, for to hold such texts in these
meanings is not at all ta’wil, because ta’wil is to change the meaning of a
word from its dhahir, and what we say here is the dhahir of the wording, that
is, what comes first to the mind from that text, irrespective of whether it
is haqiqa or majaz.

Please take note of the words I put in bold in your quote.

Here he is talking about surah 57:4,this ayaat is again not talking about a mutashabih attriubte!

With regards to mutashbih attributes he makes tafweed.


Ibn Qudamah says in his I'tiqad regarding ambiguous attributes:
قال الإمام أبو عبد الله أحمد بن محمد بن حنبل رضي الله عنه في قول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إن الله ينزل الى سماء الدنيا و إن الله يرى في القيامة وما أشبه هذه الأحاديث نؤمن بها ونصدق بها لا كيف ولا معنى

The quote you gave has nothing to do with what we are talking about.



Abu Jahid:
فإن الله تعالى وصف نفسه بالعلو في السماء ووصفه بذلك رسوله محمد خاتم الانبياء وأجمع على ذلك جميع العلماء من الصحابة الأتقياء والأئمة من الفقهاء وتواترت الأخبار بذلك على وجه حصل به اليقين وجمع الله تعالى عليه قلوب المسلمين وجعله مغروزا في طباع الخلق اجمعين فتراهم عند نزول الكرب بهم يلحظون السماء بأعينهم ويرفعون نحوها للدعاء أيديهم وينتظرون مجئ الفرج من ربهم وينطقون بذلك بألسنتهم لا ينكر ذلك إلا مبتدع غال في بدعته

Indeed Allah ta'ala has described Himself with being elevated ('uluw) above the heavens and his messenger Muhammad, the last of the prophets, described him with that. And the scholars from the pious companions and the Imams from the jurists held a consencus regarding this. The reports concerning that became so numerous, that a level of certainty was achieved. Allah ta'ala united the hearts of the Muslims on this issue, and made it a part of the natural instincts of the whole creation, and therefore, you notice them when some calamity befalls them that they look with their eyes to the sky, and raise their hands towards it for supplication, waiting for alleviation of calamity from their Lord, while their utter this with their tongues. No one denies this except a innovator, fanatic in his inovation.

Again the words "Allah is above the heavens" is believed but its meaning and howness is relegated to Allah. And we have already shown you that,also do a search regarding specifically for the this attribute as this forum has the quote specifically about him making tafweed of it.



Abu Jahid:
أما بعد فإنني وقفت على فضيحة ابن عقيل التي سماها نصيحة، وتأملت ما اشتملت عليه من البدع القبيحة والشناعة على سالكي الطريق الواضحة الصحيحة فوجدتها فضيحة لقائلها قد هتك الله تعالى بها ستره وأبدى بها عورته ولولا أنه قد تاب إلى الله تعالى منها وتنصل ورجع عنها واستغفر الله تعالى من جميع ما تكلم به من البدع أو كتبه بخطه أو صنفه أو نسب إليه لعددناه في جملة الزنادقة وألحقناه بالمبتدعة المارقة.

ولكنه لما تاب وأناب وجب أن تحمل منه هذه البدعة والضلالة على أنها كانت قبل توبته في حال بدعته وزندقته.

ثم قد عاد بعد توبته إلى نص السنة والرد على من قال بمقالته الأولى بأحسن كلام وأبلغ نظام وأجاب على الشبه التي ذكرت بأحسن جواب وكلامه في ذلك كثير في كتب كبار وصغار وأجزاء مفردة وعندنا من ذلك كثير.

فلعل إحسانه يمحو إساءته وتوبته تمحو بدعته فإن الله تعالى يقبل التوبة عن عبادة ويعفو عن السيئات.

ولقد كنت أعجب من الأئمة من أصحابنا الذين كفروه وأهدروا دمه وأفتوا بإباحة قتله وحكموا بزندقته قبل توبته ولم أدر أي شيء أوجب هذا في حقه وما الذي اقتضى أن يبالغوا فيه هذه المبالغة حتى وقفت على هذه الفضيحة.

فعلمت أن بها وبأمثالها استباحوا دمه.


The situation regarding Ibn aqil is irrelevant to our discussion,please stay on topic if you want to dialogue with me.

Regarding this situation,it has already been explained a million times on this forum do a search.

Ahlussunnah
31-07-2011, 01:30 PM
All this person is doing is copying and pasting,and then commenting on what is posted. So Insha'allah I will comment on the quotes and what is being said from the Imam as Abu jahid's opinions are irrelevant.



وجُوه ٌ ٌ يَوْمَئِذ ٍ نَاضِرَة ٌ
إِلَى رَبِّهَا نَاظِرَة ٌ

Surah Qiyama,verse 22.
Literal translation = their faces that day radiant,looking at their lord.

This verse does not contain a mutashabih attribute and thus is irrelevant. The meaning is that we will look at our lords Indeed as this is the only meaning,so it isn't "ambigious" in that sense. However the manner at which we look at Allah will not like we are looking at a "body" with sight. If you say that Allah is a body or he will look like a body,then you know what you are my friend.



Please take note of the words I put in bold in your quote.

Here he is talking about surah 57:4,this ayaat is again not talking about a mutashabih attriubte!

With regards to mutashbih attributes he makes tafweed.


Ibn Qudamah says in his I'tiqad regarding ambiguous attributes:
قال الإمام أبو عبد الله أحمد بن محمد بن حنبل رضي الله عنه في قول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إن الله ينزل الى سماء الدنيا و إن الله يرى في القيامة وما أشبه هذه الأحاديث نؤمن بها ونصدق بها لا كيف ولا معنى

Unfortunately brother you are unable to get the point. Let me make it easy for you. The qoute which you give as an evidence for Ibn Qudama and Imam Ahmed being mufawwidh, is a proof itself that they were not mufawwidh in ash'ari sense. The qoute present in Ibn Qudama's Lum'ah is a statement reported from Imam Ahmed in which he states that with regards to reports of attributes we should have belief in it without how and ma'ana (meaning). He mentioned two narrations first is that Allah descend to the world's heaven daily, and the second one is that Allah will be seen during Qiyamah. Now, if you consider this statement from Lum'ah to be statement of tafwidh then you are saying that Ibn Qudama and Imam Ahmed were making tafwidh of the fact that Allah will be seen during Qiyamah, which is neither an Ash'ari position nor hanbali. Mu'atazila made ta'weel of it because one cannot look at anything without it being in a place and direction.

faqir
02-08-2011, 02:18 AM
:salam:
Ramadan Kareem. The thread has obviously gone way off subject.... Some considered Ibn Qudama a mufawwid (even from amongst the salafis - as documented here (http://khadimululema.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/allama-ibn-qudama-al-hanbali-a-mufawwid/)) and others do not - at the end of the day what really matters is the strength of the argument :D On the beatific vision, Ash'aris do affirm vision of Allah in the hearafter - without direction, delimitation or encompassment. How do Salafis affirm it?

From Aqida al-Tahawiyya:

`The Seeing of Allah by the People of the Garden' is true, without their vision being all-encompassing and without the manner of their vision being known. As the Book of our Lord has expressed it:

`Faces on that Day radiant, looking at their Lord'. (al-Qiyamah 75:22-3)

The explanation of this is as Allah knows and wills. Everything that has come down to us about this from the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in authentic traditions, is as he said and means what he intended. We do not delve into that, trying to interpret it according to our own opinions or letting our imaginations have free rein. No one is safe in his religion unless he surrenders himself completely to Allah, the Exalted and Glorified and to His Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and leaves the knowledge of things that are ambiguous to the one who knows them.
A man's Islam is not secure unless it is based on submission and surrender. Anyone who desires to know things which it is beyond his capacity to know, and whose intellect is not content with surrender, will find that his desire veils him from a pure understanding of Allah's true Unity, clear knowledge and correct belief, and that he veers between disbelief and belief, confirmation and denial and acceptance and rejection. He will be subject to whisperings and find himself confused and full of doubt, being neither an accepting believer nor a denying rejector.
Belief of a man in the `seeing of Allah by the people of the Garden is not correct if he imagines what it is like, or interprets it according to his own understanding since the interpretation of this seeing' or indeed, the meaning of any of the subtle phenomena which are in the realm of Lordship, is by avoiding its interpretation and strictly adhering to the submission. `This is the din of Muslims. Anyone who does not guard himself against negating the attributes of Allah, or likening Allah to something else, has gone astray and has failed to understand Allah's Glory, because our Lord, the Glorified and the Exalted, can only possibly be described in terms of Oneness and Absolute Singularity and no creation is in any way like Him.
He is beyond having limits placed on Him, or being restricted, or having parts or limbs. Nor is He contained by the six directions as all created things are.
As for the endless repetitive tafwid of kayf /ma'na discussion, some people insist the meanings are known yet they fail to articulate them....I don't really see how that is different to what ash'aris say. Anyhow, for a good explanation of how sunnis understand tafwid see this article (http://tinyurl.com/4yhvmag). Coming back to the subject of the thread - there were numerous issues relating to the salafi position on speech which remain unanswered... perhaps after Ramadan insha'Allah?

baytul-herz
02-08-2011, 09:42 AM
Unfortunately brother you are unable to get the point. Let me make it easy for you. The qoute which you give as an evidence for Ibn Qudama and Imam Ahmed being mufawwidh, is a proof itself that they were not mufawwidh in ash'ari sense. The qoute present in Ibn Qudama's Lum'ah is a statement reported from Imam Ahmed in which he states that with regards to reports of attributes we should have belief in it without how and ma'ana (meaning). He mentioned two narrations first is that Allah descend to the world's heaven daily, and the second one is that Allah will be seen during Qiyamah. Now, if you consider this statement from Lum'ah to be statement of tafwidh then you are saying that Ibn Qudama and Imam Ahmed were making tafwidh of the fact that Allah will be seen during Qiyamah, which is neither an Ash'ari position nor hanbali. Mu'atazila made ta'weel of it because one cannot look at anything without it being in a place and direction.


He doesn't make tafweed of the meaning of sight,and we as asharis believe in seeing Allah SWT in the hereafter.

At the end of the sentence it literally reads,we believe in them without how or meaning. The concept of sight that is being applied is only to kayf,not meaning,kayf and meaning is obviously applied to Allah coming to as sama ad dunya.

Something is ambiguous when it can take on different meanings equally.

Abu Jahid
02-08-2011, 06:57 PM
:bism:


Look baytul-herz, if you regard tafwidh as the truth, then you're free to believe that. But what is not okay is to make your personal opinion into the opinion of Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) (and you made exactly that, when you claimed that Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) made tafwidh of the 'uluw of ALLAH ta'ala!)

And I really don't understand why you mention "copy and paste"? I just cited some qoutes, some of them where already translated and the arabic was already there, while some others I had to search for the arabic and then post it. Is there anything wrong with that, so that you mention that as a negative point? Ohh and if what I wrote is irrelevant, then why are you even discussing with me?

And no the situation with Ibn 'Aqil (rahimahullah) is not irrelevant at all!! Because todays Asha'irah call his 'Aqidah (before he repented) as "good", while Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) says that the 'Aqidah that you regard as "good" makes one a Zindiq!

(By the way: You have no idea what the Atharis/Hanabila understand from the term "mutashabihat" nor have you any idea regarding the different categories of the term "mutashabihat"!)

The problem with you is that you just see word "ma'na" and that's it for you! But the matter is not like you want it to be!

I already explained to you that meaning also refers to tahdid (definitions), which we do not affirm!

And ironically you said: "we believe in them without how or meaning/ta'wil"

Now I ask you: When someone says "yad means power", then what did he do? He gave to "yad" the meaning "power"! So that what he reached by making ta`wil is called what? It's called a meaning!!

Now Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) is known for his hate against ta`wil and so when he mentions meaning, then it's very likely that he refers to the meaning(s) that one reaches by making ta`wil!

And if you look at Imam Ahmads (rahimahullah) (from "Tahrim al-Nadhar"), you will see that exactly after "wa la ma'na" he says " he says " إلا على ما وصف به نفسه " (="except in accordance with His own description of Himself").

And maybe you can tell us, why in that qoute he is also asked " أن الله تبارك وتعالى يرى " (= "that ALLAH tabara wa ta'ala will be seen") and why he then treates all mentioned traditions the same? Why does he not say "as for seeing of ALLAH ta'ala we accept the dhahir, and as for the descending of ALLAH ta'la we don't"?

Let's keep on:

I think it's not neseccary for me to bring any qoutes from Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) regarding accepting the dhahir since he said more than once that he affirms the dhahir of the Sifat (and I think you're not denying that he said that)!

But the problem is that until now you have not understood (or you don't want to understand) the difference between tafwidh and between accepting the dhahir! (and they're not the same!!)

If someone says "I accept the dhahir" then did he not accept one meaning?? (I know I'm repeating myself right now, but it's necessary) Yes, he did? Which one?: The dhahir one!!

Now the one who makes tafwidh, does he accept any meaning?? No!! He simply acts as if that the description is in a language which no one understand and that's it! Now did he affirm the dhahir?? NO, he didn't, rather you will see that (as Imam al-Dhahabi (rahimahullah)) mentioned they (i.e. the Mufawidha) rejected explicitely the dhahir (because to them what comes to their mind when they hear dhahir is that an image is formed in their heads... so their kind of thinking is just like the Mushabiha!!)

And can you please tell us why Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) mentiones the word "dhahir" while speaking about the Sifat of ALLAH ta'ala and that one should accept the dhahir?
If you say "this is tafwidh", then the fact that he mentions "dhahir" refutes you!!
Why?: Because he defined the meaning of the dhahir in a clear way! Here is the definition of "dhahir" according to Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah), read it again:
__________

القسم الثاني الظاهر وهو ما يسبق إلى الفهم منه عند الإطلاق معنى مع تجويز غيره وإن شئت قلت ما احتمل معنيين هو في أحدهما أظهر

The second type: al-Dhahir, and that is the meaning that comes first to the mind when uttered, while other meanings might also be possible. If you wish, you may say: That which has two possible meanings, one of them more obvious than the other
__________

Now tell me why does he say when talking about the Sifat that one shouldn't oppose the dhahir? Why does he use this word??
Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) reports in his "Dham al-Ta`wil" many sayings of 'Ulama who came before him and of the Salaf to proove what the correct belief is and among them he mentions this report:
__________

أما الكلام في الصفات فإن ما روي منها في السنن الصحاح مذهب السلف رضي الله عنهم إثباتها وإجراؤها على ظاهرها ، ونفي الكيفية والتشبيه عنها ، والأصل في هذا أن الكلام في الصفات فرع على الكلام في الذات ، ويحتذى في ذلك حذوه ومثاله ، فإذا كان معلوما أن إثبات رب العالمين عز وجل إنما هو إثبات وجود لا إثبات تحديد وتكييف ، فكذلك إثبات صفاته إنما هو إثبات وجود لا إثبات تحديد وتكييف ، فإذا قلنا : " لله تعالى يد وسمع وبصر " فإنما هو إثبات صفات أثبتها الله تعالى لنفسه ، ولا نقول إن معنى اليد القدرة ، ولا أن معنى السمع والبصر العلم ، ولا نقول إنها الجوارح ، ولا نشبهها بالأيدي والأسماع والأبصار التي هي جوارح وأدوات الفعل . ونقول : إنما ورد إثباتها لأن التوقيف ورد بها ، ووجب نفي التشبيه عنها لقوله تبارك وتعالى : { ليس كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير } [الشورى:11] . وقوله عز وجل : { ولم يكن له كفوا أحد } [الإخلاص:4

As for speech regarding the attributes, then what has been reported in the authentic Sunan (books of Hadith), the way of the Salaf may Allah be pleased with them is to affirm them, and to carry them upon their dhahir (apparent meaning), and to deny (knowledge of) kayfiyyah (i.e. their true nature, how they are) and to negate tashbih (likening or resemblance to creation) for them. And the principle in this matter is: That speaking about the attributes is a branch of speaking about the essence (dhat), and thus follows it exactly and takes its example. So if it was known that the affirmation of the Lord (Rabb) of all the worlds is an affirmation of existence, and not the affirmation of the true nature (i.e. the how-ness, kayfiyyah of the Essence), it would be the same with the attributes, it is an affirmation of their existence (that Allah does have these attributes) and not affirmation of defining (their nature) and speaking of its kayfiyyah (how they are).
So when we say: "Allah has [the sifa of] yad (hand) and sam' (hearing) and basar (seeing)", then this is [nothingelse than] affirming attributes that Allah has affirmed for Himself. And we do not say that the meaning of "yad" is "qudra" (power) or that the meaning of "sam'" and "basar" is "'ilm" (knowledge) and we don't say that it means "jawarih" (limbs). And we do not resemble it with the hands and the hearing and the seeing, which are limbs and tools of actions (meaning: We do not resemble it the attributes of the creation). And we say: Affirming them is obligatory because the prescriptions (meaning: Quran al karim and Sunnah) have reported them and it is obligatory to negate tashbih from them because of His tabaraka wa ta'ala saying: { Nothing is like Him. And He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing. } [42:11]. And His 'azza wa jal saying: { And equal to Him has never been any one } [112:4].
__________

So what is clear here is that he accepts the dhahir while negating tashbih. And what becomes also clear is that he affirms the wujud (existence) of these Sifat and does not make any takyif (to say how the sifa is) or tahdid (defining the sifa).

And Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) also mentioned the report which says "it's recitation is it's tafsir" (i.e. the report with Sufyan bin 'Uyaynah (rahimahullah) which Imam al-Dhahabi (rahimahullah) also mentioned in the qoute that I posted in my last post):
__________

كل ما وصف الله تعالى به نفسه في القرآن فقراءته تفسيره ولا كيف ولا مثل

Everything that Allah has described Himself with in the Quran, its recitation is its interpretation, without how, and without likening.
__________

And there are other from the Salaf who said "and we make no tafsir of them". Now is Sufyan bin 'Uyaynah (rahimahullah) opposing the rest of the Salaf?? NO! There is no tafsir, except the dhahir (meaning: We affirm the dhahir and do no go beyond that!)!! And there is no meaning except the dhahir!! And we don't go beyond the dhahir and relegate everything else to ALLAH ta'ala!



Again the words "Allah is above the heavens" is believed but its meaning and howness is relegated to Allah. And we have already shown you that,also do a search regarding specifically for the this attribute as this forum has the quote specifically about him making tafweed of it.


Do you know that with your saying you're opposing Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) in very very clear cut way?? Is is so difficult to believe that ALLAH ta'ala is above the [7] heavens and above the whole creation??

Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) wrote a whole book ("Ithbat Sifat al-'Uluw" = "Affirmation of the Attribute of Elevation") to affirm that ALLAH ta'ala is above the heavens, and you're coming and saying "he made tafwidh"??? Ya Salam!!

The book refutes your claim completely! You can read it here: http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A5%D8%AB%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AA_%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%A9_ %D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%88

The qoute that I cited is actually enough to show that your claim is wrong, because not a single Mufawidh would have said what Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) said in the qoute!
NOW READ (it's relevant!):
He first mentiones that ALLAH ta'ala has described himself with 'Uluw above the heavens and that the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) also described Him 'azza wa jal with that. And he mentions the Sahaba and the Aimmah among the Fuqaha and their consencus regarding this belief and he mentions that ALLAH ta'ala united the hearts of the muslims upon it. And then he mentions that whenever calamity befalls them they look up to the sky and that the direct their hands towards it for supplication.

So according to Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) we do that, because of ALLAH ta'ala being above the [7] heavens!!! So we look to the sky when calamity befalls us, because ALLAH ta'ala is above the heavens according the Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah)!!
Now tell us: Have you ever heard any Mufawidh saying such a thing!! No!! A Mufawidh would say "we look to the sky and direct our hands towards it, because it's the Qiblah of supplication"!! And not just that: The Mufawidh would attack the saying of Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah), because the Mufawidh regards the saying of the Imam as tashbih!!
Can you deny that?? No!
Even if you do, everyone here has a brain and will understand that he did NOT make tafwidh of ALLAH ta'ala being above the whole creation, rather he affirmed the dhahir!!

And here another qoute from the same book:
__________

وأخبر عن فرعون أنه قال { يا هامان ابن لي صرحا لعلي ابلغ الاسباب اسباب السموات فأطلع الى اله موسى واني لاظنه كاذبا } يعني أظن موسى كاذبا في أن الله إلهه في السماء، والمخالف في هذه المسئلة قد أنكر هذا يزعم أن موسى كاذب في هذا بطريق القطع واليقين، مع مخالفته لرب العالمين، وتخطئته لنبيه الصادق الامين، وتركه منهج الصحابه والتابعين، والأئمة السابقين، وسائر الخلق أجمعين. ونسأل الله تعالى أن يعصمنا من البدع برحمته، ويوفقنا لاتباع سنته

And He told us that Fir'awn said: { “O Hāmān, make a tower for me, perhaps I could reach the ways - the ways to the heavens, and peek towards the God of Mūsā. And indeed I deem him a liar.” } [40:36-37] Meaning: "I think Musa is lying in claiming that Allah, his God, is above the Heaven".
And the opposer in this matter denied this, and (by this he) has claimed that Musa is a liar in this (i.e. that Allah is above the Heaven) by certainty. In addition, he is apposing the Lord of the worlds, implying that his truthful and trustworthy Prophet has erred; and (the opposer) has left the way of the Sahabah, Tabi`een, the previous Imams, and the rest of creation. And we ask Allah to keep us safe from the innovations in religion by His Mercy, and to guide us to following his path.
__________

Is there anything more to be said?? (And don't forget that he's saying this in order to proof that ALLAH ta'ala is indeed above the heavens, because the whole book is about the affirmation of 'Uluw for ALLAH ta'ala!!)

And I've one last qoute from Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) for you from his "Tahrim al-Nadhar":
__________


وكم عائب قولا صحيحا ** وآفته من الفهم السقيم

“How many persons have censured a valid statement,
whose censure was the result of meagre understanding!”
__________

:ws:

baytul-herz
03-08-2011, 02:50 AM
Bismillah ar rahman ar raheem

you keep repeating yourself.


Abu Jahid: The problem with you is that you just see word "ma'na" and that's it for you! But the matter is not like you want it to be!I already explained to you that meaning also refers to tahdid (definitions), which we do not affirm!And ironically you said: "we believe in them without how or meaning/ta'wil"
Now I ask you: When someone says "yad means power", then what did he do? He gave to "yad" the meaning "power"! So that what he reached by making ta`wil is called what? It's called a meaning!!


Tahdid is definition,Ma'na is meaning. If you deny the Tahdid of the word,you deny the definition of the word it is that simple.

No one from the Ash'aari says that the meaning for yad is definately power,we say that is only a possible meaning to refute literalists such as yourself who gives Allah limbs and parts. No one knows its tawil(meaning,interpretation) except Allah (Imran 3:7). Wama yalamu tawilahu ila Allahu. The stop has been recorded authentically from Ibn kathir raheemullah from Aisha r.a.,and many other companions.


Abu Jahid: Now Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) is known for his hate against ta`wil and so when he mentions meaning, then it's very likely that he refers to the meaning(s) that one reaches by making ta`wil!And if you look at Imam Ahmads (rahimahullah) (from "Tahrim al-Nadhar"), you will see that exactly after "wa la ma'na" he says " he says " إلى على ما وصف به نفسه " (="except in accordance with His own description of Himself").
And maybe you can tell us, why in that qoute he is also asked " أن الله تبارك وتعالى يرى " (= "that ALLAH tabara wa ta'ala will be seen") and why he then treates all mentioned traditions the same? Why does he not say "as for seeing of ALLAH ta'ala we accept the dhahir, and as for the descending of ALLAH ta'la we don't"?

What a idiotic statement,first you say that Ibn qudamah hates tawil,and then in the next pharse you say "he refers to the meanings". If he doesn't make ta'wil (interpretation) then he doesn't interpret the word...

Next the problem is,is that you don't understand arabic. He doesn't use the word except ,he says we believe in them without how or meaning to what Allah said said about himself. إلى على ما وصف به نفسه

Thats what happens when you repeat stuff like a parrot without actually understand the Arabic used. The word isn't except,sorry learn Arabic.



Abu Jahid: And maybe you can tell us, why in that qoute he is also asked " أن الله تبارك وتعالى يرى " (= "that ALLAH tabara wa ta'ala will be seen") and why he then treates all mentioned traditions the same? Why does he not say "as for seeing of ALLAH ta'ala we accept the dhahir, and as for the descending of ALLAH ta'la we don't"?

Seeing Allah isn't a mustahabih statement in the sense of its ma'ana, thats why Ibn qudamah didn't make tafweed of its meaning only its how. We too like Ibn qudamah do the same exact thing......

I don't think I have to quote your entire response to show that you have a mistake in your reasoning.

Abu Jahid
03-08-2011, 03:15 PM
No one from the Ash'aari says that the meaning for yad is definately power,we say that is only a possible meaning to refute literalists such as yourself who gives Allah limbs and parts.

First: We're talking about the position of Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah), right? According to Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) both positions are rejected! It does not matter weather you say is does definately mean power or you say it could mean power!! The moment you says "it could mean power" you have already rejected the sifa according to Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah)!!

Second: You lied against me by saying that I give ALLAH ta'ala limbs (astaghfirallah!)!! Now lying is always haram, but right now it's ramadhan and it's really not good to lie in this blessed month against other people. May ALLAH ta'ala forgive you!


What a idiotic statement

It's not my fault when you misunderstand what I say. And I don't understand why you're insulting me all the time? Is it really necessary to say things like "jahil", "idiotic", "parrot"?? Please, check your niyya while discussing!



Next the problem is,is that you don't understand arabic. He doesn't use the word except ,he says we believe in them without how or meaning to what Allah said said about himself. إلى على ما وصف به نفسه

Thats what happens when you repeat stuff like a parrot without actually understand the Arabic used. The word isn't except,sorry learn Arabic.

The word is " إلا " and not " إلى ", sorry (the translation is correct, because it should mean " إلا " !). It's a spelling mistake from the wikisource site (the articles on the website contain some misspellings sometimes), from where I copied the statement. I don't know why I didn't notice that yesterday when I posted the comment, maybe it was because I was so hungry and didn't concentrate well ;)

It would have been better to take the statement from a scan (i.e. a "pdf book"), but the problem is that one cannot copy the statements that one wants from a scan of an arabic book (and it would take too much time if I would type it myself) !

Here you can download a scan of the book "Tahrim al-Nadhar fi Kutub al-Kalam" as pdf (it's not a big file):

http://www.mediafire.com/?wzwodcqiwfu

The statement is on page 39 and it says " إلا ".

So the correct statment is: إلا على ما وصف به نفسه
And so it means: "except in accordance with His own description of Himself"

And I've question to you: When you read " إلى " and then right after it " على ", didn't you ask yourself "wait, this sentence makes no sense"?? So why didn't you notice that if the sentence would be " إلى على " (which would mean "to upon" and they are both huruf al-jarr and one doesn't use "to" and then "upon") then the sentence would make no sense and didn't tell me that?

Now should I tell you "You don't know arabic, you jahil parrot!"? Or should I simply think "maybe he didn't notice that"? Well, I take the second!

As for Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah): His two sayings from "Ithbat Sifat al-'Uluw" (and the book itself) are enough as a proof against you! If you want I can give you a link to download a scan of the book!
(Ohh and guess what: He also uses the Hadith where the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) asks the slave girl "ayn allah?" and she answers "fi sama`" as a proof that ALLAH ta'ala is above the heavens... wait wait, who uses this hadith also as evidence?? And who uses the Aya which mentions what Fir'awn said to Haman also as a proof? Wait, let's think for a second: Ohh yeah, it is the "evil wahabis" ;) )
By the way: The book is written against people like you, who deny the 'Uluw of ALLAH ta'ala!!


And since you have no husn al-dhann and are you're trying to play the "you don't know arabic"-game, let's see how good your arabic is:

Could you please translate this hadith from Sahih Muslim for us:


عَنِ ابْنِ مَسْعُودٍ ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، قَالَ : " آخِرُ مَنْ يَدْخُلُ الْجَنَّةَ رَجُلٌ ، فَهْوَ يَمْشِي مَرَّةً ، وَيَكْبُو مَرَّةً ، وَتَسْفَعُهُ النَّارُ مَرَّةً ، فَإِذَا مَا جَاوَزَهَا الْتَفَتَ إِلَيْهَا ، فَقَالَ : تَبَارَكَ الَّذِي نَجَّانِي مِنْكِ ، لَقَدْ أَعْطَانِي اللَّهُ شَيْئًا مَا أَعْطَاهُ أَحَدًا مِنَ الأَوَّلِينَ وَالآخِرِينَ ، فَتُرْفَعُ لَهُ شَجَرَةٌ ، فَيَقُولُ : أَيْ رَبِّ ، أَدْنِنِي مِنْ هَذِهِ الشَّجَرَةِ ، فَلِأَسْتَظِلَّ بِظِلِّهَا ، وَأَشْرَبَ مِنْ مَائِهَا ، فَيَقُولُ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ : يَا ابْنَ آدَمَ ، لَعَلِّي إِنَّ أَعْطَيْتُكَهَا سَأَلْتَنِي غَيْرَهَا ؟ فَيَقُولُ : لَا يَا رَبِّ ، وَيُعَاهِدُهُ أَنْ لَا يَسْأَلَهُ غَيْرَهَا ، وَرَبُّهُ يَعْذِرُهُ ، لِأَنَّهُ يَرَى مَا لَا صَبْرَ لَهُ عَلَيْهِ ، فَيُدْنِيهِ مِنْهَا ، فَيَسْتَظِلُّ بِظِلِّهَا ، وَيَشْرَبُ مِنْ مَائِهَا ، ثُمَّ تُرْفَعُ لَهُ شَجَرَةٌ هِيَ أَحْسَنُ مِنَ الأُولَى ، فَيَقُولُ : أَيْ رَبِّ ، أَدْنِنِي مِنْ هَذِهِ لِأَشْرَبَ مِنْ مَائِهَا ، وَأَسْتَظِلَّ بِظِلِّهَا ، لَا أَسْأَلُكَ غَيْرَهَا ، فَيَقُولُ : يَا ابْنَ آدَمَ ، أَلَمْ تُعَاهِدْنِي أَنْ لَا تَسْأَلَنِي غَيْرَهَا ؟ فَيَقُولُ : لَعَلِّي إِنْ أَدْنَيْتُكَ مِنْهَا تَسْأَلُنِي غَيْرَهَا ، فَيُعَاهِدُهُ أَنْ لَا يَسْأَلَهُ غَيْرَهَا ، وَرَبُّهُ يَعْذِرُهُ ، لِأَنَّهُ يَرَى مَا لَا صَبْرَ لَهُ عَلَيْه ، فَيُدْنِيهِ مِنْهَا ، فَيَسْتَظِلُّ بِظِلِّهَا ، وَيَشْرَبُ مِنْ مَائِهَا ، ثُمَّ تُرْفَعُ لَهُ شَجَرَةٌ عِنْدَ بَابِ الْجَنَّةِ هِيَ أَحْسَنُ مِنَ الأُولَيَيْنِ ، فَيَقُولُ : أَيْ رَبِّ ، أَدْنِنِي مِنْ هَذِهِ لِأَسْتَظِلَّ بِظِلِّهَا وَأَشْرَبَ مِنْ مَائِهَا ، لَا أَسْأَلُكَ غَيْرَهَا ، فَيَقُولُ : يَا ابْنَ آدَمَ ، أَلَمْ تُعَاهِدْنِي أَنْ لَا تَسْأَلَنِي غَيْرَهَا ؟ قَالَ : بَلَى يَا رَبِّ ، هَذِهِ لَا أَسْأَلُكَ غَيْرَهَا ، وَرَبُّهُ يَعْذِرُهُ ، لِأَنَّهُ يَرَى مَا لَا صَبْرَ لَهُ عَلَيْهَا ، فَيُدْنِيهِ مِنْهَا ، فَإِذَا أَدْنَاهُ مِنْهَا فَيَسْمَعُ أَصْوَاتَ أَهْلِ الْجَنَّةِ ، فَيَقُولُ : أَيْ رَبِّ أَدْخِلْنِيهَا ؟ فَيَقُولُ : يَا ابْنَ آدَمَ ، مَا يَصْرِينِي مِنْكَ ، أَيُرْضِيكَ أَنْ أُعْطِيَكَ الدُّنْيَا وَمِثْلَهَا مَعَهَا ؟ قَالَ : يَا رَبِّ ، أَتَسْتَهْزِئُ مِنِّي وَأَنْتَ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ ؟ " ، فَضَحِكَ ابْنُ مَسْعُودٍ ، فَقَالَ : أَلَا تَسْأَلُونِي مِمَّ أَضْحَكُ ؟ فَقَالُوا : مِمَّ تَضْحَكُ ؟ قَالَ : هَكَذَا ضَحِكَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، فَقَالُوا : مِمَّ تَضْحَكُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ؟ قَالَ : مِنْ ضِحْكِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ ، حِينَ قَالَ : أَتَسْتَهْزِئُ مِنِّي وَأَنْتَ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ ؟ ، فَيَقُولُ : إِنِّي لَا أَسْتَهْزِئُ مِنْكَ ، وَلَكِنِّي عَلَى مَا أَشَاءُ قَادِرٌ

Source: http://www.islamweb.net/hadith/display_hbook.php?bk_no=158&pid=40683&hid=279

Now tell us, did the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) understand the " ضحك " of ALLAH ta'ala as the laughter of ALLAH ta'ala?? Yes, he (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) did!! The hadith says that the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) laughed BECAUSE OF THE LAUGHTER OF ALLAH TA'ALA!!!
Now can you deny that he (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) understood the meaning of " ضحك " of ALLAH ta'ala as laughter of ALLAH ta'ala?? If you deny that, then you're opposing the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) and doing that is disbelief as you know!!!


Allahu Akbar, the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) did NOT make tafwidh of " ضحك " of ALLAH ta'ala, so why should we follow an 'Aqidah that goes against what the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) said and did?!?!

And I won't discuss with you further about the 'Aqidah of Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) (and everyone with a brain understood from the qoutes from "Ithbat Sifat al-'Uluw" what he was upon and what not!), for who is Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) or any other 'Alim compared to the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam), who does not speak except the truth and the sayings and the actions of the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) are the best guidance!!!!

baytul-herz
03-08-2011, 09:51 PM
Bismillah ar rahman ar raheem



Abu Jahid: The word is " إلا " and not " إلى ", sorry (the translation is correct, because it should mean " إلا " !). It's a spelling mistake from the wikisource site (the articles on the website contain some misspellings sometimes), from where I copied the statement. I don't know why I didn't notice that yesterday when I posted the comment, maybe it was because I was so hungry and didn't concentrate well
It would have been better to take the statement from a scan (i.e. a "pdf book"), but the problem is that one cannot copy the statements that one wants from a scan of an arabic book (and it would take too much time if I would type it myself) !
Here you can download a scan of the book "Tahrim al-Nadhar fi Kutub al-Kalam" as pdf (it's not a big file):
http://www.mediafire.com/?wzwodcqiwfu
The statement is on page 39 and it says " إلا ".
So the correct statment is: إلا على ما وصف به نفسه
And so it means: "except in accordance with His own description of Himself"
And I've question to you: When you read " إلى " and then right after it " على ", didn't you ask yourself "wait, this sentence makes no sense"?? So why didn't you notice that if the sentence would be " إلى على " (which would mean "to upon" and they are both huruf al-jarr and one doesn't use "to" and then "upon") then the sentence would make no sense and didn't tell me that?

Subhanallah I already told you that the translation is not from the text,and now you're complaining because I didn't teach you nahw?

Your scan says on page 39 as I said before. He is saying that we believe in them without how or meaning. And as for the next statement,he is saying that this does not apply to what Allah has explained and clarified about himself,as these texts would not longer be mutashabih.

The scan you gave me does indeed use the word except(illa),this word in Arabic gives conditions to an earlier statement and he is saying these statements do not apply to what Allah has explained about himself. If he did indeed use the word (illa),then you would know that in nahw the words without how or meaning do not apply to the next statement,and thus your argument is invalid.
For example if I say "la hawla wala quwatta illa billah", the words "la hawla wala quwatta" does not apply to Allah,as he does have all power and all ability.


So Ibn qudamah's statment is more than clear,he is saying he doesn't make tafweed of what has been explained, and I challenge you or anyone to refute the fact that illa does not function like this.

If someone says to me I believe in the attributes of Allah without how or meaning,you are seriously going to tell me that he knows the meaning? This is just showing your sect's desperation.

The quote you gave further proved that Ibn qudamah made tafweed of mutashabih attributes.


Abu jahid:
عَنِ ابْنِ مَسْعُودٍ ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، قَالَ : " آخِرُ مَنْ يَدْخُلُ الْجَنَّةَ رَجُلٌ ، فَهْوَ يَمْشِي مَرَّةً ، وَيَكْبُو مَرَّةً ، وَتَسْفَعُهُ النَّارُ مَرَّةً ، فَإِذَا مَا جَاوَزَهَا الْتَفَتَ إِلَيْهَا ، فَقَالَ : تَبَارَكَ الَّذِي نَجَّانِي مِنْكِ ، لَقَدْ أَعْطَانِي اللَّهُ شَيْئًا مَا أَعْطَاهُ أَحَدًا مِنَ الأَوَّلِينَ وَالآخِرِينَ ، فَتُرْفَعُ لَهُ شَجَرَةٌ ، فَيَقُولُ : أَيْ رَبِّ ، أَدْنِنِي مِنْ هَذِهِ الشَّجَرَةِ ، فَلِأَسْتَظِلَّ بِظِلِّهَا ، وَأَشْرَبَ مِنْ مَائِهَا ، فَيَقُولُ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ : يَا ابْنَ آدَمَ ، لَعَلِّي إِنَّ أَعْطَيْتُكَهَا سَأَلْتَنِي غَيْرَهَا ؟ فَيَقُولُ : لَا يَا رَبِّ ، وَيُعَاهِدُهُ أَنْ لَا يَسْأَلَهُ غَيْرَهَا ، وَرَبُّهُ يَعْذِرُهُ ، لِأَنَّهُ يَرَى مَا لَا صَبْرَ لَهُ عَلَيْهِ ، فَيُدْنِيهِ مِنْهَا ، فَيَسْتَظِلُّ بِظِلِّهَا ، وَيَشْرَبُ مِنْ مَائِهَا ، ثُمَّ تُرْفَعُ لَهُ شَجَرَةٌ هِيَ أَحْسَنُ مِنَ الأُولَى ، فَيَقُولُ : أَيْ رَبِّ ، أَدْنِنِي مِنْ هَذِهِ لِأَشْرَبَ مِنْ مَائِهَا ، وَأَسْتَظِلَّ بِظِلِّهَا ، لَا أَسْأَلُكَ غَيْرَهَا ، فَيَقُولُ : يَا ابْنَ آدَمَ ، أَلَمْ تُعَاهِدْنِي أَنْ لَا تَسْأَلَنِي غَيْرَهَا ؟ فَيَقُولُ : لَعَلِّي إِنْ أَدْنَيْتُكَ مِنْهَا تَسْأَلُنِي غَيْرَهَا ، فَيُعَاهِدُهُ أَنْ لَا يَسْأَلَهُ غَيْرَهَا ، وَرَبُّهُ يَعْذِرُهُ ، لِأَنَّهُ يَرَى مَا لَا صَبْرَ لَهُ عَلَيْه ، فَيُدْنِيهِ مِنْهَا ، فَيَسْتَظِلُّ بِظِلِّهَا ، وَيَشْرَبُ مِنْ مَائِهَا ، ثُمَّ تُرْفَعُ لَهُ شَجَرَةٌ عِنْدَ بَابِ الْجَنَّةِ هِيَ أَحْسَنُ مِنَ الأُولَيَيْنِ ، فَيَقُولُ : أَيْ رَبِّ ، أَدْنِنِي مِنْ هَذِهِ لِأَسْتَظِلَّ بِظِلِّهَا وَأَشْرَبَ مِنْ مَائِهَا ، لَا أَسْأَلُكَ غَيْرَهَا ، فَيَقُولُ : يَا ابْنَ آدَمَ ، أَلَمْ تُعَاهِدْنِي أَنْ لَا تَسْأَلَنِي غَيْرَهَا ؟ قَالَ : بَلَى يَا رَبِّ ، هَذِهِ لَا أَسْأَلُكَ غَيْرَهَا ، وَرَبُّهُ يَعْذِرُهُ ، لِأَنَّهُ يَرَى مَا لَا صَبْرَ لَهُ عَلَيْهَا ، فَيُدْنِيهِ مِنْهَا ، فَإِذَا أَدْنَاهُ مِنْهَا فَيَسْمَعُ أَصْوَاتَ أَهْلِ الْجَنَّةِ ، فَيَقُولُ : أَيْ رَبِّ أَدْخِلْنِيهَا ؟ فَيَقُولُ : يَا ابْنَ آدَمَ ، مَا يَصْرِينِي مِنْكَ ، أَيُرْضِيكَ أَنْ أُعْطِيَكَ الدُّنْيَا وَمِثْلَهَا مَعَهَا ؟ قَالَ : يَا رَبِّ ، أَتَسْتَهْزِئُ مِنِّي وَأَنْتَ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ ؟ " ، فَضَحِكَ ابْنُ مَسْعُودٍ ، فَقَالَ : أَلَا تَسْأَلُونِي مِمَّ أَضْحَكُ ؟ فَقَالُوا : مِمَّ تَضْحَكُ ؟ قَالَ : هَكَذَا ضَحِكَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، فَقَالُوا : مِمَّ تَضْحَكُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ؟ قَالَ : مِنْ ضِحْكِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ ، حِينَ قَالَ : أَتَسْتَهْزِئُ مِنِّي وَأَنْتَ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ ؟ ، فَيَقُولُ : إِنِّي لَا أَسْتَهْزِئُ مِنْكَ ، وَلَكِنِّي عَلَى مَا أَشَاءُ قَادِرٌ

Source: http://www.islamweb.net/hadith/displ...=40683&hid=279

Now tell us, did the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) understand the " ضحك " of ALLAH ta'ala as the laughter of ALLAH ta'ala?? Yes, he (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) did!! The hadith says that the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) laughed BECAUSE OF THE LAUGHTER OF ALLAH TA'ALA!!!
Now can you deny that he (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) understood the meaning of " ضحك " of ALLAH ta'ala as laughter of ALLAH ta'ala?? If you deny that, then you're opposing the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) and doing that is disbelief as you know!!!


Allahu Akbar, the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) did NOT make tafwidh of " ضحك " of ALLAH ta'ala, so why should we follow an 'Aqidah that goes against what the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) said and did?!?!


No need the hadith can be found here. http://hadithcollection.com/sahihmuslim/129-Sahih%20Muslim%20Book%2001.%20Faith/8422-sahih-muslim-book-001-hadith-number-0361.html

As for your statement about Allah laughing,I have to affirm that you are a mujassim if you honestly believe that Allah has an "unimaginable laugh".

You have quite the audacity to state the a person doesn't have a brain if he doesn't believe what you thought that Ibn qudamah believed.

We don't have brains if we don't affirm that Allah has uniminagable hands,fingers,back,legs,shin,eyes,palm,sits on a throne,has a shadow.

I'll make a deal with you,tell me one thing that is a hand but isn't a limb and I'll become a salafi.

Abu Jahid
04-08-2011, 06:32 PM
To baytul-herz:

I already told you that I don't want to play your "you don't know arabic"-game and if I had such intentions, I would have told you that right after your wrong claim regarding a statement of Imam Ibn Qudamah (raihmahullah). You claimed that " ولم يعلموا حقيقة معناها " means " and they did not know the real/true meaning" and this is false, because is doesn't say "ma'na", but it says "ma'naha" (i.e. there is a "ha" and an "alif" at the end of the word) and therefore it means "and they did not know the reality of it's meaning".
Ohh and before you respond: Just as a reminder: I don't want to play the game you're playing!

Your answers where build upon attacking me personally and not really responding to what I said! This is not how a discussion should be!


As for your statement about Allah laughing,I have to affirm that you are a mujassim if you honestly believe that Allah has an "unimaginable laugh".

If believing in what the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) said or made makes one a "Mujassim", then I am indeed very happy that you called me like that!

I post that, so that everyone understand to what you're responding:

So 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud (radhiallahu 'anhu) narrated a Hadith from the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) about the last person who enters Jannah. I will just post the last part of the Hadith (the translation is from the link he posted: http://hadithcollection.com/sahihmuslim/129-Sahih%20Muslim%20Book%2001.%20Faith/8422-sahih-muslim-book-001-hadith-number-0361.html):

Ibn Mas'ud laughed and asked (the hearers): Why don't you ask me what I am laughing at. They (then) said: Why do you laugh?
He said: It is in this way that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) laughed. They (the companions of the Holy Prophet) asked: Why do you laugh, Messenger of Allah? He said: On account of the laugh of the Lord of the universe, when he (the desirer of Paradise) said "Thou mocking at me though Thou art the Lord of the worlds?" He (Allah ta'ala) would say: I am not mocking at you, but I have power to do whatever I will.

So why did the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) laugh? Well the Hadith already says why: Because of the laugh of Lord of the worlds!! So did the Prophet understand " ضحك " of ALLAH ta'ala as the laughing of ALLAH ta'ala! Yes he (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) did! Otherwise why did he (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) laugh?? So are you accusing the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) also of Tajsim??

Are the words of the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) better or is "'ilm" al-kalam better?????


I'll make a deal with you,tell me one thing that is a hand but isn't a limb and I'll become a salafi.

So you're saying "because all hands that I know are limbs, then in the case of ALLAH ta'ala it must be the same and therefore I reject that ALLAH ta'ala has hands".

Let's see what Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) said in "Tahrim al-Nadhar" regarding your logic:
__________

ثم لو ثبت أن الصوت في المشاهدات يكون من اصطكاك الأجرام فلم يكون كذلك في صفات الله سبحانه وتعالى قولهم إن ما ثبت في حقنا يكون في الغائب مثله.

قلنا أخطأتم من وجوه ثلاثة

Moreover, even if it should be established with certainty that the voice, in the case of things perceived by the senses, be the result of the clicking movements of the throat, why should it be thus in the case of the attributes of God? Their assertion is: “That which can be established with certainty with regard to ourselves, can be established in like manner with regard to that which is absent (al-gha’ib)” And our answer is: “You are wrong for three reasons.”
__________

And after mentioning the first reason he says:

__________

الثاني أنكم رجعتم إلى التشبيه الذي نفيه معتمدكم في رد كتاب الله تعالى وسنة رسوله وجعلتم الله تعالى مقيسا على عباده ومشابها لهم في صفاته وأسمائه. وهذا هو عين التشبيه فبعدا لكم.

الثالث أن هذا باطل بسائر صفات الله تعالى سلمتموها من السمع والبصر والعلم والحياة. فإنها لا تكون في حقنا إلا من أدوات.

فالسمع من انخراق والبصر من حدقة والعلم من قلب والحياة في جسم. ثم جميع الصفات لا تكون إلا في جسم.

فإن قلتم إنها في حق الباري كذلك فقد جسمتم وشبهتم وكفرتم، وإن قلتم لا تفتقر إلى ذلك فلم احتيج إليها ههنا؟

Second: You have reverted to tashbih (anthropomorphism), the rejection of which is your main support in refuting the Book of God and the Sunna of His Apostle; and you have caused God to follow the analogy of His servants, and be comparable to them in His attributes and names. Now this is the very essence of tashbih (anthropomorphism)! - May God curse you!

Third: This anthropomorphism is false as regards the rest of the attributes of God which you have conceded, namely, hearing, sight, knowledge and life. These attributes cannot exist in our case except in consequence of certain instruments. Thus hearing exists because of a perforation; sight, because of an iris; knowledge, because of a mind (literally it says "qalb" meaning "heart"); and life exists in a body. Moreover, all of the attributes cannot exist except in a body; therefore, if you say that it is the same in the case of the Creator, you are guilty of tajsim and tashbih, and have become unbelievers. On the other hand, if you should say, the divine attributes do not require a body,” then why were they required in the present case?
__________

Now ponder: Who accepts the [dhahir of the] Sifat like Knowledge, Seeing, Hearing and Life for ALLAH ta'ala and rejects the other Sifat (While Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) accepts all Sifat and accepts their Wujud (existence) as shown in his qouting the report in "Dham a-Tawil")?? Ohh yes, they're people like you!
And his response to your likes should be enough!!

ALLAH ta'ala told us that He has a Sifa that He 'azza wa jal Himself called "Yad" (translation: hand) and therefore I believe in the existence of the Sifa that ALLAH ta'ala has attributed Himself!! And I don't know the "how" of the Sifa, nor do I know the true nature/reality of the Sifa, nor do I imagine ALLAH ta'ala and his Sifat, but what I know is that ALLAH ta'ala has described Himself with that and therefore I believe it!

And if this (i.e. accepting the existence of these attributes like "Yad", "Wajh" etc.) is tajsim to you, then you're actually almost no different from the Mu'tazila!

So my response to your saying "tell me one thing that is a hand but isn't a limb" is: ALLAH's hands!

And now I've to stop my discussion with you, because your heart has even a problem with accepting what the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) said, so how will you accept what I said??

baytul-herz
05-08-2011, 12:22 AM
So now that we got past that quote you want to bring up another one,and accuse me of calling the prophet SAW a mujassim. I'm not letting you off the hook that easily :)
lets first go back to the quote you have been debating me on for 3 days,I want to show you why you just hurt yourself.
On page 39 in that link you sent me the Arabic reads as follows(right to left): وتقرها**وتمرها**كما**جاءت**بلا*كىف**ولا**معنى**الا *على**ما وضف*به**نفسه**ثبارك**وتعالى**
Translation: We affirm and pass them on as they came without how or meaning except of what Allah has explained about himself.
You just shot yourself in the foot.



Abu Jahid: I already told you that I don't want to play your "you don't know arabic"-game and if I had such intentions, I would have told you that right after your wrong claim regarding a statement of Imam Ibn Qudamah (raihmahullah). You claimed that " ولم يعلموا حقيقة معناها " means " and they did not know the real/true meaning" and this is false, because is doesn't say "ma'na", but it says "ma'naha" (i.e. there is a "ha" and an "alif" at the end of the word) and therefore it means "and they did not know the reality of it's meaning".
Ohh and before you respond: Just as a reminder: I don't want to play the game you're playing!

Your answers where build upon attacking me personally and not really responding to what I said! This is not how a discussion should be!

Lol this guy has to be kidding.

The arabic reads : walam yua3limu haqiqah ma3naha. (And we do not know the reality/truth/fact/actuality of it's meaning) The HA and ALIF at the end of the word meaning is a linguistic device it has NOTHING to do with altering the definition of haqiqah,again another error on your part.
The arabic word Haqiqah حقيقة means real,reality,true. reality and real carry the same meaning.
If someone says to you in English, I do not know the reality of it's meaning,they are saying to you they know know the real meaning. Like when someone says "The reality is that we cannot afford it".
Again I say to you,learn Arabic and stop being a parrot.

The rest of you post is repeated garbage of "The prophet said Allah laughed,had fingers,and hands,you are calling him a mujassim"!!!


Abu Jahid:
So you're saying "because all hands that I know are limbs, then in the case of ALLAH ta'ala it must be the same and therefore I reject that ALLAH ta'ala has hands".
Let's see what Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) said in "Tahrim al-Nadhar" regarding your logic

A hand is not a hand if it isn't a limb,that is like saying an apple is an apple but without being a fruit.
The intrinsic meaning of hand is limb,if it isn't, prove it.

Ibn Qudamah was against ta'wil,and disagreed with us on some aspects of aqeedah. but what does that have to do with him being a muwafeed ?

Stop jumping around like a rabbit and stay on point.

UmHasan
05-08-2011, 12:48 AM
Please continue the thread after Ramadhan, but in a more respectable manner.