my last aqeedah question brothers

[Karim_sunni]

Elhamdelilah, i wanne thank from the bottem of my heart the students and scholars on this site who previous answered my questions on aqeedah issues, i'm convinced now of the asharee & maturidi aqeedah, and it's truth and correctness, the last week was a hard week for me, my mid was full with questions and confusions, and i involved myself in reading Ibn Al-Jawzi's great book on on God's Attributes, and debates betwee salafis and traditional musims on aqeedah on this websits. The issue of tafwid is clear to me know, and the validy of ta'wil too [ i now understamd that ta'wil is just giving one of the possible options of figuative interprtetations, while not saying that it only can mean this, cause only Allah knows the meanings of it. thats why these verses on the attribiutes are ambigious ] .

To end this study for me, and leaving all these debates behind [ because i;'ve seen the truth now of traditional islam's vicotry ] , i just have a last question regarding a question put forward by a salafi,

the salafi wrote

If the meaning of Hand and Anger is unknown, why do you need to sepcify that this attribute is different from that of creation ?

I would like to know, ho we: asharee's or maturidi"s should reply to such question . If this answer is answerd, then my case is closed, and and i will but Reliance of Traveler, and inscha'allah i'm thining of following the shafi mahdab and study it, and i would love to study the asharee aqeedah, by the work from Imam ghazali [ which i;'ve heard is found in "The Reliance" ] . So i hope someoe could answer for me this last question i posted above.

ma salama
Kevin Abdullah Karim

[Ibn Ajibah]

While best to avoid disputes with other groups, I will try to see if I can answer your question as briefly as possible.

First, there is a difference between Anger and Hand. Anger has its effects felt among the creation (meaning that something receives that anger), whereas Hand is not the case.

When the Ash'ari scholars affirmed the attributes such as hearing and seeing and anger etc, what did they affirm? They affirmed the Ta'alluq of that sifah with the creation. Ta'alluq is like saying the connection or relation between the one possessed with that attribute and the human.

So in general, the meaning of these attributes are explained in three possible ways:

1. Definition based on Haqiqah (reality). This is not possible for us to do with the attributes of Allah.
2. Rasmi definition. This is also known as definition based on the implication. What that means if you define the thing based on the understood implication. This is like saying that the meaning of seeing is comprehending that which is seen, hearing is comprehending that which is heard, etc. This is the definition that is used by Ash'aris to define the meanings of attributes such as anger, will, love, hearing, seeing etc. This is not defining the attribute perse, but the implication of it.
3. The Lafzi definition-this is like saying that the rabbit is a hare. This is the weakest of definitions.

So with 1 there is Tafwid. With 2 is what the Asharis speak with. 3 is irrelevant here.

[Karim_sunni]

So am i correct when i say, those attributed that in their literal sense would imply [ zahir ] would imply "bodily parts" , we make tafwid of it, or in oother words we say that only Allah knows the meanings of it. While with attributes like angers, and love, which do not neccesate a body or bodily apparance, we do not make tafwid ? Is this right what i think , based on your post, please correct me if wrong, or explain me more, cause i thought we make tafwid to "all" attributes .

ma salama

[Ibn Ajibah]

Sorry brother, let me clarify what I said more.

We do make tafwid of all of the attributes, including anger, love, etc. So what do we affirm with those ayat, as well as the ayat that mention words that are translated like hand, eye, etc?

-With the attributes that appear in these ayat, we affirm the general meaning based on the context of each ayah. So when Allah says: "The yad of Allah is above their hands", the general meaning of the ayah as a whole implies Allah's assistance and aid. When we are asked about the individual word yad, and what it means by itself out of the bigger context in the ayah, we make tafwid of that.

-With the attributes such as anger, love, etc, we do the same thing. We affirm the general meaning of these ayat, in this case being the implication of them (as I mentioned in the post above). So with anger, we explain it based on its implication, not the meaning of the attribute itself-we make tafwid of that.

So we do make Tafwid of all of them, but it is not as some say, that we are just affirming words with no meaning whatsoever. We are affirming the general meaning of the ayat that are understood, but we are making tafwid of the individual attributes when taken out of ayah and presented as something separate.

So with the ayah, ''Allahs yad is above their hands.", we understand the general meaning behind that. But when asked about the word itself taken out of that context, we make Tafwid of it.

Wallahu Alam.

[Karim_sunni]

Sorry brother, let me clarify what I said more.

We do make tafwid of all of the attributes, including anger, love, etc. So what do we affirm with those ayat, as well as the ayat that mention words that are translated like hand, eye, etc?

-With the attributes that appear in these ayat, we affirm the general meaning based on the context of each ayah. So when Allah says: "The yad of Allah is above their hands", the general meaning of the ayah as a whole implies Allah's assistance and aid. When we are asked about the individual word yad, and what it means by itself out of the bigger context in the ayah, we make tafwid of that.

-With the attributes such as anger, love, etc, we do the same thing. We affirm the general meaning of these ayat, in this case being the implication of them (as I mentioned in the post above). So with anger, we explain it based on its implication, not the meaning of the attribute itself-we make tafwid of that.

So we do make Tafwid of all of them, but it is not as some say, that we are just affirming words with no meaning whatsoever. We are affirming the general meaning of the ayat that are understood, but we are making tafwid of the individual attributes when taken out of ayah and presented as something separate.

So with the ayah, ''Allahs yad is above their hands.", we understand the general meaning behind that. But when asked about the word itself taken out of that context, we make Tafwid of it.

Wallahu Alam.

Shokran, but if i understand right, we make tafwid of all attributes, but in case we can give a general meaning of a whole ayat [ if the language and context supports it ] , we give a general meaning only to the ayat as a whole [?] , but never explain the attributes independetly or "alone" / "individual" , cause knowledge of the attribuite itself, belongs only to ALlah swt. But how can one know or see which "word" is an attribute of Allah ? [ perhaps a strange question ] ?

[Ibn Ajibah]

I think you mean to ask: How do we know that Yad is a Sifah (Yadd Allah), while not something like Bayt (Bayt Allah), right?

Well, some of the Ashari scholars held that yad and its likes were attributes of Allah -attributes of His essence, whereas some of them differed with this saying that they are attributes but not necessarily attributes of His essence.

Many of the early Asharis such as Bayhaqi held that they were attributes. Some Asharis of later times disagreed with them. The reasons for this are detailed, but either position is sound, because with both, tafwid is performed (as these ayat are from the mutashabihat).

Its very late on my side of the world so im going to sleep. If this doesnt make sense, ill try to give you some more detail tomorrow in sha Allah.

was salam

[Karim_sunni]

I think you mean to ask: How do we know that Yad is a Sifah (Yadd Allah), while not something like Bayt (Bayt Allah), right?

exactly , you get my point. Your posts are very learnfull akhi, djazakallah. We will continue this learnfull conversation another time, inscha'allah tomorrow. It would also be great if more brothers here would contribute to the topic, in providing essential information related to the asharee aqeedah. I wish there were some books in englisch available who explained the asharee aqeedah in detail.

ma salama

[Yahya]

I would also like to add that translation is contrary to tafwid. If a person says "hand," then he has affirmed that yad means hand. He has not made tafwid of the meaning of yad, rather he has chosen a meaning for it, then selected the closest possible English word.

Notice how brother Ibn Ajibah wrote "The yad of Allah is above their hands." He didn't translate the word yad, and as a result has made tafwid of its meaning. We should all get into the habit of not translating these words. Otherwise we run the risk of likening Allah to His creation.