Ashraf 'Ali Thanvi: Salaf took literal meaning of sifaat

[sabm90]

Assalamualikum wmwbt,
Brother Tawheed u must show respect when ur mentiong Hazrat Thanvi ru.

Pdf file will surely clear up the doubts Inshallah.!!

http://deoband.org/2010/04/hadith/ha...utes-of-allah/
This article might be helpful too..!!

[Tawheed]

JazakAllah brother abuhajira.

To make this a discussion two way, i think, you should tell us what is the truest nature of the translation of word ' haqiqi ' in the kalaam of thanvi and what is left after the tafweed of true nature and modality. Rather than asking me this. I have already done what you demanded once.

[abuhajira]

br. Tawheed,
I applauded you translating those lines, showing that either you know how to road urdu, especiallu the classical style, OR showing that you have access to someone who can do so. In either case, you are able to take benefit from the risalah.
In view of the it is not necessary for me or anyone to explain the risalah. Remember that most users here have no interest in discussing this issue as per the wishes of the aslaaf themselves. So my dear brother, this concerns youu, since you wish to have some one discuss the issue.
This leaves me to say two comments. One, perhaps you cannot really understand allama thanvi r.a's kalaam hence instead of showing that ignorance wish me to jump in valiantly defend allama thanvi' and in doing so explain the matter somewhat. This I will not do. Second, the reaspn i will not even bother is because in the past weak, since brought the risalah up, i have gone through it, and three other suplementary writeups by allamah thanvi which explain his position very clearly. Thereafter he presents another writeup by habeebur rahman keranwi r.a further clariifying salaf's stance and how it differs from the khalaf understanding of todays salafies.
So if this is an endeavor into a discussion then you ought to have learnt allama thanvi risalah by now.but if its an endeavor of you own learning, then you need to learn adab of how seek ilm. I believe salih salaf shuyukh will be able to teach you that. You have my duas..

[Tawheed]

I made du'a for you before youu uploaded this risalah and also after you did that. Thio shows that i value your efforts.

I know urdu, translated that myself, walhamdulillah and have read the risalah.

I don't know whether anyone, besides you, is interested in this discussion or not. You objected to my point and started participating in this discussion.

My readings of Mufti taqi uthmani's stance on haqiqi meaning further confirmed that deobandis have contradiction over this. Ofcourse i want to learn. I only asked you about objections you raised. You not answering shows that you only want to object and not to explain.

[abuhajira]

The purpose was to show the contradiction in the ranks of deos. Because thanvi said salaf took literal meaning of sifaat while other deos say that salaf didn't.

br. Tawheed,

This was never a discussing thread in the first place. your purpose was to show that there is a contradiction in the ranks of salafs. Only problem with that being that your claim is void as explained in the risalah. So There is no discussion here. I hope you understand that.

Your raising this concern even after reading the risalah and understanding it shows that that either you didnt understand it, or are trying to incite the discussion on something which is not there.

Your question is what is the meaning of literal meaning.. then please read the risalah towards the 3rd last page or so and it explains as it does in almost 4 or 5 other places.

[Tawheed]

br. Tawheed,

This was never a discussing thread in the first place. your purpose was to show that there is a contradiction in the ranks of salafs.

wa'alaikum assalam wrhmt wbrkt

huhu. not in the ranks salaf. khalaf especially deobandis.

Your raising this concern even after reading the risalah and understanding it shows that that either you didnt understand it, or are trying to incite the discussion on something which is not there.

These are your own wrong assumptions which you cannot prove that is why you are avoiding to even explain your objections.

[abuhajira]

wa'alaikum assalam wrhmt wbrkt

huhu. not in the ranks salaf. khalaf especially deobandis.

sorry my mistake.. Not salaf or khalaf rather deobandies as pointed out from the your own quotation. The object of the thread you created was NOT to discuss akhi. Why cant you own up to that. It was to gloat about some finding you came across thinking it supports the salafi athari creed. while the whole risalah is establishing the salaf creed of making tafweed in both kunh as well as kayf. And at the same time establishing the athari creed as a part of khalaf (i.e ahl ta'weel) NOT salaf! Please wake up and smell the coffee. If you cannot understand that from the risalah then your understanding is deficient, and thats not my problem.

In anycase, I do not wish to discuss since I feel you are being unreasonable in your intent of this thread. Your purpose and your inciting comments like the one below expose your intent. Why should I entertain you in your endeavor?

These are your own wrong assumptions which you cannot prove that is why you are avoiding to even explain your objections.

Read the risalah akhi it all explained there.

I can further help this much that I will scan those suplementary writeups and post them as well. So no one can say that deobandies are hiding something.

[abuhajira]

wa'alaikum assalam wrhmt wbrkt

huhu. not in the ranks salaf. khalaf especially deobandis.

sorry my mistake.. Not salaf or khalaf rather deobandies as pointed out from the your own quotation. The object of the thread you created was NOT to discuss akhi. Why cant you own up to that. It was to gloat about some finding you came across thinking it supports the salafi athari creed. while the whole risalah is establishing the salaf creed of making tafweed in both kunh as well as kayf. And at the same time establishing the athari creed as a part of khalaf (i.e ahl ta'weel) NOT salaf! Please wake up and smell the coffee. If you cannot understand that from the risalah then your understanding is deficient, and thats not my problem.

In anycase, I do not wish to discuss since I feel you are being unreasonable in your intent of this thread. Your purpose and your inciting comments like the one below expose your intent. Why should I entertain you in your endeavor?

These are your own wrong assumptions which you cannot prove that is why you are avoiding to even explain your objections.

Read the risalah akhi it all explained there.

I can further help this much that I will scan those suplementary writeups and post them as well. So no one can say that deobandies are hiding something.

[Tawheed]

sorry my mistake.. Not salaf or khalaf rather deobandies as pointed out from the your own quotation. The object of the thread you created was NOT to discuss akhi. Why cant you own up to that. It was to gloat about some finding you came across thinking it supports the salafi athari creed. while the whole risalah is establishing the salaf creed of making tafweed in both kunh as well as kayf.

You did not portray the whole picture. He said Salaf took the literal meaning of sifaat. Which goes against the kalamist ash'ari/maturidi aqeedah.

And at the same time establishing the athari creed as a part of khalaf (i.e ahl ta'weel) NOT salaf! Please wake up and smell the coffee. If you cannot understand that from the risalah then your understanding is deficient, and thats not my problem.

Thats why i said in the begining that its a mixture of right and wrong. You should take a bath to wake up akhil kareem

In anycase, I do not wish to discuss since I feel you are being unreasonable in your intent of this thread. Your purpose and your inciting comments like the one below expose your intent. Why should I entertain you in your endeavor?

Its your choice. Mine was a response to your comment, like this:

Your raising this concern even after reading the risalah and understanding it shows that that either you didnt understand it, or are trying to incite the discussion on something which is not there.

I can further help this much that I will scan those suplementary writeups and post them as well. So no one can say that deobandies are hiding something.

JazakAllah again.

[abuhajira]

You did not portray the whole picture. He said Salaf took the literal meaning of sifaat. Which goes against the kalamist ash'ari/maturidi aqeedah.

akhi,

see how useless is this? Now you are making another claim that the picture is not whole. But it was for this very clarity I asked you and I quote:

Whats the difference between "true nature" Vs "any modality"? If tafweedh is being made of both of these then what is there left of the "literal meaning"?

For this first start by explaining what does "kunh" means? I asked you this above..

Remember as far as I am concerned, your understanding is deficient from the risalah, and its not my perorogative to engage you in the discussion. I do not even wish to have this discussion as the explanation in the risalah plus the supplementary writings is more than sufficient for a taalib. Hence my way to tackling your thread here will by simply probing you to present the info from this risalah which you have understood now. If you are unable to provide it, then it will show your wrong intent. If you present it, then I will rectify any inaccuracy i perceive.

So, Could you please post from the risalah how he explains the tareeq of the gher muqallideen. So that we can have both the views side to side. salaf Vs salafi... This will also assure me that you understood the risalah in its proper context. What you can perhaps do is show where his attribution of the salafi understanding is incorrect. If he has not erred and you wholehartedly agree to the three lined which you translated to be the salaf methodology, then please do let me know. I will not have any qualms with you.