Rational, Historical, and Linguistic Refutation of Salafi 'Aqidah and Usul...

[YousefAbusSafar]

make sure you take few Arabic classes also so as to look more credible, because there is no such word Allah Yaskuruk ; Once you get your arabic completed then we are all ears, otherwise, doesn't make sense.

:jazak

Akhi, Allah yashkuruk is pure 'aamiyah (slang). It's said all the time in Jordan. Very common phrase.

I speak a little 'amiyah from living in Jordan 15 months. I know it's not fushah.

If it's allowed to speak english, then I assume it's allowed to use arabic slang.

Aside from that, being as kind as possible, the mods told us to cease going at it in every thread. I assume it is alright to be respectful and reply to points, but the choice of phrase used is in no way centrally related to the argument made.

Arabic slang, not fushah or english.

Aside from that akhi, I'm trying to minimize interaction to avoid getting banned. Do you have any points you disagree with in anything I said relevant to the discussion. If so i will respond respectfully and politely based off of nusus and 'aql (texts and understanding), as long as the mods don't have a problem.

Outside of that, I'd prefer not to interact to avoid gray areas.

Nonetheless, 'arabic slang, common in Syria, Jordan, Palestine, and Lebanon. Everyday speech. Using the mudhari' instead of the madhi and the fa'il before the fi'l, although the average arab is not grading modern slang through the lens of classical nahw, so that kind of review on slang would be laughable to them to begin with (clear signs of being western/foreign). Those kinds of things just lead to mockery and being treated like a 2 year old in the arab world. Shakaraka Allah in fushah means Allah yashkuruk in 'amiyah (slang/colloquial). I don't see why arabic slang use is worse than entirely foreign language use (english). It's not against forum rules anyway, wallahu a'alam.

is all good. batinism hululism mutazila-ism ... all-isms are good. but arabic first.

As for the use of the english suffix "ism" that I use for arabic nisba, I fail to see any reason to even bring that up. I don't really make a big deal out of the transliterating arabic suffixes or using english suffixes. It's utterly irrelevant. The point in translating is that people know what you mean.

Their is no 100% standardised system of when and how to translate or transliterate. To each their own opinion. Iyah, iyyah, iya, iyya, ism. What's the difference akh.

Please don't respond to my posts unless it's based off texts or rational.

The mods. told us to avoid inciting one another and I promise I'm not going to bring up irelevant things in your posts if I ever do reply to any of them again.

If i ever do respond, it will be to what you said, not to your person, as the admins already explained.

Please don't respond for both of our good, unless you are responding to what I said textually and/or rationally.

Both of your replies were incorrect and only touchied on linguistic principles.

The thread is about salafi' 'aqidah, not arabic grammar or translation.

Having said that, I don't intend other than the truth, and I in no way intend to elevate me or lower you and will cease any actions that don't address the topic, avoiding personality conflicts and in no way intend anything personal here.

Ma'as salamah.

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

Bro, MashAllah you have good understanding on the subject , better than me atleast. I myself do not adhere to the Salafi aqeeda or fiqh, but just talking to some brothers, Even when they insist meanings are literal, the annoying part is when they enforce that the meanings are literal but hand of Allah is not like his creation, but its literal.

What they mean by real is the opposite of not real- in other words not metaphoric, or in even simpler terms "The hand (or any attribute of Allah)" is Real within the reality of itself.

So now when you say you me mean literal like we humans literaly have a hand, becaue literal means literaly a hand, they say astaghfirullah! why you comparing your hand with Allah's hand , And then they Say Allah's hand is literal , but hes not jism, hes nuthing like his creation

They said what many scholars of ahl hadeeth and the salaf said before, that the attributes of Allah are "Haqeeqi". English language does no benefit to the word nor the intention, which is that the Attributes are not metaphoric and they exist within the reality of themselves, and they are nothing like the creation. Allah has a hand, face, he rises, etc and these are all "real", just like judgement day is "real", and just like the hoor al eiyn are "real" and just like the hell fire is "real" but all those "Real" things are different then OUR reality, because it is knowldge of the unseen.

. So after all that running around they come back to the same point where rest of Ahlussunah waljammah is. So this is what i mean , they are just running around a circle and after saying all those mushaba and mujassima words they comeback to deny tajsim or any likeness to the creation.

They never left the point, which is confirming what Allah confirmed and negating what Allah negated, and taking those attributes according their apparent meaning and staying quiet after that.

U know what i mean, this is just running around in circles.. Thats why i cant even call them tajsimi because they are not claiming even that and are against themselves.

The problem is two fold, one they don't know how to properly explain themselves, and two you haven't taken the time out to understand them.

[YousefAbusSafar]

Akhi (Abu Zakariya), explain to me what a hand is (yad if it's something different in meaning)?

If it's not majazi then it is haqiqi.

If it is a hand, then hand means something specific. If your saying it doesn't mean anything specific than your saying it is majazi?

Outside of that, tafidh can be saying you don't know if it's haqiqi or majazi, or saying it is not haqiqi, but you don't know specifically what the majaz meaning is.

Saying the attribute is Real within the Reality itself is either saying it is majazi according to what hand means linguistically or that it is haqiqi, thus leaving us at the same point.

All it produces is an oxy moron.

Confirming what Allah confirmed and negating what Allah negated would be narrating the texts, without saying it is haqiqi or majazi. Where did Allah clearly say (dalil qat'i) that everything He (subhanahu) revealed about his attributes was haqiqi? Otherwise you are not only confirming what was confirmed or negating what was negating, but actually interpreting.

Now some interpretations may be right and some wrong, but this is not only saying what Allah said. It's adding to what Allah said about His attributes the additional statement that Allah meant them 'alal haqiqah. This is interpretation, not narration.

Anything else is positing a meaning right or wrong, whether in light of other verses, understanding the mufassal in light of the mujmal or understanding them in accord with common linguistic principles (like the use of metaphors, analogies, similies etc.).

Please explain to me the haqiqi meaning of the word yad. What would the 'arabs at the time of the risalah understand by such a word? If your saying Allah meant something different then what they understood hand to mean, than what else does that indicate except that Allah intended it to be taken upon the majaz, having addressed the 'arabs with their language.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what is meant when using the terms majazi or haqiqi is according to the way the 'arabs understood and used their language unless your saying that something the 'arabs language deemed majazi was haqiqi with Allah (which necessitates another version of arabic with Allah where yad means something altogether different than it did to the arabs of the time of the risalah).

A hand, as opposed to an animals paw, a fishes fin etc. Hands have five fingers, opposable thumbs (according to language). They are used for touching or grabbing things, holding etc.

Humans have hands (according to the universally understood meaning and intent by the word yad or hand). I'm not certain what scholars say about monkeys, and why if there is any differentiation.

Thus the definition is clear. How big, what color, how heavy, how long, how wide, how it is connected to Allah's essence without a body are the kind of things that are left undescribed by necessity, just by ascribing haqiqi meaning to it.

This affirms a literal hand to Allah, according to the arabic definition of the word hand at the time of the rasul, which is universal to present time and in any language, except if taken on the majaz meanings.

This is either tashbih or a clear self contradiction.

Please explain, because i was salafi for between for 7 years before fully changing sects and I have yet to hear any sound explanation, only narrating self contradictions, and essentially saying (like the christians) you just have to believe.

Please explain.

And akhi, I didn't come hear to flex (arabic or 'ulum), i came here to spread what Allah taught me with wisdom and learn, so please leave any arabic or who's a scholar stuff out of it.

P.S. I'm not an 'alim. If any 'alims here are looking for 'alims to discuss with, leave the general forums and go to the 'ulama's forum where only 'alims post, but keep in mind if your not really an 'alam, your not getting in. There are currently 6 threads there to my knowledge.

This is a discussion forum inhabited by mostly laymen and pupils of 'alims.

It's not a fiqh council or board of scholars. If that's what you expect than your in the wrong place.

Everybody here has there strengths and weaknesses but how few of us are expected to be, let alone claim to be 'ulama'.

We all hope to help each other and give one another some new info and something to think about (self explanatory and valid observations).

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

From what I understand, there are 2 valid paths,

Who cares what you understand, other than you and your mother?

being the way of the living 'aqidah madhhabs which are tafwidh (of ma'na and kayf while negating the haqiqi meanings of texts where it would cause tashbih but not affirming or positing other meanings) and ta'wil (explaining texts with majaz meaning where they would otherwise be antrhopomorphic).

The 'aqeedah of ahl athar, and the salaf have never died.... and the burden of bringing the proof of your sorely misunderstood remarks are on you...

Besides are you saying that the Quran texts lead to "Tajseem" and are thus kufr?

Then there are some rare hanbalis who I think Sidi Musa Furber and Abu Ja'far al Hanbali would know of, who neither negate nor affirm the haqiqi meanings of texts that would otherwise be anthropomorphic.

So the apparent meaning of the Text is kufr?

Then there are the salafi's who affirm the primary linguistic defintion for attributes like hand, and this is incorrect and not transmitted by any living sunni schools of 'aqidah, the other athari view being questionable since they are a fringe group amongst the sunni's that the jama'ah has not accepted by an large.

The "living" sunni school of ahl sunnah has not "died", first you say the Salafis are fringe, now it's atharis, next it will be the Salaf themselves?

How could it be a difference in wording when they say that Allah has a LITERAL HAND according to the linguistic definition of hand.

Because you don't understand the definition of a hand that is "Haqeeqi", and because you are confusing "meaning" with "definition".

Either they are confused, believing in 2 things that are clearly opposites at the same time (tashbih and tafwidh) or they are purely on tashbih

.

So the apparent text of the Qur'an is kufr?....

or Allah says "Hand" and "There is nothing like unto him"?

I only mention that so that it's clear I'm not speaking at random but have precedent and spite of the fact that it is clearly observable and self explanatory with or without a respected scholar having said it (clear like the sun being out on a cloudless day

Who cares who you quote?

There are plenty of respected living scholars of the Athari kind in Saudi, yet you don't respect them... So?

Some shuyukh are more lenient on salafi creed than others but to say it is semantics is clearly wrong. Salafi is not a sunni madhab in 'aqidah or fiqh nor a sunni tariqah in tasawwuf.

If you're not lenient on the salafi creed your a not being lenient with the Prophets creed, or are ignorant.

I used to be salafi, I know their arguments and beliefs and how they think. It's either tashbih, or 2 contradictory beliefs at the same time.

Wrong... It's called submitting to the apparent meaning of the text, believing in it, and knowing there is nothing like Allah.

Allah has a dhaat, and we have a dhaat.... So is this tashbeeh, or are you going to do ta'weel of Allahs dhaat?

Saying Allah has a hand, but not like our hands, affirming the literal meaning (primary lexical, not figurative) of hand.

Explained before, because even though you were Salafi you seem to still not know what you are talking about concerning them.

Either they don't understand what a hand is (literally) or they are saying that Allah has hands but not body with which they are connected to

You are an innovator.

like some hands floating around in space that are part of His (subhanahu wa ta'ala) essence (subhanallahi 'amma yushrikun), but His hands are not like our hands.

Allahs hands are a part of his dhaat, and you are still an innovator.

What are the unifying elements of a hand which make it a hand? It's not that vague. Five fingers, opposable thumbs, used to grab and touch things, unlike an animals paw or a fishes fin. Vague things would be like, how big, what color, what texture, how wide, how thin etc.

Explaining it is explaining its modality, which is why we say "tafweedh fi al-kayfiyah".

Either affirm the literal meaning, negate it, or admit you don't know. Don't affirm the literal meaning and negate tashbih when that in itself is an oxy more (2 contradictory beliefs at the same time).

Literally is not "Real", literal is actual. Allah has a hand, and it's real in its on reality and it exist, just like his dhaat, non of which are like his creations, and his are not metaphorical.

Either that or they don't know what a hand is. They might need to go back to preschool before getting involved in theology if that's uncelar.

The Salaf said "hand is hand", and "It is what it is", but they didn't explain the definition, they accepted the "meaning". There i a big difference.

As for following the 'aqidah of the salaf, the salaf had variant opinions on many issues. These were sorted out by later generatins through a gradual process of tahqiq. Some salaf held that mutah marriage was halal but later generations invalidated that mistaken opinion.

The Salaf didn't have any difference of opinion concerning the attributes of Allah, buddy.

[YousefAbusSafar]

They said what many scholars of ahl hadeeth and the salaf said before, that the attributes of Allah are "Haqeeqi". English language does no benefit to the word nor the intention, which is that the Attributes are not metaphoric and they exist within the reality of themselves, and they are nothing like the creation. Allah has a hand, face, he rises, etc and these are all "real", just like judgement day is "real", and just like the hoor al eiyn are "real" and just like the hell fire is "real" but all those "Real" things are different then OUR reality, because it is knowldge of the unseen.

If I understood the above correctly, you are saying that the word yad means something different in the ghayb then it does in the shahadah.

That saying there is a different arabic language in the 'alam al ghayb than in the 'alam al shahadah.

So are you saying their is a different arabic in the ghayb then the one in the shahadah?

Either way, you still have to admit, according to the arabic of the 'alam al shahadah, it is majazi, even if yad means something entirely different in another type of arabic particular to the ghayb.

The debate about Allah's speech being nafsi and not lafdhi is a seperate issue, but what your saying about is contrary to any kind of 'aql (as if all the laws of physics, cause an effect, time, space, elements etc.) are purposeless and that 2 opposite things can be true in the 'alam al ghayb.

It's contrary to Allah's name, al Hakim. If there were no static laws in Allah's creation and 2 things clearly contradictory could both be true, than the creation of the heavens of the earth was pointless, could be eradicted now, re made in an instant and I could have not even been living this second or the one before, and just appeared and reappeard, or could be a figment of someones imaginatior or someones dream.

Allah told us to use our 'aql in the Quran. Are you saying 'aql is in no way a source of knowlege (I know some people are smarter than others, but in and of itself are you saying 'aql is in no way a source of knowledge?)

If you are, then this leads to doubting everything and even leads, necassarily to doubting your faith. Why? Because you had to use your 'aql to decide to enter Islam. Even people born into who believe in it must use their 'aql to stay with it, otherwise they are just imitate people around them for convenience.

Please elaborate on this.

This is a fundamental difference in the place of 'aql and to hold that nothing that we perceive is static, all being subject to flux, then you have a form of universal agnosticism, which also, unless applied hypocritically, causes doubts in the Din itself, as 'aql (and ilham, which includes 'aql in a way) is why people become muslim and why people born into it stay in it, otherwise they don't really have belief. Believing it is true is a rational decision.

This leads to a kind of Einsteinian or Stephen Hawking brand of Islam, wherein no laws related to cause and effect exist that can't just as easily be disposed of and replaced with something entirely formerly impossible.

To quote a valid truth from the former scriptures: "God is not the author of confusion". He is al Hakim.

[abul_hussain]

Akhi, Allah yashkuruk is pure 'aamiyah (slang). It's said all the time in Jordan. Very common phrase.

i don't know if it is slang or not or if it is common in Jordan or not but it sounded like translation " Allah thanks you " which is kind of twisted aqida. Allah doesn't thank creation. creation thanks Allah = Creator.

May be you can tell us what the slang means.

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

Akhi (Abu Zakariya) explain to me what a hand is (yad if it's something different in meaning)?

If it's not majazi then it is haqiqi.

If it is a hand, then hand means something specific. If your saying it doesn't mean anything specific than your saying it is majazi?

Since we are talking about Salafis, than it is a must i stick to what the Salaf said.
They believed in it how it came, upon the Apparent meaning, and never said "Hand is this and this and this". Because there does not exist another word for hand that can be derived from the Quran and Sunnah that was used by the Prophet or his companions, so rather than innovate they said... We believe it is what it is, without describing it, and without explaining it, and by letting it come as it goes.

Secondly, Majaaz does not mean "nothing specific". If you don't know the meaning of Majaaz don't have this conversation.

Outside of that, tafidh can be saying you don't know if it's haqiqi or majazi, or saying it is not haqiqi, but you don't know specifically what the majaz meaning is.

I said the Salaf said the attributes were "Haqeeqi" because the innovators at that time decided to negate Allahs attributes with the word "Majaaz" So in order to clarify to the people that which already resided in the hearts of the righteous Salaf, they said "Haqeeqi".

Secondly, if something is considered Majaaz, Allah or his messenger would have had to explain that it was Majaz not Haqeeqi. Since no such explanation came, and that which was understood by the Sahaba was that everything that Allah and his messenger said were true. These non Majaaz Ayat, including the ones of hell and heaven are Real.... because it can't be otherwise.

Saying the attribute is Real within the Reality itself is either saying it is majazi according to what hand means linguistically or that it is haqiqi, thus leaving us at the same point.

Wrong, you don't understand the meaning of Majaaz. Allah has an essense it is REAL but we don't know the REALITY, but he EXIST. So it is not metaphorical.

Confirming what Allah confirmed and negating what Allah negated would be narrating the texts, without saying it is haqiqi or majazi. Where did Allah clearly say (dalil qat'i) that everything He (subhanahu) revealed about his attributes was haqiqi? Otherwise you are not only confirming what was confirmed or negating what was negating, but actually interpreting.

1) Allah nor his messenger do not speak in code, if they intended something to be Majaaz then it would have been clarified. Just like the hadith of Allah saying that he got sick, this was Majaaz, But Allah clarified it himself, the unseen is automatically real, unless it is Majaaz- and Allah explained the Majaaz of it.

2)The Qur'an is in Arabic, So the Arabs know the language better than you. If I say to you "It's raining cat's and dogs" its Majaaz, if Allah says "I got sick"- than says it was his abd that got sick, this is Majaaz with the Clarfication. Allah does not leave us guessing whether or not the unseen is Majaaz or Haqeeqi.

3)Everything is Haqeeqi unless there is somethingto make it Majaaz, and like i said above, Allah does not leave us guessing concerning his religion.

Now some interpretations may be right and some wrong, but this is not only saying what Allah said. It's adding to what Allah said about His attributes the additional statement that Allah meant them 'alal haqiqah. This is interpretation, not narration.

The prophet of Allah pointed to his eyes and hears, concerning a verse of "Sam'i and Basr" Is this Majaaz or Haqeeqi?

Anything else is positing a meaning right or wrong, whether in light of other verses, understanding the mufassal in light of the mujmal or understanding them in accord with common linguistic principles (like the use of metaphors, analogies, similies etc.).

The Salaf knew more concerning the Religion of Allah, so when they said that the Sifaat are Haqeeqi, because they knew Allah didn't speak to them metaphorically without explanation. I will follow them over you.

Please explain to me the haqiqi meaning of the word yad. What would the 'arabs at the time of the risalah understand by such a word? If your saying Allah meant something different then what they understood hand to mean, than what else does that indicate except that Allah intended it to be taken upon the majaz, having addressed the 'arabs with their language.

Yadd to them is similar to hand to us, just like Istawa to them was, irtifa', and istiqraar... But they never DEFINED them, by saying "irtifa' is going from a low position to a high one, similarly they never said "Hand is this or that" Because that is going into the knowledge only Allah knows. They accepted them how they came, did not explain them, believed in them, and said the dhaahir of the text is what it is, without tashbeeh or tajseem or tamtheel, by them negated these... it shows they had a meaning, which was not connected to those 3 negations, because Allah said "There is nothing unto like him".

That's all for now, I don't have time.

[YousefAbusSafar]

Abu Zakariya, I'll get back to you later, since I have to sift through your response and try to avoid letting emotions get involved since it was kind of a personal attack at many places.

I want to wait for the emotional effects to wear off so I can respond lillah, rather than getting offended and doing it for my nafs.

Do keep in mind that saying things, like from what I understand, I'm speaking in loose terms. It's kind of like a rhetorical question, as if to imply, do you have any proof to the contrary.

When you read what people say looking to find fault, it leads to grave misunderstandings in their intent. You clearly approached what I said subjectively (looking for anything you could find fault with) and thus misunderstood a lot of what I said.


Words can be approached either sincerely or biased. Biased can be in favour of the opinions which presented which leads to subjectively interpreting in their favour, or biased against them, which leads subjectively interpreting them in a favourable way.

The correct approach is to be honest and sincere and interpret the words according to what is most apparent was intended and in context looking to thus distinguish what's good and what's bad.

This solves a lot of problems in understanding and saves a lot of time from being wasted and is the approach of those Allah granted safety from Iblis (mukhlasin).

It does take humbleness and being willing to admit ones own mistakes and do things lillah, and not for conformance to ones school (for people) etc.

Will respond later insha'allah.

Please tone down the emotional rhetoric and personality attacks and respond textually and/or rationally.

Ma'as salamah.

[aMuslimForLife]

Either way, you still have to admit, according to the arabic of the 'alam al shahadah, it is majazi, even if yad means something entirely different in another type of arabic particular to the ghayb.

.

This is the main thing that Salafis (Neo-Hanbalis, Wahabis) don't understand. They are not affirming the Haqiqa meaning according to the Arabic Language, they are in reality engaging in tawil.

Salafi Aqidah has its own techinical vocabulary, their definition of Haqiqa, Dhahir - isn't the Haqiqa and Dhahir of the linguist, the scholars of the Arabic language, in other words you can't find the Salafi definition of Yad, in any Arabic dictionary. Because they have their own technical vocabulary.

[YousefAbusSafar]

i don't know if it is slang or not or if it is common in Jordan or not but it sounded like translation " Allah thanks you " which is kind of twisted aqida. Allah doesn't thank creation. creation thanks Allah = Creator.

May be you can tell us what the slang means.

The word shakur is a name of Allah. Shukr is something Allah does practice. He can appreciate good deeds of His 'ibad. He can be pleased with His 'ibad and even reward them.

Akhi, the madhi form with the fa'il after could also be mistranslated likewise. Jazakallahu khairan could be mistranslated as "Allah rewarded you".

At the end of the day, based off of everything else in the thread, it's pretty clear that saying "Allah thanks you" was not my intent and I don't think anybody sincerely reading it would have assumed that. If they didn't understand it it's seems more sound to assume it's a typo or writing error but in context it should be clear, and really, akh, it's not a big deal.

Anyhow, it's 'amiyah.

The word shakur (edited typo) is also an name of Allah and shukr in arabic is not necassarily identicle to thanks in english. Maybe, may Allah appreciate (i.e. express gratitude in the form of rewarding) your good deeds.

Take it in loose terms.

Some people speak urdu here and it's not an urdu forum. It's really just making a big deal out of what amounts to nothing (or at least next to nothing).