What is the dhahir / Apparent Meaning of the word Sifa / Attribute?

[faqir]

As salafis are so hung up on what a layman does or does not understand to be the apparent meaning, ask a layman.... what are the attributes of man?

When the word ‘attribute’ [ ṣifa ] is mentioned, the first thing that comes to mind is not a hand, leg, shin, head, or any other body part. When the word ‘attribute is mentioned, the first thing that comes to mind is a quality which subsists in an entity, such as power, knowledge, will, and the like. As for hand and head and so on, these words do not indicate attributes. If we were asked about the attributes of man, we could not say: ‘He has a head, hand, and leg.’ Nay, these things are descriptions [ waṣf ] of man and not his attributes [ ṣifa ]. Man’s attributes would be that he is a thinker [ mufakkir ], articulate [ nāṭiq ] and possesses will [ murīd ].

If someone asks about what is man composed of, the answer is that man is composed of hands, legs, a head, a stomache, a back, and so on. In answering this question, the physical parts of man are mentioned and not things like mercy, knowledge, will and other qualitative attributes. These things are attributes of man; not parts. There is a huge difference between parts and attributes.


[Naqd al-Tadmuriyya, Shaykh Sa'id Foudah]

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

As salafis are so hung up on what a layman does or does not understand to be the apparent meaning, ask a layman.... what are the attributes of man?

Actually according to the Sheikh it has nothing to do with Salafis.. It has to do with Hanbalis.

The same sheikh said that Ahlul Hadeeth, and those who ascribe themselves to the Madhab of Imam Ahmad were Mujassim:


إن الواقع تاريخياً يدلل على أن بعض أهل الحديث كانوا من المجسمة أو من المتأثرين بمنهجهم بشكل عام. بل يمكننا الادعاء بسهولة أن كثيراً من الذين تمسكوا بهذا المصطلح كانوا من المنتمين إلى عقائد المجسمة أو من المتأثرين بهم خاصة في القرن الثالث الهجري والرابع.
وخاصة من الذين انتسبوا إلى مذهب الإمام أحمد بن حنبل رضي الله عنه.

Tad'eem Al-Mantaq

[faqir]

Actually according to the Sheikh it has nothing to do with Salafis.. It has to do with Hanbalis.

The same sheikh said that Ahlul Hadeeth, and those who ascribe themselves to the Madhab of Imam Ahmad were Mujassim:


إن الواقع تاريخياً يدلل على أن بعض أهل الحديث كانوا من المجسمة أو من المتأثرين بمنهجهم بشكل عام. بل يمكننا الادعاء بسهولة أن كثيراً من الذين تمسكوا بهذا المصطلح كانوا من المنتمين إلى عقائد المجسمة أو من المتأثرين بهم خاصة في القرن الثالث الهجري والرابع.
وخاصة من الذين انتسبوا إلى مذهب الإمام أحمد بن حنبل رضي الله عنه.

Tad'eem Al-Mantaq

Completely irrelevant to the argument mentioned in the quote. Try to use your intellect. Furthermore, the question outside of the quoted text and mention of salafis and laymen was by me. And finally, sh. Sa'id does not consider all Hanbalis to be mujassim but hopefully you can henceforth stay on topic.

[faqir]

If i asked a layman on the street, what are the attributes of Abu Zakariya Yahya? What might he say?

Abstinent, God fearing, generous, knowledgeable and virtuous are all attributes collectively found of Imaam Abu Hanifah

Source

Any mention of body parts?!

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

Completely irrelevant to the argument mentioned in the quote. Try to use your intellect. Furthermore, the question outside of the quoted text and mention of salafis and laymen was by me. And finally, sh. Sa'id does not consider all Hanbalis to be mujassim but hopefully you can henceforth stay on topic.

It's not irrelevant at all because what you call Salafis the Sh. calls the early centuries of Ahlul Hadeeth and the Hanaabilah of the 3rd century, and it's from the books of the Hanaabilah that the Salafis get their beliefs from, so why not just call them what they are?

As for the Sh. not considering all hanbalis Mujassim, I'm not going to read his entire book, but it seemed like he only endorsed Ahmad (hopefully) and Ibn Al-Jawzi.

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

If i asked a layman on the street, what are the attributes of Abu Zakariya Yahya? What might he say?



Any mention of body parts?!

If I asked Imam At-Tabari if Hand *Yadd Allah was a Sifah from the Sifaat of Allah, he would say yes...

So I don't really get your point actually, are you saying Sh. Foudah knows better Arabic than At-Tabari, or was At-Tabari included in to Mujassimeen of Ahlul Hadeeth/hanaabilah of the 3rd century?

[faqir]

If I asked Imam At-Tabari if Hand *Yadd Allah was a Sifah from the Sifaat of Allah, he would say yes...

So I don't really get your point actually, are you saying Sh. Foudah knows better Arabic than At-Tabari, or was At-Tabari included in to Mujassimeen of Ahlul Hadeeth/hanaabilah of the 3rd century?

So much for your 'what would a layman who knows Arabic say?' argument!
You seem to be incapable of thinking independently.
And don't worry about sh Al-Tabari or any other scholars- they would not consider Yad, etc to be a part. Yet again, however , you fail to live up to your layman policy - that was 'my point'.

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

So much for your 'what would a layman who knows Arabic say?' argument!
You seem to be incapable of thinking independently.
And don't worry about sh Al-Tabari or any other scholars- they would not consider Yad, etc to be a part. Yet again, however , you fail to live up to your layman policy - that was 'my point'.

What layman policy?

I don't have a layman policy, I have a question, If you answered the question the conversation is done.

What does the Layman according to you believe when reading the Quraan... It was a simple question, and you answered it by saying what?

"He looks at the context of the verse and takes from it the general meaning of the whole verse and what is intended instead of dwelling on an individual word which can have a multitude of meanings. Regardless, he certainly does not take the meaning of the word to be what is apparent / dhahir to the anthropomorphists. He should let it pass as it came."

Now your saying that according to Mr.Foudah, Hand, Face, Rising, Etc are not Attributes, because supposedly by asking a regular person "What are the attributes of Man?" He would list other things... but according to the Salaf they are... So?

Imam At-Tabari said, The hand of Allah is a Sifah from the Sifaat of Allah... Was he wrong or right? Was and is Hand an Attribute?

This is a whole new topic, and no where in the previous topic did I suggest that the religion is built upon what the "layman" thinks, rather my point was that what the laymen of the Salaf believed, was correct in terms of them believing Allah is above the throne, and anything other than what the layman of the SALAF believed was kufr...

In fact, it seems like asking for clarification on an issue that people supposedly got wrong concerning you Asharis, turns into a great war, when all you had to say was "No we don't believe the Dhaahir of the Quran is kufr." And after that, all you had to do was either explain the statement of Baajori, or admit you don't understand it.

Which you still haven't done.

[faqir]

If I asked Imam At-Tabari if Hand *Yadd Allah was a Sifah from the Sifaat of Allah, he would say yes...

So I don't really get your point actually, are you saying Sh. Foudah knows better Arabic than At-Tabari, or was At-Tabari included in to Mujassimeen of Ahlul Hadeeth/hanaabilah of the 3rd century?

What layman policy?

I don't have a layman policy, I have a question, If you answered the question the conversation is done.

What does the Layman according to you believe when reading the Quraan... It was a simple question, and you answered it by saying what?



Now your saying that according to Mr.Foudah, Hand, Face, Rising, Etc are not Attributes, because supposedly by asking a regular person "What are the attributes of Man?" He would list other things... but according to the Salaf they are... So?

Imam At-Tabari said, The hand of Allah is a Sifah from the Sifaat of Allah... Was he wrong or right? Was and is Hand an Attribute?

This is a whole new topic, and no where in the previous topic did I suggest that the religion is built upon what the "layman" thinks, rather my point was that what the laymen of the Salaf believed, was correct in terms of them believing Allah is above the throne, and anything other than what the layman of the SALAF believed was kufr...

In fact, it seems like asking for clarification on an issue that people supposedly got wrong concerning you Asharis, turns into a great war, when all you had to say was "No we don't believe the Dhaahir of the Quran is kufr." And after that, all you had to do was either explain the statement of Baajori, or admit you don't understand it.

Which you still haven't done.

It is not a question of knowing arabic or not but there is support for what he says in the arabic dictionaries as well.

Al Muhit says:

النَّعت؛ من صفاته البُخْل واللؤم والذكاء المفرط. -: الحالة التي يكون عليها الشيءُ كالسوادِ والبياضِ والعلمِ والجهل/ والصفة في القانون ما يسوِّغُ لامرىءٍ أن يتدخل في عقد أو قضية؛ أعلن رئيسُ البلاد الحربَ بصفته قائدًا أعلى للجيش

Source: http://lexicons.ajeeb.com/openme.asp...l/1070730.html

Al Ghani says:

صِفَةٌ - ج: ـات. [و ص ف]. (مص. وَصَفَ). 1."الصِّفَةُ فِي اللُّغَةِ" : الكَلِمَةُ الَّتِي تَدُلُّ عَلَى مَعْنـىً يُضَافُ إِلَى الاِسْمِ لِلدَّلاَلَةِ عَلَى حَالَةٍ لَهُ، نَعْتُهُ. "وَجْهٌ جَمِيلٌ" "شَابٌّ وَسِيمٌ" "رَجُلٌ طَوِيلُ القَامَةِ". 2."الصِّفَةُ الْمُشَبَّهَةُ" : صِيغَةٌ مُشْتَقَةٌّ مِنَ الفِعْلِ اللاَّزِمِ وَتَدُلُّ عَلَى ثُبُوتِ الصِّفَةِ فِي صَاحِبِهَا وَلاَ يَحُدُّهَا زَمَانٌ مُعَيَّنٌ. "رَجُلٌ حَسَنٌ" "رَجُلٌ شَرِيفٌ". 3."اِسْتَدْعَاهُ بِصِفَةٍ رَسْمِيَّةٍ" : بِصِيغَةٍ، بِشَكْلٍ، بِصُورَةٍ. "طَلَبَ مِنْهُ الْحُضُورَ بِصِفَةٍ شَخْصِيَّةٍ". 4."يَمْتَازُ بِصِفَاتٍ حَسَنَةٍ" : بِنُعُوتٍ حَسَنَةٍ.

Source: http://lexicons.ajeeb.com/openme.asp...l/3069236.html

The linguist, Tha'lab says in Taj al-`Arus:

"A `na't' is a description given to a specific part of the body like the word `lame' (`araj). A `sifa' (attribute) is for non-specificity (`umoom), like the word `magnificent' (`azim) and `generous'(karim).
So Allah is described with a `sifa'. But He is not described with a `na't.'"

In regards, to your question, yes I answered it... now I asked you... what does a layman according to you understand about what is a sifa / an attribute?

As for the scholars who may or may not have said Yad is an attribute, they could have meant by this many things but what is certain is that they did not affirm the apparent meaning that comes to mind of the anthropomorphists.


{please do read links I post and if unable to access them let me know}

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

It is not a question of knowing arabic or not but there is support for what he says in the arabic dictionaries as well.

Al Muhit says:

النَّعت؛ من صفاته البُخْل واللؤم والذكاء المفرط. -: الحالة التي يكون عليها الشيءُ كالسوادِ والبياضِ والعلمِ والجهل/ والصفة في القانون ما يسوِّغُ لامرىءٍ أن يتدخل في عقد أو قضية؛ أعلن رئيسُ البلاد الحربَ بصفته قائدًا أعلى للجيش

Source: http://lexicons.ajeeb.com/openme.asp...l/1070730.html

Al Ghani says:

صِفَةٌ - ج: ـات. [و ص ف]. (مص. وَصَفَ). 1."الصِّفَةُ فِي اللُّغَةِ" : الكَلِمَةُ الَّتِي تَدُلُّ عَلَى مَعْنـىً يُضَافُ إِلَى الاِسْمِ لِلدَّلاَلَةِ عَلَى حَالَةٍ لَهُ، نَعْتُهُ. "وَجْهٌ جَمِيلٌ" "شَابٌّ وَسِيمٌ" "رَجُلٌ طَوِيلُ القَامَةِ". 2."الصِّفَةُ الْمُشَبَّهَةُ" : صِيغَةٌ مُشْتَقَةٌّ مِنَ الفِعْلِ اللاَّزِمِ وَتَدُلُّ عَلَى ثُبُوتِ الصِّفَةِ فِي صَاحِبِهَا وَلاَ يَحُدُّهَا زَمَانٌ مُعَيَّنٌ. "رَجُلٌ حَسَنٌ" "رَجُلٌ شَرِيفٌ". 3."اِسْتَدْعَاهُ بِصِفَةٍ رَسْمِيَّةٍ" : بِصِيغَةٍ، بِشَكْلٍ، بِصُورَةٍ. "طَلَبَ مِنْهُ الْحُضُورَ بِصِفَةٍ شَخْصِيَّةٍ". 4."يَمْتَازُ بِصِفَاتٍ حَسَنَةٍ" : بِنُعُوتٍ حَسَنَةٍ.

Source: http://lexicons.ajeeb.com/openme.asp...l/3069236.html

The linguist, Tha'lab says in Taj al-`Arus:

"A `na't' is a description given to a specific part of the body like the word `lame' (`araj). A `sifa' (attribute) is for non-specificity (`umoom), like the word `magnificent' (`azim) and `generous'(karim).
So Allah is described with a `sifa'. But He is not described with a `na't.'"

In regards, to your question, yes I answered it... now I asked you... what does a layman according to you understand about what is a sifa / an attribute?

As for the scholars who may or may not have said Yad is an attribute, they could have meant by this many things but what is certain is that they did not affirm the apparent meaning that comes to mind of the anthropomorphists.


{please do read links I post and if unable to access them let me know}

I still don't get your point, regardless of what dictionaries say. Did or did not the Salaf, Including Ahlul Hadeeth, and the Hanaabilah consider... What you say is "naa't" as "Sifaat"?

Yes or no will do just fine.

I'm not asking you what they meant by Yadd, Or Wajh, or Istawa, or Saaq, I'm not asking if they believed them to be parts, or not parts, bodies, or atoms, or particles. I'm asking you, did At-Tabari believe Yadd is a SIFAH from the Sifaat of Allah, Yes or no?