|
Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Oct 8, 2015 12:50:16 GMT
Question:
Answered by Mufti Zameelur Rahman
When we do ithbat of the attributes, we mean they are qa'im bi dhatillah, Sifat which have a real existence within the Dhat of Allah. However, we do not claim to know that reality, as Allah's Dhat and Sifat are beyond our comprehension. We know only the outcome (muqtada) or result (hukm) of the Sifat. The result of the Sifah of Sam', for example, is the perception and disclosure of all sounds. The reality of Sam' in Allah's Dhat however is not known - it has a reality, but we make tafweed of this reality. The reality of Sam' as it relates to human beings is known i.e. perceiving sounds through the medium of the ears. The same principle applies to other attributes which we do ithbat of.
On the other hand, when (many) Salafis do ithbat, they do ithbat of the literal meaning, claiming to know the reality of the Sifat as they exist in Allah's Dhat. Yad etc., for them, is a Sifah of Allah's Dhat with a known meaning: its meaning is the same as its meaning in created beings.
Hence, our problem with their aqidah is not in the ithbat of an attribute itself and accepting it as a Sifah of Allah (when it is supported by sound textual evidence).
But our problem with their aqidah is their claim that the meaning of the Sifah as it exists in Allah's Dhat is known, and on top of that, the meaning is the same as the meaning of that attribute in created beings, and it is only the modalities (kayfiyyat) that are different and unknown.
|
|
|
Post by Zameel on Oct 11, 2015 15:17:51 GMT
I haven't read the entire piece, but just to respond to the charge that the above claim about Salafi belief is unsubstantiated:
Ibn Uthaymin says:
نفي التشبيه على الإطلاق بين صفات الخالق وصفات المخلوق لا يصح لأنه ما من صفتين ثابتتين إلا وبينهما اشتراك في أصل المعنى، وهذا الإشتراك نوع من المشابهة (مجموع فتاوى ورسائل فضيلة الشيخ محمد بن صالح العثيمين، ج١ ص١٨١)
"Negating tashbih (similarity) in an absolute way between the Sifat of Creator and the Sifat of creation is incorrect because there are no two Sifahs that are established but there is a commonality between them in the basic meaning, and this commonality is a degree of similarity."
Ibn Taymiyyah says the mafhum (meaning) of the Sifat of Allah is the same as their mafhum in created things, and clearly implies the words "yad" etc. are physical limbs just like they are in creation:
وبيان هذا أن صفاتنا منها ما هي أعيان وأجسام، وهي أبعاض لنا، كالوجه واليد، ومنها ما هي معان وأعراض، وهي قائمة بنا، كالسمع والبصر والكلام والعلم والقدرة. ثم إن من المعلوم أن الرب لما وصف نفسه بأنه حي عليم قدير لم يقل المسلمون إن ظاهر هذا غير مراد لأن مفهوم ذلك في حقه مثل مفهومه في حقنا، فكذلك لما وصف نفسه بأنه خلق آدم بيديه لم يوجب ذلك أن يكون ظاهره غير مراد لأن مفهوم ذلك في حقه كمفهومه في حقنا (رسالة التدمرية، ٧٧-٨)
In responding to an argument, Ibn Uthaymin also clearly implies wajh, yad etc. as applied to Allah are limbs:
ولجاز أيصا أن يثبت المفتري لله سبحانه أعضاء كتيرة مع نفي التشبيه فيقول: إن لله تعالى كبدا لا كأكباد العباد، وأمعاء لا كأمعائهم، ونحو ذلك مما يتنزه الله تعالى عنه، كما أن له وجها لا كوجوههم ويدين لا كأيديهم (مجموع فتاوى ورسائل فضيلة الشيخ محمد بن صالح العثيمين، ج١ ص٢٠١)
You'll find the Ash'aris/Maturidis in their books of aqidah clearly explain the Sifat that are qa'im bidhatillah (e.g. Qudrah, Hayah, Ilm etc.) in terms of their results and outcomes, so the claim that this is unfounded is also untrue.
|
|
|
Post by abuhamza on Feb 17, 2016 6:29:21 GMT
Asalam Alaikum,
This topic is something I have been struggling with in terms of understanding. Obviously it is due to my lack of knowledge. I'm only a humble slave of Allah searching for the truth. Can you please help me understand the Ash'ari/Maturidi's belief regarding this topic i.e. sifat of Allah metaphorically vs literally. Is it possible to summarize this in a couple of sentences in layman's way. Lot's of people must have asked this before, please forgive me for asking again. Why metaphorical meaning on the verses where the literal is obvious?
Jazakumullah.
|
|
|
Post by asad786ahmed on Feb 21, 2016 0:42:45 GMT
Asalam Alaikum, This topic is something I have been struggling with in terms of understanding. Obviously it is due to my lack of knowledge. I'm only a humble slave of Allah searching for the truth. Can you please help me understand the Ash'ari/Maturidi's belief regarding this topic i.e. sifat of Allah metaphorically vs literally. Is it possible to summarize this in a couple of sentences in layman's way. Lot's of people must have asked this before, please forgive me for asking again. Why metaphorical meaning on the verses where the literal is obvious? Jazakumullah. The literal (حقيقي) meaning is taken but what it is, isn't obvious.saying يد ,وجه /hand, face etc are words not meanings. Salafis do ithbat(establish), they do ithbat of the literal meaning, claiming to know the reality of the Sifat as they exist in Allah's Dhat. Yad etc., for them, is a Sifah of Allah's Dhat with a known meaning: its meaning is the same as its meaning in created beings. (as they believe إثبات المعني و تفويض الكيف ) establish a meaning and leave the how and modality of it to allah. Hence, our problem with their aqidah is not in the ithbat of an attribute( حقيقت :reality) itself and accepting it as a Sifah of Allah (when it is supported by sound textual evidence). But our problem with their aqidah is their claim that the meaning of the Sifah as it exists in Allah's Dhat is known, and it is only the modalities (kayfiyyat) that are different and unknown. This is why their aqidah is weak. Also if anyone even tries to say that what was mentioned is incorrect and follow this salafi aqeeda in saying that Allah has a yad with a known obvious meaning and just how it is we don't know and that it's not like a creation. then don't comment unless you tell me what is this known meaning of Allah's يد/hand that you do ithbat/establish of. And if you cant ( which you will never be able to do as a human can never know the haqeqat of Allah and the meaning of yad ,wajh istiwaa etc in dictionaries will give meanings attributed to creations)don't you dare go and say that the meaning is not known and that you leave it to Allah because that is the ashari/maturidi belief the true followers of the salaf. we do إثبات الحقيقة وتفويض المعني /believe in its reality and leave the meaning to Allah. but so called salafies will say that they don't leave the meaning to Allah they establish it but it's just how it is they don't know. so if your gonna go with this false creed then your gonna have to say/mention the meaning of Yad and JLS that you establish for allah before you go and say that the how and modality of the yad of Allah etc is not known and different. The ta'weel of the ashari and maturidi are not metaphorical meanings they are haqeeqi meanings of the word (unlike the mutazila who actually used metaphorical meanings) so don't confuse the ashari and maturidi with those people who did these metaphorical interpretations. Also these meanings that the Ash'aris and Maturidi's done were all meanings that they considered as possible meanings they didn't believe that is was the actual meaning with complete yaqeen and make it a part of aqidah as a must belief. The actual belief is what I mentioned before in that the real meaning is known to Allah and him alone as a creation cannot know the haqeqat of Allah as I have mentioned before. The only reason they interpreted these POSSIBLE حقيقي meanings is to stop people in thier time from either denying the ayaat, or taking and anthropomorphic meaning or taking a metaphorical meaning without any evidence from the salaf as these are all incorrect to do so. But like I said the belief of the ashari and maturidi is the same as the salaf which is that the haqeqat of Allah's' hand istiwaa etc is not known but it is believed in and the meaning is known to Allah alone, the aqidah of the TRUE salaf not a made up one that the salafies of today and thier ilk dream up. If one was to say I'm wrong and the meaning is known but it's not like any creation then I ask you, What is this meaning of the hand of Allah etc that you claim to know? FORGET about taking it to the how and modality of it, EXPLAIN THE MEANING YOU ESTABLISHED FIRST. AND BY THE WAY يد/hand استوي etc are not meanings they are words that have meanings. A creation cannot and will never be able to say it's meaning in accordance with the Dhat of Allah and salafies don't know it either. The only difference is we will actually say we don't know it and leave it to Allah while these so called salafies will say they know it( even though they never bring a meaning of it forward ) and the only thing they say is that the how/ modality of it is not like any creation. but what about the meaning of the hand of allah etc that was claimed to be known and established? Deen and guidance is from allah and him alone everything I have stated and mention if anything is wrong then it is a mistake from myself and shaytaan and I ask forgiveness from allah and whatever is right then its from allah and him alone , I make dua to Allah that it helps people see and recognise the foolish and stupid mistakes that people are making today in establishing a certain literal meaning for the atrributes of Allah that they don't even know the meaning of, as they are unable to present and explain it and by leaving the overwhelming and vast majority of this ummah In doing so, by not consigning the meaning that cannot be known by creation to allah subhana wa ta'ala. Ameeen.
|
|
|
Post by abuhamza on Feb 23, 2016 3:09:20 GMT
Can you please clarify the following for me.
Regarding the attributes of Allah, what is the difference between the reality and the meaning and the modality of the yad for instance? This is confusing to me.
When someone affirms a yad for Allah, is that person affirming the reality, the meaning, or the modality?
Also you mentioned that the salafis claim to know the reality of the Sifat as they exist in Allah's Dhat. I thought they didn't claim that. Maybe I"m wrong. Isn't there a difference between me saying that I know Allah has a hand vs me saying that I know the reality of Allah's hand as it exists on His Dhat? i.e. Is it possible to know that Allah has a hand without knowing the reality of it on His Dhat.
Also, another thing I don't get is that the words يد ,وجه do have a meaning in the language. How you say the don't have a meaning when it comes to Allah?
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by asad786ahmed on Feb 23, 2016 7:15:57 GMT
When affirming yad etc for Allah (which you have to do) you are affirming it's reality (حقيقث ) ie you are not going to affirm a metaphorical meaning as there is no evidence for that nor are you denying the word itself as people have done so in the past. you are only arfirming for Allah ta' alaa what Allah ta' alaa has affirmed for himself.You are also going to affirm it's meaning (which is ambiguous and not known, as there are many haqeqee meanings for the word yad. ) Ibn hajar al asqalani RA says they are are 25 different haqeeqe meanings for the word yad. Etc Then deny a modality ( بلا كيفية ) as Allah ta' alaa cannot be attributed to a 'how' because establishing a modality will necessitated a how which will in-turn give a meaning of 'like' So therfore resulting in - Allah's hand is like.... this is incorrect as Allah cannot be like anything. That's why a modality must be denied when affirming the reality of the word and it's meaning.
Now you mentioned that yad and وجه do have meanings in the Arabic language. Correct yes they do, however go and look up any of those meanings and tell me if you can apply them to Allah. You can't because those meanings will be attributed to that of the dhat of creations. Therfore those meanings cannot be attribute to Allah as Allah is free from being attributed to any creation. THE MEANING is not denied it's just not known to us as we cannot comprehend the dhat of Allah and will never be able to do so in this dunya. Which is why whatever it is, we leave it (the meaning) to Allah like the way the salaf did, and, practically the entire ummah has done ever SIince day one.
The salafies you probably spoke too or may speak with don't represent the whole sect itself. This ideology of doing ithbat ul ma'na wa tafwidul kaif are apparent in their aqidah books.
Salam.
|
|
|
Post by abuhamza on Feb 23, 2016 21:57:09 GMT
OK I think I understood you now. The difference is the ithbat ul ma'na portion. Ithbat ul haqeeqe and tafwidul kaif are agreed upon. Is that accurate?
But it begs some questions though:
Why would Allah use words such as yad and wajh if the ma'na does not apply to him at all? How could an Arab speaking badawi during the sahaba figure this out? i.e. that none of the meanings of the word would be applied. Has any of the sahaba said anything regarding applying or not applying the meaning? I would assume the case would be closed if they said one way or the other. But if they didn't say anything about it, then I don't know what to do for now. At least it would be open to interpretation. And finally does ithbat ul ma'na necessitate tashbih?
I'm just having hard time understanding how to affirm a word without knowing what it means.
BTW I thank you for conversing with me. I really appreciate it.
|
|
|
Post by abuhamza on Feb 24, 2016 0:19:23 GMT
The following came to my head while reading Mufti Zameel's post.
In the Ash'ari/Maturidi world, limbs automatically means something that is created. So it can never be associated to Allah, and it's something that is in conceivable and not worthy for Allah.
In the Salafi world, limbs does not have to mean something created. Limbs associated to Allah are not created, because an attribute of Allah is not created, but the ones associated to the creation are created. This is why it's said Allah's yad or wajh is different than the creation's.
I think this is the underlying difference. i.e. the definition of limbs and whether it has to mean "created" or not.
|
|
|
Post by asad786ahmed on Feb 24, 2016 7:23:00 GMT
The following came to my head while reading Mufti Zameel's post. In the Ash'ari/Maturidi world, limbs automatically means something that is created. So it can never be associated to Allah, and it's something that is in conceivable and not worthy for Allah. In the Salafi world, limbs does not have to mean something created. Limbs associated to Allah are not created, because an attribute of Allah is not created, but the ones associated to the creation are created. This is why it's said Allah's yad or wajh is different than the creation's. I think this is the underlying difference. i.e. the definition of limbs and whether it has to mean "created" or not. Those questions have very simple and easy answers. First Allah mentions in the quran about such verses with ambious meanings in surah Al 'Imran ayaat 7 . So thats nothing new. Go and check any quran. The translation of the ayat:- Allah is the One Who has sent down to the Prophet the Book that contains muhkamat ayat, which are the foundation of the Book, and other ayat which are mutashabihat(ambiguous) , No one knows their true meanings except Allah and those who are firmly rooted in the knowledge of the Religion say, "We believe in it, all of it is from our Lord" and none will understand the message except men of comprehension. (End ayaat) And what you said about limbs not being created in the salafie view, when attributed to Allah therefore not tashbeeeh. Yes that would be fine if Allah mentioned he has limbs. But Allah hasn't no where in the entire quran nor any hadith does Allah say he has limbs. If Allah did then that would be something different and following that methodology of attributing limbs to Allah would have to be followed. But because Allah hasn't mentioned he has limbs for himself (being a uncreated part of his dath or whatever the case) we cannot affirm limbs for allah. We can only affirm for Allah what he has affirmed for himself which is yad wajh etc. Unfortunately to answer you question about the Arabs in the time of the prophet Muhammed SAW. yes the answer is simple but will require a fair amount of explaining. Next post insha Allah. Salaam.
|
|
|
Post by abuhamza on Feb 24, 2016 15:54:50 GMT
Well, I used the word limbs to give a general term to what has been mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah such as yad etc instead of mentioning them individually one by one. If limbs is not an accurate term in the language in this case, then I take it back. But then substitute yad in the place of limbs in my earlier post regarding created vs uncreated.
And my point was salafis treat yad of Allah as an uncreated hand/limb whilst the creation's yad is created.
|
|