|
Post by asad786ahmed on Feb 24, 2016 17:32:20 GMT
The yad of Allah is un-created because it is a part of Allah's dhat. This is something everyone believes don't think that this is something specific to the small sect of these so called salafie's. The problem with the salfies is that they give the meaning of 'hand' to the yad of Allah. Like I mentioned before this can be seen above in mufti zameel saabs post and thier aqida books. That the mafhoom of the hand of Allah is the same as the mafhoom in created beings. Just the how that's not known. Ive shown you why this in incorrect (if you didn't understand then refer back to various previous post). The belief of Allah being not like anything is correct however it's just the technicalities of what they say that is incorrect.
When you say that the yad of Allah is a literal hand and it's meaning is known(which is the problem here as it's the salafie aqeeda as can be seen above where they say that the mafhoom of the yad of Allah Is the same as the mafhoom of creation but the how of it is not known ) Your saying, 'we take it by its literal meaning and it is incomprehensible' is contradictory in itself. If you take by its literal meaning, then 'yad' in the Qur'an , , is a 'hand' which is a part made up of flesh, bones, muscle, and nerves. If you take by that literal meaning, then you have committed blasphemy, and if you deny it, then how do you claim to take by the literal meaning?"
This is why itbhat of the word hand for the yad of Allah isn't correct and the actual way of the Muslim is tafweed for the meaning of yad ul Allah.etc. This is the way majority of Muslim follow and have followed from the very beginning just check the history of Islam in regards to theology and beliefs. This is a fact that cannot be denied. So in the end it's your choice. Follow the way which more or less all the Muslims have been for the last thousands years or so follow this irrational inovated tradition of these so called salafie's and declare all other Muslims deviated as that is what is declared by these salafie's in their aqida books. That the asharis and marturidis are deviated.
Salaam
|
|
|
Post by abuhamza on Feb 25, 2016 1:23:05 GMT
Brother, it looks like we're back to how I was analyzing it.
To an Arab person, yad is just like saying hand to an English person. The issue is not whether is yad can be translated into hand or not. The issue is can either yad or hand (this is just saying the same thing in two different languages) has to be something that is created. Is it possible for hand to be something not created?
To you a hand must be of flesh and bone i.e. a created thing, and because of that it cannot be attributed to Allah. Can Allah have a hand which is not flesh and bone and not created?
|
|
|
Post by asad786ahmed on Feb 25, 2016 7:20:49 GMT
Brother, it looks like we're back to how I was analyzing it. To an Arab person, yad is just like saying hand to an English person. The issue is not whether is yad can be translated into hand or not. The issue is can either yad or hand (this is just saying the same thing in two different languages) has to be something that is created. Is it possible for hand to be something not created? To you a hand must be of flesh and bone i.e. a created thing, and because of that it cannot be attributed to Allah. Can Allah have a hand which is not flesh and bone and not created? You don't understand. To an Arab person he doesn't need to say hand (in english). When you say that the mafhoom of Allah's yad is the same as the mafhoom of ours then that literal meaning will be taken. Look at the first and second post of mufti zameel saab to see the aqidah of these salafie's when they say this. In Arabic yad has many haqeeqe (ie literal not metaphorical) meanings not like in English where the word hand will have that one meaning of bone flesh skin etc. Ibn Hajar al askalanai (whom is a an accepted scholar by everyone) RA says that there a 25 different literal meanings for the word yad and hand is just one of them.so why is it that those people take it to mean 'hand' for. When in reality the actual thing to do, is because the meaning is ambiguous you have to consign the meaning to Allah and not interpret the word. This is the way of the salaf, the real way and that is what the way of the asharis and marturidis are. However the asharis and marturidis out of necessity have interpreted POSSIBLE haqeeqe meanings to these words so that people don't go around and say meanings like hand, face etc. It is well known that some of the scholars of the Salaf did attribute specific meanings to mutashabihat ayat. In his Sahih, in the chapter Tafsirul-Qur'an (the explanation of the Qur'an,) Imam al-Bukhariyy attributed a specific meaning to the term "illa wajhahu" in Surat alQasas, ayah 88. He said, "illa mulkahu," i.e., he said that word "wajh"--which is an attribute of Allah--means "Mulk" or "Dominion." In Surat al-Qalam, ayah 42, Allah said: 'يوم يكشف عن ساق' The scholars of the Salaf explained the term saq by 'hardship,' and the ayah to mean 'a day of anguish and hardship.' This explanation is known to have been given by Ibn ^Abbas, Mujahid, Ibrahim an Nakh^iyy, Qatadah, Sa^id Ibn Jubayr, and a multiple of scholars. Both Imam al-Fakhr arRaziyy in his Explanation of the Qur'an, Volume 30, page 94 and Imam al-Bayhaqiyy in his books, Al-'Asma' wasSifat, (page 245) and Fath-al-Bari, (Volume 13, page 428) related this explanation from Ibn ^Abbas. Ibn Qulayb also related that about Sa^id Ibn Jubayr who took his knowledge from ^Abdullah Ibn ^Abbas and Ibn ^Umar. Yet, the so called salfies insist on taking the literal meaning and attribute 'the shin' to Allah, by saying saq literally means 'shin.' Etc etc I could go on and on ..... This is nothing new (interpreting specific meanings) as possible ones while in reality consigning the meaning by believing in tafweed. If you still dont understand brother then forgive me for my lack of capability of explaining. I tried my best to get you to understand. This will be my last post here as I don't want to keep repeating myself . Anything you still do not understand will be due to my lack of capability In conveying, nevertheless everything that is required to be understood has been conveyed. Lastly brother , remember this is a refutation of the aqidah of this small sect and it's misunderstandings. So to understand what is being refuted then go back to mufti zameels saabs second post. Jazakallah. Salaam
|
|
|
Post by abuhamza on Feb 25, 2016 14:53:39 GMT
Thank you brother for trying to make me understand.
I just wanted to simply understand out of the 25 meanings of yad, why was "hand" the most obvious generic meaning not taken? If the answer is because "hand" is a created thing, then why we cannot say that is true when we talk about the ceeation, but when it comes to Allah it is not created. Why can the definition of "hand" not change from created to not created when attributing it to Allah.
I understand if you dont reply again, but that is what i wanted to understand. And forgive me if you already have explained and I'm not getting it.
|
|
|
Post by oldrepublic on Aug 4, 2021 6:14:39 GMT
Question: Answered by Mufti Zameelur RahmanWhen 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. I just came across this answer and I benefitted a lot, I was trying to explain this to someone and wrote something similar (can someone comment on my points?): The attributes of the essence of Allah, High is He, include: Life, Will, Power, Knowledge, Hearing, Seeing, and Speech. They are textually affirmed and can also be rationally arrived at through contemplation of His necessary existence. They are pre-eternal, absolute, and all encompassing. Allah further says: 1. [Surah 42:11] - لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِۦ شَىْءٌ ۖ وَهُوَ ٱلسَّمِيعُ ٱلْبَصِيرُ ("Nothing is like Him. And He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing.") 2. [Surah 35:15] - يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّاسُ أَنتُمُ ٱلْفُقَرَآءُ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ ۖ وَٱللَّهُ هُوَ ٱلْغَنِىُّ ٱلْحَمِيدُ ("O men, you are the ones who need Allah, and Allah is Free-of-All-Needs, the Ever-Praised.") So, despite Allah, High is He, being absolutely unlike creation He affirms that He is the All-Hearing and the All-Seeing, as in acknowledging something fractionally shared with creation, yet He has these attributes without similitude and requirement of medium and faculty. Creation, being contingent and dependent on Allah only shares these attributes in name and require external medium and bodily faculties to achieve and express these attributes in a limited capacity. These attributes are beyond the plain-sense literal meaning of the words that indicate them and should be affirmed non-literally, cosigning their true reality to Allah and without asking "how?". Such an affirmation coincides with 42:11 and 35:15 and upholds the transcendence (Tanzih; تنزيه) of Allah and negates any iota of assimilation or comparison (Tashbih; تشبيه) to Him. However, affirming plain-sense literal meaning to attributes, especially for reported ambiguous attributes يد ,وجه ,عين , etc. (Hand, Face, eye, etc.) from primary source texts (Quran and the Sunnah) without asking "how?" would place them in the category of the attributes of essence and shared with creation, although creation is limited by its very contingency. This approach signifies faculties, imperfection, limitation, and need and violates Allah's dissimilarity with His creation (42:11) and being Free-of-All-Needs (35:15). If conceptually the aforementioned plain-sense literalist approach was not assimilationist enough, when it is asked what is unknown about the "how?" the following explanation is put forward by the proponents of the literalist method: it's in the "category" similar to that shared by creation yet completely different, e.g in Aqida Al Wasithiyya by Imam Ibn Taymiyyah with Ibn Uthaymeen's commentary, [publisher Darrussalam] "Hand of Allah" is said to be dissimilar by comparing the hands between Humans, Cats, Ants, and Camel (page 136 vol. 1) and it is explicated in another place that an example of this dissimilarity is in dimension - large, small, bulky, thin, and so on (page 401 vol. 1). So, what is implied here is that Allah has "Hand" ( "two"-pg. 384, "right"-pg. 387 and "it" is used for "creating", "holding", "grasping", accepting "sadaqa", etc. -pg. 386) in the same category shared by creation, which in common language across any human society implies form and limb (whether they affirm it or not; the qualifiers are indicative enough), yet absolute dissimilarity is invoked in that no one has seen it yet! This is blatant anthropomorphism.
|
|