SOME COMMENTS ON HAITHAM HAMDAN BY AHLUSSUNNAH ASHAAIRAH AND MATURIDIAH

1

1

Multaqa Ahl al-Hadeeth > 'Aqeedah & Refutation of Deviant Sects > Time & Place by Haitham Hamdan with replies by Sunniforum

PDA

View Full Version : Time & Place by Haitham Hamdan with replies by Sunniforum

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/threads/time-place-by-shaikh-haitham-hamdan-with-replies-by-sunniforum.26333/

[ SOME COMMENT BY(ASHARITE,MATURIDIS) AHLUSSUNNAH VAL JAMAA-AH [ NON BARAILIVI,]

BUT THERE MAY BE SOME ADDITION OF COMMENTS LATTER.

THIS IS A PROTO VERSION.HOW EVER

Abu Zayd al-Atharee07-08-2009, 06:43 PM

Time & Place by Haitham Hamdan with replies by Sunniforum

POST NO1

Makaan (Place)

The Place (Makaan) of something is merely a concept that exists in our minds; there is nothing outside the mind that is a Place (Makaan).

For example, if you did not exist, where would your Place (Makaan) be? The answer is nowhere, you wouldn’t have a Place (Makaan), because you do not exist.

A Place (Makaan) is a concept that we associate with things that exist outside the mind. It is a way for us to relate the existence of an object to the existence of other objects in this universe. It is not that Allah created a Place (Makaan) for us, and then put us into this place.

Therefore, it is ridiculous to ask, ‘how can Allah assume a Place (Makaan) when a Place (Makaan) is from the creation of Allah?’ A Place (Makaan) is not something that you assume, it is a concept that results from your existence. A relationship between you and the universe.

[IF PLACE /SPACE IS NOT A CREATION OF DEITY THEN EITHER IT EXISTETH OR DOETH NOT EXIST. IF IT EXISTETH THEN IT IS A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE, WHICH IT IS NOT , THEN IT IS A CREATION. ONE MAY ASK THAT IF SPACE /PLACE IS A CONCEPT THEN EITHER IT EXISTETH OR NOT. IF NOT THEN IS IS NOT –CONCEPT . IF THIS CONCEPT EXISTETH THEN THIS CONCEPT IS CREATED THEN IT CANNOT EXIST WITH OUT MIND. BUT MIND IS NOT AN ATTRIBUTE OF ALL-H. SO IN IS A CONCEPT IN MIND. NOW IF THE MIND IS

CREATED THEN ANY THING IN A CREATED THING IS CREATED. IF IT IS UNCREATED THEN IT CANNOT EXIST IN CREATED MINDS. IF THE CONCEPT IS PER SE SUBSISTENT OR QAA’IOM BI NAFSIHI THEN IF IT IS UNCREATED THEN IT IS A DEITY ITSELF IF ]

The Place (Makaan) of something cannot exist in our minds if that something did not exist. At the same time, we cannot perceive of something existing



2

2

outside out minds and it not having a place. If it is to relate to other beings then it must have a place, it makes no sense saying Allah exists without a place. It will result in making Allah into a mere mental being that has no existence outside the mind.

[THE CLAIM THAT IT MAKETH NO MEANING/SENSE IS IN CORRECT. IT DOETH MAKE MEANING /SENSE ETC]

POST NO2

Waqt (Time)

The relationship between Place (Makaan) and matter is the same relationship between Time (Waqt) and action.

[IT REQUIRES A PROOF FROM QURAN OR HADIS THAT THESE STATED ABOVE RELATIONS ARE SIMILAR. IT IS JUST A CONJECTURE. ONE MAY DIFFER FROM SUCH CLAIMS BASED ON SOME RATIONAL REASONING NOT NECESSARY CORRECT.]Time (Waqt) is a measure of action, and the measurements of a series of actions makes Time (Waqt).

[IF TIME IS A MEASUREMENT OF ACT[ION],IT IS NOT THE MEASUREMENT OF ESSENCE , ATTRIBUTE AND DIVINE NOUNS. SO IF IT IS APPLICABLE TO DIVINE ACTS IT

IS NOT IMPLYIED THAT IT IS APPLICABLE TO ALL-H “AZZA VA JALLA. IS THERE ANY MEASUREMENT OF ALL-H SUBH:AN-HU: VA TA”ALA:]

The duration of an action locates it in Time (Waqt), just as the Place (Makaan) of an object locates it in space.

[ THIS IS NOT CORRECT. FIRST WHAT IS A DURATION? IS IT TIME. IF SO THEN THIS DEFINATION IS BY IT SELF WHICH IS A LOGICAL ERROR. WHAT IS A MEASUREMENT. IS IT A DIVINE CREATION OR A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE OR VERY ALL-H HIMSELF]

Time (Waqt) is not something that exists outside the human mind, it is associated with actions. If there is no action there will be no Time (Waqt), it (Time) cannot exist without actions occurring.

[ IF TIME IS A MENTAL CONCEPT THAT EXISTETH ONLY IN RATIONAL MINDS THEN:=1) IT IS ASSOCIATED WITH ACT[TION]S AND NOT WITH ESSENCES ,PER SE SUBSITENTS,SUBSTANCES,ATTRIBUTES,NATURES,DIVINITY.2) IF THERE IS NO ACTION/ACT THEN THERE IS NO TIME ,BUT IF THERE IS NO ACT IS THERE NO ALL-H, NA”UDHUBILLAH. WE BELIEVE IF THERE IS NO CREATION OR ACT EVEN THEN THERE IS NO IMPLICATION THAT THERE IS NO ALL-H.]

Allah has always existed, so there was always a Place (Makaan) and He has always acted, so there was always Time (Waqt).

[ SUPPOSE THAT ALL-H HATH AWAYS ACTED ACTED BUT NO ONE CAN CLAIM THAT DIVINE ACTS ARE UNINTENTIONAL/INVALUNTARY IMMANENT ACTS. THEY ARE VALUNTARYAND INTENTIONAL ACTS NOT IMMANENT. SO IT IS POSSIBLE THAT DEITY WOULD NOT HAVE DONE ANY ONE OF THEM, SO DOETH THIS IMPLY THAT DEITY IN THIS CASE WOULD HAVE REVERTED FROM

3

3

DEITY AND WOULD HAVE BECOME NON-ILAH. ‘AL”AYA:DH’ BILLAH.SUPPOSE THAT THESE ALLEGED ALWAYS EXISTING IMMENANT ACTS CEASE, BUT EVEN IN THIS CASE ANNHILATION OF DEITY IS NOT IMPLIED.ANY HOW IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE OBJECTION MAKER DOETH NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DIVINE ACTS AND DIVINE ATTRIBUTE, SIMILARLY HE DOETH NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DIVINE ACT AND THE DIVINE ESSENCE].

To say that Time (Waqt) and Place (Makaan) are creatures of Allah is incorrect. They are mental beings that exist as an extension to the existence of action and matter.

[SUPPOSE THAT THIS IS CORRECT BUT TIME AND SPACE ARE NOT THE EXTENTIONS OF PER SE SUBSISTENT DIVINE ESSENCE NOUNLY ALL-HAND DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. ]

REPLY NO1

Had the Wahhabis read and pondered the 99 names of Allah then this would have not been an issue.

[ALTHOOUGH WE DIFFER FROM SALAFITES ON SEVERAL ISSUES BUT SUCH ALLEGATIONS AGAINST VAHABI SECT OF SUNNISM IS INCORRECT IN FENERAL. EVEN BANS BARAILI SECT OF MATURIDIES ARE NOT SUNNIS, BUT IF FOLLOWERS OF RADA SHAH OF BANS BARAILI INDIA ARE BLAMED IT DOETH NOT IMLY TO THAT ALL ALL MATURIDIS OR ASHARIES ARE BLAMED.]

Allah is Al-Awaal, He is the first before everything

Al-Khaliq, the Creator and everything else is His creation, even your mind and thoughts

Al-Baqi, one who always stays

Al-Qadeem, one who never changes & always remains

Al-Ghani, the All-Independent

So to say that time and space existed along with Him, is to deny He is the Al-Awaal and al-Qadeem.

Allah was the Khaliq before He created, nothing resembles Him, and those who try to liken Him to the creation will enter Hell fire disgraced and shamed, may Allah's curse be on the mujasimites, don’t bring from a rotten forum their arguments here, as you will carry the weight of any misguidance and pay for it dearly in front of Allah

Perhaps that is the reason why the wahhabis cannot take the 99 names of Allah, and are its enemies, as it contradicts their false beliefs, and for this reason we have the likes of the perished al-Albani coming forward and falsely weakening the hadeeth that speaks of Allah's 99 names and attributes, may Allah give this chief innovator of this age what he deserves in the afterlife, and may Allah annihilate the wahhabi mujasim da3wah and their misguidance.

REPLY NO2

To say that Time (Waqt) and Place (Makaan) are creatures of Allah is incorrect. They are mental beings that exist as an extension to the existence of action and matterThis is a proclamation of 'kufr, audho billahi meinas shayten rajeem, may Allah protect all Muslims from disbelief.

Do you know what you are saying?!?!? Do you deny that even your thoughts and "mental beings" are creation of Allah? And Allah is independent from All of His creation?

Where are you from surah al -ikhlas?

Indeed the Wahhabis are the true mufliseen/bankrupt ones.

[NOT ALL. THIS IS THE PROBLEM OF BARAILVIS IN GENERAL AND BANS BARAILIVIS IN PARTICULAR ,THEY ARE IN HABBIT OF GENERALIZATION. SOME SALAFITES ALSO COMMIT THIS ERROR]

4

4

They have built their da3wah and career in making false takfeer of Muslims and labelling them in shirk, but Allah disgraced them in such a way that their beliefs are the worst form of pantheism, and ilhad. What you sow comes back to you, and the evil plot comes back to its people.. what is in those quotes is shirk pure in simple, as time and place and considered co-equals to Allah in beginning and in existence, and mental thoughts are placed outside the realm of creation.

And if this is the belief of the neo hanbalis then may Allah's curse be on this belief...as it is shirk pure and simple, and those who hold this belief their worship is null and their actions are to be multiplied by zero and they are of the losers in both worlds.

REPLY NO3

Perhaps that is the reason why the wahhabis cannot take the 99 names of Allah, and are its enemies, as it contradicts their false beliefs, and for this reason we have the likes of the perished al-Albani coming forward and falsely weakening the hadeeth that speaks of Allah's 99 names and attributes, may Allah give this chief innovator of this age what he deserves in the afterlife, and may Allah annihilate the wahhabi mujasim da3wah and their misguidance.

REPLY NO4

There's a small flaw in your logic you may have missed.

The argument you tried to present is as follows:

1. Place is a concept we associate with things that exist outside the mind.

2. Allah exists outside our minds.

Therefore Allah is in a Place.

Your first premise needs to be amended. Place is a concept we associate with material things that exist outside the mind.

However, Allah is not a material object. Therefore your argument doesn't work since one of the premises is false.

REPLY NO5

The problem with the reasoning is that it attempts to encapsulate the nature of Allah in the Human mind or somehow rationalise Him whereas the Creator is incomprehensible. Our minds are finite whereas Allah is infinite. Thus He exists without a place and always has and will forever exist without time ever being applicable to Him. Such is the Glory of Allah.

ummeesa07-08-2009, 09:31 PM

This person should drink some كركديه (http://niralimagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/israel-hibiscus-tea.jpg) and relax a little.

It is his whole premise that is faulty, because he insists that time and place are somehow separable from what they are related to, thus somehow making them separate tangible creations.

So what about attributing a number to Allah then? A number is also merely a relational tool that enables us to understand the measure of something. So if he denies time and place for Allah, then by this logic he would also deny a number for Allah--to say Allah is one is blasphemy by his own logic. What next, Allah exists without a number??

And thus, his own question comes back to him: Where are you from surah al -ikhlas?

[ THE PROBLEM IS THAT SPACE AND TIME ARE CREATIONS OR NOT. IF SPACE AND TIME ARE NOT CREATIONS THEN EITHER THEY ARE ATTRIBUTES OF ALL-H OR ALL-H HIMSELF [DIVINE ESSENCE] . BUT NO ONE CLAIMS THAT THEY ARE ALL-H OR ATTRIBUTES OF ALL-H. IN LOGICAL FORM , EITHER THEY EXIST OR DO NOT EXIST. IF THEY DO NOT EXIST THEN THEY ARE NOT CREATED. IF THEY EXIST AND ARE UNCREATED THEN THEY ARE EITHER ALL-H HIMSELF OR ATTRIBUTES OF ALL-H. ARE WE TO

ASSUME THAT THEY ARE ATTRIBUTES OF ALL-H LIKE QUR’AN AND OMNISCIENCE ]

al-boriqee07-08-2009, 11:13 PM

no that was a blast, something I wouldn't have contemplated.

ya aba zayd, why don;t you post this back at them

asalamu alaikum

Muhammad Salman07-09-2009, 09:52 AM

as-salamu alaykum

first, this was by our good Shaykh, Haitham, and not Ustad Ayman (may Allah preserve both of them).

secondly, I ask Allah to put some barakah in my time and bestow me some wisdom so that I can purify my notes (with sunni aqeedah) on this subject and post up, ameen.

meantime a short reply to this heretic:O heretic, you should have learned some logic from your greek forefathers or your fellow heretics, the Mu'tazilite. Interestingly, the kafir scientist, Einstein, came up with same rubbish that space can have extensions - his famous theory: relativity. You believe that place, time, space are creations of Allah and every creation (i.e., humans) is created in some place, meaning it requires a place. Therefore, Allah is free from any place, because it is an attribute of a

5

5

creation. If a place is required for a creation then did Allah create a place first or the pen? Because there has to be a place before the pen could have been created in that place! If a place is required for a creation, then did Allah create the place first (itself) or the place for that place - follow this in infinite? Do you now realize the absurdity in your argument?

O heretic, all of your arguments taken from your forefathers have been refuted and buried to the deepest part of this earth by the hanabliah for centuries. If affirming an attribute for Allah which is also an attribute of the creation is tajseem then why do you affirm Rahmah, Quqwah, etc. for Allah? Is that not tajseem by your own logic!? This should suffice for now

I cannot remember the exact words, but wasn't it Imam Abdullah ibn Mubarak (rahimahullah) who said something like: If you affirm Allah's Attributes and someone call you a mujassimi then know that he is a jahmi.

may Allah Ta'ala guide these people and keep us all on haqq, ameen.

and Allah knows best

Abu Zayd al-Atharee07-09-2009, 09:52 AM

Latest reply from Sunniforum

اجمعين وصحيه اله وعلى المرسلين سيد على تعلى الله وصلى الرحيم الرحمن الله بسم

Makaan (Place)For example, if you did not exist, where would your Place (Makaan) be? The answer is nowhere, you wouldn’t have a Place (Makaan), because you do not

exist. [ IT IS CORRECT THAT IF SOME THING DOETH NOT EXIST THAT IT HAS NO SPACE. BUT THIS DOETH NOT IMPLY IF A THING EXIST IT MUST HAVE A SPACE]See the implication: no place is equal to no existence, according to this guy when nothing existed besides Allah Most High where was His place ? No place, according to this guy it means no existence and Allah Most High is Exalted and Above of what they claim indeed.

[ WHERE IN QURAN OR INHADIS IT IS WRITTEN THAT ONE THAT HAS NO SPACE DOETH NOT EXIST. CITATION REQUIRED]Actually this premise of them lead them to believe that the world is eternal (infinite events in the past which is absurd) in order to maintain a place for Allah Most High and Allah Most High is Exalted and Above of what they claim.

A Place (Makaan) is a concept that we associate with things that exist outside the mind. It is a way for us to relate the existence of an object to the existence of other objects in this universe. It is not that Allah created a Place (Makaan) for us, and then put us into this place.

Everybody knows this but to skip all this obvious it's enough to say that Place is created because it is ONLY related to "physical objects" which are all limited which is the reason why they attribute a limit to Allah Most High which He only knows and Allah Most High is Exalted and Above of what they attribute. Note also the analogy with 'objects' with Allah Most High which He is Free of. To understand their way of thinking one has only to see the definition of 'object' and then see through their 'likening with creation'. Object ; 1 a: something material that may be perceived by the senses. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/object

Also direction is only related to two physical objects, when I ask to you; what is the direction from yourself ? It sounds absurd but the answer is 'you can't tell any direction from yourself because you NEED another physical object to tell which direction you are'. So by saying Allah Most High is above and this is His direction then this implies that Allah Most High needs a creation in order to have a direction. Allah is High and Exalted of their claim.

All of these anthropomorphic beliefs are because they want to understand and imagine Allah Most High in terms of physic. May Allah Most High protect us from these blasphemous thoughts and imaginations.

Therefore, it is ridiculous to ask, ‘how can Allah assume a Place (Makaan) when a Place (Makaan) is from the creation of Allah?’ A Place (Makaan) is not something that you assume, it is a concept that results from your existence. A relationship between you and the universe.

Again this is your assumption. Everybody knows that place and time is related to physical objects that's why we don't need to repeat the obvious but just say in short 'Time and Place are creations of Allah Most High'. The literalism of your ilk was already obvious but pushing it this far just shows the ignorance of you.

If it is to relate to other beings then it must have a place, it makes no sense saying Allah exists without a place. It will result in making Allah into a mere mental being that has no existence outside the mind.

Mental ? Why don't you just admit that you believe that Allah Most High is a physical/tangible object. Allah is Exalted and Above of what they claim. Allah Most High is not physical nor mental because His Existence is unlike the creation but your imagination can't comprehend this which lead to the belief of anthropomorphisms. They are implying a 'size' for Allah Most High because they made first analogy with the creation that place is determined by 'two objects' OBVIOUSLY these two objects has a size and a LIMIT to be separate of each other in order to say 'that objects is there and the other is there'. Now I hope it is also clear what they mean when they say 'Allah Most High is separate from creation'.

Note brothers and sisters, physical objects are not only things that exists but it are objects which are specified, namely size, body, mass, boundaries, limits, shape, form. Allah Most High has NO begin if He would be physical it would mean that He has size, limit, shape, form, mass and boundaries which are things that must be specified and it is impossible that Allah Most High is created or specified, Allah is Exalted, Sublime and Free of this and I seek refuge in Allah from these blasphemous implications.

I think that I can't be able to respond to other objections since I'm going to Turkey tomorrow insha Allah al-Rahmaan and need to take care of few things so I hope this has helped few brothers/sisters otherwise I advise you to visit Shaykh Abu Adam ( الله حفظه ) site for very good answers which helped a lot other brothers/sisters to get more insight of the 'word-play' which is going on and guidance is only from Allah Most High.

وعال جل الله وتوفيق خيرا الله جزاكم

6

6

Fahim Senzai07-09-2009, 02:09 PM

I cannot remember the exact words, but wasn't it Imam Abdullah ibn Mubarak (rahimahullah) who said something like: If you affirm Allah's Attributes and someone call you a mujassimi then know that he is a jahmi.

[ THE SAME IS TRUE ,IF YOU SAY SOME THING GOOD ABOUT MU”AVIAH RD AND SOME ONE CALLS YOU NASIBI THEN HE IS A SHI:”AH ITHNA ASHRI]

Assalaamu alaikum.

Alee bin al-Madeenee - the teacher of Imaam Bukhaaree - said: "When someone says so and so is an anthropomorphist (mushabbih) we come to know he is a Jahmee". [Sharh Usool ul-I'tiqaad (no.306)]

Reflect carefully how the Salaf did not used to say, "When someone says so and so is a Jahmee, we come to know he is an anthropomorphist" and the likes of this - for this is a clear indication that the madhhab of the Salaf was to affirm the Attributes mentioned in the Book and the Sunnah for Allaah - for affirming them never necessitated, to those great scholars from the Salaf, tashbeeh (anthropomorphism).

As Nu'aym bin Hammaad (d. 228H), the teacher of al-Bukhaaree said: "Indeed, all that Allaah has described Himself with, or what His Messenger has described Him with, then there is no tashbeeh in it at all." Reported by Imaam adh-Dhahabee in al-Uluww (no.217).

Thus, it is from this perspective that the dispute between Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah and the People of Innovations, Deviation and Misguidance arose - and this Jahmee (Keller) whose condition we are discussing at present is but kindling the flames of enmity against those great scholars amongst the Salaf and those who guide themselves by those great scholars.

ref: spubs.com

Muhammad Salman07-09-2009, 02:16 PM

^jazak Allah khayran akh


Assalaamu alaikum.

Imaam Abu Haatim ar-Raazee (d. 277H) said: "A sign of the Jahmiyyah is that they call the Ahl us-Sunnah 'Mushabbihah' (Anthropomorphists)." [Ahl us-Sunnah of Abu Haatim ar-Raazee (p.21-22) and Sharh Usool ul-I'tiqaad (no.92)]


as-salamu 'alaykum

allhamdulillah, brother Harris has blasted these heretics on IA:http://forums.islamicawakening.com/259350-post4.htmlhttp://forums.islamicawakening.com/259361-post5.htmlhttp://forums.islamicawakening.com/259366-post6.htmlhttp://forums.islamicawakening.com/259373-post7.html

ummeesa07-10-2009, 01:40 PM

Here's what he said:

P.S.Quote:Your whole premise is faulty, because you insist that time and place are somehow separable from what they are related to, thus somehow making them separate tangible creations.

[ THERE ARE ONLY THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS. 1] TIME EXISTETH. 2] TIME DOETH NOT EXIST. IF IT DOETH NOT EXIST THEN IT IS AS UNCREATED AS AN OTHER DEITY BESIDE ALL-H. IF IT DOETH EXIST THEN EITHER IT IS A CREATION OR NOT . IF NOT THEN IT IS EITHER DEITY HIMSELF OR HIS ATTRIBUTE LIKE QUR’AN OR OMNISCIENCE]

No, you're argument is based on a false assumption. We don't say they are separable rather we say that place and time are inseparable aspects of creation.Quote:So what about attributing a number to Allah then? A number is also merely a relational tool that enables us to understand the measure of something. So if you deny time and place for Allah, then by this logic you would also deny a number for Allah--to say Allah is one is blasphemy by your own logic. What

next, Allah exists without a number?? [ ALL-H IS NOT A NUMBER IN MATHEMETICAL MEANING. DIVINE ONESS IS NOT A NUMBER OTHER WISE DEITY CANBE MULTIPLIED AND DIVIDED, SUBSTRACTED OR ADDED. IF

7

7

DEITY IS A NUMBER OF MATHEMATICS THEN EITHER HE IS A RATIONAL NUMBER OR A REAL NUMBER OR AN IMAGINARY NUMBER OR A COMPLEX NUMBER OR A MUTTI COMPLEX NUMBER . ALL OF THESE ARE INCORRECT . THIS SHEWS THAT DEITY IS NOT THE MATHEMATICAL NUMBER 1]. When we say that Allah Most High is One we mean that He is not in any sense many. So He does not have parts or a partner.Quote:And thus, your own question comes back to you:

Where are you from surah al -ikhlas?That He is One (al-Ahad) in absolute sense meaning; no partner, likeness, parts or anything comparable because nothing is like unto Him the Sublime and Most High.

This answer is unsatisfactory. Here is a simple comparison:

Place--Allah is above the seven heavens--we know this through explicit evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah and through fitrah/intuition. You say that to say Allah has a place is to restrict Him to creation.

Number--Allah is One--we know this through explicit evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah and through fitrah/intuition. However, in this case, you agree that Allah is One in the sense that He is not many. I don't care for the word game being played here. This is just a fancy way of affirming Allah is One by negating that He is many.

By this jahmee logic, why isn't "restricting" Allah to the number one kufr? Why isn't Allah "existing without a number, place, or time?" Numbers are also inseparable measures of the creation just like time and place. So why do you apply this measure to Allah but declare that the others are heretical? Allah is above the 'arsh just as He says in the Qur'an. Allah is One just as He says in the Qur'an. Why are you differentiating between the two?

Harris Hammam07-10-2009, 03:26 PM

as-salamu 'alaykum

allhamdulillah, brother Harris has blasted these heretics on IA:http://forums.islamicawakening.com/259350-post4.htmlhttp://forums.islamicawakening.com/259361-post5.htmlhttp://forums.islamicawakening.com/259366-post6.htmlhttp://forums.islamicawakening.com/259373-post7.htmlYou took the Hasanaat bro!

All that is left is for the innovators to try and answer those arguments so we can refute them also - so we can wrench out every single drop of slime from their creed in this regard, and so the creed of the Salaf can shine through the darkness over on the other side.

We should all understand that this mas'alah has far-reaching ramifications...

al-boriqee07-10-2009, 06:40 PM

Asalamu Alaikum ikhwaan

i don;t know if yall know or nbot, but the words that Muhammad Salman posted really need to be reviewed and reflected. It is an argument that to my knowledge has not been posited. It completely deconstructs the entire aqeeda of negating Allah's existence because He is outside place hogwash theory.

the words below deserve its own thread

meantime a short reply to this heretic:[INDENT] O heretic, you should have learned some logic from your greek forefathers or your fellow heretics, the Mu'tazilite. Interestingly, the kafir scientist, Einstein, came up with same rubbish that space can have extensions - his famous theory: relativity. You believe that place, time, space are creations of Allah and every creation (i.e., humans) is created in some place, meaning it requires a place. Therefore, Allah is free from any place, because it is an attribute of a creation. If a place is required for a creation then did Allah create a place first or the pen? Because there has to be a place before the pen could have been created in that place! If a place is required for a creation, then did Allah create the place first (itself) or the place for that place - follow this in infinite? Do you now realize the absurdity in your argument?

The question alone obliterates ash'ari atheism altogether.

Akhi Abu Zayd al-Atharee, please post this on kufriforums.

Oh, how kalam digs their own holes and falls in them as well.Now Im starting to see why the Imaams have stated that their reed is a sea of confusion/contradiction. Now I see why their Own Imaams found themselves to be in bewilderment

asalamu alaikum


as-salamu alaykum

barak Allahu feekum ya ikhwaan; here is bit more reviewed argument which I posted at IA: imo (in my opinion), here is a good way to trap them by building an extra argument on top of other arguments (i.e., pen first or place for pen, place for thoughts and dreams) - as I originally posted at Multaqa (modified a bit): If every creation needs a place and place itself is a creation. Also according to you, the pen occupies some volume in space; hence, that is its place. In other words, the space was there before the pen was created and put into this space. 1) this contradict the nass 2) even if we were to use your logic (ignore the nass and follow Aristotelian logic), then space itself is a creation and it also occupies some volume in a bigger space - this is all

8

8

according to your logic. Then did Allah create the space (for this universe) first or place for that space - follow this infinite. If you say space/place does not require a place/space, then you are contradicting yourself: every creation needs a place/space. If you disagree, then allhamdulillah you have accepted infinite regression: Allah has been creating from eternity and He did not will things eternally and then they just happened.So they got three options:a - Contradict themselves in their place argumentb- Contradict themselves in their argument that Allah has not been creating from eternity and accept the Sunni viewb - Reject both of the above - defy common sense and their own reasoning - and provide another evidence for their illogical and batil views and understanding of the Islamic creedSo say o heretics: which one it is going to be: a) or b) or c)?Allahu A'lam


Assalaamu alaikum. Imam At-Tirmidhee refutes the Jahmiyyah.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking about those narrations which mention the attributes of Allah,Imaam at-Tirmidhee(d. 279H) said in his Sunan (1/128-129):

"It has been stated by more than one person from the People of Knowledge about such narrations, that there is no tashbeeh (resemblance) to the attributes of Allaah, and our Lord, the Blessed and Most High, descends to the lowest heaven every night. So they say: 'Affirm these narrations, have Eemaan (faith) in them, do not deny them, nor ask how.' The likes of this has been related from Maalik ibn Anas, Sufyaan ath-Thawree, Ibn Uyainah and Abdullaah Ibn al-Mubaarak, who all said about such narrations: 'Leave them as they are, without asking how.' Such is the saying of the People of Knowledge from Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. However, the Jahmiyyah oppose these narrations and say: 'This is tashbeeh!' However, Allaah the Most High, has mentioned in various places in His Book, the Attribute of al-yad (Hand), as-Sama' (Hearing), and al-Basr (Seeing) - but the Jahmiyyah make ta'weel of these aayaat (verses), explaining them in a way, other than how they are explained by the People of Knowledge. They say: 'Indeed, Allaah did not create Aadam with His own Hand - they say that Hand means the Power of Allaah'."

yasir07-13-2009, 05:33 AM

they are saying that if Allah is high above, then Allah needs creation below Him to be High above. so, they are saying this is kufr because Allah is al-Ghaniyy, does not need anything.

[ DEITY IS SELF GREAT AND SELF ABOVE. DEITY IS ABOVE BY HIS INTRINSIC NAATURE OF HIS ESSENCE AND ABOVENESS IS A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE. DEITY IS ABOVE EVERY CREATED EXISTENT AND NON EXISTENT.AN ABOVENESS CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD BY HUMAN MIND]i think is is a stupid reasoning.

its as if they're saying Allah needs creations to be Al-Khaaliq, and before there is creation, He is not al-Khaaliq, and He needs sinners to be al-Ghaafir, and the list goes on and on.. and we know that ahl sunnah believe that Allah is muttasif (i dont know this word in english) with all the perfect sifaat since eternity.

[ALTHOUGH ONE MAY DISAGREE WITH ASHAIRAH AND MATURIDIAH BUT THEY ARE ALSO SUNNIS LIKE SALAFIAH. ASHAIRAH AND MATURIDIAH BELIEVE THAT QUDRAH OR TACVIN ARE THE MABDA OF ACTIVE ATTRIBUTES OF DEITY. IF SO THE SAME MAY BE SAID FOR DIVINE ABOVENESS]

their argument is like those of the jabariyyah (correct me if i'm wrong) who say that Allah does not have 'ilm of something until that something occurs.

reminds me of what Imam Ahmad said in al-radd 'ala al-zanaadiqah wal jahmiyyah: ][IT IS AN INCORRECT ANALOGY SINCE JABARIAH SAY SO FOR AN ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTE , AND ALSO BECAUSE ASHAIRAH AND MATURIDIAH ARE MISINTERPRETED]

قال الحجة عليه ظهرت فلما التكلم خلق حتى يتكلم ال األوقات من وقت في كان قد مذهبكم ففي مخلوق كالمه أن زعمتم حين بخلقه الله شبهتم فقد مخلوق كالمهم آدم بنو وكذلك قلنا مخلوق كالمه ولكن يتكلم الله إن

حتى يتكلم وال كان إنه نقول وال شاء إذا متكلما يزل لم الله إن نقول جمعتم بل الصفة هذه عن الله وتعالى وتشبيه كفر بين جمعتم وقد كالما لهم الله خلق حتى يتكلمون ال كانوا آدم بنو وكذلكالقدرة لنفسه خلق حتى له قدرة وال كان قد إنه نقول وال فعلم علما خلق حتى يعلم ال كان قد إنه نقول وال الكالم خلق

جذع لها أليس النخلة هذه عن أخبرونا فقلنا مثال ذلك في لهم وضربنا صفاته بجميع واحدا إلها نصف إنما أليس كلها بصفاته يزل لم الله إن قلنا إذا ولكن شيء وال الله كان قد نقول نحن فقلنا يقدر وال األوقات من وقت في كان قد إنه نقول ال واحد إله صفاته بجميع األعلى المثل وله الله فكذلك صفاتها بجميع نخلة وسميت واحد شيء اسم واسمها وحجار وخوص وسعف وليف وكرب

وال متى ال قادرا عالما الله يزل لم نقول ولكن جاهل هو يعلم ال والذي فعلم علما له خلق حتى يعلم وال األوقات من وقت في كان قد نقول وال عاجز هو قدرة له ليس والذي قدرة له خلق حتى ورجالن ويدان وشفتان ولسان وأذنان عينان له وحيدا الله سماه الذي هذا كان وقد المدثر 11 وحيدا خلقت ومن ذرني فقال المخزومي المغيرة بن الوليد اسمه كافرا رجال الله سمى وقد كيف

واحد إله صفاته بجميع هو األعلى المثل وله الله فكذلك صفاته بجميع وحيدا الله سماه فقد كثيرة وجوارح

Abu Zayd al-Atharee07-13-2009, 08:05 AM

Asalamu Alaikum ikhwaan

i don;t know if yall know or nbot, but the words that Muhammad Salman posted really need to be reviewed and reflected. It is an argument that to my knowledge has not been posited. It completely deconstructs the entire aqeeda of negating Allah's existence because He is outside place hogwash theory.

the words below deserve its own thread

9

9

The question alone obliterates ash'ari atheism altogether.

Akhi Abu Zayd al-Atharee, please post this on kufriforums.

Oh, how kalam digs their own holes and falls in them as well.Now Im starting to see why the Imaams have stated that their reed is a sea of confusion/contradiction. Now I see why their Own Imaams found themselves to be in bewilderment

asalamu alaikum

As salaam alaikum wa rahmatullah,

Check out the replies and answers by Harris Hammam on IA Forums, mashallah.

yasir07-13-2009, 04:23 PM

ansari from SF is asking:

Can you bring forward any reputable mufassir of the Qur'an who said such a thing? If you read carefully what your Salafi scholars said, they actually brought the stance of the Pharaoh forward as an argument that Allah is above the heaven!

i'm not a registered member of IA or SF. but here's what al-darimi (died 282H) said in Kitab al-radd 'ala aljahmiyyah:

-36 : غافر كاذبا ألظنه وإني موسى إله إلى فأطلع السموات أسباب األسباب أبلغ لعلي صرحا لي ابن هامان يا فقال السماء فوق جل و عز الله أن الله على وعتوه كفره في فرعون علم لقد37

إليه االطالع ورام الصرح ببناء أمر ذلك أجل فمن السماء فوق بأنه الله معرفة إلى فرعون يدعو كان موسى أن ظاهرة وداللة بين بيان اآلية هذه ففي السماء في معرفته أن إلى إبراهيم يدعوه كان لما الله إلى االطالع ورام والنسور التابوت اتخذ إبراهيم فرعون نمروذ وكذلك

its crystal clear here. its amazing how they can ignore and neglect these and other athar by the salafussoleh!!

and the commentary of that hadeeth by Qadi Abu Bakr ibn Al-Arabi as claimed by ansari of SF, i dont think that is ibn al-arabi's commentary on the hadeeth, especially the underlined part. read the rest of the page. there's a part saying "qaala al-imaam al-qaadhi abu bakr bin al-'arabi". shows that this is written by someone else. maybe. i've not checked on الترمذي صحيح بشرح األحوذي عارضة as he claimed.


^akhee, they declare Uthman al-Darimi (rahimahullah) to be a heretic mujasmi - may Allah Ta'ala save ulama haqq from their evil tongues and guide these heretics, ameen.

al-boriqee07-13-2009, 09:05 PM

they are saying that if Allah is high above, then Allah needs creation below Him to be High above. so, they are saying this is kufr because Allah is al-Ghaniyy, does not need anything.

i think is is a stupid reasoning.

its as if they're saying Allah needs creations to be Al-Khaaliq, and before there is creation, He is not al-Khaaliq, and He needs sinners to be al-Ghaafir, and the list goes on and on.. and we know that ahl sunnah believe that Allah is muttasif (i dont know this word in english) with all the perfect sifaat since eternity.

their argument is like those of the jabariyyah (correct me if i'm wrong) who say that Allah does not have 'ilm of something until that something occurs.

reminds me of what Imam Ahmad said in al-radd 'ala al-zanaadiqah wal jahmiyyah:

قال الحجة عليه ظهرت فلما كالمه أن زعمتم حين بخلقه الله شبهتم فقد مخلوق كالمهم آدم بنو وكذلك قلنا مخلوق كالمه ولكن يتكلم الله إن

حتى يتكلمون ال كانوا آدم بنو وكذلك التكلم خلق حتى يتكلم ال األوقات من وقت في كان قد مذهبكم ففي مخلوق متكلما يزل لم الله إن نقول جمعتم بل الصفة هذه عن الله وتعالى وتشبيه كفر بين جمعتم وقد كالما لهم الله خلق إنه نقول وال فعلم علما خلق حتى يعلم ال كان قد إنه نقول وال الكالم خلق حتى يتكلم وال كان إنه نقول وال شاء إذا

القدرة لنفسه خلق حتى له قدرة وال كان قد

بجميع واحدا إلها نصف إنما أليس كلها بصفاته يزل لم الله إن قلنا إذا ولكن شيء وال الله كان قد نقول نحن فقلنا وحجار وخوص وسعف وليف وكرب جذع لها أليس النخلة هذه عن أخبرونا فقلنا مثال ذلك في لهم وضربنا صفاته

إنه نقول ال واحد إله صفاته بجميع األعلى المثل وله الله فكذلك صفاتها بجميع نخلة وسميت واحد شيء اسم واسمها وقت في كان قد نقول وال عاجز هو قدرة له ليس والذي قدرة له خلق حتى يقدر وال األوقات من وقت في كان قد وال متى ال قادرا عالما الله يزل لم نقول ولكن جاهل هو يعلم ال والذي فعلم علما له خلق حتى يعلم وال األوقات من

وقد المدثر 11 وحيدا خلقت ومن ذرني فقال المخزومي المغيرة بن الوليد اسمه كافرا رجال الله سمى وقد كيف وحيدا الله سماه فقد كثيرة وجوارح ورجالن ويدان وشفتان ولسان وأذنان عينان له وحيدا الله سماه الذي هذا كان

واحد إله صفاته بجميع هو األعلى المثل وله الله فكذلك صفاته بجميع

10

10

tell that stupid Jahmee (if someone can tell him, I refuse to go there) His Highness is not Dependant on Creation rather it is the default reality of creation's existence. Highness, al'Uloow" is in two formats

1. 'Uloow of Being (which is metaphysical)2. 'Uloow of literal Highness

Because Allah "exist" and because creation "exist" then there must be a relational reality between the two concerning their existence. It does not befit the Divinity of Allah that when He created any creation, that He places them above Him, rather it is below Him

tell that stupid jahmi also that his concoction of this point was nothing more than his demented view of His Lord concerning the Muslim creed he continues to defy like munafiqeen. His logic is built on the assumption that His Attributes are Dependant on the creation, and his stupid logic that makes no sense can only be based on someone who does not believe that their Lord actually Exist.

secondly, Its kind of a waste of time in dealing with jahmis on any point of aqeedah. The first mountain everyone should be concerned with concerning these jahmis is asking them the question"does Allah exist". based on their answer, you can move on the the next points, but it is silly to get side tracked on their silly arguments because you will never be efficient with someone who does not believe Allah actually exist. Remember, you are dealing with a people whose creed is "He is neither inside the world, nor outside, nor to the left, nor to the right, nor the bottom, nor above"

[ As the World is Not inside Deity ,Deity is not inside the World. Similarly as World is Out side Deity ,DEITY IS outside the world but not in the meaning of Jism or Physics.]this is unadulterated atheism, and you have to deal with them on that basis, and not on any other basis

The only person I guess who I can see who can deal with them on different points would be AZ and of course our new brother Harris Hammam, which leads me to my third point

3. the links by akhee Harris are a blast. I would have to deem him the Imaam of Rudood wal imtihaan 'ala Zanaadiqa :D

asalamu alaikum

Harris Hammam 12-05-2009, 06:41 AM

Just stumbled across a new argument in refutation of those who deny Uluww al-Makan. It is from the classical texts.

Basically, the argument is known as بالزمان المكان مقابلة , or 'comparing place to time'.

This is how it goes:

Ash'aris are known to refute the philosophers. Philosphers like Ibn Sina said: "Allah always existed, and the universe always existed. The pre-eternity of the universe is due to the pre-eternity of Allah, just like the light of day is due to the sun. As for the texts that say that Allah is األول (the First), then that merely means that Allah is before everything in Makaanah and status, not Zaman (time) itself. In Arabic, 'ةµ can also mean 'being first in status' and 'األوليnot 'being first literally'".

So the Ash'aris said: "No way Ibn Sina. Allah existed before the universe - 'literally before'. There is literally a time gap between Allah's existence and existence of the universe. Believing in 'ةµ ".as 'being first in status' only is actually a denial of Allah 'األولي

[The interval is not of time since time is not a relation between Beginningless and Uncreated Deity and created with a beginning Not- Deity ]So we the Hanaabilah compare this Zaman (time) argument and bring it back to the issue of Makan (place - and Uluww) and say: "If you Ash'aris want to affirm that Allah is 'literally before' the universe, then why can't you also affirm that Allah is 'literally above' the universe (and not only 'above in status')? If you Ash'aris think that what the philosophers said (which was: 'ةµ ,means 'being first in status' only and not literally) is actually denying Allah Himself 'األوليwhy isn't the same true for when you Ash'aris say that 'العلو' only means 'being high in status' and not literally?"

[ The Divine Aboveness is literal but not physical/Jismi]We should further say to these Ash'aris:"In the same manner that we all believe that Allah literally possessed أولية both before and after the universe was created (and did not acquire the attribute of أولية only when He created the universe), then similarly you Ash'aris must also start to believe - like we the Hanaabilah - that Allah literally possessed علو both before and after the universe was created (and did not the acquire the attribute of علوonly when He created the universe)".

Ponder deeply, brothers and sisters. Ibn Taymiyyah was no mug. What do you about this argument? It might need development.

Abu Yunus

11

11

12-05-2009, 08:37 AMBrother Harris,

As-salamu alaikum wa rahmatullah.

So the Ash'aris said: "No way Ibn Sina. Allah existed before the universe - 'literally before'. There is literally a time gap between Allah's existence and existence of the universe. Believing in 'ةµ ".as 'being first in status' only is actually a denial of Allah 'األوليBut the "Ash'aris" don't say "literally before" - do they?

They don't say "There is literally a time gap between Allah's existence and existence of the universe" - do they?

It is best to avoid a war of misattributions.

Um Abdullah M.12-05-2009, 10:06 AM

THe meaning is what matters, even if they didn't use the word "literally", unless your going to tell me that they don't believe Allah existed (literally) before creation came to existance.

Bassam Zawadi12-05-2009, 10:10 AM

Asharis don't believe that Allah existed temporally or chronologically prior to the universe, but only causally prior. I am also leaning towards this view right now. I might change my mind after I finish my research on the issue of infinite regressions.

Harris, I find the argument extremely weak. First the premises behind it are not true, secondly even if they were then they don't logically flow from one another. Being literally "before" has absolutely no relation to Allah's ability being literally "above", for the prior has to do with temporality while the latter has to do with proximity. Completely unrelated.


I'll address your point later. This reminds me of the DHB...

Um Abdullah M.12-05-2009, 01:22 PM

but only causally priorPlease explain what that means.

Bassam Zawadi12-05-2009, 02:18 PM

If X is causally prior to Y, then it only means that X is the cause of Y.

X being the cause of Y does not necessarily mean that X existed in time before Y.

If X did exist in time before Y, then that would also make X temporally prior to Y.

Asharis don't use the word "cause" for Allah. They actually have issues with their beliefs on causes and effects, but that's a different topic. I only affirmed that for them because I think that is what they actually do believe, despite their stubborness to not use the word.

So how could someone believe that Allah is causally prior to the universe, yet not temporally prior? Well, its simple.

If you believe that physical and space came into existence a finite time ago with the creation of the time universe,

then that means that there was a point where there was no time. Hence, you cannot say that Allah existed "before" the universe, since "before" is an indication of time. So Allah did not exist chronologically prior but only causally prior.

12

12

[ This argumentation is incorrect. First:- If some one saith so then in the statement “Physical and space came into existence a finite time ago with the creation of the time universe” Time is more general then the Physical Time. A “Time” that is Not Physical is “Non- Physical Time”.

So the word/term “before” is a quality or indication of time , Non Physical time in this case. A self contradiction is is implied if the statement is modified as follow:=

“Physical time and space came into existence a finite Physical time ago with the creation of the Physical time universe”. If Physicists can divide time in Actual and Imaginary times ,then why Theologians cannot divide time in Physical/Actual and Imaginary/Non Physical Time.

But “Divine Priority” is neither Chronological nor Causally Priority’’.

However, if you take the view of Ibn Taymiyyah, which is that Allah has been creating from eternity (i.e. there has been an infinite regression of series of past events into the past), then that means that time has always existed, since time is the measurement between two events. even THIS VIEW HATH ITS PROBLEM, AND THIS VIEW DOETH NOT PROVIDE A SOLUTION .

Um Abdullah saying to herself: aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh these crazy people and their wild thoughts!!!

loool.


^as-salamu alaykum

The problem is that we are bounded by our language and its implication.

When we say that Allah has been creating from eternity, this doesn't imply that we believe in infinite regression. It simply means that we believe that Allah has been creating from long long time ago and it is not like He willed in the past or was sitting idle. The whole point of this belief is that it is more befitting for Allah to be creating something than to say He was sitting idle.

13

13

Infinite regression of events means the events has been happening in the past for forever with no beginning. Whereas we say every creation had a beginning. If the first event has a beginning then the subsequent events also had beginning; thus, the whole series of events had a beginning. and this defies the definition of infinite regression.

[IF SO THEN THERE IS NO DIFFERECE BETWEEN ASHARITES AND SALAFITES. ONLY THE WAYS OF EXPRESSIONS ARE DIFFERENT].and Allah knows best


Whereas we say every creation had a beginning.

Yes, every creation had a beginning, but what is being said is that there are those who believe that the process of creation didn't have a beginning. They argue that as long as Allah was, there was also creating. Hence, if Allah is eternal then the act of creating is eternal as well.

Um Abdullah M.12-05-2009, 03:40 PM

I was actually asking about what "casually" prior means.


Allah existed since eternity, and creation came into existance after not existing, so Allah existed before creation, whether you call it time or not, Allah still existed before creation, since He is the First, and always existed, while creation came into being after not existing.

Hence, you cannot say that Allah existed "before" the universe, since "before" is an indication of time.

Before means that when creation came into existance Allah was there, and was there when creation wasn't existing.If you mean by "time", the day and night, then yes I agree, that is creation, and it wasn't there before creation came to existance, but if you mean by "time" the gap/measurment between two events or existings, then no, it is not creation, and I can't understand how that is creaiton, since it is only to know that something existed before something else, it is not something physical.

[ WHAT IS A MEASUREMET ,AND WHY IT IS NOT A CREATION. IF THE MEASUREMENT DOETH NOT EXIST THEN TIME IS JUST A SUPPOSED THING LIKE AN OTHER CA”BAH OR A DUEL OF HOLY PROPHET [SAVS]. IF IT EXISTETH THEN IT IS EITHER CREATED OR UNCREATED OR NEITHER CREATED NOR UNCREATED.? ALSO IF IT IS JUST A CONCEPT THEN IT EXISTETH EITHER IN UNCREATED KNOWLEDGE OF CREATED KNOWLEDGE, ]

So Allah did not exist chronologically prior but only causally prior.

I still need explanation of what causally prior means.

Um Abdullah saying to herself: aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh these crazy people and their wild thoughts!!!

14

14

loool.

yup, more or less like that.

The more one reads stuff by these people the crazier one gets, its mostly word games to try to confuse people and misguide them.


As I said, "causally prior" only means that it is the cause of that thing. So if I say that X is causally prior to Y, it only means that X is the cause of Y. That's all. Nothing complicated.

The issue is whether X came chronologically before Y. It could only have if time actually existed before Y.

"before" and "after" are words used in time.

[NOT NECESSARY WORDS OF TIME]

Imagine a scenario where there is no physical time - no time - no space - no events occuring. Suddenly, the first process of creation occurs.

As you and I agree... Allah's will to create occurs simultaneously with what becomes created, not before. Hence, Allah did not exist before time. The sentence "Allah existed before time" is as illogical as saying "That bachelor is married to Sarah".

The word "before" is a word of "temporality". If no time existed, then how could there be a "before" it?

Again, this is only applicable to the view of those who believe that Allah hasn't created from eternity. Many Salafis believe to the contrary and agree with Ibn Taymiyyah. Hence, this wouldn't apply.

Also note that I am only speaking about physical time and not metaphysical time.

looooool, how about we drop the subject? lol.

Um Abdullah M.12-05-2009, 04:33 PM

sorry but this is crazyas I said, it is just playing with words.it is like asharis saying: you can't say Allah is above the Throne, because "Above" is a direction, and direction is creation, so you believe that Allah is in creation !" (which is not true of course)or them saying: you can's say Allah is above the Throne, because then your saying He is in a place, and place is creation." when there is actually no "place/creation" above the THrone, because the Throne is the end of creation,only Allah exists above it.

And here you are saying we can't say Allah existed before creation, because "before" is a word for time, and time is creation.

The "time" we mean when saying "before" is the gap between two existings, and not creation (day and night), so it means: WHEN CREATION CAME INTO EXISTANCE, ALLAH WAS ALREADY THERE = BEFORE.call it whatever you want, time or whatever, it still doesn't make it creation !

This word "time" is like place and direction, it has more than one meaning, one that is false and one that is haqq, depending on what you mean when using it.

Also, notice that you used the word "prior" which is the same as before, both are for TIME, so you can't use prior nor previous either.

when you use "Ashari" (or more like Jahmi) logic, the words you can use are very very limited, sometimes u can't even explain something because you need to use one of those "forbidden" words to do it, since there is no word in the language that fits it, or more like no word that fits their illogical beliefs exist.

May Allah protect our minds from insanity.


deleted......... i just realized there is no value pursuing this conversation.


as-salamu alakum

sister, welcome to the world of philosophy. it is nothing but bunch of mabo jambo. and yet there are people who think philosophy is the way to go to define everything including some Muslims.

al-boriqee12-05-2009, 06:51 PM

15

15

What do you about this argument? It might need development.

brother, that was the baddest argument that came to us since your awesome Hanbali Butcher scenario. I could kiss you for this one.

barakallahu feek

AL-BORIQEE12-05-2009, 07:07 PM

Asharis don't believe that Allah existed temporally or chronologically prior to the universe, but only causally prior. I am also leaning towards this view right now. I might change my mind after I finish my research on the issue of infinite regressions.

Harris, I find the argument extremely weak. First the premises behind it are not true, secondly even if they were then they don't logically flow from one another. Being literally "before" has absolutely no relation to Allah's ability being literally "above", for the prior has to do with temporality while the latter has to do with proximity. Completely unrelated.

BUt Bassam, my brother. That was intrinsically the point that was being highlighted by Harris in that quote. The issue is ABOUT

TIMEANDSPACE

If Both concepts are viewed by ash'aris as "created" entities of Allah, then how are they going to affirm Allah's Firstness in relation to Time while Deny Allah's Highness in terms of relation to the created existence.

In other words, they AGREE with theists that God does exist in terms of relation to time but then disagree with theist and agree with atheist in terms of actual existence

While they are both unrelated, they are BOTH in essence, "created" (according to the view of ash'aris) and it is from this aspect from which this line of argument flows, and not necessarily the difference of properties from which these two subjects departs on its own path (meaning one being temporal and the other in terms of locality)

The connection made in this argument is along similar lines of those who argued the illogic of affirming Sifaat of Ikhtiyaariyyah (of Will) while denying Sifaat of Dhaatiyyah (essence) by employing allegorical meanings in order to deny its apparent meaning due to the belief that it implies tashbeeh. Both forms of Attributes have extremely different connotations just as time and place have distinctive properties, but in reality, both aspects are included as being from the Sifaat of Allah.

In basic terms denying the sifa of Yad is not like denying the Sifa of Mashee'a or Sama'a since the first, according to their logic, is merely denial of likeness to creation wheres to deny the second is to deny an ability of Allah. While they do have no qualms in denying one while affirming the other, Allah does find repugnance in their denial of something that Allah affirmed for Himself while affirming another thing that Allah affirmed for Himself, for in Allah's view (i.e. what He has revealed to us) denying something He says while believing in another is all equal to disbelief to Him.

16

16

Likewise with us, along this same line of reason I believe is where this argument lies in terms of its articulation wallahul-alim

asalamu alaikum

al-boriqee12-05-2009, 07:27 PM

As I said, "causally prior" only means that it is the cause of that thing. So if I say that X is causally prior to Y, it only means that X is the cause of Y. That's all. Nothing complicated.

The issue is whether X came chronologically before Y. It could only have if time actually existed before Y.

"before" and "after" are words used in time.

Imagine a scenario where there is no physical time - no time - no space - no events occuring. Suddenly, the first process of creation occurs.

As you and I agree... Allah's will to create occurs simultaneously with what becomes created, not before. Hence, Allah did not exist before time. The sentence "Allah existed before time" is as illogical as saying "That bachelor is married to Sarah".

The word "before" is a word of "temporality". If no time existed, then how could there be a "before" it?

Again, this is only applicable to the view of those who believe that Allah hasn't created from eternity. Many Salafis believe to the contrary and agree with Ibn Taymiyyah. Hence, this wouldn't apply.

Also note that I am only speaking about physical time and not metaphysical time.

looooool, how about we drop the subject? lol.

That sort of puts ash'aris in another heretical dichotemy because they profess that "Allah existed before time"

This is why the ash'ari view of time and space makes no sense and is illogical because the hadeeth that does explain time is basically explaining the essence of time, which is merely the measuring of one event to another. Likewise their view of space is likewise warped because space only denotes distance between existential realities or objects.

I undertood your speech perfectly, jazakallahu khairan

maybe I need to call you akhee

hit me up with your number akh

asalamu alaikum


then how are they going to affirm Allah's Firstness in relation to Time

where do they affirm Firstness in relation to time? First, second, third, fourth are not necessarily temporal relations like before and after.

Secondly, their philoshopical argument regarding literal highness is that it constricts Allah to a place, which is not befitting for Him. Though this argument could be refuted on another basis, I don't see how this counter response is related. As I said, what Harris brought up is temporality, while Asharis object to proximity in the other scenario. So again, sorry just like the Butcher Shop argument I find this to be weak. Actually, I find it weaker than the Butcher Shop argument, since in the Butcher Shop argument Harris attacks strawman, but here not only does he attack strawman, there appears to be false premises being pre-supposed and even if they were true, I see no logical connection from them to the conclusion.

The fact that they are both created is irrelevant, because Asharis no where said that Allah couldn't be related to a creation. They only said that He couldn't be in a direction. So again, make sure your not attacking strawman.

I undertood your speech perfectly, jazakallahu khairan

yeah I knew you would. You fully understand why there can't be a "gap" between Allah and the first creation. I didn't want to push it further with sister Um Abdullah because I knew she doesn't bother involving herself in philosophical arguments with Asharis and just sticks to the theological issues.

maybe I need to call you akhee

anytime bro.

UM ABDULLAH M. 12-06-2009, 05:01 AM

17

17

If I got into philosophical arguments with Asharis I would become insane because it is too crazy and stupid, it is shaytan's trap, it is like throwing yourself in fire.

In regards to this "before" and "after", what do you say About the hadith that says that "Allah is First, nothing is before Him, and He is last and nothing is after Him."

Here "before" and "after" are used, what do you say about this?

Allah's will to create occurs simultaneously with what becomes created

Allah's will, but not Allah Azza wa Jal Himself.It doesn't matter what you want to explain "Before" to mean (i.e. time = creation), Allah still existed when creation didn't exist, and then creation came to being which means Allah existed: before creation existed.I don't know of any word that can describe the part in bold other than before, unless you know of another word?

It is like the word: "where", Ashari's say it is forbidden becuase it is asking about "place" and place is creation, so you can't ask "where is Allah"But the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam asked this "forbidden" question because it does not necesstate that Allah is in a place that is creation,Now explain to me why we can't do the same with "before", like "where" ?using before not meaning "in time that is creation" ?

Please don't say that you don't want to continue the discussion, if you are really convinced of what you are saying then you should be able to answer.maybe it will also help me understand ur logic.

Um Abdullah M.12-06-2009, 05:07 AM

yeah I knew you would. You fully understand why there can't be a "gap" between Allah and the first creation.

sorry for not being as intellegent as asharis because I can't understand their insane and stupid logic.

As for the word "gap", well I can't use the word "time" nor "before" nor "prior" nor space ...etc.what word can I use to explain what I am trying to say ??!!

should I make up my own words to explain what I want to say?!!

p.s. I am not angry at you, my anger is towards the Jahmi asharis of today, and their .... logic. (I don't have any words to describe it, so I left it blank)


In regards to this "before" and "after", what do you say About the hadith that says that "Allah is First, nothing is before Him, and He is last and nothing is after Him."

Here "before" and "after" are used, what do you say about this?

I don't see the problem, there is nothing "before" Allah. Time didn't exist before Allah. Allah was always there. There will also never be anything "after" Allah since Allah will always remain and never die.

Now explain to me why we can't do the same with "before", like "where" ?using before not meaning "in time that is creation" ?

Allah does have a "where", His "where" is above the Throne, but Allah is not in a place, because that would render His being encompassed by six directions.

If you want to change the definition of words, then by all means Allah will judge you by your intention. But if you go out and start talking to philosophers and academics and say "God existed before creation", then they will think your incompetent because they are defining the word "before" the way dictionaries define it and not by your customized definition of the word.

The reason why I didn't push the discussion further with you is because I know you don't bother yourself with this field, you stick to theological discussions with Asharis, which is fine, hence it doesn't become necessary for you to understand this issue.

Let me put this another way, this is the easiest way I could explain it:

- If I say Um Abdullah was born before Bassam, you would ask "how much before"? If there is a "before", then there must be a "how much before" to it, correct? So the answer might be for example, "10 years before".

Now.........

If you say that Allah existed "before" creation, the question will follow "how much before?" Was it 3 trillion years before? 4 trillion years before? You cannot say infinity, because if you did then the answer would be the same to every question then. "How much before did Allah exist before speaking to Musa? Answer: Infinity. To Muhammad? Answer: Infinity. Before creating Um Abdullah?

18

18

Answer: Infinity." People don't use infinity as measurement for time gaps, since it is infinitely open and there is no gap. The word "gap" itself implies finiteness. If you insist that infinitude is a time gap then that means that we could never have existed, for it would have taken an infinite amount of time for us to reach here. However, we are here, which indicates that time in the past is finite.

[ THE DIVINE PRIORITY IS INFINITE BUT THIS DOETH NOT IMPLY AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME ,SINCE DIVINE PRIORITY IS BEYOND TIME. ETERNITY IS A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE SO IS THE DIVINE PRIORITY. THE QUESTION IS JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT DEITY IS GRATE BUT HOW MUCH INFINITE OR FINITE. ALSO IF DEITY IS PRIOR TO EVENT A OCCURRED AT TIME T0 , THEN DEITY IS CERTAINLY PRIOR TO EVENT A. NOW THE QUESTION REVERTS TO THE QUESTIONER,]

So since there is no finite measurement between Allah's existing and the first creation (i.e. introduction of time), then it makes no sense to say that Allah existed "before" time in the traditional sense. Sure, one could say it with a certain intention in his or her mind. But the context of this discussion is when having a discussion with Asharis and you shouldn't speak like that since they are philosophical fanatics and would strictly analyze every single comment you make.

Note: Again, I am talking about physical time and not metaphysical time. Allah could have performed events events creation.

Salam


As for the word "gap", well I can't use the word "time" nor "before" nor "prior" nor space ...etc.what word can I use to explain what I am trying to say ??!!

should I make up my own words to explain what I want to say?!!

Just say what the Islamic sources say "Allah created the universe".

Me and al-boriqee are not more intelligent than you... don't worry... me and him are equally psychotic, right bro? hahahaha.

At the end of the day, its okay to say "Allah before creation" out of necessity for people to understand you. I was only saying to be wary of whom you say it to, that's all I guess.

Um Abdullah M.12-06-2009, 05:52 AM

I don't see the problem, there is nothing "before" Allah. Time didn't exist before Allah. Allah was always there. There will also never be anything "after" Allah since Allah will always remain and never die.

The point here is that the word "before" and "After" was used with Allah Azza wa Jal, so how can you go against using those words when they have been used by the Prophet sallallahu alyahi wa sallam, and your objection is ONLY because in the language it is related to time, the same as "where" in the language is used for location/place.

Allah does have a "where", His "where" is above the Throne, but Allah is not in a place, because that would render His being encompassed by six directions.

Well asharis have a problem with it, the same as they have a problem with "before" because the first is used for a "place", and the second is used for "time".

so if you are arguing with Asharis, I don't know how you will solve the first and not the second, since the problem with the first is basically the same as the second.

The reason why I didn't push the discussion further with you is because I know you don't bother yourself with this field, you stick to theological discussions with Asharis, which is fine, hence it doesn't become necessary for you to understand this issue.

19

19

Actually, using the texts and athar from salaf is the best weapon against them, becuase if they then reject what is in the texts or statmenets of the salaf, they can' claim that they follow the texts and the pious salaf, but if you use with them philisophical arguments only, it will be very difficult and will only drive you to insanity, and maybe even put doubts in ones hearts.That is why the salaf forbade people from reading ilm al kalam and condemned it strongly, because it was one fo the major reasons for the deviance of many Muslims, and the emergance for many sects.

- If I say Um Abdullah was born before Bassam, you would ask "how much before"? If there is a "before", then there must be a "how much before" to it, correct? So the answer might be for example, "10 years before".

That question "how much before" and giving a certain amount of time, is only applicable to creation, since they have a begining, while Allah Azza wa Jal has no begining, so the question "how much" doesn't apply, since there is no begining, while "before" can apply, since it doesn't have to have a certain amount of time/measurment as long as the existance perceeded the other existance, because as long as Allah's existance was when creation didn't exist then creation came into being, then Allah existed "before" creation, regardless of "how much", even if it was infinity.I don't see how it is so difficult to understand that Allah existed "before" creation, which means Allah existed when creation didn't, then creation came into existance.

As long as there is a begining, there is a before.

wa alaykum assalam

Um Abdullah M.12-06-2009, 05:57 AM

At the end of the day, its okay to say "Allah before creation" out of necessity for people to understand you. I was only saying to be wary of whom you say it to, that's all I guess.

I mostly use the texts to refute them instead of logical arguments, I believe the texts (including statements of the salaf) is stronger than logical arguments, and I mean when discussing the sincere amongest them who are truely searching for the truth, and are really trying to follow the salaf as they claim.


The point here is that the word "before" and "After" was used with Allah Azza wa Jal, so how can you go against using those words when they have been used by the Prophet sallallahu alyahi wa sallam, and your objection is ONLY because in the language it is related to time, the same as "where" in the language is used for location/place.

Sister, I have no problem at all with Allah being related to time. As a matter of fact, I wrote a lengthy article http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showpost.php?p=29008&postcount=1 proving that Allah is related to time as opposed to Ashari thoughts.

My objection is to saying that Allah is before time.

Well asharis have a problem with it, the same as they have a problem with "before" because the first is used for a "place", and the second is used for "time".

Again, your making the same mistake as Harris and al-boriqee, the two are completely unrelated and they aren't based on the same logic.

The argument against Allah being "before time" is the fact that the statement itself is incomprehensible. The argument is not that it is not befitting for Allah like how Asharis do with the "where", rather it is instrinsically meaningless. How could there be a "before" time?

That question "how much before" and giving a certain amount of time, is only applicable to creation, since they have a begining, while Allah Azza wa Jal has no begining, so the question "how much" doesn't apply, since there is no begining, while "before" can apply, since it doesn't have to have a certain amount of time/measurment as long as the existance perceeded the other existance, because as long as Allah's existance was when creation didn't exist then creation came into being, then Allah existed "before" creation, regardless of "how much", even if it was infinity.

To say that Allah is "before" creation, yet there is no measurement of before is a meaningless statement, unless you have defined the word "before" differently.

The word "before" implies that Allah existed a certain amount of time prior to the creation. Your saying "well it's a before unlike creation" is strange indeed. You are taking the principle that we apply to Allah's attributes (which are real and literal in nature) and extending it to an abstract concept of measuring time gaps.

Is there any authentic hadith or Qu'ranic verse that states that Allah is الخلق قبل ? (and don't try to appeal to that weak narration in Tirmidhi). If there is.... then fine we can adjust our selves to the Islamic definition of قبل, but if not then my advice is for you to just be wary of how you use these words, since many people have a different understanding of "before" than you do.

Our scholars used to say "Allah before creation". My guess that they either said this out of necessity or they didn't fully comprehend the implications of their statements. Regardless, we are in the 21st century dealing with a bunch of maniacs out there and we need to be cautious. Sometimes we have to speak differently with other people than we do with ourselves. That's my only warning.

Also, all of this assumes a certain view that you take about Allah and creation. If you take the view of Ibn Taymiyyah, then none of what I said applies to you.

20

20

Salam

Um Abdullah M.12-06-2009, 08:03 AM

My objection is to saying that Allah is before time.

I don't remember saying "Allah is before time"though if you mean by "time" the day an night, then that would be creation and Allah is before creation.

And thank you for clearifying that you don't have a problem with the word before, and the problem is only when discussing with heretics.

the two are completely unrelated and they aren't based on the same logic.

can you please explain how their logic in both are different, becuase from my understanding their rejection for asking "where" is because it is asking about a "place" and "place" is creation, thus your confining Allah Azza wa Jal.

The argument against Allah being "before time" is the fact that the statement itself is incomprehensible.Remove "time" and replace it with "creation", would there be a problem then when discussing with them?

Because if Allah didn't exist before creation then Allah existed with creationor after creationI can't think of a third option, unless you can think of one or heard them mention another option.

To say that Allah is "before" creation, yet there is no measurement of before is a meaningless statement.

No it isn't meaningless, because "how much" between the existance of two things doesn't matter, it doesn't matter if it was 10 days, or 1000 years, or infinity, as long as it existed prior to the other (that the order of existance is that Allah is first, and creation is second) then it is: before.

The word "before" implies that Allah existed a certain amount of time prior to the creation.

According to who?


Remove "time" and replace it with "creation", would there be a problem then when discussing with them?

Yes, because time is a creation. To say that Allah is before creation is like saying Allah is before time.

can you please explain how their logic in both are different, becuase from my understanding their rejection for asking "where" is because it is asking about a "place" and "place" is creation, thus your confining Allah Azza wa Jal.

Their objection is that to say that Allah is "above", means that you are constricting Allah to a place. If Allah is constricted by something then that makes Him specified and whatever is specified is created.

Their objection to saying "Allah before creation" is that the statement is meaningless because time is a creation. So to say "before creation" is like saying "before time". The term "before time" makes no sense, because the word "before" is a measurement of time. So how could you have a measurement of time before time even existed? It makes no sense.

Because if Allah didn't exist before creation then Allah existed with creationor after creationI can't think of a third option, unless you can think of one or heard them mention another option.

The third option is to only say what the Qur'an says: Allah created the universe. Or to put it in modern words "Allah caused the universe". He is "causally prior and not chronologically or temporally prior" to the universe.

No option of time before time is given to you.

No it isn't meaningless, because "how much" between the existance of two things doesn't matter, it doesn't matter if it was 10 days, or 1000 years, or infinity, as long as it existed prior to the other (that the order of existance is that Allah is first, and creation is second) then it is: before.

and

According to who?

Ukhti al fadeela, what is your definition of before? My definition of before is:

- earlier in time, previous in time,

I don't know what definition your giving.

To me and to most dictionaries: before = earlier in time.

So now let us substitute the phrases...

(that the order of existance is that Allah is first, and creation is second) then it is: before.

Yes Allah is first and creation is second. But is Allah's existence earlier in time (i.e. before) than creation? Well the answer is no, because time is a creation and there was no time before creation. So Allah is not earlier than creation in time, hence Allah is not "before" creation.

He is causally prior to creation. Creation is dependent upon Him. But He didn't exist in time before He created time.

21

21

ukkhtiii.... this discussion isn't healthy. none of this is beneficial if your not planning to engage Asharis or atheists on these issues.

salam

Um Abdullah M.12-06-2009, 11:59 AM

ukkhtiii.... this discussion isn't healthy. none of this is beneficial if your not planning to engage Asharis or atheists on these issues. salam

I know it isn't, but because you brought up this shubha here, it can't just be ignored.Anyways, here is another defintion I found which fits more with the meaning that I was trying to make:

http://www.yourdictionary.com/before>> ahead of in time, space, order, rank, or importance<<

So when I say "before" creation, I mean the order of existance, Allah's existance was "before" creations' existance, Allah's existance is first, then came the existance of creation (second).

Problem solved?


Brother Bassam, you are unbelievable.

I'm sorry, you just are. First it was the DHB (http://ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?p=26675#post26675), and now this. And surprise surprise, Abu Yunus is with you on this one, just like the DHB.

You know what your statements do, Bassam? Your statements are ammunition to the likes of ChittownMuslim. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.

1. This Daleel I said regarding ' العلو حول الشبهات رد في بالزمان المكان مقابلة ' is an argument put forth by IBN TAYMIYYAH himself:http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=182586

I thought I made that clear in the last sentence of post 20 (http://ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showpost.php?p=45309&postcount=20).

I derived the argument from the Arabic Multaqa:http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=182586

I just put the argument in my own words, because it was very technical and intricate. That's all. As you can see in the Multaqa link, it provides the preliminary arguments, but I skipped all of that and went straight to the main point.

2. What is the difference between you, Bro Bassam who suggests that Allah only existed causally before the universe, and Ibn Sina who said literally the same thing:Allah always existed, and the universe always existed. The pre-eternity of the universe is due to the pre-eternity of Allah, just like the light of day is due to the sun. As for the texts that say that Allah is األول (the First), then that merely means that Allah is before everything in Makaanah and status, not Zaman (time) itself. In Arabic, 'ةµ 'can also mean 'being first in status' and not 'being first literally 'األولي???


Brother Haris,

As usual let me remind you that I am on your side. I am on your side to the extent that I am planning to my write doctoral thesis with the University of Wales inshallah on the topic of the Ashari-Salafi debate on Asmaa' Wal Sifaat and I am on the Salafi side. So please understand that the more arguments I muster against the Asharis the happier I am and the better for my thesis.

As for HBS, as far as I am concerned I didn't receive a satisfactory counter rebuttal to my objection to your argument. So for you to say "first that and now this" really doesn't mean anything to me. On the contrary, I'm the one who should be saying to you "Harris, first you promote HBS and now your trying to promote this??"

Secondly, so what if Ibn Taymiyyah mustered the argument? It's Ibn Taymiyyah's logic and his logic has never been an authority. It sure does deserve us taking a look at it, since he was a great scholar. But in no way am I obliged to accept it. I will be honest and say that I haven't read it fully from Ibn Taymiyyah, I only criticized what you said. But if what you said correctly represents what Ibn Taymiyyah said, then I still hold my objection. So what I would then advise you to do is go tell the brothers at the Arabic Multaqa what my objections are and have them address them. Or perhaps Ibn Taymiyyah prematurely addressed them in anticipation so let me know what Ibn Taymiyyah said. Or perhaps you can address them your self.

As for your comment:

Your statements are ammunition to the likes of ChittownMuslim.

As far as I am concerned, I want to make it clear to the Asharis that your argument doesn't represent the opinion of all Salafis. That way, they wouldn't stereotype against all of us as intellectually bankrupt when they address your argument. (Not that I am saying this is what you are, but this is what they would claim). So I need to vindicate myself from this argument of yours.

What is the difference between you, Bro Bassam who suggests that Allah only existed causally before the universe, and Ibn Sina who said literally the same thing:

Bro, what on earth are you talking about? looool. Are you serious akhi?

How does me saying that Allah exited causally prior to the universe equate to Allah and the universe existing together since eternity? Lol, the very phrase

22

22

"Allah is causally prior to the universe" itself implies that there was once a point when the universe did not exist while Allah was there. So I have no clue where you are leading at.


I just read your post again, I disagree with Ibn Taymiyyah that Allah was literally 'Uluww from eternity. The reason I disagree is because I don't believe that the process of creation is eternal. Since I don't believe that, then that means there was a point in which Allah existed without creation.

If Allah existed without creation, then how could He be literally 'Uluww if there was nothing for Him to be 'Uluww over?

It's obvious why Ibn Taymiyyah believed this, it's because he believed that the act of creating is an eternal act.

[ WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ETERNAL ACT AND AN ETERNAL ATTRIBUTE]

Um Abdullah M.12-06-2009, 02:28 PM

In regards to the DHB argument, not all agree that it is weak brother Bassam, and people are different in their understanding and their way of thinking.so to you it might seem weak but to others it doesn't, the same as it might not be convincing to many Asharis, but it might convince some of them.

so you try to use differnet arguments against different people.

And to be honest, when debating with extreme Asharis who are brainwashed and would do anything to prove their beliefs and have blocked their brains from accepting anything else, you can get them a clear ayah or hadith from the Prophet sallallahu alyahi wa sallam that can't be made tawil of, and they will find some way out of it, by twisting it or giving obsured explanations.


In regards to the DHB argument, not all agree that it is weak brother Bassam

Never suggested that sister, just wanted to make it clear that I was one who didn't find it convincing at all.

al-boriqee12-06-2009, 07:35 PM

where do they affirm Firstness in relation to time?They affirm He is al-Ahad i.e. the First

First denotes a relation to temporality, not to locality hence, they affirm His Firstness in relation to time and deny His Highness in terms of His existentiality.

First, second, third, fourth are not necessarily temporal relations like before and after.

How are they not temporal? someone being first, second, third, or fourth is a connotation of the measurement of time and is not a measurement in terms of mass or location.

Secondly, their philoshopical argument regarding literal highness is that it constricts Allah to a place, which is not befitting for Him

Here is what I would like for you to see akhee Bassam

The ultimate problem that results in the epitome of error is the idea that "place" denotes "constriction". This is an idea that only be observed in an observable universe. Since Allah is beyond the properties of being observed through human conjecture, it is therefore improper to conclude that wherever Allah is in terms of a place is by default constricted.

Imaam adh-Dhahabee blasted that theory in his commentary on one of Imaam al-Qurtubee's comments in refuting the philosophers.

Imaam adh-Dhahabee said

"What they claim to be necessitated (from affirming Allaah’s highness) is only applicable to created bodies. Yet there is nothing like Allaah and the necessities arising from the clear and evident texts (of the Book and the Sunnah) are also true. However, we do not make use of any explanation except one that comes through a narration. In addition to this we say, ‘We do not accept that the Creator’s being upon His Throne and above the heavens, necessitates that He is confined and in spatial direction, since whatever is below the Throne is said to be confined and in spatial direction. "

Here, adh-Dhahabee is affirming that the concept of constriction regarding the concept of place is only applicable to created bodies, and cannot logically be attributed to Allah when His whereabouts are revealed or discussed i.e. Above the Throne.

23

23

Though this argument could be refuted on another basis, I don't see how this counter response is related

Well, as I told you before, I understand the contrast between the inherent argument being different between temporality and proximity, however, I think if you would have reflected on what I said earlier, there was a higher basis that transcends this difference that links together the two on a common theme, that theme being that if Allah's literal firstness is going to be affirmed, then on what basis is this affirmation and on what basis is the denial of His Highness and more importantly, how is one going to be affirmed and the other denied if BOTH, despite its conceptual difference (one being temporal and the other being proximity) are representations of Allah's literal affirmation of both (His 'Uloohiyyah and His Ahadiyyah i.e. first and uppermost).

As I told you before, the necessitated link between the two in spite of its intrinsic difference is like the connection that is used between the Sifaat that are ikhtiyaariyyah and those sifaat that are dhaatiyyah, both forms of attributes having intrinsically different characteristics, yet both united upon a common theme in relation to Allah.

As I said, what Harris brought up is temporality, while Asharis object to proximity in the other scenario.

That is understood, but please reconsider reflecting on the above mentioned points.

The fact that they are both created is irrelevant, because Asharis no where said that Allah couldn't be related to a creation. They only said that He couldn't be in a direction. So again, make sure your not attacking strawman.

I understand the strawman here, however in my view, the problem is in the creation of it rather than the attack of it. In other words there seems to the common eye a straw man if a lack of reflection is being employed. The fact that they are both created is NOT irrelevant, rather it is very relevant. IN fact, just on that mere basis alone, How will they affirm (with a literal affirmation might I add) the argument "He was BEFORE time existed" (this is their saying) and then on the other hand say that His existentiality is nowhere most notably represented with the clause "He is neither within the world or outside of it or to the left, nor the right, or below, or above"

In one instance they affirm His literal existentiality prior to the concept of time, but then do a 180 by denying His existentiality beyond the boundaries of space (i.e. above the throne).

As I said, they agree with theists that He exist in terms of temporality, but then agree with atheists regarding his whereabouts.

yeah I knew you would. You fully understand why there can't be a "gap" between Allah and the first creation. I didn't want to push it further with sister Um Abdullah because I knew she doesn't bother involving herself in philosophical arguments with Asharis and just sticks to the theological issues.

Yeah, I just wanted to make sure you understood that their very conceptions of time and space in and of itself is flawed. Their concept, and this is where I think you may have slipped, is that the concept of "time" and "spce" is CREATED. This is their doctrine, not the doctrine of the rationality. The doctrine of rationality was most perfectly stated in the beginning of this thread that has revealed the nature of time and space as posted by Haitham.

Time, is not a creation, it is merely a concept that people who are created or whatever is uncreated use to determine the span between two events. Time is not a creation because it is not an existential reality, it is merely a perception that is given a form ONLY within the world of thinking, it has no actual reality. The same with space. And this is why when they speak about place, they go off on a tangent that in reality is inapplicable merely from the observable reality, much less applying this finite deduction of principles for Allah Azawajaal.

This is what I was hoping that you would arrive at bi ithnillah

anytime bro.

pm me inshallah or I will to you

asalamu alaikum

al-boriqee12-06-2009, 07:41 PM

That question "how much before" and giving a certain amount of time, is only applicable to creation, since they have a begining, while Allah Azza wa Jal has no begining, so the question "how much" doesn't apply, since there is no begining, while "before" can apply, since it doesn't have to have a certain amount of time/measurment as long as the existance perceeded the other existance, because as long as Allah's existance was when creation didn't exist then creation came into being, then Allah existed "before" creation, regardless of "how much", even if it was infinity.I don't see how it is so difficult to understand that Allah existed "before" creation, which means Allah existed when creation didn't, then creation came into existance.

24

24

As long as there is a begining, there is a before.

wa alaykum assalam

I don;t think Bassam is disagreeing with the issue of the term before, I think he was merely pointing out to you from a philosophical aspect, the literal term before might not be a good word to use for those under the influence or even who have a fondness of kalaam and that a more proper word to use that best represents what you (um abdullah m) would be the phrase "causally prior" wallahul-alim

but of course, to normal people, using the word "before" is fine.

asalamu alaikum

al-boriqee12-06-2009, 07:51 PM

Brother Bassam, you are unbelievable.

I'm sorry, you just are. First it was the DHB (http://ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?p=26675#post26675), and now this. And surprise surprise, Abu Yunus is with you on this one, just like the DHB.

You know what your statements do, Bassam? Your statements are ammunition to the likes of ChittownMuslim. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.

1. This Daleel I said regarding ' العلو حول الشبهات رد في بالزمان المكان مقابلة ' is an argument put forth by IBN TAYMIYYAH himself:http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=182586

I thought I made that clear in the last sentence of post 20 (http://ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showpost.php?p=45309&postcount=20).

I derived the argument from the Arabic Multaqa:http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=182586

I just put the argument in my own words, because it was very technical and intricate. That's all. As you can see in the Multaqa link, it provides the preliminary arguments, but I skipped all of that and went straight to the main point.

2. What is the difference between you, Bro Bassam who suggests that Allah only existed causally before the universe, and Ibn Sina who said literally the same thing:

???

the difference between him and Ibn Sina is the difference between the heavens and dumpster

Ibn sina believed that creation was eternal by admitting that the creation coexisted with Allah based on the concept that matter can never be created or destroyed, it can only change from one form to another whereas Bassam does not believe the creatin coexisted eternally with Allah. the use of the term causally prior is even drastically different than the manner in which ibn sina employed. Alla Bassam was saying is that if you come across people who think like Ibn Sina, then the phrase causllay prior may be a better term to be employed in articulating our belief to such people rather than the term "before".

Understand that Bassam is mainly concerned with the academics of this polemi, specifically intending to target purely irrefutable arguments, He does not want arguments where they have some flaw in it that can be used against us in order to promote jahmi beliefs. based on that manhaj, i dont it is proper to caste him aside as one of them or being like them or being infected by them in some shape or fashion wallahul-alim

but nevertheless i love you both for the sake of Allah and I hope both of you can make some ammends even if you may not agree in terms of the "STYLE" of argument, at least aknowledge that both of you are on the same team here

asalamu alaikum

25

25


How are they not temporal? someone being first, second, third, or fourth is a connotation of the measurement of time

No bro they aren't. First, second, third or fouth is a connotation of order, not time. However, with creatures living in the space time continuum if someone comes first then he also subsequently comes before in time. However, as Um Abdullah stated, Allah could be "before" in terms of order only (that is why He is First), yet not in time. So Allah is an exception to that rule because of laysa ka mithlihi shay'.

Here is what I would like for you to see akhee Bassam

Yeah bro I know, I wasn't asking for a refutation to their argument against Allah's 'Uluww. I was only pointing out that their argument against 'Uluww is not based upon the same logic as that against time.

then on what basis is this affirmation and on what basis is the denial of His Highness and more importantly, how is one going to be affirmed and the other denied if BOTH

Simply because their objection against 'Uluww does not extend and apply to time.

yet both united upon a common theme in relation to Allah.

Where is the common theme? The theme in 'Uluww is that Allah is supposedly constricted and specified by the six directions. What theme in time is similar to that?

How will they affirm (with a literal affirmation might I add) the argument "He was BEFORE time existed" (this is their saying) and then on the other hand say that His existentiality is nowhere most notably represented with the clause "He is neither within the world or outside of it or to the left, nor the right, or below, or above"

lol, again I don't see the connection bro. Sorry man. I don't see why affirming that Allah is before time forces someone to concede that Allah must be literally 'Uluww or must either be inside or outside the universe.

Time, is not a creation, it is merely a concept that people who are created or whatever is uncreated use to determine the span between two events. Time is not a creation because it is not an existential reality, it is merely a perception that is given a form ONLY within the world of thinking, it has no actual reality. The same with space. And this is why when they speak about place, they go off on a tangent that in reality is inapplicable merely from the observable reality, much less applying this finite deduction of principles for Allah Azawajaal.

I agree that what you have said about time is a valid way of looking at it. You view time just as you view numbers. Numbers are not created according to some people. However, it depends on how you want to word your self and how you define creation.

[BUT ANALOGY OF NUMBER AND TIME IS WEAK]

But I don't think I agree with you that space is not created. Anyways, that's a different topic.

at least aknowledge that both of you are on the same team here

wallah I tried to remind brother Harris about that, but he seems to not like criticism of arguments he puts forth. I am trying to help out by criticizing him "in house" before he steps into the "battlefield" and gets surprised by his enemies.

Everytime before I step into an important debate or dialogue I try to attack my own arguments or have someone else do it. That way I am fully prepared in anticipation of what my opponents would say. So I just want bro Harris to be aware of the possible objections that might be thrown at him before unleashing his argument to the Asharis.

There should be no hard feelings, we all learn from each other.

Salam

Harris Hammam12-07-2009, 04:52 AM

Bassam, you say that Allah existed causally before the creation, not chronologically. Correct me if I'm wrong.

26

26

Ibn Sina said that Allah is the cause of the creation, so Allah existed causally before the creation, not chronologically.

I don't see a difference here man.

By the way, use the argument of 'comparing place to time' against an Ash'ari and see the beneficial result for yourself:http://www.alaqida.net/vb/showpost.php?p=22477&postcount=7

Secondly, so what if Ibn Taymiyyah mustered the argument? It's Ibn Taymiyyah's logic and his logic has never been an authority.If you look at the Arabic Multaqa link I gave you carefully, you'll realise that al-Ghazali used the argument of 'comparing place to time' against the philosophers. So if an Ash'ari can use it against the philosophers, why can't a Hanbali (like Ibn Taymiyyah) use it against the Ash'aris?

Here is another link saying the same thing:http://ahlalhdeeth.cc/vb/showthread.php?p=1072230

Point is this: This method of argument (which you don't seem to register with) is known as إلزامي جواب , i.e. we turn their own arguments back upon them.


Bassam, thanks for reminding me that we are on the same side here. However:If Allah existed without creation, then how could He be literally 'Uluww if there was nothing for Him to be 'Uluww over?What are you talking about man? Are you suggesting that Uluww al-Makan came only after Allah created creation (which implies that the creation had an effect on Allah in making him acquire a Sifah)?

As far as I am concerned, I want to make it clear to the Asharis that your argument doesn't represent the opinion of all Salafis. That way, they wouldn't stereotype against all of us as intellectually bankrupt when they address your argument. (Not that I am saying this is what you are, but this is what they would claim). So I need to vindicate myself from this argument of yours.Unfortunately, I would like to remind you is that the best refutation Ash'aris have of Salafis in this issue (and the DHB) is only one thing - you.

Basically, if the Ash'aris say that al-Awwaliyyah is not by Makaanah only, then why can't the Hanaabilah say that al-Uluww is not by Makaanah only?

BTW, what do you think of the pen-place question on page one of this thread? It is exactly the same as this argument and the DHB - all are in إلزام of the Ash'aris. Do you agree or disagree with the argument put forth there too?


Ibn Sina said that Allah is the cause of the creation, so Allah existed causally before the creation, not chronologically.

I don't see a difference here man.

Harris, no where did I say that the universe is eternal like Ibn Sina. So please understand that.

I already explained what causally prior and chronologically prior are and they aren't the same thing.

By the way, use the argument of 'comparing place to time' against an Ash'ari and see the beneficial result for yourself:http://www.alaqida.net/vb/showpost.p...77&postcount=7

Using an argument that is fallacious to produce good results is dishonest. First make sure what you are saying is true. I have the ability to fabricate tons of narrations going to the Salaf when discussing with laymen for a good cause and produce good results. That doesn't excuse what I have done.

If you look at the Arabic Multaqa link I gave you carefully, you'll realise that al-Ghazali used the argument of 'comparing place to time' against the philosophers. So if an Ash'ari can use it against the philosophers, why can't a Hanbali (like Ibn Taymiyyah) use it against the Ash'aris?

I don't know in what context Ghazali did it, but you should know that Ibn Rushd wrote a refutation of Ghazali's refutation to the philosophers. Did you check whether Ibn Rushd addressed that successfully?

What are you talking about man? Are you suggesting that Uluww al-Makan came only after Allah created creation (which implies that the creation had an effect on Allah in making him acquire a Sifah)?

What I may say here could cause controversy.... but I distinguish between Allah's internal attributes (mercy, justice, anger, etc.) from His external attributes (literal elevation). Allah being in a state of 'Uluww is a status He is in after something has occured as I believe the same in His relation to time. I believe that before time existed, Allah was timeless, but when time became introduced He became temporal in relation to it. I distinguish between Allah undergoing intrinsic changes and extrinsic changes. I see nothing objectionable in Allah undergoing extrinsic changes, but I am against Allah undergoing intrinsic changes. Anyways please drop this topic, since I don't wish to convince anyone of this point, it's a personal belief that I have and intend to keep it that way.

Unfortunately, I would like to remind you is that the best refutation Ash'aris have of Salafis in this issue (and the DHB) is only one thing - you.

I'm highly flattered that you would think that I would be capable of refuting this argument while the Asharis wouldn't be able to.... but I doubt that. I think

27

27

knowledgeable Asharis would have seen right through it.

Basically, if the Ash'aris say that al-Awwaliyyah is not by Makaanah only, then why can't the Hanaabilah say that al-Uluww is not by Makaanah only?

BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!!! Oh Harris Harris Harris ........ think with me buddy..... let me give you an example.

Imagine a pantheist comes to you and says:

If you Salafis say that Allah is literally in essence above the Throne and not only above the Throne in knowledge, then why can't I say that Allah is everywhere in essence and not only by His knowledge?

Now....... you are going to think to yourself............."What the hell does Allah's elevation have to do with His omnipresence!????? What is this guy talking about????!!!!!"[NA”UDHUBILLAH]This is exactly my reaction to this time/makaan argument. What on earth should provoke someone taking a certain view of time to go and take that view on makaan?????

BTW, what do you think of the pen-place question on page one of this thread?

Which one? Paste it.


1. This is where you agreed with Ibn Sina the philosopher:If X is causally prior to Y, then it only means that X is the cause of Y.


If X did exist in time before Y, then that would also make X temporally prior to Y...

So how could someone believe that Allah is causally prior to the universe, yet not temporally prior? Well, its simple...Ibn Sina said the same thing: Allah existed causally before the creation, not by a time gap.

What is obvious is that you don't agree with either the Hanbalis or Ash'aris on Allah existing before the universe 'with a gap in time', so automatically you have taken up the op of Ibn Sina.

2. Don't compare this argument put forth by Ibn Taymiyyah to 'fabricated narrations'. Have some respect for the Imam.

3.a. Ibn Rushd didn't refute al-Ghazali; rather he affirmed that the الزمان المكان مقابلة argument as an Ilzaam. See page 166 of Ibn Rushd's book:http://www.scribd.com/doc/10053042/-3.b. It's an Ilzaam from the Hanaabilah. The Ash'aris accept the argument, so we can use it against them. That's the point. Look at this:http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1072217&postcount=93.c. Whether Ibn Rushd refuted al-Ghazali or not is besides the point. Al-Ghazali as an Ash'ari used the argument. I hope you can understand this at least.

4. What you said about the world having affected Allah in acquiring Uluww al-Makaan is disturbing. It makes me think you are not on the same page as me.

5. No need to be flattered Bassam. It is not your arguments that are ammunition for the Ash'aris in refuting this (and the DHB); it is rather the fact that you ascribe to Salafism in Aqeedah yet you disagree with the arguments. No need to be flattered mate. Remember Chit - his refutations were refuted by me, so all he could say after that was that 'Bassam refuted Harris too'.

6. Your pantheist example does not apply to us here because of the points I made in 3a, 3b and 3c.

7. The pen-place question (http://ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showpost.php?p=34089&postcount=12). What do you think, Bassam?


Ibn Sina said the same thing: Allah existed causally before the creation, not by a time gap

The extremely crucial difference is that the reason why Ibn Sina said that is because he believed that the universe is eternal. That is not the reason I say that. The reason I say that is because I take the view that time has a beginning, hence it doesn't make sense to say time before time.


Bassam, you have either misunderstood, or you have misunderstood.

1. Is time a creation according to you? Are numbers a creation according to you? Or are they simply metaphysical abstracts?

2. Do you even know what Ilzaam means? It means that if someone adopts an argument (like al-Ghazali did when he compared place to time), then

28

28

someone else (like Ibn Taymiyyah) can use the same argument (comparing place to time) to refute the first person (al-Ghazali).

Because the Ash'aris (i.e. al-Ghazali) used the argument to defend themselves against the philosophers, we can use it too. Therefore, there is no need to establish the logic between Makan and Zaman (even though the two are connected).

Um Abdullah M.12-07-2009, 08:35 AM

Bro Bassam, please define for us what time is?and do you accept us to use the word "time" meaning what bro al boriqee explained? and not the time meaning (years, days, hours... which is the affect of day and night)

Also, according to Asharis, either the pen or Arsh (don't remember which) was the first creation, so time wasn't the first creation, so then, can we say that the existance of the pen or Throne was before the existance of time? It came earlier than it and there is a gap between the creation of the Throne and time, that can be measured since the Throne isn't eternal.


1. Is time a creation according to you? Are numbers a creation according to you? Or are they simply metaphysical abstracts?

I believe both views are valid due to the different valid ways of looking at them. It's also different when it comes to metaphysical time and physical time. So I can't give you a straight answer on that really.

Do you even know what Ilzaam means?

Yeah.

Because the Ash'aris (i.e. al-Ghazali) used the argument to defend themselves against the philosophers, we can use it too. Therefore, there is no need to establish the logic between Makan and Zaman (even though the two are connected).

Bro, Ibn Taymiyyah made valid connections on certain points.

For example... the Asharis said that if you say that Allah is above, then that means He is dependent upon creation in order to be above. Since Allah can't be depedent, Allah cannot be above. Ibn Taymiyyah rightly pointed out that according to this logic that means that Allah cannot be First in relation to time, for in order for that to happen Allah must be dependent on time.

So yes, over here Ibn Taymiyyah clearly showed the valid connection and refuted this specific argument.

What I was talking about was that there is no valid connection between

1) Allah being literally First in relation to time

and.......

2) Allah being literally above the Throne

What I mean bro Harris is that one does not have to accept number 2 if he accepts number 1.

It is over here in this conclusion that I don't believe that the connection has been shown.

Yeah sure, Ibn Taymiyyah used the connection to refute some of their arguments, but he didn't go that extra mile to show that they must then accept Allah's literal 'Uluw. He claimed that he did, but I didn't see it.

Harris, if you could explain to me why one has to accept number 2 if he accepts number 1, then I would love you sooooooo muchhhhhh mannnnnnn, wow that would be a great argument. Please tackle that for me directly without beating around the bush.

If you are not able to... then just let me be disagreeing with you.

Salam


Bassam,

I'm feel like crying at your comments.

There are TWO types of refutation:تحقيقي ردإلزامي رد

The first is a purely academic refutation based on facts. You seem to want this.

However, the second is essence of Ibn Taymiyyah's argument. The premise

29

29

does not need to be true. Look at Bayan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah: IT uses al-Razi's arguments and then refutes them from within, making it mainly the second type of refutation.

When you expose someone's self-contradiction, it is the second type of refutation. Al-Ghazali adopted the 'comparing place to time' argument. IT says: "Be consistent and apply it in the issue of Awwaliyyah-Uluww too"


As for bro al-boriqees challenge to the Asharis: what was created first, place or pen? If you say place, then you go against the hadith that says that the pen was the first thing to be created and if you say pen, then you admit that a creation could exist without a place.

I could take a pretty good guess as to what the Asharis would say. The Asharis would say that the definition of something being in makaan according to them is that this thing is restricted by the six directions. Someting could only be restricted by a direction if it is in relation to something else (e.g. there must be some other object or creature on that things left or right side of it). The pen is the exception to this rule. Because the pen is the first thing created, that means that there is nothing above, below, right, left, front or back in relation to it. That is because no other creation exists. Hence, the pen is the exception to this general rule. We are talking about the general rule of things existing inside the universe, which have other things surrounding them from other directions. What you have mentioned regarding the pen is just a special exception to that general rule.


However, the second is essence of Ibn Taymiyyah's argument. The premise does not need to be true. Look at Bayan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah: IT uses al-Razi's arguments and then refutes them from within, making it mainly the second type of refutation.

When you expose someone's self-contradiction, it is the second type of refutation. Al-Ghazali adopted the 'comparing place to time' argument. IT says: "Be consistent and apply it in the issue of Awwaliyyah-Uluww too"

Harris, I'm crying along with you my friend...... because as I said I don't think that Ibn Taymiyyah caught his opponents in any inconsistency that would resort to them having to accept that Allah is literally 'uluww even if they were to continue believing what they do regarding time. I believe Ibn Taymiyyah was successful in pointing out their inconsistencies in some of their arguments, but I don't believe he went the extra mile to force them to the desired conclusion.

Harris, I guess we have to agree to disagree buddy.

Um Abdullah M.12-07-2009, 09:06 AM



and.......

2) Allah being literally above in relation to place (creation, including the Throne)

I made a little change in your statment (blue part), insha ALlah this will help show the connecton between the two logics, and how the ilzam works here.

Um Abdullah M.12-07-2009, 09:12 AM

The Asharis would say that the definition of something being in makaan according to them is that this thing is restricted by the six directions.

The belief that Allah is above all creation doesn't fit with this defintion of makan (place) since Allah is not restricted by the six directions, Allah is above ALL creation, there is only above and below, Allah above and creation below, no other directions, and nothing surrounds Allah Azza wa Jal for Allah to be contained or confined.Their whole makan logic is very very weak to refute the belief that Allah is literally above creation.


Allah is above ALL creation, there is only above and below, Allah above and creation below, no other directions, and nothing surrounds Allah Azza wa Jal for Allah to be contained or confined.Their whole makan logic is very very weak to refute the belief that Allah is literally above creation.

[ IS SO THEN WHY HINDU PHILOSOPHERS AND JAHMITES ARE ACCUSED WHO SAY ALL-H IS EVERY WHERE, HE IS ABOVE ,HE IS BELOW , HE IS RIGHT ,HE IS LEFT AND SO ON IN ALL SIX DIRECTIONS OF THREE DIMENSION]

Agreed. (wasn't part of the topic though, lol. we're just stating their beliefs, we already knows its refutation. )

30

30

Even if I agreed with your blue part adjustment (I don't like to say Allah is literally above in relation to place. I don't use the word place for Allah, since I define being in place as being surrounded by six directions), I still don't see the ilzaam, as the connection is not there.

Where is the proof that the Ashari makaan muqaabil zamaan was that makaan is muqaabil zamaan in all cases? Perhaps they were saying that it is muqaabil only in a specific case/context?


Even the pen-place argument is under attack from BZ!!!

Assuming you are an Ash'ari (which you are not) and according to your answer on behalf of the Ash'aris in the pen-place argument, it would mean that:1) A body (the Pen) existed without place (and this is never affirmed by the Ash'aris - they say every body needs place to exist)2) It would mean that place was 'created' with the second creation after the Pen. (Nobody says that)3) It would also mean that the rhetoric of المكان خالق الله is incorrect as Makan is not something that was created independently.

You may disagree with me, BZ. I'll leave it to someone else to convince you man.

So the anti-Ash'ari decisive arguments are stacking up lol, with BZ not agreeing with any of them!!!:1) DHBبالزمان المكان مقابلة (23) Pen-Place

HH. Out

Um Abdullah M.12-07-2009, 10:10 AM

ok after doing a little research I now understand what "causually prior" means. Sorry, sometimes I am kind of slow in understanding some things.. and you would be surprised to know that I used to get A's in all my classes in school, I was especially good at mathematics and grammer (Arabic - up to highschool) and chemistry (my favorites) which need brain work, but when it comes to simple stuff (common sense) I can be bad and slow in comprehension, which makes me feel stupid many times, but hey, no one is perfect !

Anyways, back to the topic.

I will put my arguments in points for easier discussion:

A. There are 3 options in regards to this belief (Allah's existance and creations'):

1- Creations' existance is simultaneous with Allah's existance.2- Creations' existance is earlier than Allah's existance. (I don't know of anyone having such a belief)3- Creations' existance is later than Allah's existance.There is no fourth option.

And to believe that none of these are true, is worse than saying that Allah is neither out of creation nor in creation, because there is another option, a belief other than this that exists, which is like Harun Yahya's belief (which is the belief of some sufis) that only Allah's existance is real, and creations' existance is illusionary .. me and you are illusions of our minds !or believing that Allah and creation are one.Exalted be Allah Azza wa Jal from such beliefs.

B. In regards to "casually prior", now according to my understanding, Ibn Sina believed in Allah being only casually prior to creation, that is why he believed the existance of creation to be simultaneous with that of Allah's (both eternal), while believing that Allah caused creation's existance, because if he believed that creations' existance was NOT simultaneous with that of Allah's, then he would be saying that creations' existance is later than Allah's existance, which would mean: chronologically or temporally prior (time with the defintion of bro alboriqee that was mentioned earlier) prior.Because it is either earlier, with, or later, no 4th option

C. What justification do these kalami people have for using "prior" and not accepting the use of "before" ?Prior is the same as before, if they can use "prior" then why can't we use "before" ?

B.

D. Believing in Allah's existance being "casually prior" only, can fit with the belief of Allah being First, and creation second, BUT for one to believe that it is ONLY casually prior with no gap or time or being later, or whatever you want to call it, then one will have to believe that the existance of creation is simultaneous with Allah's existance = both eternal.

31

31

Saying otherwise (that creations' existance wasn't simultaneious with Allah's existance, from eternity) means that it is later than the existance of Allah Azza wa Jal, which means that there is a gap (that is not measurable since it is infinite, but there is still a gap ... you can change the word to something you feel is more appropriate, I don't know any other word to use, and I don't care as long as I get my point across to others.)which means that it is not only casual but also chronological/temporal. (time: defintion mentioned by al boriqee, not creation)

I don't remember having any more points regarding this, but if I do I will post them insha Allah, but for now this is enough, at least I got it out of my head so I can be at peace, and get some answers to some of my arguments to I can benefit insha Allah.

Um Abdullah M.12-07-2009, 10:13 AM

Where is the proof that the Ashari makaan muqaabil zamaan was that makaan is muqaabil zamaan in all cases? Perhaps they were saying that it is muqaabil only in a specific case/context?

brother, you said not to use the word "time" or before becuase it is connected to "time", because Asharis believe time is created and that Allah is not confined/ restricted to time, then now it is ok to use time, and not place which is also creation and according to them it restricts and confines !

so how can there not be ilzam when both have the same characterstics which Asharis used to reject both of them !


sister Umm Abdullah, what you said in your second last post ignores almost everything we talked about in the previous exchange. i thought we made progress when we finally agreed that "before" is only before in order and not in time.

this discussion took too much of my time today, I barely did any work in the office. I think none of us are going no where, since no one is agreeing with (or barely understanding) the other. It's not an important matter of aqeedah anyways, hence no point to drill down any further.

I wish the best for everyone and myself.

salam


I could take a pretty good guess as to what the Asharis would say. The Asharis would say that the definition of something being in makaan according to them is that this thing is restricted by the six directions. Someting could only be restricted by a direction if it is in relation to something else (e.g. there must be some other object or creature on that things left or right side of it). The pen is the exception to this rule. Because the pen is the first thing created, that means that there is nothing above, below, right, left, front or back in relation to it. That is because no other creation exists. Hence, the pen is the exception to this general rule. We are talking about the general rule of things existing inside the universe, which have other things surrounding them from other directions. What you have mentioned regarding the pen is just a special exception to that general rule.lol :D

as-salamu alaykum

that is a very very week argument akhee. First we need to understand that this argument doesn't have much to do with proving Allah's Uluww but more to do with refuting their hoax about place/space being a creation.

1 - they say the "place/space" is an actual physical creation outside of mind - it is an object and not a metaphysical concept

2 - they say every created thing with bodily attributes need "place/space" to exist.

3 - So by their logic once something is created then there must be place for it before that thing is created which means that new creation will be restricted by direction as it is a creation and bounded by place.

4 - So now pen also existed without a place but I thought this was only true for Allah? Why pen is an exception to this rule? Did they get some revelation that they need to make an exception to their greek logic? Being first doesn't mean that it is not contained by 6 directions! The six directions comes into play once something is contained by place because according to them place for the pen is a physical thing and it doesn't matter whether there is other creation beside pen since pen is already inside of a creation.

5 - If an exception can be made for a creation then why do they start to have heart attacks when it comes to the Creator? Why can't such an exception be made for Allah Azza wa Jal, Who is liysa kamithlihi shee' (there is nothing like Him)?

[DOES AN EXCEPTION FOR A CREATION IMPLIETH AN EXCEPTION FOR UNCREATED ALL-H]6 - I don't think any of the Ash'aris are going to buy your defense because it is making them look more stupid.

and Allah knows best

Um Abdullah M.12-07-2009, 10:58 AM

sister Umm Abdullah, what you said in your second last post ignores almost everything we talked about in the previous exchange. i thought we made progress when we finally agreed that "before" is only before in order and not in time.

No where did I use the word "before" in that post except in my question about the justification of using "prior" and not "before" which you didn't answer.Also, you did not give me the defintion of time which is creation, and didn't answer me when I asked if it is ok for us to use "time" meaning the defintino of bro al boriqee, which is what I am speaking about the whole time, not the "time" that is creation(i.e. day, night, hours, years ...etc.)

32

32

You can't ignore all these questions and expect a fruitful discussion.

this discussion took too much of my time today, I barely did any work in the office.[/quote]

If you had given me clear answers to my questions that you've ignored (defintion of time, and the questions in my last post) then you woudln't have wasted so much time, becuase then I would be able to give a fruitful discussion insha Allah, and not go in circles.

Also, this is an important matter, if you believe that creations existance isn't later than that of Allah's, then there is only one other option which is simultaneous, even if you don't believe in that, it is the only other option (being earlier is out of the question, since it is not possible, nor is it the belief of anyone)

As for the issue of order, I already discussed it in my previous post, how it can also be in the belief of only being "casually prior" (not chronoglogical), which = existance of both being simultaneous, and I don't accept this type of order, both existing together simultaneous eternal, with one being first and the other second , the order I believe and have been discussing is the order of one being later than the other.

MohammadMufti12-07-2009, 05:23 PM

Asalaamu 'Alaykum (Brother Bassam)

I want to understand this too! The only analogy given for this concept was Ibn Sina's (that I've seen so far) and modern science dismisses his analogy. His comparison was the sun and the light therefrom, even though we've now established a speed (therefore time) for light. Is there any way left than to simplify this concept into something other than the drunken abstractions of philosophers so that people on the simple religion can understand?

I also don't entirely get your argument that uluww necessitates creation and can only be (gained) by the existence of creation. Does the lack of anything to see make a person capable of sight blind? Or does the lack of any sound waves to hear make a person deaf? These are things applying to people so how much more are Allah's attributes free from it?

al-boriqee12-07-2009, 08:28 PM

Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Raheem

Akhee Bassam

What I may say here could cause controversy.... but I distinguish between Allah's internal attributes (mercy, justice, anger, etc.) from His external attributes (literal elevation). Allah being in a state of 'Uluww is a status He is in after something has occured as I believe the same in His relation to time. I believe that before time existed, Allah was timeless, but when time became introduced He became temporal in relation to it. I distinguish between Allah undergoing intrinsic changes and extrinsic changes. I see nothing objectionable in Allah undergoing extrinsic changes, but I am against Allah undergoing intrinsic changes. Anyways please drop this topic, since I don't wish to convince anyone of this point, it's a personal belief that I have and intend to keep it that way.

If this is what you hold, then in reality you have no legal or academic right to utilize the argument against ash'aris as to why would they affirm the sifaat like His Sama'a or Baseera yet deny His Uloow or Yad. The same distinction you have understood in terms of temporality and proximity can likewise be used on the same basis for these types of sifaat, but we all know here that the distinction that the Ash;aris employed between the two is logically inept of any reason. Likewise, on the same grounds on which everyone here and most of those with reason among the Imaams utilized the contradictory stances of Ash'aris between the various sifaat on the same level is used in terms of His Firstness (awaliyyah) and His Highness ('Uloohiyyah).

For example... the Asharis said that if you say that Allah is above, then that means He is dependent upon creation in order to be above. Since Allah can't be depedent, Allah cannot be above. Ibn Taymiyyah rightly pointed out that according to this logic that means that Allah cannot be First in relation to time, for in order for that to happen Allah must be dependent on time.

So yes, over here Ibn Taymiyyah clearly showed the valid connection and refuted this specific argument.

Hence the discussion is over and you have agreed with me unknowingly for no matter how you can slice it and dice it, that fact that Ibn Taymiyyah pointed out the illogic in how they reason that their denial of 'Uloow is only made on the basis that it would make Allah dependent on creation only exposes their corrupted heresy and the illogic of it when they don't understand that the same can be said for His Awaliyyah in which they literally affirm (bil-haqiqatan). It is from this higher criticism that transcends the lower bounds of the argument you are talking about Bassan which is highlighted by making a distinction between Uloohiyyah and Awaliyyah.

As I said, we already know the difference between them which is why your initial reply back to my last reply to you was unnecessary for the most part as everything stated was already affirmed, yet the spirit of my speech transcends this difference that connects it to a common theme, and this common theme that you were questioning is highlighted in your own post utilized by Ibn Taymiyyah thereby allowing for you to finally come to terms in agreement with me while not knowing.



and.......

2) Allah being literally above the Throne

Yes there is, you just highlighted it above using Ibn Taymiyyah's argument.

What I mean bro Harris is that one does not have to accept number 2 if he accepts number 1.

that can only be true if such a person does not believe in the existence of creation itself.

Yeah sure, Ibn Taymiyyah used the connection to refute some of their arguments, but he didn't go that extra mile to show that they must then accept

33

33

Allah's literal 'Uluw. He claimed that he did, but I didn't see it.

I think he did and as Harris explained quite wonderfully, the mere preposition of what he stated was itself the extra mile that should have enforced the brain to send the signal to the heart and compel it to surrender. In other words, the style Ibn Taymiyyah utilized by merely pointing out the inconsistency of their premises SHOULD BE AMPLE WEIGHT TO ENFORCE THE BRAIN to come back to the fold of reason. That is the purpose of the radd ilzaami, which is that the incoherence of a certain systematic idea is so unfathomable and remarkably unbelievable that it does not require anything except to expose the foundation of such a belief and watch the house of cards fall down before your very eyes. This style o a refutation is most notably demonstrated in how one of the Imaams who sat in the dars of Ibnu-Juwaynee has to answer to Ibnul-Juwaynee why he did not agree with his theory (he spoke about the topic of uloow) so the Imaam said back to him "it is the fitrah of the creation that when we make du'a our du'a is naturally geared towards what is above us and no other direction. With that statement, he was dumfounded and I believe this story was quoted by Safareenee wallahul-alim

al-boriqee12-07-2009, 08:31 PM

Even the pen-place argument is under attack from BZ!!!

Assuming you are an Ash'ari (which you are not) and according to your answer on behalf of the Ash'aris in the pen-place argument, it would mean that:1) A body (the Pen) existed without place (and this is never affirmed by the Ash'aris - they say every body needs place to exist)2) It would mean that place was 'created' with the second creation after the Pen. (Nobody says that)3) It would also mean that the rhetoric of المكان خالق الله is incorrect as Makan is not something that was created independently.

You may disagree with me, BZ. I'll leave it to someone else to convince you man.

So the anti-Ash'ari decisive arguments are stacking up lol, with BZ not agreeing with any of them!!!:1) DHBبالزمان المكان مقابلة (23) Pen-Place

HH. Out

these are perfect points, but Bassam is not refuting this, Bassam is merely posting what they would say. Big difference

asalamu alaikum

al-boriqee12-07-2009, 08:54 PM

allow me to blast this bassam

As for bro al-boriqees challenge to the Asharis: what was created first, place or pen? If you say place, then you go against the hadith that says that the pen was the first thing to be created and if you say pen, then you admit that a creation could exist without a place.

no one says place. rather, one hadeeth says pen, and another hadeeth says that the Throne already was when the Pen was created. HENCE this will lead me to blast the rest of this

I could take a pretty good guess as to what the Asharis would say. The Asharis would say that the definition of something being in makaan according to them is that this thing is restricted by the six directions.

If the Ash'aris said that and they are willing to accept that as their argument, then the ummah can finally regard them as purely satanical liars for as brother Harris highlighted 1) A body (the Pen) existed without place (and this is never affirmed by the Ash'aris - they say every body needs place to exist)

And Im willing to go the extra mile with this. As Harris briefly highlighted, the Ash'aris affirm as a pillar of their logic that every body MUST have a place. There is no ash'ari on earth who believes in a concept outside of this concept, so if this is their asl, then there can be no exception to this rule.

Secondly

Someting could only be restricted by a direction if it is in relation to something else (e.g. there must be some other object or creature on that things left or right side of it). The pen is the exception to this rule

Then not only would the ash'aris be rendered pathetic liars and sellouts to their own madhaab, this would also make them mushriks as well according to their already established "logic". WHY. Because according to them, in their Jawharatu-Tawheed, only Allah is without direction and is not bound by the six directions. And to claim that another entity outside of Allah (i.e. the Pen) has the Attribute of not being bound by the six directions like the creation is, is pure unadulterated shirk according to their own reason and mantiq.

[NO. THEY ALSO BELIEVE THAT DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ARE ALSO BEYOND SPACE AND SIX DIRECTIONS]

IN fact, I would HOPE that the stupid Jahmi would try to trap himself into such an argument, for he will seal the fate of his own demise if such a response were to be initiated in response to our argument.

Because the pen is the first thing created, that means that there is nothing above, below, right, left, front or back in relation to it.

34

34

[BUT THIS HADIS’ ALSO CONTRADICTETH HANABALI AND SALAFI BELIEF THAT CREATION IS WITH OUT A BEGINNING , SINCE IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO FIRST CREATION. ONE MAY SAY THE PROBELEM IS WITH HANABALIS AND SALAFIS AS WELL]

Well, if Harris or anyone else can bring the athar (because I do not know where it is) I believe there is a riwaya where it states that the Throne already was when the pen was created. If that is the case, and we know the Throne is a creation, and it has a place, then that means that the pen has a direction in contrast to the Throne. I will not continue to form the argument without the citation of this riwaya and its grading inshallah

That is because no other creation exists

Even if that is the case, Allah exist. So the question back to the nincompoop who will actually rely on this argument (the heretic) will be, where is the pen's relationship to Allah. If they say that Allah was before anything was, then when Allah created the Pen, then where was the pen in relation to Allah. If they do not bring forth the most blatantly obvious answer, then it will seal their madhaab as the true atheist of the ummah for they will come up with the idea of Allah being some conceptual deity with no actual existence.

Hence, the pen is the exception to this general rule

hence they would become mushriks for allowing the pen to share in the divine attribute of "not being bound by directions" along with Allah

We are talking about the general rule of things existing inside the universe, which have other things surrounding them from other directions. What you have mentioned regarding the pen is just a special exception to that general rule.

[NOT MUSHRICS AS ALLEGED, SINCE THEY CAN EASILY MAKE AN OTHER EXCEPTION IN THE RULE OF SHIRC].

If this is what the Jahmi would like to claim, then we would tell this jahmi back

"then why the hell did you not enforce this reasoning concerning the Lord of the Worlds Whom you had the audacity to caste and apply your humanly invented perceptions upon. The fact that you reserved this special status for a created entity called "the Pen" and not for Allah should be enough of the satanic heresy of your madhaab"

anyways, I do appreciate your articulate skills akhee Bassam

asalamu alaikum


OK folks! Let us move on to the next time and place argument!

Let us see what BZ has to say about this one:

When everything shall be destroyed except Allah, do the Ash'aris say that time and place too shall be destroyed?.

..[WHAT ABOUT DIVINE HAND OR DIVINE EYE. IS THERE AN EXCEPTION FOR THEM. WHAT ABOUT UNCREATED QURAN]


do you brothers (Harris, Al-boriqee) use paltalk? we can jump into a private room and have this discussion via audio. no progress is being made like this. Is 3 pm New York time good? Refer to http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

Um Abdullah M.12-08-2009, 04:03 AM

Thank you for ignoring my questions


Sister, I pulled out my frustration card on everyone, so it wasn't only you whom I ignored.

I believe I made myself extremely clear on how I define time and whether I consider it a creation. I thought we made progress and then you state (Allah is either simultaneous, before or after, there is no fourth option), which basically means that everything I tried to explain to you in our exchange went down the drain. So sorry sister, I'm not motivated to go over it all over again. Apologies.

Um Abdullah M.12-08-2009, 06:08 AM

35

35

All you did was explain how "before" and "after" are connected to time, and what "causally prior" means, and why one can't use those "time" words.

Now, I need some clearification regarding something, this is for me to be able to understand better, maybe I misunderstood something.Nowcan something be causally prior + chronologically/temporally prior?or does "causally prior" mean (in addition to the priority being in cause) that it is not chronological or temporal? that the order is ONLY by cause and nothing else ?That (according to my understanding at lease) the existance of both has no gap or time, not later nor earlier, nothing in between the two existances at all = their existance is together/simultaneous ?Also, do you believe that two existances can neither be simultaneous (together), nor later nor earlier?if so, then what is the 4th option? Please answer these questions, you can make your answer briefly with simple explanation.

if I could ask someone else with your same exact belief I would, but I don't think anyone here has the same belief you have, and I want to understand this matter better since I already got into it, I don't like to have a half understanding of something.


can something be causally prior + chronologically/temporally prior?

yeah

or does "causally prior" mean (in addition to the priority being in cause) that it is not chronological or temporal?

no

that the order is ONLY by cause and nothing else ?

yeah

That (according to my understanding at lease) the existance of both has no gap or time, not later nor earlier, nothing in between the two existances at all = their existance is together/simultaneous ?

no, God existed without the universe. But when creation came into existence, time also came into existence. So that was the first point of time.

Also, do you believe that two existances can neither be simultaneous (together), nor later nor earlier?

yeah because they are temporal words. So if Allah existed when no time existed, but then time came into existence along with creation then it cannot be said that Allah existed before or after creation. However, if you want to define "before" as simply meaning prior in order without meaning prior in time, then thats okay.

then what is the 4th option?

The 4th option is that Allah has no temporal relation to the initiation of creation, but only a causual one.

Um Abdullah M.12-08-2009, 07:39 AM

no, God existed without the universe. But when creation came into existence, time also came into existence. So that was the first point of time.

Can you explain what time is here?If you mean the day and night, then how would your answer be correct when the Throne was created before the Heavens's and the earth (universe we live in), meaning it was created before "time" (the day and night) and not with it (i.e they didn't come into existance simultaneously)?

Abu Yunus12-08-2009, 07:44 AM

So the anti-Ash'ari decisive arguments are stacking up lol, with BZ not agreeing with any of them!!!:1) DHBبالزمان المكان مقابلة (23) Pen-PlaceWhich came first, the pen or the nib?


BZ basically believes - like the Ash'aris - that time is created.

I assume he says the same about place.

What do Haitham Hamdan's posts in the beginning mean to you, BZ?

36

36

Also, you said that Uluww al-Makan is not pre-eternal; rather it is acquired.

[THIS MEANETH THAT ISTAVA IS AN ACT NOT AN ATTRIBUTE]

So what do you have to say about شأن في هو يوم كل - is that acquired too (since you said that Zaman is created)?

Um Abdullah M.12-08-2009, 07:48 AM

What I need clearifcation for is what time is according to BassamIs it the day and night or what exactly?


Which came first, the pen or the nib?1. You have come close to falling into the kayf of the Pen.

2. Your question is like: "What came first - Adam or his hand?" Ridiculous.

3. By the Pen-Place question, I merely wish to expose the Ash'aris. If they say that place came before, then that contradicts Nass. If they say place came after, that mean a body existed without place. If they say that place came simultaneously along with the Pen, then a) they have no Nass, and b) their rhetoric of المكان خالق الله is wrong, as it gives the impression Makan is a standalone creation when in fact it is not.

[ NASS NOT REQUIRED BUT A CORALLERY OF THE RATIONAL AXIOMS. BUT WHAT SALAFIS CAN DO WHEN THEY BELIEVE THAT THERE IS INFINTE SERIES OF BACKWORD CREATIONS. DOETH THIS BELIEF CONTRADICTETH NOT THE NASS]

BZ, I just remembered something. You said that Makan came to existence when Allah created the second thing, right?


Can you explain what time is here?

Time is the measurement in relation between two events.

Not necessarily day and night, since time could be calculated outside of planet earth.

What do Haitham Hamdan's posts in the beginning mean to you, BZ?

As I said, its a valid view depending on how you want to word it. I just don't take that view. But my argument "you cannot say that Allah exists before time" still applies regardless of whether you believe time is a creation or just a concept (e.g. like how existence وجود or numbers are just concepts).

[WHAT IS A CONCEPT /TASAUVUR ACCORDING TO THE STATER, SINCE IT MEANS KNOWLEDGE OF A THING WITH OUT ANY PREDICATION LIKE BOOK,PEN. SEE TASAUVAR AND TASDIQ IN DIFFERENT BOOKS OF LOGIC]

So whether one holds the view as to whether time is a creation or not isn't really relevant to what I am saying here.

So what do you have to say about شأن في هو يوم كل

Well unless you believe that from eternity there has been ايام then I don't see how Allah could have been in شأن since eternity. Your acting like شأن is an instrinsic attribute or something, while it is not. Its an act that Allah is performing for His creation. The Salafi thing for you to believe actually is that Allah has not done this from eternity, because we believe that Allah could perform new acts. Several Qur'anic verses state that Allah thumma ansha'a. Asharis on the other hand, believe that this act was done from eternity (e.g. see Suyuti's commentary on this verse) because they believe that Allah cannot perform new acts.

So could we talk on paltalk?

37

37


You said that Makan came to existence when Allah created the second thing, right?

no i don't recall saying that. being in makan requires six directions. a second thing being created doesn't mean that the second thing encompasses the first thing from all six sides.


that mean a body existed without place

is the pen a physical entity. can't the pen be an immaterial creation that performs the function of recording? we know the Throne is physical because the angels could carry it. but what from our sources state that the pen is physical? (because if it is possible that it is immaterial then the Asharis could squirm out of your argument)

Abu Yunus12-08-2009, 08:16 AM

1. You have come close to falling into the kayf of the Pen.Since I was anticipating such a response, I was careful to spell pen without a capital letter, to indicate a generic pen.

2. Your question is like: "What came first - Adam or his hand?" Ridiculous.Yes, and very similar to your question about which was created first, the Pen or the place for the Pen.

And this was what I was demonstrating by asking the question about which came first, the pen or the nib.


So could we talk on paltalk?Not a good time for me - 3pm NYC. Also, I haven't been on PalTalk for ages lol! It's a funny place.

But my argument "you cannot say that Allah exists before time" still applies regardless of whether you believe time is a creation or just a concept. Clarification:

So there is no such thing as الزمان قبل for you, just like there is no such thing as العالم خارج like the Ash'aris say (because Qabl is time itself, just like Khaarij is place itself, which is a creation for Ash'aris, and which has to be part of the universe).

[ THIS CLAIM IS UNPROVED THAT QABL IS A TYPE OF TIME]

Well unless you believe that from eternity there has been ايام then I don't see how Allah could have been in شأن since eternity.I believe that Allah is not an idle God.

Your acting like شأن is an instrinsic attribute or something, while it is not. Its an act that Allah is performing for His creation.Is the verse in reference to the creation only?

The Salafi thing for you to believe actually is that Allah has not done this from eternity, because we believe that Allah could perform new acts. Several Qur'anic verses state that Allah thumma ansha'a. I know, but the Salafi for you to believe is that this verse was true before Allah created anything.

BTW, have you read Hoover's article on infinite regress? You can find it on the web.


So there is no such thing as الزمان قبل for you, just like there is no such thing as العالم خارج like the Ash'aris say (because Qabl is time itself, just like Khaarij is place itself, which is a creation for Ash'aris, and which has to be part of the universe).

38

38

I guess its better to just stick to the words of the Salaf now, which is that He is خلقه من بائن

I believe that Allah is not an idle God.

As I said from the very very beginning, if you take Ibn Taymiyyahs view........ then me and you have nothing to talk about.

Is the verse in reference to the creation only?

commentaries seem to suggest that it is speaking about Allah answering the prayers of those who supplicate to Him.

but the Salafi for you to believe is that this verse was true before Allah created anything.

You see......... this is where you need to draw the line on somethings. For example......... Allah has eternally been Merciful and Just (instrincis attributes), even though there might have been a time where He wasn't exercising these attributes.

But I don't understand how Allah has been angry from eternity (anger is one of His attributes). I don't understand how Allah has been above creation before creation.

I draw distinctions between Allah's attributes that subsist in His essence and those that just demean His status quo.

BTW, have you read Hoover's article on infinite regress? You can find it on the web.

Wes Morriston seems to be a defender of the infinite regress possibility. I'm mainly focusing on his exchange with William Lane Craig. However, that is only a second step. The first step is to see what Islamic sources have to say about the matter. That is more essential. If Islam is silent on this, then I would opt for the more philosophically sound.

Um Abdullah M.12-08-2009, 09:52 AM

Time is the measurement in relation between two events. Not necessarily day and night, since time could be calculated outside of planet earth.

If it is the measurement between two events, how can that be creation itself ?

lets say the Throne (call it A)was the first creation, then Allah created something else (call it B)

so now, the measurement between A and B is time,so how is this measurment (i.e. time) a creation when it is just a concept, it is not something that really exists out of our minds.And in addition to that, we can't really measure it since there is nothing that is physical or existing out of our minds that can be used to measure between the two events.

This same concept is in my mind when I say that Allah's existance was before the existance of the Throne or any other creation, how is that wrong when "time" that we are speaking about is just a concept, which you can't really measure to begin with, even when you are speaking about the existance of two creations ?


I don't understand how Allah has been above creation before creation.I said that Allah was literally above both before and after creation. I did not say what you said - "above creation before creation".

Allah was always literally above whether we understand that or not, insha'allah.

Anyway, I'm tired discussing this one - for now.

Abu Yunus12-08-2009, 11:17 AM

BTW, have you read Hoover's article on infinite regress? You can find it on the web.I couldn't find it.

Can you post a link or an attachment?

May Allah reward you.

Fahim Senzai12-08-2009, 11:18 AM

Imaam Ibn Suraij ash-Shaafi'ee (d. 306H) said, as narrated from him by Abu Ismaa'eel al-Harawi in "Dhamm ul-Kalaam" and as mentioned by Ibn Taymiyyah in "Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah":

ذلك بانكار وسلم عليه الله صلى النبي بعث وانما واألجسام األعراض في الخوض الباطل اهل وتوحيد الله رسول محمدا وان الله اال اله ال أن أشهد المسلمين وجماعة العلم اهل توحيد

"The Tawheed of the people of knowledge and the jamaa'ah of the Muslims is "I testify none is worthy of worship except Allaah (alone) and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah". And the Tawheed of the people of falsehood is disputing about al-a'raad (incidental attributes) and al-ajsaam (bodies) and the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was sent with the rejection of that."

39

39


If it is the measurement between two events, how can that be creation itself ?

I don't think there is difficulty with taking the position that some concepts are created. It is because of creation itself that time exists. Since the concept of time itself does not exist necessarily, then it is valid to say that it is created.

Al Ghazali, Ibnul Jawzi and Ibn Taymiyyah believed that time was created.

Taken from http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?Option=FatwaId&lang=A&Id=78492...

وغيرهم الجوزي وابن والغزالي اإلسالم شيخ منهم العلماء من كثير الزمان خلق تعالى أنه على نص وقد .

The Qur'an says that day and night were created (Surah Al Anbiya, Ayah 33)

But think of what the Qur'an is saying. Are day and night actual things that exist? Of course not. Day and night are just concepts. There is no actual thing called day and there is no actual thing called night. Day is just a description of a certain part of the 24 hour time period. The same with night.

To say that a concept is created is to emphasize that this concept only exists dependently upon the creation act itself.

Now I for example, still do not believe that numbers are created. The reason is because the number 1 describes Allah in a certain way (i.e. one God).

Again.... if you want to take the view that time is not created... then fine. I don't take that view.

And in addition to that, we can't really measure it since there is nothing that is physical or existing out of our minds that can be used to measure between the two events.

so you think that since the sun and moon did not exist during creation of A and B with A being the Throne, that means that it was impossible to measure them? Is that what you are saying?

I said that Allah was literally above both before and after creation

Literally above what? Islam says that Allah is above the heavens and the earth. It doesn't just say "above" for the sake of above (unless it is talking about above in status and rank and honor).

Think of what you are saying.


So can we end this discussion already? Am I allowed to ignore without being rude?


I couldn't find it.

Can you post a link or an attachment?

May Allah reward you.Review of the research:http://forums.islamicawakening.com/beliefs-fundamentals/16031-why-do-i-hear-some-salafis-saying-allah-has-been-creating-eternity-15.html#post297882

As for time being created in the manner expressed by the Nass, we believe that. We even believe that death is created as mentioned in Surat 'l-Mulk.

Point is this: Is there a time/place in relation to Allah? Ash'airs negate it. We don't nor do we affirm it as Aqeedah. Our delving in this issue is only to reverse the Ash'ari logic back on them as Ibn Taymiyyah did many a time.

BZ, what do you have to say about Mujahid's Athar? He ascribes Makan to Allah: رب قال القلم صريف وسمع مكانه رأى فلما حجاب وبينه بينه كان حتى موسى يقرب زال فما حجاب ألف سبعون العرش وبين السابعة السماء بين قال نجيا وقربناه تعالى قوله في مجاهد عن

إليك أنظر أرنيوالصفات األسماء كتاب في البيهقي أخرجه - التفسير إمام مجاهد عن ثابت هذا


From Sharh Aqeedah Al Tahawiyah, Tahqeeq by Al-Hawali:

واألعمار واآلجال عبادتنا مواقيت بها لنعرف لنا، وتعالى سبحانه الله جعله الذي والنهار بالليل األرض في نقدره وتعالى، سبحانه الله مخلوقات من مخلوق والزمان .

Source: http://islamport.com/d/1/aqd/1/236/907.html?zoom_highlightsub=%C7%E1%D2%E3%C7%E4+%E3% CE%E1%E6%DE

Notice that he said that time is a creation, which is measured by the day and night for us. Hence, he said that time (a measurement) is creation.

From Tarikh Al-Tabari:

Æ والنهار والليل الزمان خلقه قبل خلق وجل عز الله كان هل في القول الخلق؟ ذلك غير شيئا

Shaykh Al Munajjid seemed comfortable citing Imam Al-Nawawi who stated that time is a creation http://islam-qa.com/ar/ref/131066/. He also affirmed its creation here http://islam-qa.com/ar/ref/9571 by saying وكذلك µفإن µمن خالق على يعود الزمن سّب µالز .

I'm beginning to get curious now....... which scholars said what Shaykh Haitham said (i.e. time is not created, but just a concept)?

Bassam Zawadi

40

40

12-08-2009, 12:12 PMBZ, what do you have to say about Mujahid's Athar? He ascribes Makan to Allah:

رب قال القلم صريف وسمع مكانه رأى فلما حجاب وبينه بينه كان حتى موسى يقرب زال فما حجاب ألف سبعون العرش وبين السابعة السماء بين قال نجيا وقربناه تعالى قوله في مجاهد عنإليك أنظر أرني

والصفات األسماء كتاب في البيهقي أخرجه - التفسير إمام مجاهد عن ثابت هذا

Since you like using initials let me say HH that as discussed over here http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?p=39129#post39129 we reached the conclusion that the narration is ambiguous as to whether Mujahid said مكانه in reference to Allah or not.

Furthermore, I am now thinking that Imam Mujahid most likely narrated this from Ahlul Kitab (i.e. its probably Israeliyat), since Ibn Taymiyyah mentions something quite similar of this sort coming from Israeliyat. Also, looking at the narration carefully, the narration seems to contradict the dhaahir of the Qur'an, which states that Musa (alayhi al salam) asked to see Allah's face in the المقدس واد .

Allah knows best.

Either way, I don't believe that Mujahid defined Makaan as the Asharis do, which is being surrounded by six directions. If this is what Mujahid mean't, then his words are to be rejected since Salafis don't believe that Allah is surrounded by the six directions.

Um Abdullah M.12-08-2009, 02:29 PM

Al Ghazali, Ibnul Jawzi and Ibn Taymiyyah believed that time was created.

Taken from http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?Option=FatwaId&lang=A&Id=78492...

He already clearified that the time he is speaking about is the day and night, and not what we are talking about which is before the existance of the day and night, before the heavens and the earth.

But think of what the Qur'an is saying. Are day and night actual things that exist? Of course not. Day and night are just concepts. There is no actual thing called day and there is no actual thing called night. Day is just a description of a certain part of the 24 hour time period. The same with night.

The day and night are results of the movement of the earth, so if the earth didn't exist, nor did the sun we wouldn't have day and night, nor would we have days, or weeks, or years, which are all connected to each other.

But with the concept we are talking about, there is no creation to use as measurement between two events (for example two existances).while with the day and night are measurements we measure with.

So when we measure like my birth and my younger brothers birth, we measure by years months, and days, which would be about 1 year, 7 months and 21 days.But you can't measure between the creation of the A (the Throne) and B, since there exists no creation to measure with, it is just a concept that doesn't really exist out of the mind, while day and night are concepts that exist out of the mind, a result of the rotation of the earth.

Now I for example, still do not believe that numbers are created. The reason is because the number 1 describes Allah in a certain way (i.e. one God).

well in this concept, it describes something being earlier or later than something else, (i.e. Allah's existance being earlier than the existance of the Throne, that their existance is not simultaneous)

Again.... if you want to take the view that time is not created... then fine. I don't take that view.

If we are speaking about the day and night, then yes it is created, but if it is the other, then no.

so you think that since the sun and moon did not exist during creation of A and B with A being the Throne, that means that it was impossible to measure them? Is that what you are saying?I am saying that there is nothing existing outside to use as a measurement.


If there is nothing existing outside to use a measurement then that means you are denying that the measurement exists and are denying that time existed prior to the creation of day and night? I don't get what you are saying.

Um Abdullah M.12-08-2009, 03:58 PM

I mean that there is a gap (or whatever you might call it) between the two events, but we can't know how much because there is nothing to give an exact measurement (this is before the creation of day and night), and the point isn't to know how much it is, the point is that this concept of time is to describe something being earlier or later than something, or being at the same moment (simultaneous), that is the point of it.


but we can't know how much because there is nothing to give an exact measurement (this is before the creation of day and night),

Sister, even though the creation of day and night still didn't happen, one could use methods of estimation. For example, the Qur'an says that Allah created the heavens and the earth in six ayaam (I won't translate ayaam into days, since not everyone believes that it means a 24 hour period). We don't know

41

41

exactly when the sun was created (there is a hadith in sahih Muslim that suggests the 5th day, but scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah and Bukhari rejected its authenticity), but the point is that the Qur'an gives it a measurement of time. One could easily do the estimation.

[ REPORT OF MUSLIM CANNOT BE REJECTED NOT EVEN BY IMAM IBN TAIMKIAH RH OR ELSE]

Remember that famous hadith, where the Prophet peace be upon him told the companions that one of the signs of the day of judgment is that the sun will remain still and not set for a long time (if my memory serves me right it is 1000 years). So the companions asked "how are we going to pray maghreb?". The Prophet replied back saying that they should estimate it. Muslims shouldn't wait a 1000 years to pray maghreb!

Hence, even without night and day in proper function, one could still estimate and measure time by counting.

the point is that this concept of time is to describe something being earlier or later than something, or being at the same moment (simultaneous), that is the point of it.

Yeah, it is to decribe an event being earlier, later or simulateneous to another event. Allah is not an event.Time began with the first event. There is no event before the first event for there to be a before it.

Sister, I think we reached the tip where there is just simply nothing more to say.

Abu Yunus12-08-2009, 04:21 PM

BZ, what do you have to say about Mujahid's Athar? He ascribes Makan to Allah: رب قال القلم صريف وسمع مكانه رأى فلما حجاب وبينه بينه كان حتى موسى يقرب زال فما حجاب ألف سبعون العرش وبين السابعة السماء بين قال نجيا وقربناه تعالى قوله في مجاهد عن

إليك أنظر أرنيوالصفات األسماء كتاب في البيهقي أخرجه - التفسير إمام مجاهد عن ثابت هذا

How do you see another's place, if there is a barrier or veil in between?

Wouldn’t you only see your own place?

Am I missing something?

Um Abdullah M.12-08-2009, 04:29 PM

i didn't say Allah is an event, I used the word because you used it, so I just repeated it.Here we are talking about two existances, Allah's existance and existance of creation, creations existance was later than Allah's existance since Allah's existance was from eternity, but creations existance isn't, it has a beginning.

If two things are not simultaneous, then one is either earlier than the other or later, this is common sense, to say other than this is the affect of the garbage called "ilm al kalam".

May Allah protect us from misguidence.


Um Abdullah, if you mean "before" only in terms of order and not time then fine. But don't talk about there being a gap. There is no gap when discussing order (i.e. there is no gap between first and second), there is only gap in relation to time.

al-boriqee12-08-2009, 09:19 PM

Well unless you believe that from eternity there has been ايام then I don't see how Allah could have been in شأن since eternity. Your acting like شأن is an instrinsic attribute or something, while it is not. Its an act that Allah is performing for His creation. The Salafi thing for you to believe actually is that Allah has not done this from eternity, because we believe that Allah could perform new acts. Several Qur'anic verses state that Allah thumma ansha'a. Asharis on the other hand, believe that this act was done from eternity (e.g. see Suyuti's commentary on this verse) because they believe that Allah cannot perform new acts.

So could we talk on paltalk?

nuff said, for you have exonerated yourself from what others continue to misconstrue

42

42

al-boriqee12-08-2009, 09:37 PM

From Sharh Aqeedah Al Tahawiyah, Tahqeeq by Al-Hawali:

واألعمار واآلجال عبادتنا مواقيت بها لنعرف لنا، وتعالى سبحانه الله جعله الذي والنهار بالليل األرض في نقدره وتعالى، سبحانه الله مخلوقات من مخلوق والزمان .

Source: http://islamport.com/d/1/aqd/1/236/907.html?zoom_highlightsub=%C7%E1%D2%E3%C7%E4+%E3% CE%E1%E6%DE

Notice that he said that time is a creation, which is measured by the day and night for us. Hence, he said that time (a measurement) is creation.

From Tarikh Al-Tabari:

Shaykh Al Munajjid seemed comfortable citing Imam Al-Nawawi who stated that time is a creation http://islam-qa.com/ar/ref/131066/. He also affirmed its creation here http://islam-qa.com/ar/ref/9571 by saying وكذلك µفإن µسّب

من خالق على يعود الزمن µالز .

I'm beginning to get curious now....... which scholars said what Shaykh Haitham said (i.e. time is not created, but just a concept)?

I already found the answer for that dichotomy between what Shaykh Haitham brought and the ulema who said it was created.

Time is created in the sense that the reason for its being a creation is because it is as ash'aris sayt "an accident that exist do to bodies, in clear sunnah terms, it is a result of the alternation of the night and day, and since the night and day are created, then likewise is the concept of Time.

HOWEVER, UNLIKE the Ash'ari wackness of logic, that creation ONLY EXIST within the perception of our minds. IN OTHER WORDS, according to other creations, time does not exist, it is merely existential, and it is only the systems of intelligence (brains or other entities with knowledge) that utilizes the concept of time to denote the measurement of events.

SINCE this is the case, then the logical conclusion to this argument is that everything that is beyond the bounds of creation is likewise beyond the bounds of time (and when I say creation, i mean everything, and not just our universe (qawn) including the pen and Throne. Hence Allah is He who does what He does fa'aalu lima yureed even though our perception of it is within time. That is why we are able to say that Allah spoke to Musa on Mount Tur and

43

43

that Allah spoke the Qur'an in some point of time and not as the ash;aris say that the Qur'an came from some kalaam bank that subsist within His Self and that in order to form it He had to "express it" in such a way for it to be revealed rather than Allah actually speaking it.

At any rate, in my conclusion, I found that what Haitham said actually has no opposing contradiction to those who said that it was created if the matter was viewed thoroughly. In other words, while I or Haitham may have literally said verbatimly that time is not created, it is the conceptional outlook of time that has unified this view with those preceeding ulema who merely used the wording "time is created" while still understanding that the Actions or sifaat of Allah are not bound by time even if certain actions Allah performed happened in a specific time.

al-boriqee12-08-2009, 09:42 PM

If there is nothing existing outside to use a measurement then that means you are denying that the measurement exists and are denying that time existed prior to the creation of day and night? I don't get what you are saying.

I was just about to say that she has inadvertently agreed with what you were saying all along but only worded it with a different order

al-boriqee12-08-2009, 10:08 PM

Bassam, if you don;t respond to anything, please respond to this min fadlik

Um Abdullah, if you mean "before" only in terms of order and not time then fine. But don't talk about there being a gap. There is no gap when discussing order (i.e. there is no gap between first and second), there is only gap in relation to time.

this right here is the crux of the whole discussion.

The reason why you and Um Abdullah cannot come to a conclusion is because you have identified the "order" of "first, second, third" and so forth as an issue of "order" or rather you have restricted the issue into one of order rather than it being much broader than that.

For both me and I believe Um Abdullah, the concept of "first, second, third" and so forth is NOT ONLY one of order which is restricted, but rather we also incorporate this in terms of temporality as well, and this is I think were you have made an error.

first, second, and third DOES denote oder as you have said, but it is also utilized in terms of temporal measurement.

When a mustang has beaten a honda civix type R in a race by 10 seconds, the fact that the Mustang was first to the finish line and the honda was second IS ONLY understood because of its connection to temporality, in spite of the fact that it is also a representation of order as you have explained.

More importantly, in the above scenario, there was a gap between the arrival of the mustang to the finish line and the arrival of the honda.

MUCH like this same scenario, allow me to make the connection to what Um Abdullah was talking about

lets put aside "created/uncreated" for right now or accidents and substances and let us focus on Allah and other than Allah.

It is both yours, Um Abdullah's, along with me and Harris and basically every muslim's belief (well, excluding those who believed in infinite regression) that there was an existence where only Allah was existant. Then there was a point in existence where other than Allah came into existence.

What Um Abdullah is I believe trying to find out is the semantics of how you would go about articulating this without using "gap" or "before" because in her mind (and mine) not using gap or before is stupid just in order to appease the understanding of philosophically inclined thinkers.

What Um abdullah has been trying to say is that no matter what you wish to identify the reality, the fact that there was only Allah, and then when other than Allah came about is quite literally a "gap" and that this actuality can actually legitimize the term "before" to the mentally sane no matter how much the philosophically inclined do cannot fathom this concept.

Lastly,

SINCE you have admitted (and I agree since you have established it in the quran) that time can be measured outside of the movement or alternation of night and day, then we have come to understand that time existed "before the creation of the universe" because if the creation of the Throne is an event and the creation of the pen is an event, then it inevitably reveals the concept of "time" before our creation is created.

If that is the case, then that would basically crumble the theory that "time did not exist before creation" because we have textual evidences that have revealed to us many (well not many, but multiple) events that happened prior to our creation, and these events did not happen simultaneously, rather there were periods between each event. Since everyone here understands that time is merely the measurement of two events, then by default of this belief, everyone would have to acknowledge that time (the measurement of or the concept of) existed prior to the advent of our universal creation

with that being said, there is nothing else to discuss, but I enjoyed the discussion.

asalamu alaikum

44

44


For both me and I believe Um Abdullah, the concept of "first, second, third" and so forth is NOT ONLY one of order which is restricted, but rather we also incorporate this in terms of temporality as well, and this is I think were you have made an error.

first, second, and third DOES denote oder as you have said, but it is also utilized in terms of temporal measurement.

When a mustang has beaten a honda civix type R in a race by 10 seconds, the fact that the Mustang was first to the finish line and the honda was second IS ONLY understood because of its connection to temporality, in spite of the fact that it is also a representation of order as you have explained.

More importantly, in the above scenario, there was a gap between the arrival of the mustang to the finish line and the arrival of the honda.

I already responded to this bro. I said that this only applies to creation. We cannot make tashbeeh of creation to Allah.

Only in creation does rank in order necessarily relate to temporality. The Mustang crossing the finishing line is event 1. The Honda crossing the finishing line is event 2. So the reason why there is a gap between them is because both of them are events.

However, the first creation is event 1. Well, what event is before event 1? Obviously no event. Allah is not an event, hence you cannot say that Allah is before event 1.

"before the creation of the universe" because if the creation of the Throne is an event and the creation of the pen is an event, then it inevitably reveals the concept of "time" before our creation is created.

Boriqee I never said that Allah is not before "our creation". I said that Allah is not before creation (i.e. all creation and any creation). The creation of the Throne is event 1 and the creation of the pen is event 2. So yes, there is a time gap between them because both of them are events.

What Um Abdullah is saying is that Allah existed before creation (i.e. Allah existed before event 1). This is where I disagreed with her by saying that Allah is not an invent and time gaps only apply between two events.

If you want to say that Allah is before event 1, you can only say so with the intention of order, but not temporality. So don't say that there is a gap between Allah and event 1.

[ EVERY THING DEPEND UPON THE DEFINATION OF THE TERM GAP]

Hope is clear now.

Um Abdullah M.12-09-2009, 04:48 AM

If you believe that Allah's existance is since eternity (which you do), and creations' existance isn't from eternity, then you have agreed with us, even if you forbid the use of the word "before" or "time" (which I believe is ridiculous and is the affect of you reading too much into ilm kalam garbage)

As for saying that it is in order ONLY, well the one who believes that the "father" is first, and the "son" is second in order only (exalted be Allah), the 1st being only casually prior to the second, believes that both existances (that of the 1st and 2nd) is simultaneous (eternal), with the first being the cause of the second.so their belief is that it is prior in order ONLY.

so when you say that it is in order ONLY, it implies that both existances are together, with one being the cause of the other, which makes the causer the 1st, and the caused the 2nd = order.

That is why I reject your statement that it is "order only" because of what it implies, even if that isn't your intention.Also, rejecting the use of "before" or "gap" is the affect of satanic kalam, a person who doesn't go deep into that garbage wouldn't have a problem with using those words, and this is the truth.

Why do you think Mu'tazilah, Ashari's ...etc, deviated in matters of aqeedah?Answer: The main reason is ilm al kalam, that is why the salaf forbid the reading of books of kalam.

[ TAQLID OF EVEN SALF IS NOT ALLOWED, SO IF THERE IS NO STRICT HADIS ON THE HURMAH OF CALAM THEN STUDYING CALAM IS NOT PROHABITTED.]

al-boriqee12-09-2009, 07:41 AM

45

45

ahah

now i got

both of your post has sealed the crop for me

Bassam I got exactly what your saying

um abdullah, i agree with what you said

my own two cents

you are in agreement with us bassam even if you do not like to employ our wording.

more importantly, what um abdullah pointed out I believe is essential to understand for what she articulated is the key to Ibn Sina's stance.

In other words, if you understand her breakdown of your employment of words, then you will understand Ibn Sina

when, akhee Bassam, you do not employ "before" or the fact that Allah's existence happens prior to the existence of other than Him, then you by default have made other than Allah exist pre-eternally with Allah hence the route of Ibn Sina's aqeedah.

What we are saying is that The fact that we know of two existences1. the existence of Allah2. the existence of other than Allah

and that the second happened after the first, implies by due right of logic a "gap" and not necessarily restricted by order, but also by some form of temporality even if we have no means of how its measurement is understood and even if we know that Allah is not an event.

Likewise, Allah not being an event does not negate this fact for the mere existence of Allah before other than Him is created, is itself a determining factor.

asalamu alaikum

Abu Jawahir12-09-2009, 07:48 AM

النافع للعلم الله وفقنا

Abu Yunus12-12-2009, 01:09 PM

Review of the research:http://forums.islamicawakening.com/beliefs-fundamentals/16031-why-do-i-hear-some-salafis-saying-allah-has-been-creating-eternity-

15.html#post297882I would like to read firsthand that Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah took this position of perpetual creating since eternity (in time).

Otherwise, it will always be hearsay as far as I am concerned.

Can anyone help out by providing the Arabic of what he actually wrote?

Abu Yunus12-12-2009, 01:41 PM

May Allah reward you for your help.

Um Abdullah M.12-12-2009, 11:46 PM

Here (http://alkuwarih.com/content/%C3%99%E2%80%9A%C3%98%C2%AF%C3%99%E2%80%A6-%C3%98%C2%A7%C3%99%E2%80%9E%C3%98%C2%B9%C3%98%C2%A 7%C3%99%E2%80%9E%C3%99%E2%80%A6-%C3%99%CB%86-%C3%98%C2%AA%C3%98%C2%B3%C3%99%E2%80%9E%C3%98%C2%B 3%C3%99%E2%80%9E-%C3%98%C2%A7%C3%99%E2%80%9E%C3%98%C2%AD%C3%99%CB%8 6%C3%98%C2%A7%C3%98%C2%AF%C3%98%C2%AB) is a book written by shaikhah Kamila al Kawari where she discusses this matter between sh. Ibn Taimiyyah's belief and that of the philosiphers

It was recommanded to me by several students of knowledge when I asked about this issue.Insha Allah you will find in it the statments by Ibn Taimiyyah rahimahullah on this issue.

Harris Hammam

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/beliefs-fundamentals/16031-why-do-i-hear-some-salafis-saying-allah-has-been-creating-eternity-

46

46

12-13-2009, 08:14 AMI would like to read firsthand that Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah took this position of perpetual creating since eternity (in time).

Otherwise, it will always be hearsay as far as I am concerned.نظر الكالم هذا في


http://www.ctaps.yu.edu.jo/physics/M...amic-Kalam.pdfGod is a meaning rather than being a physical entity, so it would be logical not to assign any physical existence to him.Look at what speculative theology lands you into...

Abu Yunus01-12-2010, 01:54 PM

Look at what speculative theology lands you into...... into affirming perpetual creating since eternity (in time) perhaps.

al-boriqee01-12-2010, 07:04 PM

http://www.ctaps.yu.edu.jo/physics/M...amic-Kalam.pdf

Look at what speculative theology lands you into...

I told yall I told yall I told yall

What did I say

Contemporary jahmism is nothing but atheism at it's core

jahmi atheists

Abu Yunus01-12-2010, 07:37 PM

What exactly do you find to be the objectionable part of that quote from Brother Harris Hammam?

I have my answer but I am not sure that it would be the same as yours.

al-boriqee01-12-2010, 11:45 PM

What exactly do you find to be the objectionable part of that quote from Brother Harris Hammam?

I have my answer but I am not sure that it would be the same as yours.

the very thing that our Shaykh Haitham here on the Multaqa found objectionable

http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showpost.php?p=27428

Haitham nailed it long ago in that post in the thread I initiated.

asalamu alaikum

Abu Yunus01-13-2010, 07:18 PM

the very thing that our Shaykh Haitham here on the Multaqa found objectionable

http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showpost.php?p=27428

Haitham nailed it long ago in that post in the thread I initiated.

asalamu alaikum

I would agree that to reduce one's concept of God to a mere meaning (without reality outwith the mind) is hugely problematic.

However, to describe God as a physical entity would also be hugely problematic, would it not?

Also, what is your view of Haitham Hamdan stating that there is nothing outside the mind that is “place”?

If it is true that there is nothing outside the mind that is “place”, would you take the view that denying 'Uluww al-Makan is not problematic on the basis that 'Uluww al-Makan has no reality outwith the mind?

What is “place”?

47

47

A place of something is a mere concept that only exists in our minds. There is nothing outside the mind that is “place”.

al-boriqee01-13-2010, 09:39 PM

I would agree that to reduce one's concept of God to a mere meaning (without reality outwith the mind) is hugely problematic.

However, to describe God as a physical would also be hugely problematic, would it not?

that is why we don't employ such a meaning. Our view is that Allah is an EXISTENTIAL entity, and not merely physical.

[ALL-H IS AN EXISTENTIAL AND EXTERNAL ,REAL AND PER SE SUBSISTENT ENTITY WHO IS NEITHER MEANING NOR PHYSICAL]

by the way, did you know Allah has an image (soora)?

Also, what is your view of Haitham Hamdan stating that there is nothing outside the mind that is “place”?

my view is

that Haitham has relayed not only the most accurate position of the people of intellect on the matter, but is the only logical explanation to all of existence and this is the view of pretty much the Muslims to the exclusion of the mutakalimoon.

secondly, and more importantly, that is not the proper understanding of Haitham's position.

Haitham said that the existence of "place" comes by default of existential things. In other words, if something exists, then its very existence demands place, WHY? because place is merely the locality between the existing entity in contrast to other existential objects or beings.dig the thought"if you did not exist, where would your place be?"

so actually, you got the argument wrong. Haitham nor anyone else did not say that "place" is outside of the mind in terms of it not existing at all, rather

he was reiterating the fact that even though it is a nothing more than a concept that the brain constructs to understand other existential objects, it is a reality that is associated by the fact of an objects existentiality.

48

48

So it is because you warped the transcendent objective of Haitham's words that basically renders the following question to be unanswerable

If it is true that there is nothing outside the mind that is “place”, would you take the view that denying 'Uluww al-Makan is not problematic on the basis that 'Uluww al-Makan has no reality outwith the mind?

And this is because place does exist, but what Haitham was highlighting was the absurd nature of how Ash'aris twisted reality in order to fit their theosophy which was their insinuation that "place is created" when place is not a creation Allah specifically made,

but rather it comes hand in hand with anything existential. And that is their absurdity which was highlighted by Haitham where he stated "it is not that Allah created place and then put everything in that place" as if place was its own created being.

hopefully now, i believe you may understand and possibly appreciate this plain field that before seemed to be out of your hands.

asalamu alaikum


... into affirming perpetual creating since eternity (in time) perhaps.

Ibn Taymiyyah never said that the genus of creation is pre-eternal; he said that the action of Khalq from Allah is pre-eternal. Even if we imply/consider from IT's words that the genus of creation to be pre-eternal, then know that the creation's pre-eternality is not independent of Allah.

I would agree that to reduce one's concept of God to a mere meaning (without reality outwith the mind) is hugely problematic. So who's side are you on? Sunnis, or Ash'aris?

[ ASHARIES AND SALAFIES BOTH ARE SUNNIS]

However, to describe God as a physical entity would also be hugely problematic, would it not?To negate physical-ness from Allah is equally problematic. Neither has been discussed in the Shariah.

This is why those negate the term Jism are as bad as those who affirmed Jism for Allah. From a Greek Logic point of view, IT proves that negating Jism is worse than affirming Jism.

If it is true that there is nothing outside the mind that is

49

49

“place”, would you take the view that denying 'Uluww al-Makan is not problematic on the basis that 'Uluww al-Makan has no reality outwith the mind?Those who deny Uluww 'l-Makan do so because they believe that Makan can only exist for Ajsaam. We ask them: Numbers are not Allah, yet they too have no Makan.

Those who deny Uluww 'l-Makan do so because they believe that the genus of Makan is created. We ask them: Is the universe in a created place? If yes, then why isn't that place also part of the universe? If no, then why is 'not being in a place' portrayed as something specific to Allah?

In the article, it says that Makan only came about after the second thing came into existence!!!:Furthermore, if one analyses the article posted by Faqir, it says in it that place is only exists insofar as it is a mode of measurement between two bodies. This means that place only came into existence after the second thing was created by Allah. As for the first thing, it existed without place as there was nothing for it to be compared to in terms of how far or close it was...

This point actually murders those people in Sunniforum who said that place came into existence with the first thing that was created.

50

50

Abu Yunus01-14-2010, 07:28 PM

Our view is that Allah is an EXISTENTIAL entity, and not merely physical.You believe that God is physical?

al-boriqee01-14-2010, 10:01 PM

You believe that God is physical?

what do you mean physical, like real. that is the only perception i can think of when you ask that question. I can;t think of human or animal or alien. when you ask this question, the ONLY thing that pops in my mind is "real"

The sharia from what I know remained silent on "physical" and it is probably perhaps that the reason for it points to what happens between a mind that affirms and a mind that denies.

A mind that affirms

If a mind affirms Allah being physical, it can only be construed in two manners1. affirming physically existential existence (i.e. real) without likeness to creationor2. affirming physical existential existence WITH a likeness to created beings

This is sort of similar to what adh-Dhahabee stated when he explained the reality of the term "dhaahir"

however, in short, even though point 1 above = atharism and point 2 above = mujassim mushriks, at least both of them are embodied in the realm of theism.

on the other hand

A Mind that denies

If a mind denies Allah being physical, it can only mean 2 things (just like its opposite) which are

1. denying physically existential existence while affirming the concept called "God" or2. denying physically existential existence while DENYING the concept called "God"

[NOT NECESSARILY . ONE NEED TO DEFINE PHYSICAL , PERHAPS AN EXISTENT APLICABLE TO PHYSICS]

after having said all of this, the very point that Harris Hammam pointed out becomes all the more clear, that the negative theology of rejectionism is actually worse than even a theology that is erroneous upon affirmation.

that is why theological speaking, those who erred in using jism were less in their heresy than those who were adamant in its rejection.

What further solidifies the athari stance that was brought in point one on the side of ithbaat is the messengers affirmation of a Lord who is seen and that He will come to the believers in a soora (image). these two pivital authentic narrations through mere common sense leans towards the side of ithbaat than it does to the side of t'ateel.

Anyways, with regard to the mind of affirmation, the two stances are either atharism or anthropomorphism. As for the mind of negation, the two stances are either atheism al-asghar or atheism al-akbar.

asalamu alaikum

Abu Yunus01-15-2010, 03:34 AM

what do you mean physical, like real.My question is to you.

You used the term "physical" in your description and I asked you about it.

The sharia from what I know remained silent on "physical"You say the Shariah is silent on the term "physical" and yet in your words you affirmed it for God.

Our view is that Allah is an EXISTENTIAL entity, and not merely physical.

[ NOT MERELY PHYSICAL OR NOT PHYSICAL]


How would one translate 'physical' into Arabic?

+ If there is ambiguity in this term, then it is subject to the normal rule: the Haqq meaning is affirmed; the Batil meaning is negated; and the term 'physical' itself has Tawaqquf done over it.

51

51

al-boriqee01-15-2010, 03:33 PM

How would one translate 'physical' into Arabic?

+ If there is ambiguity in this term, then it is subject to the normal rule: the Haqq meaning is affirmed; the Batil meaning is negated; and the term 'physical' itself has Tawaqquf done over it.

thats like rule number 15 in atheri aqeedah as explained by all atharis. Apparently Abu Yunus cannot grasp this wallahul-musta'aan

Abu Yunus01-15-2010, 04:56 PM

If there is ambiguity in this term, then it is subject to the normal rule: the Haqq meaning is affirmed; the Batil meaning is negated; and the term 'physical' itself has Tawaqquf done over it.Brother Harris,

As-salamu alaikum.

It seems to me that Boriqee has contradicted this rule.

How do you exactly define the term "Tawaqquf" in this context?


How do you exactly define the term "Tawaqquf" in this context?Sorry to tell you this but...

You are not fit to continue discussing these issues if you do not know what Tawaqquf means. To cover that up be asking me to provide you with a 'context' is exactly that - a cover-up of your ignorance.

[ THIS TERM REQUIRES A DEFINATION]

Abu Yunus01-16-2010, 09:13 AM

Sorry to tell you this but...

You are not fit to continue discussing these issues if you do not know what Tawaqquf means. To cover that up be asking me to provide you with a 'context' is exactly that - a cover-up of your ignorance.My understanding of "Tawaqquf" in this context is that it means to refrain from using the term in question ("physical" in this case).

If I am wrong in my understanding, then please correct me.

I considered that "Tawaqquf" may have a technical usage, which is why I asked for a definition in this context - I did not ask about the context itself.

Abu Najm Muhammad01-16-2010, 09:54 AM

The People of Innovation and Kalam have always swum in the Tawaqquf of the Righteous.

There is your context Abu Yunus...


My understanding of "Tawaqquf" in this context is that it means to refrain from using the term in question ("physical" in this case).

If I am wrong in my understanding, then please correct me.Tawaqquf means to neither affirm nor negate something.

Tawaqquf does not mean not to affirm only.

al-boriqee01-16-2010, 11:04 AM

My understanding of "Tawaqquf" in this context is that it means to refrain from using the term in question ("physical" in this case).

If I am wrong in my understanding, then please correct me.

I considered that "Tawaqquf" may have a technical usage, which is why I asked for a definition in this context - I did not ask about the context itself.

This is a half definition. It is NOT ONLY to merely halt from affirming BUT AS WELL halting from negating

As is known with students of knowledge and those above them, most words have to be clarified with their linguistic, and then after that, their technical usage

52

52

the linguistic usage of tawaqquf is to refrain, pause, from an issue i.e. not taking a side.

This is the manhaj of the athari. whenever a word is thrown about Allah, the athari is not one who rejects it or affirms it as it would be taking a side. This leads us to the technical usage

Shar'i meaning = the principle of the athari aqeedah on tawaqquf IS"whenever the shariah has remained silent on a term, this silences does not tell the adherents of the shariah to deny it simply because it is not mentioned nor to affirm it simply because it seems there will be no harm to it. Rather when such a case happens, then the meanings that come from this term is to be weighed with the two sources. The correct meanings are extracted and its erroneous meaning is negated.Then when that process happens, then its correct meaning IS TO BE AFFIRMED and its erroneous meaning negated.

Examples of Tawaqquf done

On the term "Dhaahir"

adh-Dhahabi says in al-‘Uluw:“The latter ones from the speculative theologians (ahl al-nadhar) invented a new belief, I do not know of anyone preceding them in that. They said: ‘These attributes are passed on as they have come and not interpreted (la tu’awwal), while believing that the apparent meaning is not intended (dhahiruha ghayr murad).’

This follows that the apparent meaning (dhahir) could mean two things:

First; that it has no interpretation (ta’wil) except the meaning of the text (dilalat al-khitab), as the Salaf said: ‘The rising (al-Istiwa) is known’, or as Sufyan and others said: ‘Its recitation is in fact its interpretation (tafseer)’ – meaning, it is obvious and clear in the language, such that one should not opt for interpretation (ta’wil) or distortion (tahrif). This is the Madhab of the Salaf, while they all agree that they do not resemble the attributes of human beings in any way. For the Bari has no likeness, neither in His essence, nor in His attributes.

Second; that the literal meaning (dhahir) is what comes to imagination from the attribute, just like an image that is formed in one’s mind of a human attribute. This is certainly not intended, for Allah is single and self-sufficient who has no likeness. Even if He has multiple attributes, they all are true, however, they have no resemblance or likeness”

conclusion, as anyone can see, two aspects or meanings can be understood within the context of dhaahir. However, the meaning that Atharis go by is the first meaning, thus our creed is derived on understanding the Sifaat of Allah upon its dhaahir meaning WITH the meaning mentioned inpoint one of adh-Dhahabee, not in point 2. It is the enemies of Allah who interpreted that 2 is equated with 1 and that they are one an the same in which case it is not but rather it is nothing more than their delusions.

on the term Haraka

Ibn Taymiyyah says, while discussing the use of the word ‘harakah’,

Shaykhul-Islam says in his Daar at-Ta'arud

"And the Imaams of sunnah and hadeeth are upon the affirmation of both types (sifaat dhatiyyah and sifaat ikhtiyaariyyah) and this is what has been mentioned from them from those who have quoted their madhaab such as Harb al-Kirmaanee, Uthmaan bin Saèed ad-Daarimee and others. Indeed these clearly used the word harakah and they made clear that this was the madhab of the Imaams of Ahlus Sunnah and Hadeeth from the early and the later.

Harb al-Kirmaanee mentioned that this was the saying of the Imaams of Ahlus Sunnah that he had met, like Ahmad bin Hanbal, and Ishaaq bin Raahawiyyah, and Abdullaah bin Zubair al-Humaidee and Saèed bin Mansur.

[ WHY THE WORD HARAKAH BE USED FOR ALL-H , AND IN WHAT MEANING, WHEN THIS WORD IS NOT USED BY HOLY PROPHET]

Saèed bin Mansoor and others said: indeed harakah (movement) is from the necessary qualities of life and every living thing moves. They made out that denying this was from the saying of the Jahmiyyah upon whom Ahlus Sunnah are agreed with respect to their misguidance and innovation.

[ NOT NECESSARILY]Another group from the Salaf, like Nuàym bin Hammad al-Khazaaèe, and Bukhaaree the author of the ‘Saheeh’, and Abu Bakr ibn Khuzaymah, and others like Abu Umar bin Abd al-Barr, affirmed the meaning of what they (the first group) affirmed but they named it Actions (of Allaah). From these were those that forbade the use of the word harakah due to its not being narrated." [‘Dar at-Taàarud’ (7/2)]

He said, "the word harakah was affirmed by a group from Ahlus Sunnah and Hadeeth and this is what was mentioned by Harb bin Ismaaèel al-Kirmaanee in his ‘Sunnah’ which he relates from a group of Imaams that he met like al-Humaidee and Ahmad bin Hanbal….

Some groups of Ahlus Sunnah negated the usage of the word harakah like Abu al-Hasan at-Taymee and Abu Sulaymaan al-Khattaabee….

What is narrated from Imaam Ahmad is the rejection of the one that negates movement but neither is the usage of the word harakah established from him, even though he may have affirmed some types (of Attributes and Actions) that the affirmer (of the word harakah) would have placed within the ranks of the word harakah. For when he heard someone narrating the hadeeth of Descent and saying, ‘He Descends without movement and transmission, and without change.’ So Imaam Ahmad rejected this and said, ‘say as the Messenger (SAW) said, for he was more shy of His Lord than you.’" [‘al-Istiqaamah’ (1/70)]

From Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyah 1/591:

وانتقال بحركة ينزل يقولون وطائفة حامد فابن االنتقال وأما

53

53

"And as for movement (Intiqal), thus Ibn Hamid and a party were saying ‘He Descends with motion(Harakah) and movement(Intiqal)’."

So from this we learn that:

1. there were some from the Salaf who did not employ the term "haraka" (movement) for Allah because it had not been reported, but they affirmed what has been reported about the Coming (Majee') of Allah, His Descent (Nuzool), His Arrival (Ityaan), and other than these from the established Attributes and Actions in the book and Sunah

2. That from the Imaams of Sunnah there were those who affirmed al-Harakah for Allah the mighty and Majestic WITH THE MEANING that Allah will Come (Yajee'), and Descend (Yanzil) just as He described Himself. And it is not like the movement of the Creation but rather as it befits His Majesty.

Shaykh al-Islaam quotes the two sayings stating that in meaning that they are the same and that there is no resembling Allaah to His creation in this. He himself only affirms the Attributes of Allaah without adding anything further.

On the term Jism

-Imam Abu Bakr Al-Ismaili (277-371H) in his book "i'tiqaad a-immatul hadeeth" he said:

ترد فلم الكالم، أهل أحدثها التي المحدثة المجملة األلفاظ من التجسيم وأئمة والتابعين الصحابة من أحد عن تعرف ولم والسنة الكتاب في

بما إال يوصف ال الله فإن إثباتا، وال نفيا إطالقها يجوز ال فلذلك الدين،

54

54

إثباتا أو نفيا وسلم عليه الله صلى رسوله به وصفه أو نفسه به وصف .

he said that tajseem is a new word that is invented by the ahlul kalam, and it is neither found in the Kitab nor in the sunnah, and it is not known from any of the sahabah and taabi'iin and imams of the ummah. therefore, it is not allowed to negate it or to affirm it since Allah is not attributed except with what he attributes for Himself or what the prophet attributes to Him, whether in negating or affirming.

This is tawaqquf from its initial aspect.

Now, employing tawaqquf from its technical aspect, I bring the following

"jismiyya' in the language of the theologians is understood in three distinctual aspects

1. jismul-jawaarih (form of limbs)2. jism aqsaamu (form of parts)3. al-Qaa'im bi nafsihi (established by Himself alluding to existentialism)

at anyrate, both jismul-jawaarih and jismul-aqsaamu are both meanings that concur to the aqida of tamdheel (likening) whereas the third does not and this was stated by IT himself which I will quote here for you now.

In Bayaan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah he says

"And those who say that He is a jism are of two types. the first: and this is the saying of their scholars, 'He is a jism (form) but not like the created forms', just as it is said an

55

55

essence (dhaat) unlike other essences, and characterized by attributes but unlike other characterizations, established by Himself but not like other things that establish and maintain itself, an entity (shai) but not like other entities".So these (those who use jism with these meanings) are saying "He is as His reality is without resembling other than Him from any aspect whatsoever. However, this is an affirmation that He has an "extent" by which He is distinguished from, just as when we say (He is) characterized by Attributes,' this is an affirmation of the reality of being on account of which something is distinguished (from other than it) and this is from among the requisites of every existing thing."

as for al-jism as al-qaa'im bi nafsi

stated in Manhaj as-Sunnah

"And whoever says 'He is a jism' then this is well known from the karamiyyah and other than them from amongst those who say 'He is a jism'. Then that is to be explained to mean that He exists or that He is established by Himself (al-qaa'im bi nafsihi) NOT THAT HE IS COMPOSITE (jismul-aqsaamuhu). And the people are agreed upon the fact that whoever says "He is a jism" and intends THIS PARTICULAR MEANING (the meaning of al-qaa'im bi nafsihi), then he is correct in the meaning and whoever declared such a one to have erred only did so on account of the wording used (and not the meaning applied)"

Ibn Uthaymeen says in his Sharh of Aqeedatil-Waasitiyyah the following:

56

56

Æ كلمة في نناقشكم نحن! التجسيم يستلزم الجهة إثبات: قولكم: ثانيا:الجسم

أجله؟ من الله صفات إثبات عن الناس تنفرون الذي الجسم هذا ما ! ال بعض إلى بعضها مفتقر أشياء من المكون الشيء بالجسم أتريدون

نقره، ال فنحن هذا، أردتم فإن! األجزاء؟ هذه باجتماع إلى يقوم أن يمكن علوه إثبات إن: قال ومن المعنى، بهذا بجسم ليس الله إن: ونقول

قبول ال: نقول أن ويكفينا دعوى مجرد فقوله الجسم، هذا يستلزم . فنحن بها، يليق بما المتصفة بنفسها القائمة الذات بالجسم أردتم إن أما

Æ، تعالى لله إن: ونقول ذلك، نثبت بصفات متصف بنفسه، قائم وهو ذاتاإنسان كل به يعلم الذي هو وهذا الكمال،

.

He says: "They say (Al-Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Ashaaiirah..etc) that by affirming that Allah has a jihah, they (the salaf) fall into tajseem. So lets discuss with them the meaning of the word "jism". If you mean a jism that is composed of parts that are in need of one another, that is unable to exist unless they are present, than we do not affirm this meaning. However, If you say that Al-jism is essentially the "thaat" that is independent from need (Alqaa'imm bi nafsih means Al-mustaghney an ghairih), and that is described by whatever is suitable for it, then yes, we do affirm this!"

However, since the word Jism was not used by the Salaf, we should not use it either. This is what Shiekh Ibn Othaimeen says in Sharh Al-Safaareeniyyah:

جسم الله إن : نقول ما ذلك مع لكن ،المعنى هذا أردنا وإن حتى ،

Æ ال والسنة الكتاب في يرد لم الجسم لفظ ألن وذلك Æ وال إثباتا نفيا ،

57

57

الناس بعض رأي على للتشبيه مستلزم فهو أثبتناه إن الجسم إثبات وألن ،

آخرين رأي على للتعطيل مستلزم فهو نفيناه وإن ،ننفيه وال نثبته فال إذن ،

بجسم ليس أو جسم الله أن : باللفظ تثبت أال السليمة العقيدة هو وهذا اسكت ، !

ال عنه سكتوا والصحابة عنه سكت ورسوله عنه سكت قد الله دام ماتنفي وال تثبت ،

Æ الله بأن تؤمن لكن يقبض الله وإن بها الالئقة بالصفات موصوفة ذاتاويأتي وينـزل ويربيها الصدقة بيمينه ويأخذ ويبسط

And this is applicable to all words that the salaf employed, whether ba'in (separate, distinct), haraka (movement), Fi'il (actions), and the same with "physical"

On the term Jihah (direction)

Ibn Abil-Izz says the following in his sharh of point 38 of at-Tahaawee

تحويه ال واالدوات واالعضاء واألركان والغايات الحدود عن وتعالى قولهالمبتدعات كسائر الست الجهات

أن وهي مقدمة الله رحمه الشيخ عبارة على الكالم يدي بين أذكر ش وطائفة تنفيها فطائفة أقوال ثالثة األلفاظ هذه مثل إطالق في الناس

اال إثباتها وال نفيها يطلقون فال للسلف المتبعون وهم تفصل وطائفة تثبتها قد المتأخرين ألن منفي فهو بها نفي وما ثابت فهو بها أثبت ما تبين اذا

األلفاظ من كغيرها وابهام إجمال فيها اصطالحهم في األلفاظ هذه صارت كان ولهذا اللغوي معناها نفس في يستعملها كلهم فليس االصطالحية

وبعض به يقولون ال ما مثبتها عن ويذكرون وباطال حقا بها ينفون النفاة عليه دل ولما السلف لقول مخالفا باطال معنى لها يدخل لها المثبتين

إثباتها وال بنفيها السنة من وال الكتاب من نص يرد ولم والميزان الكتاب

58

58

رسوله به وصفه وال نفسه به يصف لم بما تعالى الله نصف أن لنا وليسمبتدعون ال متبعون نحن وانما إثباتا وال نفيا

الله أثبته فما الصفات باب أعني الباب هذا في ينظر أن فالواجّب النص بها ورد التي واأللفاظ نفيناه ورسوله الله نفاه وما أثبتناه ورسوله األلفاظ من ورسوله الله أثبته ما فنثبت والنفي اإلثبات في بها يعتصم

االلفاظ وأما والمعاني األلفاظ من نصوصهما نفته ما وننفي والمعاني فإن قائلها مقصود في ينظر حتى تطلق فال اثباتها وال نفيها يرد لم التي

دون النصوص بألفاظ عنه التعبير ينبغي لكن قبل صحيحا معنى كان أن مثل والحاجة المراد تبين قرائن مع الحاجة عند إال المجملة األلفاظ

ذلك ونحو بها يخاطّب لم ان معه المقصود يتم ال من مع الخطاب يكون

الجواربي كداود المشبهة على الكالم بهذا الرد اراد الله رحمه والشيخ عما الله تعالى ذلك وغير واعضاء جثة وانه جسم الله إن القائلين وأمثاله

الذي النفي من الله رحمه الشيخ أراده الذي فالمعنى كبيرا علوا يقولون وباطال حقا نفيه عموم في أدخل من بعده حدث لكن حق هنا ذكره

يعلمون ال البشر أن على متفقون السلف أن وهو ذلك بيان الى فيحتاج كان الطيالسي داود ابو قال صفاته من شيئا يحدون ال وانهم حدا لله

ال عوانة وابو وشريك سلمة بن وحماد زيد بن وحماد وشعبة سفيانسئلوا وإذا كيف يقولون وال الحديث يروون يمثلون وال يشبهون وال يحدون فعلم به اإلحاطة عن خلقه أعجز وقد الشيخ كالم في وسيأتي باألثر قالوا متميز أنه المعنى ألن بحده أحد يحيط أن عن يتعالى الله أن مراده ان نعرف بم المبارك بن الله عبد سئل لهم مباين عنهم منفصل خلقه عن ومن انتهى بحد قال بحد قيل خلقه من بائن العرش على بأنه قال ربنا

والله غيره عن به ويتميز الشيء به ينفصل ما على يقال الحد أن المعلوم المقيم بنفسه القائم القيوم هو بل بهم قائم وال خلقه في حال غير تعالى

األمر نفس في منازعة فيه يكون أن يجوز ال المعنى بهذا فالحد سواه لما الحد وأما حقيقته ونفي الرب وجود نفي إال نفيه وراء ليس فإنه أصال أهل بين منازعة بال منتف فهذا العباد يحده أن وهو والقول العلم بمعنى

عبد أبا الشيخ سمعت رسالته في القشيري القاسم أبو قال السنة الحسن أبا سمعت الله عبد بن منصور أبا سمعت السلمي الرحمن

الله ذات عن سئل وقد يقول التستري الله عبد بن سهل سمعت العنبري باألبصار مرئية وال باإلحاطة مدركة غير بالعلم موصوفة الله ذات فقال وال إحاطة وال حد غير من اإليمان بحقائق موجودة وهي الدنيا دار في

59

59

الخلق حجّب وقد وقدرته ملكه في ظاهرا العقبى في العيون وتراه حلول تدركه ال والعيون تعرفه فالقلوب بآياته عليه ودلهم ذاته كنه معرفة عن

نهاية ادراك وال إحاطة غير من باألبصار المؤمن إليه ينظر

بعض نفي على النفاة بها فيستدل واألدوات واألعضاء األركان لفظ وأماعنه الله رضي حنيفة أبو قال والوجه كاليد القطعية باألدلة الثابتة الصفات

ذكر من القرآن في تعالى ذكر كما ونفس ووجه يد له األكبر الفقه في ونعمته قدرته يده أن يقال وال كيف بال صفة له فهو والنفس والوجه اليد

الذي وهذا انتهى الصفة إبطال فيه ألن أن منعك ما ) تعالى قال القاطعة باألدلة ثابت عنه الله رضي اإلمام قاله

والسماوات القيامة يوم قبضته جميعا واألرض ( ) بيدي خلقت لما تسجد وجه ويبقى ( ) وجهه إال هالك شيء كل ) تعالى وقال ( بيمينه مطويات

ما أعلم وال نفسي في ما تعلم )تعالى وقال ( واإلكرام الجالل ذو ربك ) تعالى وقال ( الرحمة نفسه على ربكم كتّب ) تعالى وقال ( نفسك في

نفسه الله ويحذركم ) تعالى وقال ( لنفسي واصطنعتك في e وقال ) وأسجد بيده الله خلقك له فيقولون آدم الناس يأتي لما الشفاعة حديث

إن قال من تأويل يصح وال الحديث شيء كل أسماء وعلمك مالئكته لكقوله فإن بالقدرة باليد المراد معناه يكون أن يصح ال ( بيدي خلقت لما (

بقدرتك خلقتني أيضا وأنا إبليس لقال ذلك صح ولو اليد تثنية مع بقدرتيوال الجهمية من بربه أعرف كان كفره مع فإبليس بذلك علي له فضل فال

أيدينا عملت مما لهم خلقنا أنا يروا لم أو ) تعالى قوله في لهم دليل ضمير إلى اضافها لما األيدي جمع تعالى ألنه ( مالكون لها فهم أنعاما

يقل ولم والعظمة الملك على للداللة فاللفظان الجمعان ليتناسّب الجمعالجمع ضمير الى مضافا اليد بتثنية يدينا وال المفرد ضمير إلى مضافا أيدي

بيدي خلقت لما ) قوله نظير ( أيدينا عملت مما ) قوله يكن فلم وقال ) وجهه سبحات ألحرقت كشفه ولو النور حجابه وجل عز ربه عن e النبي

أو أعضاء إنها الصفات لهذه يقال ال ولكن خلقه من بصره إليه انتهى ما األحد هو تعالى والله الماهية جزء الركن ألن أركان أو أدوات او جوارح

والتعضيه التفريق معنى فيها واألعضاء وتعالى سبحانه يتجزأ ال الصمدتعالى قوله المعنى هذا ومن ذلك عن الله تعالى القرآن جعلوا الذين (

هي األدوات وكذلك واالنتفاع االكتساب معنى فيها والجوارح ( عضين المعاني هذه وكل المضرة ودفع المنفعة جلّب في بها ينتفع التي اآلالت فاأللفاظ تعالى الله صفات في ذكرها يرد لم ولهذا تعالى الله عن منتفية

يجّب فكذلك الفاسدة االحتماالت من سالمة المعاني صحيحة الشرعية

60

60

أو فاسد معنى يثبت لئال إثباتا وال نفيا الشرعية األلفاظ عن يعدل ال أنوالمبطل للمحق عرضة المجملة االلفاظ هذه وكل صحيح معنى ينفي

ومن معدوم هو ما به يراد وقد موجود هو ما به يراد فقد الجهة لفظ وأما موجود أمر بالجهة أريد فإذا والمخلوق الخالق إال موجود ال أنه المعلوم

به يحيط وال شيء يحصره ال تعالى والله مخلوقا كان تعالى الله غيروهو عدمي امر بالجهة أريد وإن ذلك عن الله تعالى المخلوقات من شيء

بهذا جهة في إنه قيل فإذا وحده الله إال هناك فليس العالم فوق ما فهو المخلوقات انتهت حيث العالم فوق أنه ومعناه صحيح فهو االعتبار

العلو نفي بذلك يريدون الذين الجهة لفظ ونقاه عليه عال الجميع فوق وأن الجهات قبل كان وانه مخلوقة كلها الجهات أن أدلتهم من يذكرون كان وأنه العالم من شيء بقدم القول يلزمه جهة في إنه قال من أنه على تدل إنما ونحوها األلفاظ وهذه فيها صار ثم الجهة عن مستغنيا

حق وهذا يسم لم او جهة سمي وسواء المخلوقات من شيء في ليس ال الجهات أن شك وال إعتباري أمر بل وجوديا أمرا ليست الجهة ولكن

بموجود فليس له نهاية ال فيما يوجد ال وما لها نهاية

حق هو المبتدعات كسائر الست الجهات تحويه ال الله رحمه الشيخ وقول وفوقه شيء بكل محيد هو بل مخلوقاته من شيء به يحيط ال أنه باعتبار

أنه كالمه في يأتي لما الله رحمه الشيخ أراده الذي هو المعنى وهذا تحويه ال قوله وهو كالميه بين جمع فإذا وفوقه شيء بكل محيط تعالى أن علم وفوقه شيء بكل محيط وقوله المبتدعات كسائر الست الجهات لغيره يكون كما شيء به يحيط وال شيء يحويه ال تعالى الله أن مراده

شيء كل عن العالي شيء بكل المحيط هو تعالى وأنه المخلوقات من

شيئان كالمه في بقي لكن

كان واإلحتمال اإلجمال من فيه ما مع اللفظ هذا مثل إطالق أن أحدهما والفوقية اإلحاطة اثبات في بالتناقض وألزم عليه تسلط وإال أولى تركهشيء يحويه أن نفى انما أنه من تقدم بما عنه أجيّب وإن العلو جهة ونفي

اولى الشرعية بااللفاظ فاالعتصام مخلوقاته من

وهو إال مبتدع من ما أنه منه يفهم المبتدعات كسائر قوله أن الثاني فان فممنوع وجودي بأمر محوي أنه أراد ان فإنه نظر هذا وفي محوي

61

61

فليس عدميا أمرا أراد وان التسلسل لزم وإال آخر عالم في ليس العالم واألرض كالسموات غيره في داخل هو ما منها بل العدم في مبتدع كل فسطح كالعرش المخلوقات منتهى هو ما ومنها ذلك ونحو الكرسي في

في ليس العالم هذا عن يجاب أن ويمكن تقدم كما للتسلسل قطعا المخلوقات من غيره

ومنه معناها اصل هذا الجميع بمعنى ال البقية بمعنى سائر بأن اإلشكال ال المخلوقات غالّب مراده فيكون اإلناء في الشارب يبقيه ما وهو السؤر

أن المعنى فيكون الجميع على منه أدل الغالّب على السائر إذ جميعهامحوي غير هو بل محويا المخلوقات أكثر يكون كما محوي غير تعالى الله

إن يقول ممن انه الله رحمه بالشيخ نظن وال ذلك عن الله تعالى بشيء بعض ظنه كما التعيينين بنفي خارجه وال العالم داخل ليس تعالى الله

من شيء به يحيط أن عن منزه تعالى الله أن مراده بل الشارحينغيره او العرش منها شيء إلى مفتقرا يكون وأن مخلوقاته

فإن نظر عنه الله رضي حنيفة أبي اإلمام عن الكالم هذا ثبوت وفيلشاع الكالم هذا مثل سمعوا فلو منه أهون بأشياء عليه شنعوا قد أضداده

كما العلو إثبات عنه البلخي مطيع أبو نقل وقد به عليه تشنيعهم عنهم يرد ولم نفيه يقتضي الكالم هذا وظاهر تعالى الله شاء ان ذكره سيأتي

األولى وان نظرا اإلمام عن ثبوته في إن قلت فلذلك سنة وال كتاب بمثله عن ورد بما الكالم بخالف خطر بمثله الكالم فإن إطالقه في التوقف

نزل اذا أنه الجهال من ظن ومن ذلك ونحو والنزول كاالستواء الشارعالصادق أخبر كما الدنيا سماء الى e محصورا ويكون فوقه العرش يكون

للكتاب مخالف السلف إلجماع مخالف فقوله العالم من طبقتين بينالصابوني الرحمن عبد بن إسماعيل عثمان أبو اإلسالم شيخ وقال والسنة

سئل يقول النزول حديث روايته بعد حماد بن منصور أبا األستاذ سمعتانتهى كيف بال ينزل فقال عنه عنه الله رضي حنيفة ابو

والسنة الكتاب بمعاني علمه لضعف ذلك نفي في توقف من توقف وإنما ال يقول بل العرش فوق يكون أن بعضهم ينكر لذلك السلف وأقوال

العدم بصفة فيصفونه خارجه وال العالم داخل ال مجانّب وال مباينالعرش على واالستواء العلو من نفسه به وصف بما يصفونه وال والممتنع

ونحو موجود كل وجود هو يقول أو موجود كل في بحلوله بعضهم ويقولإلثبات وسيأتي كبيرا علوا والجاحدون الظالمون يقول عما الله تعالى ذلك

الله رحمه الشيخ قول على الكالم عند بيان زيادة تعالى لله العلو صفةتعالى الله شاء إن وفوقه شيء بكل محيط

62

62

in the later part of it, the basic gists of it, he says that while it is necessary to purify the creator from having direction LIKE how the creation is bound by direction, it is not taken or understood by us that we should purify the Creator from what the Creator affirmed for Himself i.e. that He Rose above the Throne. He also mentions that three sayings emerged from it one totally denying it, one totally accepting it blindly at face value (which is what the deniers that Alllah Rose Over His Thrown are upon), and the other only being reserved as to refraining from doing the two until inquiring what is meant (which is what we sunnis are upon). And that our duty is to look into the morphology of it and that it is neither intended to mean one or the other until one compares it with the sayings of quran and hadeeth texts

On the term Physical

There are four distinct meanings that arise from this term, two on the side of affirmation and two on the side of negation, three of them erroneous and one being correct

A mind that affirms

If a mind affirms Allah being physical, it can only be construed in two manners1. affirming physically existential existence (i.e. real) without likeness to creationor2. affirming physical existential existence WITH a likeness to created beings

63

63

A Mind that denies

If a mind denies Allah being physical, it can only mean 2 things (just like its opposite) which are

1. denying physically existential existence while affirming the concept called "God"or2. denying physically existential existence while DENYING the concept called "God"

If by the term physical, the questioner intends point 2, 3, or 4, then it is this that we are obligated to reject. If the questioner intends by this point 1, then it is this that we are obligated to accept.

Abu Yunus01-16-2010, 12:29 PM

Tawaqquf means to neither affirm nor negate something.

Tawaqquf does not mean not to affirm only.Yes, this is what I understood: Tawaqquf is to refrain from using the term, neither affirming it nor negating it.

al-boriqee01-16-2010, 02:28 PM

Yes, this is what I understood: Tawaqquf is to refrain from using the term, neither affirming it nor negating it.

Thats the first aspect of it

the second aspect of it IS TO decipher the plausible concepts that can be derived from the term, THEN to determine which one or one's are true and which one or one's are false. Then after the analyzation process is complete, then its correct meaning is affirmed ONLY in rooting out the false meanings or ideas that oppose the aathaar.

case in point. physical is never professed or used in the articulation of aqeedah. however, when someone wishes to cleverly act like a mubtadi by asking a question like "do you believe God is physical", THEN under that circumstance we explain to such a person if your intent of the term physical is to mean real, then that meaning is what we understand and IF you mean ANY other meaning outside of that, then we do not accept it.

In other words, if physical is understood as "will be seen" or "has a soorah" or "real" then these are all realities that the Messenger has explicitly affirmed for Allah. If the questioner intends any import (meaning) outside of this, then we do not accept anything other than this point blank.

Abu Yunus01-16-2010, 04:09 PM

however, when someone wishes to cleverly act like a mubtadi by asking a question like "do you believe God is physical", THEN under that circumstance we explain to such a person if your intent of the term physical is to mean real, then that meaning is what we understand and IF you mean ANY other meaning outside of that, then we do not accept it.I asked you the question "You believe that God is physical?" only AFTER you affirmed that God is physical by saying "Our view is that Allah is an

64

64

EXISTENTIAL entity, and not merely physical".

Our view is that Allah is an EXISTENTIAL entity, and not merely physical.Therefore, you did NOT make "Tawaqquf" on the term "physical", rather you affirmed it, which means you broke the Athari rule that was expounded by Brother Harris Hammam.

You need to retract your statement and clarify that you are from Ahl al-Sunnah on this issue of physicality. You also need to beware of suggesting that other people are innovators, when ostensibly it is your own position that is precarious.

If you continue to misrepresent our discussion, I will blast into the gutters of utter humiliation (as some might say).

Abu Yunus01-16-2010, 04:52 PM

If you continue to misrepresent our discussion, I will blast YOU into the gutters of utter humiliation.


al-boriqee, i never heard of "physically existential" before. Something is either physical or immaterial. Something either exists or doesn't. there is no reason to believe that in order for something to exist then it must be physical (i.e. something tangible or composed of material or substance), for something may exist while being immaterial. So this term "physically existential" is definitely not suitable for Allah, unless you are coming with some very uncommon definition for the word physical, which would just end up confusing the majority of people you are talking to.

Abu Yunus01-16-2010, 05:57 PM

If you continue to misrepresent our discussion, I will blast into the gutters of utter humiliation (as some might say).If you continue to misrepresent our discussion, I will blast YOU into the gutters of utter humiliation.Maybe this a message that we may BOTH be blasted into the gutters of utter humiliation, if Boriqee does not back down.

I ask that he retract his statement containing the term "physical" and we leave it there.

May Allah forgive us both.

Amin

Um Abdullah M.01-17-2010, 05:21 AM

It is best to not use words that are not used by shari'ah, nor the pious salaf, and are not clear, like the word "physical", we do not say He is physical nor say that He Ta'ala is not physical, we keep silent on what we have no knowledge of. And I believe it is enough to say that Allah's existance is real.

Wallahu a'lam.

al-boriqee01-17-2010, 09:26 AM

al-boriqee, i never heard of "physically existential" before. Something is either physical or immaterial. Something either exists or doesn't. there is no reason to believe that in order for something to exist then it must be physical (i.e. something tangible or composed of material or substance), for something may exist while being immaterial. So this term "physically existential" is definitely not suitable for Allah, unless you are coming with some very uncommon definition for the word physical, which would just end up confusing the majority of people you are talking to.

you are right, i just looked up the word physical. I was under the assumption that one of its connotative meanings entailed 'real", but after reviewing all the various meanings, it did not have that, so therefore i disregard the term physical because everything that I was articulating with was in defense of "real" or "existential" and I thought that these realities were included in the term.

asalamu alaikum

al-boriqee01-17-2010, 09:27 AM

Maybe this a message that we may BOTH be blasted into the gutters of utter humiliation, if Boriqee does not back down.

I ask that he retract his statement containing the term "physical" and we leave it there.

May Allah forgive us both.

Amin

done

may Allah forgive me for any offense to you aslamau alaikum


good attitude al-boriqee. others would have been stubborn and would have created their own dictionary and cited it. lol.

Abu Yunus01-17-2010, 03:29 PM

65

65

done

may Allah forgive me for any offense to you aslamau alaikumAmin.

Please forgive me also for any offense caused.

May Allah reward you for your clear sincerity.

Wa alaikum us-salamu wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh.


Salam

WOAH GUYS! Wait up!

Remember this?:http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showpost.php?p=47609&postcount=126

I welcome our comments once again. This doc guy is suggesting that everthing is either a meaning or physical.

[YES THERE MAY BE SOME THINGS NEITHER MEANING NOR PHYSICAL OR MEANING BUT PER SE SUBSISTENT [QAA’IM BI NAFSIHI] AND ETERNAL]

Obviously, this is problematic...

Abu Yunus01-17-2010, 07:14 PM

Was-salam,

I can't access the PDF from the link to see the entire context, but the quote alone is very problematic indeed.

I would want to see the entire context before saying anything more definitive.

al-boriqee01-17-2010, 08:24 PM

Akhee Harrisif you downloaded that PDF could you then upload it cuz I'm not having access.I would like to post some of it's kalaam in the asharism and atheism thread

asalamu alaikum


this is the link http://www.ctaps.yu.edu.jo/physics/MBAltaie/Time-in-Islamic-Kalam.pdf


And for those who still cannot access the PDF doc, here you go:

Time in Islamic KalamA paper submitted to the conference on Einstein, God and timeUniversity of Oxford12-15 Sept. 2005M.B. AltaieDepartment of Physics, Yarmouk University21163 Irbid, [email protected]

AbstractTime is basically connected with change of state. Natural time units are taken from the periods of motion of astronomical objects like the Sun and Moon. It was realized by the ancients that time is very much connected to motion. In fact, time was considered to be a measure of motion.

In Islamic Kalam time was regarded as being always related to space, space and time where considered to be relative measures. Both space and time were considered to be discrete. Some Muslim theologians and Mutakallimun have detailed these aspects of time to such an extent that one can figure-out a whole theory of space and time. Their views concerning the relationship between space and time are in good agreement, conceptually, with contemporary philosophical conception of relativistic time.

In this short paper I examine the ideas of two leading Islamic thinkers about time, Ibn Hazm Al-Zahiri and Al-Ghazali. Both thinkers, who may be considered good representatives of Kalam, refuted the notion of absolute space and absolute time, always considering space and time to be inter-related.

Al-Ghazali talked specifically about the “time-dimension” and considered it to be on equal footing with spatial dimensions. In fact many of the properties of time in Islamic Kalam agree conceptually with the description of time in relativity theory. Furthermore, Islamic Kalam assumes that time (like space) came into being with the creation of the universe, and therefore they consider the question: ‘what was God doing before the creation of the universe?’

66

66

meaningless. Most of the Mutakallimun considered time (and space) to be discrete, being composed of finite, non-divisible moments called Ana. In accordance with Islamic creed, Mutakallimun considered God to be outside space and time.

IntroductionIn Arabic “Kalam” means speech (or a collection of words). However, it also means “dialogue” and this is the meaning which was intended for Islamic Kalam. In its philosophical content, “Kalam” is a collection of concepts, assumptions, principles and problems that tries to explain the relationship between God and the physical world in accordance with the basics of Islamic creed.

Kalam was classified into Jaleel al-Kalam and Dakik al-Kalam. The former is the part dealing with problems related to the Divine attributes, the resurrection of the dead, and questions related to the Divine knowledge, will and power. On the other hand, Dakik al-Kalam deals with problems of natural philosophy, most prominent of which is the question of the temporality or eternity of the world, and the question of causality. This led to discussions of the concepts of space, time, motion and many other aspects of the physical world.

Using Ian Barbour’s terminology1, Jaleel al-Kalam would be called “natural theology”, whereas Dakik al-Kalam is the “theology of nature”. Despite the fact that the subject of Kalam has been largely ignored, I feel that Dakik al-Kalam has much to offer of philosophical and scientific interest, particularly to contemporary philosophy of physics2. Indeed, the “Kalam cosmological Argument” devised by William Craig3 is just one contemporary example in a whole field of ideas, concepts and arguments that can be utilized by the modern philosophy of science. However, the subject is in such a state now that it cannot lend itself to an effective role without being purified, reformulated and harmonized with modern philosophy. A great deal of painstaking work needs to be done in order to qualify Dakik al-Kalam for a contemporary role. Much of the contemporary debate about the existence of God and the philosophical implications of a universe that has a beginning in time4 was the subject matter of hot discussions among Mutakallimun during the 8th-11th century. Sometimes one can spot similarities between the old arguments of Mutakallimun and contemporary arguments advanced by opponents and proponents of God's existence.

The aim of this limited study is to expose some of the original thoughts of Muslims, namely the Mutakallimun, about the notion of time in the hope that it may provoke more detailed and fully accounted studies.

The two main schools of KalamMutakallimun formed two main schools, the Mu’tazilites who were the first to be formed, and the Ash’arites. The main pioneers of the Mu’tazilites were Wasil Ibn Atta’ (d. 748 A.D), Amr ibn Ubaed (d. 762 A.D), Abul-Huthail Al-Allaf (d. 841 A.D), Ibrahim Al-Nazzam (d. 835 A.D), and Al-Jahiz (d. 868 A.D). Later generations of Mu’tazilites include Abu Al-Hussein Al-Khayyat (d. 912 A.D) and Abu Al-Kassim Al-Balkhi (sometimes called Al-Kabi) (d. 931 A.D), Abu Ali Al-Jeba’ie (d. 915 A.D) and his Son Abu Hashim Al-Jeba’ie (d. 933 A.D). Some of the original works of these prominent Mu’tazilites were preserved through the monographs written by their students and followers like Abu Rashid Al-Naysaburi (d. 1024 A.D) and Abdul-Jabbar Al-Hamadani (d. 1024 A.D) who wrote an extensive monograph about Mu’tazilites that preserved much of their original thought, and his student Ahmed ibn Mattaweyh (d. 1060 A.D) who wrote a book preserving a good deal of the opinions of early Mu’tazilites on the subjects of Dakik al-Kalam.

The Ash’arites school was formed by Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ash’ari (d. 935 A.D) who broke away from the Mu’tazilites and formed a new school of thought within the trends of Kalam. Beside Al-Ash’ari the most prominent contributors to Ash’arites Kalam was Abu Bakr Al-Baqillani (d. 1012 A.D), and later Abu Al-Ma’ali Al-Juayni (d. 1085 A.D) who wrote some excellent monographs on Dakik al-Kalam and Jaleel al-Kalam. In later times the Ash’arites Kalam was reformulated by Azud Aldeen Al-Eji (d. 1355 A.D) whom can be considered the last of the classical Mutakallimun.

Ibn Hazm Al-Zahiri (988-1063 A.D) was one of the Islamic thinkers who summarized some of the most fundamental opinions and views of Dakik al-Kalam in the first volume of his treatise “Alfisal fi Al-Milal wa Al-Ahwa’ wa Al-Nihal”5 in which he reviewed the different Islamic factions and religious groups. Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali (d. 1111 A.D) was one of the prominent Islamic thinkers who disputed the views of philosophers in his famous book "Tahafut al-Falasifa", meaning "The incoherence of the Philosophers"6. In which he discussed at length the propositions of philosophers and countered them mostly with the views of Muatakallimun. In this paper I will quote chiefly from these two thinkers.

Resources of KalamThe resources of Kalam are quite different from those of classical natural philosophy, including the philosophy of the Greeks. Mutakallimun considered the Qur’an to be the prime source for their knowledge of the world, and accordingly they sought to achieve an understanding of the world based on the stipulations of the Qur’an. Richard Walzer summarized this by saying that ”Mutakallimun followed a methodology that is distinct from that of the philosophers in that they take the truth of Islam as their starting point”7.This is the main reason why we find that Kalam concepts are different in meaning and implication from their counterpart in the Greek and Indian philosophies.

The approach of Mutakallimun to understanding the world can be presented as follows:God → Reason → The World

This is just opposite to the approach of the Greek philosophers, which can be presented by the sequenceThe World → Reason → God

Effectively, the same difference applies to Muslim philosophers as opposed to Mutakallimun, except that the Muslim philosophers adopted a more compromising approach. William Craig recognized this point clearly by saying that: “The main difference between a Mutakallim (practitioner of Kalam) and a Failasuf (philosopher) lies in the methodological approach to the object of their study: while the practitioner of Kalam takes the truth of Islam as his starting-point, the man of philosophy, though he may take pleasure in the rediscovery of Qur’anic doctrines, does not make them his starting-point, but follows a ‘method of research independent of dogma, without, however, rejecting the dogma or ignoring it in its sources"8.

Obviously this does not rule-out the possibility that some Mutakallimun, especially those appearing at later times, i.e., during the twelfth century and after, were influenced one way or another by Greek or Indian philosophy and methodology. Original studies,however, show that the Greek influence in Kalam is minor and only speculative9.

As to the methodology that was followed by Mutakallimun one finds that they used rational argumentation in defense of their propositions and reasoning. None of the Mutakallimun were concerned with any sort of mathematical proof, although most of them used the geometric and physical realization of the world as one main argument in presenting their views.

The main principles of Dakik al-KalamDespite the differing views expressed by Mutakallimun belonging to different schools, we find that they all subscribed to certain common basic principles which they proposed in order to understand nature. These principles are10:1. The Creation of the world:According to Mutakallimun the world is not eternal but was created some finite time in the past11. Space and time had no meaning and never existed before the creation of the world12. Despite the fact that some of the Mutakallimun believed that creation took place out of a pre-existing form of matter, the dominant view of Mutakallimun in this respect is that creation took place ex-nihilo i.e., out of nothing13.2. Discreteness of natural structures:Mutakallimun assumed that all entities in the world are composed of a finite number of a fundamental component called Jawhar (substance)14 which is a non-divisible entity that has no parts. The Jawhar is rather an abstract entity that does not acquire its physical properties unless occupied by a character called ‘Aradh (i.e., accident)15. These accidents are ever-changing characters. This was expressed by saying that no accident can remain two successive instants. Discreteness applies not only to material bodies but to space, time, motion, energy (heat) and all other properties of matter.3. Continuous creation and ever changing world:

Mutakallimun assumed that the world has to be re-created every moment16.

67

67

They accommodated this idea by proposing that the world is in a state of continuous creation, i.e., that once it is created it is immediately annihilated and so forth. For some reason or another, Mutakallimun associated this action of re-creation with ‘Aradh rather than with the Jawhar. But once we know that the Jawhar cannot stand without 'Aradh, we realize that the process of re-creation is for both. By such a process God stands as the sustainer of the world.4. Indeterminism of the world:

Mutakallimun considered the laws of nature that we recognize to be contingent and undetermined17. Consequently they considered events taking place in nature to be probabilistic rather than deterministic. This resulted in rejecting the existence of natural absolute causality18. Mutakallimun also rejected the Greek four basic elements19.5. Space and time:Mutakallimun had the understanding that space has no meaning on its own. Without having a body we cannot realize the existence of space. So too with time, which cannot be realized without the existence of motion which, in turn, needs a body to be affected. This is the main point that will be investigated in this paper.

The fact that different schools of Kalam presented different details of these general principles has sometimes given an undue appearance of contradiction. However the main trend of their works fell on the opposite side to the views of Islamic philosophers like Avicenna, Farabi, Razis and Averroes. On the other hand, it should be pointed out that some of Al-Kindi's propositions concerning space and time do agree with those of Mutakallimun, especially those of Ibn Hazm and Al-Ghazali20. I will not take this point any further in this paper since I will be limiting its scope to an examination and discussion of Ibn Hazm and Al-Ghazali.

The definition of time:First let us briefly discuss the definitions of time according to Mutakallimun. Al-Ash'ari quoting Abul-Huthail saying that "time is the duration between one action and another"21, while Al-Jurjani (d. 1413) in his short dictionary of Kalam and philosophical terms defines time as "a known renewable that is used to specify another which is unknown"22. This may be explained by saying that time is always defined to mean "timing" so that it is always connected with an event. This meaning was pointed to by Al-Ash'ari when he said: "some [Mutakallimun] considered time to be the timing of a thing; if you say I will come when

Zaid comes then you have timed your coming with that of Zaid"23. Obviously this kind of definition is very condensed and would be more readily

68

68

understood in the original Arabic. However, according to Ibn Hazm, time is defined to be " the duration within which a particle would exist motionless or in motion, and if it (the time) is separated from the body, then the body will seize to exist and the time will seize to exist too”24. In this definition time is directly connected with motion and the existence of a body that is the subject of the motion. This is why Ibn Hazm repeatedly referred to this definition of time throughout his discussion of the creation of the world.The main aspects of Time in KalamThe problem of time was discussed in Islamic Kalam within the context of the subject of the creation of the universe. I can specify the main aspects of time in Islamic Kalam by the following:

Space-time integrity:In Arabic the term space means: the surface that confines a body from all or part of its sides. They used this term to describe the volume occupied by the body. Mutakallimun considered space and time always to be co-existing, and that neither space nor time can exist independently. On the other hand, both space and time were considered to be a property of the physical world that would not exist in the absence of bodies. Ibn Hazm says, “Time is the duration through which an object stays at rest or in motion, and if the object is to be deprived of this [rest or motion] then that object will cease to exist and time will cease to exist too. Since the object and the time both do exist, therefore they both co-exist”25. Bodies themselves would not exist without motion; rest itself was considered by some of the Mutakallimun to be a kind of simultaneous motion in two opposite directions. Al-Ash’ari, who is famous for his collection of the Kalam heritage, says that he read a book of Al-Nazzam in which he says, "I cannot understand rest except that the body has moved therein two instants"26. This I understand to be successive movements in two opposite directions.

The relativity of time:Space and time were both considered to be dependent on the relative position of the observer, forward and backward, "above" and "below" are all considered to be spatial assignments that depend on the reference. Likewise "before" and "after" were considered to be relative. Al-Ghazali expressing his views on this point said "All this is due to the inability of the estimative [faculty] to comprehend an existence that has a beginning except by supposing a (before) for it. This (before) from which the estimation does not detach itself, is believed to be a thing realized and existing, namely, time. This is similar to the inability of the estimation to suppose the finitude of body overhead, for example, except in terms of a surface that has an above, thereby imagining that beyond the world there is no place, either filled or void. Thus, if it is said that there is no “above” above the surface of the world and no distance more distant than it, the estimation holds back from

69

69

acquiescing to it, just as if it is said that before the world’s existence there is no (before) which is realized in existence, [and the estimation] shies away from accepting it"27. Mutakallimun rejected the notion of absolute space and absolute time. When discussing the notion of absolute space and absolute time according to the understanding of the philosophers, Ibn Hazm said, “And their time and space is not the space that we know, nor it is the time that we know, because the space that we know is the one that surrounds the localized from all or some of its sides ……, and the time that we know is the duration through which an object would stay at rest or in motion or the duration of the existence of the accident in a body, or in general we would say the duration of an orbit….., and they say that absolute time and absolute space are something else other than what we have defined by space and time and those are independent"28.

Ibn Hazm rejected the independence of absolute space and absolute timethat was adopted by philosophers. Beside his basic objection to the notion of absoluteness, he says "And they say that this [absolute] space and absolute time are independent of each other, so we ask if they are as such what then separated them apart? Then if they claim that something separated them apart, they have to admit some composition to them of their genus which would have separated them"[B]29.

Al-Ghazali treated space and time on an equal footing in respect of being both relative in extension, and being observer dependent, he said: "Similarly, it will be said that just as spatial extension30 is a concomitant of body; temporal extension31 is a concomitant of motion. And just as the proof for the finitude of the dimensions of the body prohibits affirming a spatial dimension beyond it, the proof for the finitude of motion at both ends prohibits affirming a temporal extension before it, even though the estimation clings to its imagining it and its supposing it, not desisting from [this]. There is no difference between temporal extension that in relation [to us] divides verbally into (before) and (after) and spatial extension that in relation [to us] divides into (above) and (below). If, then, it is legitimate to affirm an “above” that has no above, it is legitimate to affirm a (before) that has no real before, except an estimative imaginary [one] as with the (above)"32.

Time finiteness and discreteness:

Discreteness was one main principle, among several others, that Mutakallimun proposed as being a basic feature of the physical world. The discrete structure was applied to everything in nature. Specifically time was thought to be composed of tiny units, each of which was called “Ana”.

70

70

Mutakallimun, believing that the age of the universe was finite, assumed that the number of instants is denumerable. Ibn Hazm says: "Any object in the world and every accident in an object and every time are all finite and have a beginning. We see this sensibly and objectively because the finiteness of an object is obvious through its size and through the time of its existence. The finiteness of time happens though what comes next to the past, and the exhaustion of every time [period] after its existence, as NOW is the limit of it, and it is this [now] which separates the two times; the past and the future and it is as such that one time ends and another would start"33. He also says: "And every period of time is composed of finite instants that have beginnings"34.

While other Mutakallimun contributed to the concept of discrete time35, it seems that Al-Ghazali did not have much to say on this point, perhaps because overall he had little interest in the principle of discreteness.

Today physical time is considered to be continuous; however, the known laws of physics are valid only to a limit defined by the so-called Planck time of about 10-43 seconds. Moreover, unifying quantum theory with general relativity may require some sort of time quantization.

The concept of Motion:From their conception of space and time Mutakallimun formulated their understanding of motion as being discrete, and that the trajectory of motion is composed of successive “stationary points” ناتÚ ك Ú36 س . Accordingly they say that a body is seen moving faster than another only because the number of "stationary points" along its trajectory is small compared to that along the trajectory of the other37. However, the Mu’tazilite Al-Nazzam believed that motion on the microscopic level takes place in discrete jumps called “tafra”. It appears to me that Al-Nazzam was driven to this conclusion because although he believed in a non-discrete space, he believed in discrete time, so he had to explain motion by assuming that the particle is covering space through jumps or leaps38. Max Jammer considered this understanding of al-Nazzam to be the oldest realization of a quantum motion, he says: "In fact Al-Nazzam’s notion of leap, his designation of an analyzable inter-phenomenon, may be regarded as an early forerunner of Bohr’s conception of quantum jumps”39.

What can be outside the universe?Starting from their original concept that space, time and matter do exist simultaneously, are inter-dependent and would not exist without the existence of matter, Mutakallimun stressed that there will be no outside to the world. Al-Ghazali discussed this point at length in his book Tahafut al falasifa while trying to refute the philosopher's views in respect to their claim that the the world is eternal. After somewhat lengthy argumentation, Al-Ghazali says, "It is thus established that beyond the world there is neither

71

71

void nor filled space, even though the estimation does not acquiesce to accepting [this]"40. In fact this point was already raised by Ibn Hazm while discussing the notion of absolute space41.

Time and God before the creation of the universe:Because space, time and motion do not exist without the matter that is given its existence in the physical universe, Mutakallimun did not see any meaning in the idea of space and time before the creation of the universe.

As for the presence of God before the creation of the universe, they assumed that God exists outside the effect of space and time. This, in fact, is an essential part of the basic Islamic creed. God is a meaning rather than being a physical entity, so it would be logical not to assign any physical existence to him. This is why believing in God in Islamic faith is actually a matter of "surrender" or "submission" rather than a rational problem that can be analyzed, proved or disproved by reasoning. And although Mutakallimun discussed the existence of God in much detail they considered the rational approach to be a sort of guide to believers rather than a path to solid proof. In my opinion no one can prove or disprove the existence of God, but everyone is eligible to believe in God.

Al-Ghazali was one prominent thinker who discussed the question of the existence of time before the creation of the universe. He first discussed the question of the meaning of "before" and "after" to show that these two terms are relative and observer-dependent, similar to the terms "above" and "below".

Al-Ghazali further discussed the possibility for the universe to have been created smaller or larger and he concludes that there is nothing against this possibility42; consequently he asked whether such an outside is void or full? His answer was that it cannot be void or full; otherwise it would be part of our universe. Therefore he concluded that there should be no outside to the universe. Analogously he argued that there is no time before the creation of the universe. Al-Ghazali said: "When one means by outside the world something other than its surface, then one should say there is no exterior to the world"43.

Summary:The notion of time in Islamic Kalam can be summarized thus:1. Time is the measurable duration between events. It has no meaning without events and without the existence of the universe.2. Time is inter-connected with space.3. Time is discrete, being composed of individual tiny instances.4. Time is observer-dependent like space.5. Absolute time and absolute space do not exist.Substantiated studies of this subject are needed in order to establish broader

72

72

and more precisely focused views on this subject.

Notes and References1 Ian Barbour - Ian G. Barbour, Religion and Science, (London: SCM Press, 1998), p100.2 M. B. Altaie, Dakik al-Kalam: The Islamic Approach to the Philosophy of Nature, a talk given at the Institute of Arabic and Islamic Studies, University of Exeter, January 2005. Also see: A. Dhanani, The Physical Theory of Kalam: Atoms, Space, and time in Basrian Mu’tazili Cosmology, (Leiden: Brill, 1994), A. Dhanani, Problems in Eleventh Century Kalam Physics, a paper delivered at the Conference on Science and Islam, the Royal Institute of Inter-Faith Studies, Amman-Jordan, August 2001.3 W. L. Craig, The Kalam Cosmological Argument, (London and Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press Ltd. 1979).4 See for example: Quentin Smith, Quantum Cosmology's implications of Atheism, Analysis 57.4, 1997, pp.295-304 and the references therein.5 Ibn Hazm, Alfisal fi Al-Milal wa Al-Ahwa’ wa Al-Nihal, Arabic text edited by6 Al-Ghazali, The Incoherence of the Philosophers, English translation by Michael Marmura, (Brigham Young University Press, Utah 2000).7 Richard Walzer, ‘Early Islamic Philosophers’, in The Cambridge History of Late Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, ed. A. H. Armstrong (Cambridge University Press, 1970), p. 648.8 W. L. Craig, The Kalam Cosmological Argument, p. 17 and references therein.9 S. Pines, Beitrage zur Islamischen Atomenlebre, (Berlin:1939 ), Arabic translation by M. Aburida, (cairo: 1946), p 120. It is notable that Wolfson, for example, failed to trace any Greek or Indian origin for Islamic atomism despite the fact that the concept of Atomism was already present with the Greek and Indians before Kalam, so he had no choice but to resort to some speculative and unsound assumption that Muslims may have picked up their ideas "from spurious doxographies, either translated from the Greek or originally composed Arabic" ibid, p. 474.10 M.B. Altaie, The Scientific value of Dakik al-Kalam, The Journal of Islamic Thought and Scientific creativity, 4, 1994, pp. 7-18.11 The best available account of this principle was given by Al-Ghazali (d.505 A.H/1111 A.D) in his celebrated book Tahafut al-Falasifa, (The Incoherence of the Philosophers), translated by Michael Marmura, (Brigham Young University Press, Utah 2000).12 William Craig re-devised this principle in a more modern context; see his book “The Kalam Cosmological argument”, loc.cit. p. 63.13 H.M. Al-Alousi, the problem of creation in Islamic thought, (Baghdad: 1968); also, A Dialogue Between Philosophers and Mutakallimun, (Beirut: Arab Foundation for Studies, 2nd ed., 1980) p. 59. Also, see H. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Kalam, (Harvard University Press, 1976), p. 359-372.14 The term "Jawhar" and "al-Jawhar" are unanimous, however the term "al-Jawhar al-fard" is the term given to the non-divisible entity out of which all

73

73

things of the world are composed, see S. Pines, Beitrage zur Islamischen Atomenlebre, (Berlin:1939 ) for a detailed account on this terminology. It is also of importance to point that the term substances (as originally defined within the Greek philosophy) do not accurately correspond to the Islamic atom. There are some basic differences between the Greek atom and the Islamic atom (see Wolfson pp.471-472)15 It is sometimes claimed that the Jawhar is a magnitudeless entity (see, Wolfson p.472) but in fact this identification is not unanimous since, although Mu’tazilites have considered the Jawhar to be magnitudeless, Ash’arites consider it to have some magnitude, see Al-Juwayni, Al-Shamil Fi Usul Addeen, (Cairo: 1969), p. 159.16 The best account for this principle is given in the book of Abu al-Ma’ali Al-Juwayni, Al-Shamil Fi Usul Addeen”, (in Arabic), p. 159. Also see: Wolfson, pp. 392-409.17 This view echoes with what the philosophy of quantum theory stipulates according to the interpretation of the Copenhagen school, see Max Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Theory, (Weily, New York, 1974).18 However, this does not mean that that Mutakallimun rejected causal relation or the existence of cause and effect, rather they believed in such relations but only to the extent that it would reflect our own logic rather than having to play the role of full control of nature by itself. This is perhaps one of the most misunderstood problems of Kalam.19 See, for example, Al-Baqillani, Kitab Tamheed Al-Awael , (in Arabic) Ed. Imad Aldeen Hayder, (Beirut: 1987).20 H. Al-Alousi, Time in Ancient Religious and Philosophical Thought, (Beirut: 1980), p144.21 Al-Ash'ary, Kitab Makalat al-Islamiyin wa-Ikhtilaf al-Musallin, ed. Helmut Ritter, (Constantinople: 1929-1930), p 443.22 Al-Jurjani, Kitab Al-Ta'reefat, ed. G. Flugel, (Leipzig: 1845), p.1923 Al-Ash'ary, Makalat, p 443.24 Ibn Hazm, Fisal, p.61.25 Ibn Hazm, Fisal, p. 61.26 Ash'ari, Makalat, p. 318.27 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence, pp. 32-33.28 Ibn Hazm, Fisal, p. 72.29 Ibn Hazm, Fisal, p. 75.30 In the original Arabic text it is called "spatial dimension" . Ûعد مكاني ب

31 In the original Arabic text it is called "time dimension" . Ûعد زماني ب

32 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence, p.3133 Ibn Hazm, Fisal, p. 57.34 Ibn Hazm, Fisal, p. 57.35 See; Ibn Matawayh, "Altathkira Fi al-Jawaher wa al-A'radh", (Cairo: 1973).36 The different views of Mutakallimun of this concept of motion is presented in more details in the book of Al-Ash’ari (see Makalat, pp. 21-25 )37 M. Maimonides, "The Guide of the Perplexed", Arabic translation by Husein Atay (Cairo: 1969) p.202.

74

74

38 This idea of Al-Nazzam and the motivations behind it need to be studied in much more details. Unfortunately we have no original documents of Al-Nazzam and whatever we know about him is drown from books of his followers or critiques.39 Max Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Theory, (New York: John Wiley, 1976), p. 259.40 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence, p.3341 See Ibn Hazm, Fisal, vol1, pp.73-75.42 M.B. Altaie, The Size of the Universe between Al-Ghazali and Averroes, to be published in Abhath Al-Yarmouk, 2005.43 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence, p. 35.


Imam Faqir up in Marifah:Something from the article worth mentioning so that the Wahabis do not get too excited or confused:

God is a meaning rather than being a physical entity, so it would be logical not to assign any physical existence to him.

It was mentioned elsewhere that, 'one cannot say that God is a meaning. A meaning is something ascribed to God, and it is not that the meaning itself is God. The Sunni scholars said: "He is not His attributes, nor are His attributes other than Him." This is to avoid ascribing multitude to Allah. The author assumes that anything non-physical is "a meaning." This is the false dichotomy that the Wahabis like to cling to.'Any ideas what this 'elsewhere' is? Faqir didn't mention. Besides, what he quotes here contradicts the PDF article he was initially 'impressed' by, regarding which he said:Interesting read....

al-boriqee01-18-2010, 10:36 AM

Imam Faqir up in Marifah:

Any ideas what this 'elsewhere' is? Faqir didn't mention. Besides, what he quotes here contradicts the PDF article he was initially 'impressed' by, regarding which he said:

if you can get the book from the athari shaykh (even though he is ikhwaani but his work is saleem) Umar al-Ashqar called "Asmaa was Sifaat fi M'utaqad Ahli-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah"

In it, he spoke on the matter that Faqir is talking about. It maybe that a source that he sites is parallel or IS what Faqir is citing.

He, Umar al-Ashqar said that the mutazilah in essence were philosophers from the angle that both agreed that the Attributes are the same as the Essence.

He said that the philosophers believed that Allah's Attributes are not meanings existing in Allah's Essence but rather they are His Essence. This is why the

75

75

rejected Him having Attributes to begin with.

He says

"Ahlu-sunnah wal-jama'ah do not say that the attributes of Allah are the same as His Essence nor that they are other than it. This is because an inherent part of something and its inherent attribute is not other than it. It is also not said that these Attributes are the same as the Essence.

Shaykhul-Islam ibnu-Taymiyya rahimahullah, according to what was reported from him and summarized by Imaam as-Safareeni, says "the position of the salaf and the ulema (who followed them) is that if it is put to them: 'Allah's Knowledge and Speech, is it other than Allah or not?' DO NOT express denial nor confirmation. This is because if it is said that it is other than Him it might be imagined that He is different to it and if it is said that it is not other than Him, it might be imagined that it is He"

I guess on this point Faqir is only sunni in this principle and has therefore agreed with salafis on this.

After weighing what Bassam, Abu Yunus, and now Faqir stated. It seems that it is completely erroneous to deduce reality to only "physical" with the meaning of real or existential OR "conceptual" i.e. meaning.

This view could be valid or invalid if the believers of this view could irrefutably make clear to us with an example of a thing (shay) that does exist, but is neither of the two.

When I approached the mutazilh in their shia forum, I asked them the question "does Allah exist". their response in sarcasm were remarks like

"thats like saying does love exist"

In other words, according to these mutazilah, Allah was nothing more than a mere meaning, a concept, like love. Love is only real because sentient beings FEEL it and is real because Allah affirmed its existence, but it is an existence that is metaphysical. In other words, it is not an entity, it is not something that is seen, or does, or anything that an entity can do, rather the only perception of its existence is its feeling.

I ask Bassam or anyone else who understands this dialectic to break this down inshallah

asalamu alaikum


After weighing what Bassam, Abu Yunus, and now Faqir stated. It seems that it is completely erroneous to deduce reality to only "physical" with the meaning of real or existential OR "conceptual" i.e. meaning.

Obviously, you can't divide existence only to physical or conceptual. whoever said such a thing? why did Faqir assume that this is what Salafis believe?


Actually, that is what they want to assume.

They want to ram down our throats that Allah is either physical or a meaning. Well, let them do so...

I have two questions for them:1) Is Allah a thing? Yes or no? If no (i.e. if He is just a meaning), then what does the verse أكبر شيء أي قل

وبينكم بين شهيد الله قل شهادة mean?If yes, then why did they contradict themselves when they said that Allah is not physical but is rather a meaning only?

2) Allah is not مركّب (composed of parts) in their theology. They always negate Tarkeeb. Question for them is this: So is Allah now Baseet (بسيط or not composed of multiple parts) according to them? Last time I checked, everything is either Baseet or Murakkab. However, they never seem to affirm Baseet for some odd reason after having negated Murakkab from Allah.So if they want to ram down our throats that we believe in physical-ness, why can't we do the same to them when when it comes to the issue of Baseet.

SOME COMMENTS ON HAITHAM HAMDAN BY AHLUSSUNNAH ASHAAIRAH AND MATURIDIAH

Documents

Transcript of SOME COMMENTS ON HAITHAM HAMDAN BY AHLUSSUNNAH ASHAAIRAH AND MATURIDIAH