and Traditions that appear blasphemous to Ash’ari heretics
#1: God is the light of the heavens and the earth
is the light of the heavens and earth.”
We don’t literally believe that God is the light of the heavens and
the earth. We also know, if this phrase is metaphorical, it can no longer be taken literally. Abd-Allah ibn Abbas said that
this verse means God is the Guider of the people of the Heavens and the Earth. Hence, since we know it’s metaphorical,
we know that we can’t take it literally anymore.
blasphemous only according to your Jahmi beliefs, which is contrary to al-Ash’ari’s belief in Maqalat al-Islamiyyin
as also confirmed by al-Qurtubi. Al-Ash’ari clearly states that Allah is light, but not like any other light,
just as He has a face not like any other face, etc.
This is not only due to the verse, but also many other ahadeeth
where clear reference is made to Allah’s light. From such ahadeeth is the Prophet seeking refuge from the light of Allah’s
‘Blasphemy’ #2: God is with us
not worry, God is with Us” (9:40) meaning with His help. We don’t say that God is both literally with us and that
his Help is with us.
This is old.
Bring us something new.
The dhahir of ‘God is with us’ is that He is with us with His help, aid and knowledge.
No one understands from this that God is sitting next to you.
Just as your Arab friend my right to you via email: ‘Go
and take on these Wahhabis, comrade! I am with you!’ The first meaning that comes to your mind is that he is with you
with help and support. Unless you are really stupid and begin to think: ‘Really?! Are you really with me? Where? In
‘Blasphemy’ #3: God’s coming
ibn Abbas and Imam Hasan al-Basri said that “God’s coming” means “His command and Judgment is coming.”
is the isnad? Is it authentic? Do you even care? Seriously, do you even care? Or as usual, you are throwing at me whatever
you can get your hands on?
In fact, I challenge you to quote to me one scholar from the Salaf who said that Allah cannot
move, come, descend, etc, because he is beyond all the hawadith, which is the attribute of all created things. I challenge
you to quote to me one scholar from the Salaf that Allah will not come, and that the texts are not to be understood as they
master Ali ibn al-Qataan (بن
informs us in his book (الإقناع
في مسائل الإجماع) that there is consensus that the “coming” of God and His angels
is for punishment and reward, hence He forgives from the believers who He wills and punish from them who He wills, and His
“coming” isn’t by movement nor change of locality. This scholar passed away 628 and was of the greatest
scholars of hadith during his time. He was a scholar’s scholar and author of the famous book الوهم و الإيهام.
from Ibn al-Qattan does not mean anything, nor does the fact that he is a muhaddith. Al-Bayhaqi was also a muhaddith and al-Ash’ari.
for his claim about Ijma’ over negation of movement or change, then that is negating by many of the Salaf (including
Imam Ahmad) censuring the one who negates such, and even some going to the lengths of affirming movement for Allah,
as Ibn Rajab states towards the end of his published Fath al-Bari.
And of course, the claim that Imam Ahmad made ta’wil
has been dealt with again and again, such as here, and in this very thread.
‘Blasphemy’ #4: Nowhere is there a secret counsel between three persons
but He is the fourth of them
is no secret conversation between three people where He is not the fourth, nor five where he is not the sixth, nor between
less or more then that without him being with them, wherever they may be” (58:8) This means God is with us with His
knowledge. We don’t say that God is both literally with us and His knowledge with us.
of this is that He IS with us with knowledge, and not that he is standing next to us listening carefully to what is being
said, quite like ‘God is with us’. What matters is what first comes to the mind, and this is the dhahir that we
‘Blasphemy’ #5: Build the ark under our eyes
the ark under our [watchful] eyes.” The word “eyes” is in the plural case, which literally means three or
more eyes. Ibn Abbas said it means under God’s vision, Muqaatil said it means with our knowledge, and on an opinion
it means with our protection.
being watched under one’s eyes means under observation and knowledge. It does not mean that Allah does not have eyes.
is why you cannot bring to us ONE QUOTE from the Salaf (and this another challenge to you), where they explicitly state that
Allah is not a substance, nor an accident, nor a body, and is not divisible, and therefore, He cannot move, nor have a face,
nor eyes, nor hands, etc… NOT ONE QUOTE from the Salaf. Because your Salaf are none other than Ja’d b. Dirham
and Jahm b. Safwan, tracing their lineage back to Aristotle.
‘Blasphemy’ #6: Lest any soul should
say: Alas, my grief that I was unmindful of Allah’s side (i.e. His right), and I was indeed among the scoffers!
God’s side” is used metaphorically. Ibn Abbas said it means what is lost from God’s reward, Muqaatil
said it means what’s neglected from making zikr of Allah, Mugaahid and Sadi said it means what’s neglected
from the commands of God, while Hasan al-Basari said it means what’s neglected from obeying God. This verse
could be translated as “Woe is to me for having neglected what is due to God.”
majority of the scholars from the Salaf did not understand this verse to be pertaining to Allah’s Attributes, which
is the correct opinion, as al-Imam al-Darimi states in his rebuttal of one of your ancestors, al-Marrisi.
This is because
a person cannot do wrong in Allah’s Attribute. One can only do wrong with respect to Allah’s right, and this is
what is meant by Janb here, and surely, this is the first thing that comes to mind.
#7: God laughs
said that God’s laughter means His mercy.
al-Bukhari said it. Besides, as I have said elsewhere:
I have dealt
with this elsewhere before... al-Bayhaqi suggests that al-bukhari says that Allah laughing refers to His mercy. Ibn Hajar
says in response in his Fath that he did not find this comment from al-Bukhari in ANY of the manuscripts he had in his possession.
Hajar had a huge library in his position, and in fact, he was made incharge of one of the biggest libraries of his time. He
would also take great care in referring to the various manuscripts when compiling works on different topics.
#8: They fear their Lord from above them
And then you say:
"God is all-powerful
over His slaves..." (6:18). This verse is simaliar to another verse.
“[Pharaoh] replied, ‘We shall kill their
sons and spare their daughters: We are over them, powerful.’”
that you are a pure Jahmi Mu’tazili heretic, even according to al-Ash’ari who you claim to follow.
is what al-Ash’ari says in his maqalat about al-Jubbai al-Mu’tazili:
وزعم انه لا يجوز
ان يوصف البارىء بأنه
فوق عباده على الحقيقة
فان وجدنا ذلك في صفات
الله تعالى فهو مجاز وقد
قال الله سبحانه وهو القاهر
فوق عباده واراد به القادر
المستولى على العباد فجعل قوله فوق
بدلا من قوله مستعل قال
وقد نقول فوق عباده في
العلم والقدرة اى هو اعلم
واقدر منهم وهو توسع
claimed that God may not be described being literally above His servants. If such were to be found in the texts pertaining
to God’s attributes, then that is to be regarded as a metaphor”
And this is what you, too, believe.
Furthermore, the verse:
يخافون ربهم من
fear their Lord from above them”
‘min’ here cancels out ANY possibility of ta’wil.
Besides, the proofs for Allah’s literal
elevation above His creation are too numerous to be denied by a simple re-interpretation of just one verse. If you really
want to take that route, then go ahead and get busy with interpreting the following:
1) “Then He rose over the
throne” – as it occurs in many places in the Quran
2) “Do you feel secure from the one who is
in the heavens” in two places
3) “To Him do ascend the good words and the good deeds”
“He plans the affairs from the heaven to the earth, then it will ascend to Him”
5) “The angels
and the spirit ascend to Him”
6) “When Allah said: Isa, I will take you back and raise you up
7) “Rather, Allah raised him up to Him”
8) “(The Pharaoh said) O Haman!
Build me a lofty palace, that I may attain the ways and means- The ways and means of (reaching) the heavens, and that I
may mount up to the god of Moses: But as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!” Meaning: I believe Musa
is lying when he tells me that there is a God in the heavens.
9) al-Bukhari’s narration that Zaynab used to say
to the other wives of the Prophet: “You were married off by your families. I was married of by Allah from above the
10) Muslim’s famous narration about the Prophet asking the slave girl: Where is Allah?
To which the slave girl responds: In the heavens. In response to this the Prophet says: Free her, for she is a believer.
A Muslim slave girl puts you, the intellectual carrots, to shame!
11) The ascent of the Prophet – SallAllahu
‘alaihi wa-sallam – to the heavens, famously known as al-Isra wal-Mi’raj. Where did he go, if not UP
TO THE HEAVENS?
12) The fact that Allah descends in the last third of the night to forgive, as explicitly
mentioned in the ahadeeth.
13) The fact that the angels and His revelation, descend from Him. ‘We have
sent down…’ is an often ‘blasphemous’ occurrence in the Quran.
14) The Hadeeth of Ibn Mas’ud
about the day of judgement when Allah will gather the creation and everyone will be looking UP towards the heavens,
waiting for Allah’s judgement. Al-Dhahabi declared it Hasan.
15) ‘Umar said: the order comes from here
– pointing to the sky (sahih)
16) Ibn Mas’ud said: The Throne is above water, and Allah is above
the throne. Nothing is hidden to him from your actions (Sahih)
17) ‘Aisha said: Allah knows, from above
the Throne, that I did not like the killing of ‘Uthman. (Sahih)
18) Ibn ‘Abbas said: Allah was above
His Throne before He had created anything (Sahih). He also said to ‘Aisha: Allah, from above the seven heavens,
revealed the fact about your innocence. (Sahih)
19) Masruq would say whenever he related a hadeeth from ‘Aisha:
I was informed by the truthful woman, beloved to Allah, the one who was declared innocent from above the seven heavens.
20) al-Dhahhak said: Allah is above His throne, whilst His knowledge is with them wherever they may
And I can go on and on, but the 20 quotes I have listed, from the Quran, the Sunna and the Athar should
be enough to keep you busy with their ta’wil for a year to come.
Unless, Allah decides to be merciful with you
and open up your eyes to the fact that you are on a deen contrary to the deen depicted and explicitly stated above in our
‘Blasphemy’ #9: Then God ascended to the heavens…
God turned towards the sky and fashioned them into seven heavens.”
Imam Tabari says commenting on this verse:
original meaning of God’s words “then He Istiwa” is to be high and above.
How strange, there are
people who negate the meaning that’s understood from the Arabic language in the interpretation of God’s word “then
He istiwa to the sky,” which means to be high and above. They flee from this meaning, claiming that the understood meaning
would mean that God was under the heavens; hence they interpret it with an unfamiliar reprehensible meaning. On top of all
of that, they’re not saved from what they’re running away from! For it is said to them, you’ve claimed the
meaning of istiwa is “to turn to,” was God’s back towards the heavens such that He turned to it? If they
claim it’s not “to turn to” meaning “to face” but rather “to design,” it is said
for them, just like this say: the “highness” is that of a King and Sultaan, not that of movement nor change of
this is a clear example to all the readers of your wretched heart. You are a distorter of texts and religion by profession.
what you quoted, Ibn Jarir clearly states:
بقول الله جل ثناؤه:"ثم
استوى إلى السماء فسوَّاهن"،
علا عليهن وارتفع
most befitting/appropriate/suitable/preferred of all the (aforementioned) meanings with respect to Allah’s
saying: ‘He then rose to the heavens’ and then He made them…’, meaning He rose (‘ala) and
ascended (irtafa’a) over them”.
‘Ala and Irtafa’a literally means to rise over something.
distorted al-Tabari’s words and translated them as following:
“The original meaning of God’s
words “then He Istiwa” is to be high and above”
Ye shameless heretic!
you realise that al-Tabari is actually refuting your own ta’wilat in his brilliant statement above, O brainless heretic?!
Or just as you quoted Yasir Qadhi (out of all people!) in support for your doctrine, not knowing what he’s saying, you
did the same with al-Tabari and shot yourself in the foot!
Thirdly, al-Tabari by saying: ‘not that of movement
nor change of locality’, is refuting those who state that rising to the heavens necessitates movement, because as he
argues, iqbal – to turn to – also necessitates movement. Otherwise, he has already made his position crystal clear,
that the most appropriate of all interpretations is to say that God literally rose and ascended to the heavens!
Al-Tabari is the LAST person you want to quote in defence of ta’wil, for his views are more than explicit, as I have
often quoted him in this post alone contradicting your manhaj from head to toe.
Further proof of al-Tabari’s
belief that Allah is in the heavens is when he explains the meaning of 40:36-37: “Meaning: That perhaps I (pharaoh)
may reach the gates of heavens, the gates that would allow me to see the God of Moses; for I believe Moses to be a liar
with respect to what he says and claims; that he has a Lord in the heavens who sent him” 24/64
Look for a
heretic like yourself to defend your heresies. You won’t find support for your heresies in Sunni literature, like that
‘Blasphemy’ #10: For his Lord is between him and the Qibla…
said in Al-Fath:
Commenting on the hadith that says “God is between you and your qibla” (إِنَّ رَبَّهُ
بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ الْقِبْلَةِ), i.e. in front of you, ibn Hajar says that this is a refutation
on those who claim that God is upon the thrown literally (فِيهِ الرَّدّ
عَلَى مَنْ زَعَمَ أَنَّهُ
عَلَى الْعَرْش بِذَاتِهِ).
Who are you
trying to convince here by quoting Ibn Hajar?! Yourself? Good for you, then.
Ibn Hajar isn’t a proof for us,
at least, anyway. So we say in refutation of Ibn Hajar’s aforementioned claim:
Firstly, this could only be a
refutation of those who believe God is by Himself upon the Throne, if Ibn Hajar and you think that God is by Himself between
the person and the Qibla, in a horizontal line as it were. But since I know that neither you, nor Ibn Hajar believe that to
begin with, how can that, then, be a refutation of those who believe that God by Himself is upon the Throne?
the dhahir of the hadeeth does not even dictate what you and Ibn Hajar have understood from it. Rather, it is possible for
something to be in front of a person and above, both at the same time. The moon is a good example where if a person faces
the moon and addresses it with some words, we would say that the person is actually facing the moon, while the moon still
remains above him. If this is possible between two creations, then even more so with the creator.
#11: He is a God in the heavens and God on the earth.
وَهُوَ الَّذِي فِي
السَّمَاءِ إِلَهٌ وَفِي
الْأَرْضِ إِلَهٌ وَهُوَ
is one that is in the Skies, God, and in the Earth, God.”
We do believe that God is in the Earth, Skies, and above
the Thrown at the same time? Here is a better translation: “It is He, who is God in the heavens and God in the Earth.
(43:84)” Some have taken this to mean that God is the one that is worshiped in the skies and earth, not that Allah is
literally in the skies and earth!
own ignorance, shallow understanding and a diseased heart for such absurd understanding.
We literally believe that
Allah is al-Ilah – the one who is worshiped – in the heavens and the earth, and this is the dhahir
of the Quran.
Or would you now disagree and say contrary to the dhahir of the Quran, that Allah is neither worshipped
in the heavens nor the earth?!
وَهُوَ اللَّهُ فِي
is God in the Skies and in the Earth [6:3].” This is another verse that says God is in the heavens and in the earth.
Just think about God being in the skies. How many skies is God in? Is He in all seven, or just three skies, or some other
number? These verses would have God in several places at once. Would we say God’s beautiful body separates such that
we can say He is in all those places at once? Perhaps it can be said He is in all those places without saying “How.”
Hence one could say God is in at least 3 skies, the earth, above creation, and in front of a person when they pray, without
going into how!
speak for themselves.
Allah is a derivative of the word ilah – the one who is worshiped, and the meaning of this
verse as exactly the same as above. I.e. the dhahir of this verse is that He is Allah – the one who deserves our worship
in the heavens and the earth.
should learn from us! They can say God is one and three at the same time without saying “how.” The “how”
we make tafweed to God but we affirm the literal meaning!
No. You learnt
this rhetoric from the Christians, as Imam Ahmad said; Zanadiqat al-Nasara – a heretical group amongst the Christians,
and he is obviously referring to Hellenistic Christianity.
You did not invent the philosophy of substances, bodies
and accidents. You borrowed it in bulk from Zanadiqat al-Nasara. You are too dumb to be original in any of this nonsense.
#12: The black stone is God’s right hand on earth…
a hadith that says al-Hagir al-Aswad is God’s right hand on earth (الحجر يمين الله
على الأرض). Ibn Atheer (ابن
أثير) said that when
a king shakes a person’s hand, that person in turn will kiss the King’s hand (النهاية في
غريب الحديث). The black stone is treated on earth as the king’s hand is treated, hence it is kissed.
This is what is said in Fath al-Bari also. We can all agree that the black stone isn’t literally God’s right hand.
is your own refutation because you fail to understand the apparent meaning of the hadeeth (rather the athar of Ibn ‘Abbas).
Black Stone is God’s right hand on this earth. Whoever shakes it or kisses it, it is as if
he shook or kissed God’s right hand”
Firstly: The dhahir of the athar does not just say: ‘Allah’s
right hand’, rather it restricts it by saying: ‘Allah’s right hand on earth’,
by which we know that this is NOT Allah’s attribute.
Secondly, the dhahir of the athar clearly shows that the
stone is NOT Allah’s attribute, since it states: ‘Whoever shakes or kisses it, it is as if
he shook or kissed God’s right hand”’. ‘it is as if’ means, in actual fact
he is NOT shaking or kissing Allah’s hands… but this is the closest one can get. This is called tashbeeh in ‘ilm
al-bayan, and as it is well known, al-mushabbah is NOT al-mushabbah bihi. If I say, if you go to Scotland,
it is as if you are in Paradise, everyone knows that Scotland
is NOT paradise, due to the phrase ‘as if’.
‘Blasphemy’ #13: Both
of His hands are on the right…
We also have
another hadith that says that both God’s hands are right (كلتا يديه يمين). Do we mean by this that God has two right hands and no left
hand? Or do we as that God as two right hands, but we don’t limit God to only two hands? Again we see ibn Atheer telling
us a metaphorical meaning for God’s two right hands. Two rights hand is simply a metaphor for perfect. The left hand
is seen as deficient; Allah uses two right hands as an allusion to His perfection.
two sets of reports about this issue, and hence the difference of opinion amongst the scholars as to whether Allah has a left
or are both of Allah’s hands His right.
Those of the scholars who believed that Allah also has a left relied
on narrations stating that Allah will grab the earth by his left hand and will say: ‘I am the king! Where are the tyrants
now?!’ These scholars include al-Darimi, al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la and others. In order to reconcile these narrations
with the other set of narrations mentioning two right hands for Allah, they concluded that the two right hands were only mentioned
in order to negate deficiency from Allah, for the left hand is usually seen to be deficient.
The other group of scholars
considered the narrations with ‘the left hand’ mentioned therein to be weak, and therefore supported other narrations
that emphasise that both of Allah’s hands are on his right, and that Allah has no left hand. This group of scholars
include the two Shafi’i Imams, one Sunni and the other Ash’ari; Ibn Khuzayma in his Tawheed and al-Bayhaqi in
his al-Asma wal-Sifat.
Whatever the case, the Sunnis and the early Ash’aris, including al-Baqillani, Ibn Furak,
al-Bayhaqi and others, all affirmed two hands for Allah. Whether they are both on the right, or if He has a left, is a matter
‘Blasphemy’ #14: Until I become his hand with which he strikes…
As we know,
there is another hadith that says that a person does voluntary acts worship until God becomes his eyes that he sees with,
etc. We know it’s metaphorical, therefore it doesn’t mean a person continuously does voluntary acts of worship
until he literally becomes God.
And how ironic
is it that you believe in this hadeeth ‘literally’ when you’re in your Sufi mode in order to support Wahdat
Yet, the dhahir of the hadeeth isn’t even what you think! The Hadeeth clearly states the following:
ولئن سألني لأعطينه
ولئن استعاذني لأعيذنه
he were to ask me, I will grant him. If he were to seek refuge in me, I would grant him refuge”
The dhahir of
this clearly shows that the person does NOT become God, for if he did, he wouldn’t be able to ask himself for refuge!
is why we have often repeated that all praise due to Allah, there is NOTHING in our religious texts the dhahir of which is
Kufr! It is utterly absurd for a believer to think that the religious texts of his OWN religion, apparently, call him to disbelieve
in his own religion! Who would say this except a dumb hypocrite?
‘Blasphemy’ #15: Today We forget
verses that speak of God “forgetting.”
1. “Indeed we have forgotten you [32:14]”
we forget you [45:34]”
3. “God has forgotten them [9:67]”
Do we say God’s forgetting is
literal, but unlike our forgetting, however we make tafweed of the “how” to Allah?
heretic, just forget about this whole discussion. This is all way over you, and besides, we have responded
to it all, anyway.
And in case you didn’t notice the usage of the word ‘forget’
above, it doesn’t mean to erase something from your useless memory. It means to simply leave the issue alone, don’t
worry about it, and simply neglect it. And this is also its dhahir in the Arabic language.
The disbelievers did not
forget Allah because they erased him from their memories. They were simply negligent of their duty towards Him, and likewise,
He too would neglect them that day. This is the dhahir that comes to our minds!
If the dhahir that comes to your mind
is other than that then blame your own stupidity, but don’t abuse the Quran to suite your stupidity.
#16: No person is more jealous than God…
look at another hadith that says “no person is more jealous then God” (لا شخص أغير
We don’t believe God is a person, do we?
Shakhs in Arabic (as in fact even ‘person’ in English) does
not only refer to a human being, but it may also refer to any other genre of being that has a real existence. The word refers
to the actual being of anything that may exist.
On this basis, ‘there is no person more jealous than God’,
actually means that there is no real being more jealous than God, which is also supported by another version: ‘there
is nothing more jealous than God’. Based on this many scholars believed that God could be referred to as Shakhs
or a person, amongst them al-Bukhari when he called the chapter in his Sahih: ‘Chapter on the Prophet’s saying:
There is no person more jealous than God’. Al-Qawariri used to say about this hadeeth: ‘There is no hadeeth
more troubling for the Jahmis than this hadeeth’, and how true he was, looking at you.
Also, in the hadeeth
of Laqit b. ‘Amir that we would all see Allah, yet everyone of us being on our own, he asked the Prophet: ‘How
is that possible when we would all fill this earth, while He is one person (shakhs wahid), as He looks at us and we
look at Him?’, and the Prophet did not correct Him for calling Allah a person, or a Shakhs.
Nor do we
believe God literally gets jealous. Ibn Daqeeq al-Eid said, commenting on this hadith:
اِبْن دَقِيق الْعِيد
: الْمُنَزِّهُونَ لِلَّهِ
إِمَّا سَاكِت عَنْ التَّأْوِيل
وَإِمَّا مُؤَوِّل ،
وَالثَّانِي يَقُول الْمُرَاد
مِنْ الشَّيْء وَالْحِمَايَة
وَهُمَا مِنْ لَوَازِم
عَلَى سَبِيل الْمَجَاز
كَالْمُلَازَمَةِ ، وَغَيْرهَا
مِنْ الْأَوْجُه الشَّائِعَة
فِي لِسَان الْعَرَب.
that aren’t anthropomorphists either don’t interpret it or make ta’weel. The latter interpret it
as protectiveness … hence this expression is metaphorical.” (al-Fath)
yourself by quoting Ibn Daqiq al-‘Eid.
We affirm what Allah’s messenger affirmed, that Allah is more jealous
than he is and any of his companions. He is jealous that His limits be over-stepped, just as we believe that He is pleased
and He becomes angry.
think we need Fath al-Bari to negate God being a person. However, anyone that’s interested can open up al-Fath and see
what’s in there. Perhaps it can be posted here.
brains. Why refer to Fath al-Bari of Ibn Hajar if you are trying to convince us of Ash’ari beliefs? Not to mention that
he is often contradictory because he was not a full-blown Ash’ari, but only influenced by them.
It is like me
quoting from Majmu’ al-fatawa of Ibn Taymiyya. Would you accept that? You wouldn’t, because to you he is closer
to Hell than paradise!
‘Blasphemy’ #17: I became sick and you didn’t visit me…
another hadith, which I’m sure more people know:
قَالَ يَا رَبِّ
كَيْفَ أَعُودُكَ وَأَنْتَ
أَنَّ عَبْدِي فُلَانًا
مَرِضَ فَلَمْ تَعُدْهُ
أَمَا عَلِمْتَ أَنَّكَ
لَوْ عُدْتَهُ لَوَجَدْتَنِي
I became sick and you didn’t visit me!
Slave: How can I visit you, and you’re the Lord of the Universe!
Don’t you know, my slave, so-and-so, got sick, if you visited him, you would have found Me with him.
of this hadeeth is NOT that God became sick. The hadeeth clearly explains itself, “did you not know that so-and-so servant
of mine became sick, and you didn’t visit him?’. Hence, it doesn’t even require ta’wil, because dhahir
does not even suggest that God himself became sick. Remember that dhahir is determined by the entire context.
it is not as you absurdly claim that God is teaching us the art of ta’wil! The servant already knew that God is not
saying that He is sick, which is why he asked further as to what God exactly means by him not visiting God? Because as the
hadeeth states, even the man did not understand what you understood to be the dhahir. And if God really taught you the art
of ta’wil, as you claim, then all heretics have been taught the art of ta’wil, including the Mu’tazila when
the make ta’wil of Allah’s vision, the scales, the bridge, etc, and the Batinis when they make ta’wil of
Allah’s Laws, Paradise and Hell, etc. Your excuse is akin to a homosexual who says: ‘Oh well, God made me gay!’
On page 7
إلى الإيجاز we see Imam Al-Izz ibn abd al-Salaam tells us that the Muslim didn’t understand what was
meant. The Muslim knew that the dhair was not meant so asked “How can I visit you” i.e. what does it mean
to visit you. Imam Al-Izz said that the Muslim didn’t understand the eclipse in the statement. What God meant was “My
slave got sick and you didn’t visit him.”
yourself and your heretic friends by quoting al-‘Izz b. ‘Abd al-Salam.
Anyhow, contrary to what al-‘Izz
states, the man knew that ‘I became sick’ is NOT the dhahir, rather it needs to be placed in a context in order
for it to have a dhahir, and hence, he asked God for more in order to understand the dhahir.
believes that the Muslim
1. literally believed God got sick
2. and was affirming the meaning by using “how”
3. while affirming the meaning was only asking about the “how-ness” of the visiting
This person is too
gross of an anthropomorphist to reason with.
yourself, as you are the only one here who believes that the dhahir of the hadeeth is that God became sick!
al-Eid informs us that there are two ways to look at this. First, that it’s true upon what God means. And the people
that make ta’weel, if it’s not far-fetched, it’s accepted, else we go back to belief in it, not knowing
what it means, while negating the literal meaning.
yourself with what Ibn Daqiq al-‘Eid has to say. But in response to Ibn Daqiq we would say: Who decides whether or not
ta’wil is far-fetched?! If you be honest to yourselves, you would realise that a ta’wil being far-fetched is only
relative, for the earlier Ash’aris like al-Baqillani to al-Bayhaqi regarded the ta’wil of two hands to be far-fetched
and refuted the Mu’tazila and other Jahmis for making ta’wil. Yet, the latter Ash’aris, such as al-Juwayni,
al-Razi and al-Iji thought the ta’wil of Allah’s hands is not at all far-fetched, but rather very appropriate.
And this is within ONE madhab – your own Ash’ari madhab. Yet if you look beyond, you will find the Mu’tazila
making ta’wil of Allah’s hearing and seeing, which you think is far-fetched. But someone like al-Zamakhshari ,
being a professional linguist can easily defend his case in Kashaf that the Mu’tazili ta’wilat are NOT far-fetched.
After all, it is the Mu’tazila who are experts on ta’wilat. You plagiarised from their works bits that agreed
with your theology word-by-word!
Then, as usual, you end your long and boring essay with Yasir Qadhi’s quote.
Well done! This quote alone refutes all the garbage you’ve written!
Let’s end this discourse with a pivotal
quote by al-Imam al-Dhahabi:
“If Ta’wil is allowed, the Salaf would have been the first ones to resort
to it, especially in order to negate anthropomorphism, as claimed by those who believe that the dhahir of these texts that
suit Allah’s existence is anthropomorphism. However, to the contrary, when al-Jahm b. Safwan appeared on the scene –
and he is the first to make ta’wil – the Imams contemporary to him declared him a heretic, such as Sufyan b. ‘Uyayna,
al-Fudhayl b. ‘Ayadh, Ibn al-Mubarak, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad b. al-Hasan, ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Mahdi, al-Shafi’i,
Ahmad, Ishaq, and countless others whom only Allah knows. There were those from them who declared him a disbeliever, as there
were those who allowed for him to be killed”.