Allah. (Of the Sifah) By this we mean the meaning that competes the defintion of the attribute, just like when we say about a hand's Ta'reef:
A part of a body, which can be found at the end of an arm (Ta'rif)which can be used for holding, gripping, moving and touching (Tahdid)
The definition of Ta'rif is a complete definition which tells us exactly what something is, this is known as ,المعنى الكلي الحقيقي.
So the in regards to a hand, المعنى الكلي الحقيقي of it is known as a body part.
This applies to,
An ants Hand, a clocks hand and a human.
They all share the same reality, which is being attached to a body, thereby being a body part. This is obviously what is negated from Allah, therefore the المعنى الكلي الحقيقي is dropped for Allah and we cannot know it's meaning in this way.
So what are we left with? If it is not that meaning that bounds the literal meaning of a 'Yad', then we cannot usually translate it as hand as well because a hand is a as defined above.
We therefore, stay at what the Qur'an has said since it is revealed in arabic and do not go
further than this as the المعنى الكلي is unknown, if this is unknown then we can also not use our intellect to conclude this means something which has a المعنى الكلي known as 'hand'.
So what are we aware of what Allah does with this certain attribute?
خلقت بيدي
I created with
my yadayy. (I will explain regarding Tajheel down below)
So through the Āyāt in which Allah mentions this Sifah, we are aware what he carries out with this attribute. However, this does not mean we know what the المعنى الكلي is.
As for Tajheel:
He mentions that there is a for lettered word of which we do not know the meaning, but with the arabic language we are able to extract a Ijmaali Ta'weel, along a few other claims like not knowing what this is except for Allah. This is partially correct.
What disturbs the pattern however, is the fact that we are able to have some knowledge about this four lettered word through the other parts mentioned in the verse, in this case 'creating'. Yet again, there was no mention of the Sifah itself, it was solely mentioned due other
aspects in the Ayah.
The next claim is, as I have understood by him: How can I affirm something to be a Sifah if I don't know what it means?
Before we go into this question we have to understand a few key points.
• What is a Sifah of Allah?
• All Sifāt have Shubhah
What is a Sifah?
It is a particular quality (ma'aani) associated with the essence of Allah, which are preeternal by His being preeternal and everlasting by His being everlasting, free of defects, one and alone in all ways distinct from the creation.
If Allah mentions a certain quality which he associates with Himself in the Qur'an through the meanings of the arabic language, we can get to know what is in its own essence attributable to him and what is not. For instance, the word Yad holds many meanings on its own.
The المعنى الكلي الحقيقي is not attributable to Allah, as it is in fact for المعاني البشر a body part, therefore it has to be either something else besides this from the other possible meanings, where we also do not know the true reality of the attributes. However, it brings one
closer to the fact that this can be attributed to Allah. The claim is not that, one of those meanings is the reality of Allah's Sifah al-Yad, it is only a possibility that the known meaning to us is possible.
Example,
One of the meanings of Yad, is also Qudrah (ability) »
Despite, one saying it is Qudrah, it does not mean it has the same meaning as our Qudrah. The understanding of Qudrah for Allah is, an attribute which he uses to create and bring something into existence while being associated to attributes like, Iraadah and 'Ilm.
Therefore, this term Yad, is still a possibility of a Sifah of Allah as Qudrah is one of the Tanzīhi Sifaat of Allah.
I want to mention what Abul Fadhl at-Tamimi says in short words:
“[Imam] Ahmad censured the one who believed in corporeality [qala bi al-jism], saying, ‘The Names of things are taken from the Shari’a and the Arabic language. The language’s possessors have used this word [body] for something that has height, breadth, thickness, construction,
form, and composition, while Allah Most High is beyond all of that, and may not be termed a “body” because of being beyond any meaning of embodiedness. This has not been conveyed by the Shari’a, and so is refuted ‘
وروى البيهقي في مناقب الإمام أحمد بسنده عن أبي الفضل هذا أنه قال :”أنكر أحمد على من قال بالجسم وقال إن الأسماء مأخوذة من الشريعة واللغة، وأهل اللغة وضعوا هذا الإسم على ذي طول وعرض وسمك وتركيب وصورة وتأليف ، والله تعالى خارج عن ذلك كله فلم يجز أن يسمى جسماً لخروجه عن معنى الجسمية
ولم يجيء في الشريعة ذلك فبطل .”
The fact that I mention this, is not due to anyone saying Allah is a body. The reason for this is as follows:
Imam Ahmad realises himself that according to the language certain things cannot be attributed to Allah.
The two reasons given are
1- It's not mentioned in the Shari'ah 2- It is not attributable due to the defintion in the language
The same in this instance would go for attributes like a literal Yad since according to lexicography it is a body part. However why we can
still attribute it, is due to the fact that this is not the only meaning of Allahs Yad.
The example of ناقة الله وسقياها would not be attributable to Allah because
1- Allah speaks about a she camel that is known by the creation and in fact is a creation.
2- This cannot be attributed to Allah due to the fact that non of the meanings of ناقة الله in their المعنى الكلي could be attributed to Allah without causing defect to Allah like Tajsim.
Related to Tafwidh Haqiqah, when we say Haqiqah in this context we would out it in this wording,
ما هي؟
What is it?
We do not know what it is haqiqatan, rather we only know what it is Tahdidan.
In the issue of Imam Muhammad's statement, the Sifāt are derived from the Qur'an and Sunnah. Hereby, another principal needs mentioning (I also slightly touched upon this before).
- The Sifāt of Allah have different levels of Shubhah, some contain more ambiguity than others. Yet, all are Mutashabih. For example, the Sifaat Aqliyyah are more easily known due to the fact that they are attributes which can not only be known by the Qur'an and Sunnah, rather
they can be known by mere intellect.
For example, the sifah of qudrah. If Allah had no ability, then we would exist. Yet again, we do not know what this attribute actually is while we are clearer about knowing what Allah would carry out with this attribute due to the clearer
Ahlus Sunnah do not touch upon the Sifaat of Allah and leave them as they are, and pass them on as they came without explanation (of the Sifah) without kayf.
In contrast to this person who is translating the Quranic texts and is doing Tahrif of the attributes of Allah by
Just because a word, term or a phrase was not cited; this does not mean that the concept behind isn't existent.
When we say Allah is Ahad with all His attributes, of course we have derived this from the Qur'an. Allah does not and cannot share a meaning, Kayfiyyah, attribute
action and many more with the creation. This is why the Maturidi and Ash'ari scholars emphasise on the point regarding Tawhīd, that one must acknowledge that Allah is ONE in every aspect. If Allah were to even share 0.001% in any aspect, with His creation, this would
also mean that Allah is still not completely different from His creation and His creation is not completely different from Him.
ليس كمثله شيئ
Nothing is like Him.
So if you apply the meanings of creation to Allah, how are you negating similarity in an entity?
Uthmān bin Sa'īd ad-Dārimī (d. 280) mentions in his 'Radd 'alā al Marīsī':
ولو قدشاء لاستقر على ظهر بعوضة فاستقلتْ به بقدرته ولطفه ربوبيته، فكيف على عرش عظيم؟
„If he [Allah] willed, he would have settled upon the back of a mosquito, thereafter it [mosquito] could take a hold of him [meaning fly him away] by His power and kindness of lordship. So how would [it be with Allah] on the throne?“
Misconceptions of Istighathah and Tawassul - Part 1
[Thread]
Misapplying Qur'anic verses-
One of their arguments is that, as the Qur'an says, the idolators believe in Allah and believe that He is the one Who created the heavens and the earth, but despite this, they worship idols and deify them. They say that Muslims who
believe in Tawassul and Istighāthah are no different to these idolators. The truth is however, that there are three key differences between these idolators and Muslims who believe in Tawassul and Istighathah:
Weak narrations in Kitab al Tawhid of Ibn Abdal Wahhab
Some Examples of Hadith Graded Weak by Nasir Al-Din Al-Albani as Found in the Pseudo-Salafi Aqida Text Kitab Al-Tawhid of Muhammad ibn Abdal Wahhab
Forget fada’il al-a’mal, what follows are some examples of Hadith considered weak by ‘Shaykh’ Al-Albani found in the Salafi ‘Aqida text of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab – Kitab Al-Tawhid:
1. He cites in Chapter 1: The Virtue of At-Tawhid and what Sins it Expiates
Abu Sa’eed AI-Khudri narrated that Allah’s Messenger said,
“Musa (Moses) said: ‘O my Lord, teach me something by which I can remember You and supplicate to You…..”