Just finished listening to the discussion of brother @Alminhaji and what I can deduct from the discussion is the following, especially for those who say 'He got destroyed he didn't even bring evidence in regards to Tabari'.
Follow...
At minute 45 he mentions clearly, Imam At Tabaris mere statement of ارتفع is yet kot enough to give us what he himself means by this. I have mentioned this in a thread earlier, the point at Tabari is making by this still remains vague.
He negates that which I understood in the
language and he brings forward the argument against the Mu'attil and thereby says 'why don't you say it's it's Irtifaa' of Mulk and Sultan'. So both the Majazi and the Lughawiyy meaning have been stirred by Imam Tabari.
Yet what Imam Tabari tells us, is the outward
meaning of the word or phrase استوى على to mean ارتفع وعلا.
And just as I have mentioned before in the other thread, one can say
الرحمن على العرش يعني هو فوقه
Allah is above the throne, meaning he is over it.
Here there is nothing specified and this was the point
Brother @Alminhaji was trying to bring establish. The issue here was, Brother Ehsan was citing Imam Tabaris statements while Al Minhaj was explaining how he himself has not specified a point by saying استوى بمعنى ارتفاع
- What is the point Imam Tabari is making by saying this
Imam Tababri also doesn't take the opinion of انتقال so what does he mean by ارتفاع then? Does he mean other than that, does he mean something which we can't understand or is there another meaning?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The reality of Allah's hearing and seeing and how they differ from what we know [Part 2]
[A 🧵]
Today we carry on about unveiling the reality of the understanding, about the the hearing and seeing of Allah according to the Maturidiyah.
We will start with Imām Al-Maghnīsāwī and his explanation of Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar:
„And he sees, not like our seeing – because we see shapes/forms and colours with organs and restrictions, Allah sees shapes/forms and colours with His seeing, that is His attribute in eternity, not
„Actions are other than the belief, and the belief js other than actions, the evidence for this is at many times an action is uplifted from a believer, and it is not allowed to say, 'Iman was uplifted from Him.'
So an example would be, Allah ﷻ has lifted the prayer from her (the woman on menstruation), but it I not allowed to say, 'Iman was lifted from her and [she] was commanded with leaving Iman.
Recently, I was listening to a discussion about the issue of Kalamullah where one Salafi brother threw in the claim that the actions of Allah are Muhdath in support of his claim that the Qur'an is Muhdath, and something Muhdath can be applied to Allah.
Oftently, when we see the Mutakallimeen and opposite cross paths, they roll over each other due to their terminological differences.
The reason for this question is, due to the following point:
ربيت هذا الولد بيدي
I raised this child with my hands.
NOTE: This is not to discuss any specific Sifah of Allah, moreover is it about the Murad what one person makes.
In the above example, we know what Yadayy means and we know I am talking about hands > which are body parts (but this is not the point). However, what is my Murad when I make this statement?
My Murad with this is, that I raised this kid personally myself.
Pleaseeeeee I beg you to read my threads more carefully. Where did I say we don't understand anything from this? I even stated it is less Mutashabih than the others. I gave you that which we understand for ourselves in this.
As you like to call it, the رسم understanding of the Sifāt. Affirming the attributes of السمع and البصر is not related to which meaning we are affirming, but we all unanimously agree with the رسم I have stated.
I'm guessing you are blocked but I am adding this in anyways for people to see.