Thread by @truthunveilled

[🧵] Response to further incorrect claims by this individual

Maturidis believe Musa عليه السلام heard Allah's speech through objects like trees and rocks?

https://twitter.com/kalamunveiled/status/1465035336619339781

Firstly, let us have a look at his claims so it becomes clear what he is saying about the Maturidi school:

It is very evident, that he is convinced Maturidiyah believe Musa heard the Speech of Allah created with letters and sounds in an object like a tree.

This is slander against the Maturidi scholars, who argue against this position.

If the speech is created in an object, then this automatically means there is an intermediary between Musa and Allah, in order for his speech to be conveyed.

Let us have a look, at what Maturidi scholars say about such a doctrine:

Abul Barakat an-Nasafi in his Tafsir says about the Ayah, "Allah really spoke to Musa (Taklima)" - "Meaning, without an intermediary!"

Ibn Kamal Basha al-Hanafi says under the same verse, about the term 'Taklima' being used, "to negate metaphors" meaning to negate that Allah metaphorically spoke to Musa through an object, as the Mu'tazilah would say.

Imam Maturidi discusses the Khususiyyah of Musa being the one, that has been granted the name Kaleemullah as Allah actually spoke to him directly, not by the use of a different creation like it has happened with other Prophets. This specialty is specific to Musa.

Nur ad-Din as-Sabuni attributes the position of Allah creating speech in other than him, to Mu'tazilah.

Al-Maydani Al-Hanafi also says, about the term 'Taklima' that real speech was meant here, not metaphorical (like the Mu'tazilah say) and by this it is affirmed Haqiqi.

Maghnisawi says, Musa heard without an intermediary he also brings the position the Maturidis hold, which we will discuss later in this thread.

There are many other scholars from the Maturidis who say this, they all agree that the term 'Taklima' was used to specify that Allah spoke to Musa in reality, not by an object, hence the statement 'Bila Wasitah' (without an intermediary).

It shows this man has no idea what he is talking about when he says 'similar to the Mu'tazilah'!

The Mu'tazili position is, Allah does not have the attribute of speech. He created it in the tree, by that he became the speaker (Majazan, not Haqiqatan)!

Next, he brings a statement by Bayadhi al-Hanafi, however, in this he has deceived the masses by cropping the actual context of this. See tweet below

https://twitter.com/truthunveilled/status/1519403052716990467?s=20&t=FVvC0AzgapfxXsdo9FTEeA

In short, Imam Bayadhi is speaking about the following verse:

Meaning he came to the fire, then there are three positions ar-Razi brings. What is hilarious here, Kalamunveiled double quotes Ar-Razi, Bayadhi in this section is quoting his Tafsir. See screenshots 3 & 4

Bayahdi just adds, "Ahl as-Sunnah" because he paraphrases him there. See Kalamunveiled quoting almost the same thing:

The context of this Ayah even in fact does include the tree. Let us look at other Tafasir for this:

-Wahb bin Munabbih addresses the tree in Tafsir at-Tabari

-Ibn Kathir brings the other verse where it mentions Musa was called from a tree in order to establish the context of this call

-Imam Qurtubi says, he was called from the tree just as mentioned in Surah Qasas.

-Baydhawi also mentions from the side in a tree

There are many other Tafasir when can see this in, but this should be enough to know the context of this verse discussed by Bayahdi.

What is clear now, is that this guy is a Jahil and has not acknowledged that Ar-Razi was giving Tafsir to a specific verse. Nevertheless, it is irrelevant anyway what Ar-Razi says about Maturidiyah if it would have been incorrect.

This is a case, where I proved to him this was about a specific verse. Regardless, even if he made the reference or not, what difference does this make? It was not only the opinion of the Maturidiyah under this verse but rather many others, even from the Salaf!!

Another claim of his is, that Maturidiyah would use these types of verses to establish Kalam for Allah, while ahl as-Sunnah would use "Allah spoke to Musa directly" a claim without evidence. Maturidiyah use this verse and also 'Aql - if Allah was described with the opposite..

As for the belief itself, then it is as Imam Maturidi and his followers state:

*Letters and sounds created in the language of Musa without an intermediary*

So when Allah unveiled his Kalam Nafsi, he created letters and sounds for Musa to understand it and comprehend it.

Imam Maghnisawi brings this same doctrine, that is - Allah speaks without letters and sounds, yet Musa hears the Speech with letters and sounds. Allah can do this because he has power over everything.

Imam Bayadhi discusses Imam Maturidis position as explained earlier and derives points from the explanation. He also says it is without an intermediary, note that this is one side before what #unveiledbykalam posted.

Screenshot 2 contains Imam Maturidis own explanation

I have also made another thread where I bring each scholar agreeing on this position and giving the same analogy as well as stating it is without an intermediary

https://twitter.com/truthunveilled/status/1521522368795058184?s=20&t=FVvC0AzgapfxXsdo9FTEeA

As for the claim of his, "this would still mean that there is an intermediary because sounds are not part of Allah's kalam" then this is a foolish attempt.

One conveys a message by radio, does one say this was indirect or direct? No one will say this is direct, in reality, one will only say that this is an assistance in order to convey.

Let us get an even better example if I stand in my room and I look at the mirror, do I say I am looking at myself indirectly or directly? I will say I am looking at myself directly although one will say that I have used the mirror.

Let us make it even clearer, if I look at my hand, I will not say 'i looked at my hand indirectly', but isn't there a transmission of light going on between by eye and the hand? So the light would be an intermediary according to #unveiledbykalam.

This is a foolish and stupid attempt.

In fact, this man has made a whole thread trying to explain Bazdawis position, yet he failed to understand this concept I have mentioned above. The concept I have mentioned above is basically what Bazdawi says in short.

Let me also note this, this deceiver has not even refuted the points. All he says is this:

But I have already explained how that does not make a difference as the Salaf would speak generalized and not with detail. But we all agree, that we can hear Allah's speech with the assistance of letters and sounds, just like the Qur'an is Allah's speech with the

assistance of letters and sounds.

As for the reason of this, Imam Maturidis argument was one cannot hear and understand that which does not consist of the genus of letters and sounds. Even if it is not the exact same sound we know, there is the condition placed that temporals need temporals to comprehend.

We see the Qur'an with letters and sounds, we say the Qur'an is uncreated. What is read is uncreated, what is memorised is uncreated etc. But we are using the letters and sounds which are temporal to comprehend the speech.

no one will say this is indirect*