Category Archives: Aqeedah

Refutation of the Belief of Reincarnation

[Allama’  Muhammad Idris Saheb Kandhlavi  (Rahmatullahi  Alayh)]

Just  like  the  Philosophers  and  the  atheists,  the  Brahmans  and  Hindu  also  refute  the  concept  of  resurrection.  However,  the Brahmans  and  Hindus  have  another  strange  belief.  They  say  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as Qiyaamah,  but  they  aver  that  after  death  the souls  change into  different forms.  They  say  that  the  souls  of  good people are  transformed  into  good bodies  and the souls  of evil  characters  are  transformed  into  bad  bodies,  like  dogs,  cats,  scorpions,  etc.,  etc.  This changing  of  bodies  by  the  souls  is  known  as  reincarnation.
Ahle-Islaam  say  that  this  belief  of  reincarnation  is  spurious  and  illogical.  The  reason  being  that  it  is  necessary  for  reward  or  punishment  that  the soul  be  made  aware  of  the  transgression  that  it  had  committed.  When  a  soul  knows  the  transgression  it  had  made  then  it  can in  future  abstain  therefrom  or  at  least  others  will  be  forewarned  thereof.  By  reincarnation,  the  soul  is  none  the  wiser  regarding  its  sin.  It  is  common  knowledge  that  if  a  person  lived  in  a  certain  village  for  many  years,  then  after  moving  to  another  village,  he  will  have  memories  of  his  previous  village,  in  that  he will  relate  to  others  regarding it.  So  now  the  Pundit  (Hindu  priest),  who  according to  his  own philosophy  has  lived  a  previous  (good!)  life  is  now  in  the  form  of  his  present  body,  but  he  cannot  relate  any  part  of  his  past  life  He  says  nothing,  nor  does  his  queen.  It  is  very  possible  that  in  the  previous  life  his  present  wife  was  his  mother,  sister  or  even  daughter! 

Or  maybe  Mahatma  or  Pundit  saheb  was  in  the  previous  life  the  father  of  this  girl  (present  wife)  and  now  he  comes  as  the  husband!  A  person  does  not  even  forget  a  dream  as  much  as  the  Pundit  saheb  forgot  of  his  70  odd  years  of  (previous)  life.  It  is  obvious  that  he  was  not  here in  a  previous  life.  This  sojourn of  his  life  is  the  first  on  earth  and  after  death  he  will  be  cremated  only  to  be  brought  in  to  the  second  stage  of   existence  (Barzakh),  and then  before  Allaah  Ta’ala. 

Even the  philosophers  regard  the   concept  of  reincarnation  as  being  stupid  and  illogical.

‘Kun Faya koon’ [Be! and it Comes to be] in the Light of Philosophy

[Mufti Muhammad Shafi’ Usmani (rahimahullah)]

As  for  creation  taking  place  through  the  Divine  Command,  “Be”,  we  would  like  to  add  a note,  following  the  example  of  Maulana  Ashraf  ‘Ali  Thanavi  in  his  “Bayan  al-Qur’an”,  for  the benefit  of  those  who happen to be  interested  in Western  philosophy,  or  in  Christian  theology,  or,  worst  of  all,  in  the  writings  of  the Orientalists  and  their  translations  of  Sufi texts. 

Let  us  begin  by  saying  that  it  is  a  mystery  —  and  we  are  using  the  word  “mystery”, not  in  the  debased  and  the  modern  sense,  but  in  the  original  meaning  of  the  term  which  implies  that  certain  realities  are  altogether  beyond  the  reach  of  human  understanding,  and  that  certain  other  realities  cannot  and  must  not,  even  when  partially  or wholly  understood,  be  given  out  to  those  who  have  no  aptitude  for  receiving  them,  and  that  with  regard  to  them  it  is  advisable  “to  keep one’s  lips  closed.”  In  these  matters,  when  and  what  one  chooses  to reveal  is  ultimately  not  the  question  of  liberalism  or  democratism  or  egalitarianism,  but  that  of  “spiritual etiquette.”  Having  repeated  the warning  given  by  Maulana  Thanavi himself,  we  shall  do  no  more  than  explaining  what  “Bayan al-Qur’an”  says  on  the  subject.

Regarding  this  particular  mystery,  there  is  a  difference  of  approach  between  the  two  groups  of  the  Mutakallimin  (the  masters  of  al-‘Ilm al-Kalam  or  dialectical  theology).  According  to  the  Asha’ri  group,  “Be,  and  it  comes  to  be”  (Kun  fa  Yakoon)  is  a  metaphorical  or allegorical  expression.  That  is  to  say,  the  phrase  does  not  signify  that  Allah  actually  addressed  an  existent  and  commanded  it  “to be”,  but  it  is an  allegorical  illustration  of  His  omnipotence,  suggesting  that  there  is  no  interval  between  an  act  of  will  on  His  part  and  its  realization.  The  commentator  al-Baydawi  has  adopted  this  view.  But,  according  to  the Maturidi  group,  the  phrase  literally  means  what  it  says.  This  approach  to  the  subject,  however,  produces  a  difficult  problem.  A  command  is  given  only  to  an existent.  If  a  thing  does  not  exist  at  all,  how  can  Allah  address  it?  On  the  other  hand,  if  a  thing  does  already  exist,  it  is  superfluous  to  command  it  “to  be.”  The  problem  can  easily  be  resolved  if  we  keep  two  considerations  in  mind.  Firstly,  this  command  does  not  belong  to  the  order  of  Tashri’ (legislation)  which  requires  the  addressee  to  exist  in  actual)  fact  and  to  possess  understanding;  it  belongs  to  the  order  of  Takween: (creation)  which  is  concerned  with  giving  existence  to  non-existents.

This  explanation,  in  its  turn,  brings  us  into  the  thick  of  a  controversy  that  has  muddled  a  great  deal  of  Western  philosophy  and  theology.  We refer  to  the  question  of  “creation  arising  out  of  nothingness”  (Ex Nihilo), and  the  second  of  our  two  considerations  will  clarify  it.  It  is  usual enough  to  place  “existence”  (Wujud)  in  opposition  to  “nothingness  or non-existence”  (Adam).  But  it  has  also been  said  that  non-existence  does  not  exist.  For,  Allah  is  omniscient,  and  Divine  Knowledge  comprehends  everything  that  has  been,  or  is,  or  will  be,  so  that  what  does  not  yet  exist  according  to  our  reckoning,  does  already  exist  in Divine  Knowledge.  To  use  a  different  expression,  everything  past,  present  or  future  has  its  “pure”  and  “subtle”  counterpart  in  Divine  Knowledge.  If  Western  terminology  should  be  more  easily  comprehensible  to  some  of  our  readers,  we  can  call  these  Prototypes,  Numbers,  or  Essences,  or  Ideas  or  Archetypes,  but  each  time  we  will  have  to  give  a  more  refined  and  a  higher  signification  to  these  terms than  Pythagoras  or  Plato  ever  did.  The  Sufis,  however,  call  them “Al-A’yan al-Thabitah.”  With  the  help  of  this  explanation  we  can  see  that  when  Allah  wishes  to  create  a  thing,  He  commands  its  Essence, which  already  exists  in  His  Knowledge,  “to  be”,  and  it  “comes  to  be”  — that  is  to  say,  comes  to  be  actualised  in  the  world.  Thus,  “creation”  does  not  arise  out  of  “nothingness.”  Before  a  thing  comes  to  exist  as  an  “actuality”  in  the  world,  it  already  exists  as  a  “potentiality”  in  Divine Knowledge.  It  is  this  “potentiality”  to  which  the  Divine  Command  “Be” is  addressed.  Hence,  it  is  equally  true  to  say  that  Essences  do  not  exist,  and  to  say  that  Essences  do  exist.  The  first  statement  pertains  to  the knowledge  of  the  creatures,  and  the  second  to  the  Divine  Knowledge.

At  the  end,  we  shall  again  insist  that  no  good  can  come  out  of  unnecessarily  meddling  with  such  delicate  questions,  specially  if  the  purpose  is  no  more  than  to  seek  a  new  sensation.

[Taken from Ma’ariful Qur’an]

Imam Abu Hanifa, Salafis, Al-Fiqh al-Akbar And the Truth

By Abdullah bin Hamid Ali

Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh) says about the qualities of God:

“He has a hand, a face and a self. So what is He, High is He, mentions in the Qur’an of the mention of the face, hand and self, they are all Attributes of His with no modality (or description).

It is not said that His hand is His power or His blessing, since such would be a nullification of the attribute. And such is the statement of the People of Qadar and I’tizaal. [A]

Rather, His Hand is His attribute with no modality (or description). And His anger and His satisfaction are two of His attributes with no modality (or description).

One must first understand that by the virtue of the fact that the book – Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar – is considered to be the first book written in the time of the Tabi’een on the topic of Tawhid in an organized and methodical fashion during an age of great controversy when Sunnis were attempting to codify the orthodox creed of Muslims that there will be statements found in it that may be problematic.

Of course, Salafis would find  great joy in seeing such statements like the one above, since it apparently gives credence to their arguments about what they refer to as ‘The Attributes of Allah,’ like hands, face, eyes, foot, side, shin, self, etc.

They could easily make the claim that their ‘aqeedah is correct and in agreement with the creed of the Salaf, since Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullay alayh) who is one of the Salaf says in Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar that Allah has a hand. And His hand is an Attribute, similar to what they say.

So on the surface it would seem that the argument is over, and that Salafis have proven themselves to be victorious in their claims.

However, a number of other things have to be considered before accepting their arguments.

Firstly, if we are to accept that Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar is an authentic work legitimately ascribable to Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh) and that it represents the ‘aqeedah of the Salaf, Salafis have to accept all that it contains, so they’d have to also accept the following statement made by Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh) about Allah’s speech:

“And He speaks, not as our speech. We speak with tools and letters while Allah, High is He, speaks without a tool or without letters. The letters are created. And the speech of Allah, High is He, is uncreated.”

In this passage, Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh) states that when Allah, High is He, speaks, He speaks without letters. But Salafis believe that when Allah speaks, He speaks with letters and sounds.

So, really this is another case of Salafis selectively abusing and misusing the words of Salaf and those attrobuted to the Salaf in an attempt to make it seem that their creed agrees with with that to the Salaf, when in fact it doesn’t.

Add to that, Salafis are those who argue that the current version of Kitab al-Ibanah an Usul ad-Diyaanah, attributed to Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari (rahmatullah alayh), is a proper ascription to him.

And in that book, it states that Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh) believed that the Qur’an was created [1]. But if Salafis accept that Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar is appropriately ascribed to Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh), they have to also accept his words that contradict this claim when he says:

“The Qur’an is Allah’s word, High is He, in pages transcribed, in hearts protected, on tongues recited, and on the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and his family revealed. Our utterance of the Qur’an is created. Our writing of it is created. Our recitation of it is created. And the Qur’an is uncreated.”

How more explicit can the Imam be?? He expressly states in Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar that the “Qur’an is uncreated.” But the Salafis claim that the narrations in Al-Ibaanah that claim that Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh) believed that it was created is a proper ascription to Abu al-Hasan. And at the same time they consider Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar to be properly ascribed to Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh).

In addition to that, Imam Abu al-Hasan (rahmatullah alayh) doesn’t make any mention of Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh) as being one of those who believed that the Qur’an was created in his more prominent and well-established worked entitled, Maqaalaat-e-Islaamiyyeen. And according to Salafis, Kitaab al-Ibaanah was his last work.

So how do they explain the fact that Imam al-Ash’ari (rahmatullah alayh) waited until his final work to mention Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh), who died more than a century prior to him, as one of those who believed that the Qur’an was created in his supposed last work, when he didn’t mention him in what they believe to be one of his earliest works?

Did not Al-Ash’ari (rahimahullah) know that Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh) was the author of Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar?

They just can’t have it both ways.

Either Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar is Imam Abu Hanifa’s work, which would make Kitaab al-Ibaanah – in its present form – not Abu al-Hasan’s work. Or the current Kitaab al-Ibaanah is Abu al-Hasan’s work, which would mean that Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar is not Imam Abu Hanifa’s work.

And if Al-Fiqh al-Akbar is Imam Abu Hanifa’s work and Salafis want to use it as proof that their ‘aqeedah is no different than his, they have to accept everything in it without exception.

Now as for the issue of the statement in Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar about the hand, face, and self and them being attributes, we must consider two things in particular:

1. Imam at-Tahaawi (rahimahullah) makes no mention of hands, a face, or a self in his ‘aqeedah. And his book has been accepted as the one represents the ‘aqeedah of Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh) and his two companions, Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad al-Shaybani (rahimahumullah).

2 – Secondly, we must understand any comment made in Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar – as in other works – according to the context.

According to Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar, Allah has two general classifications of attributes known as ‘Attributes of the Essence’ and ‘Attributes of Action.’

Attributes of the Essence are the essential qualities of His being.

As for attributes of action, they are things that happen outside of His being. And since He is the one responsible for those occurrences, they are attributed to Him and called ‘Attributes of Action.’

Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh) explains this in his book when he says:

“He doesn’t resemble anything of His creation, and nothing of His creation resembles Him. He has always and will always exist with His names and his attributes of the (divine) essence and those atteibutes of action.

As for those of the essence, they are, life, power, knowledge, speech, hearing, seeing and will.

And as for those of action they are: creating, providing, producing, originating, manufacturing and other attributes of action.”

So the attributes of Allah’s divine essence are seven:

1. Life
2. Power
3. Knowledge
4. Speech
5. Hearing
6. Seeing
7. Will

As for the attributes of action, he states things like:

– Creating
– Providing
– Producing
– Originating
– Manufacturing
– And other attributes of action.

Then, Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh) says:

“He has always and will always exist with His names and attributes. He has not acquired any new name or attribute.”

So according to Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh), Allah has confirmed 7 attributes of essence [2] while he places no limit to His attributes of action, since the possibilities of what can exist are limitless.

As for restricting the attributes of essence to merely seven, this is not to say that these are the only attributes that Allah has. It is merely to say that this is the number that both revelation and reason have been able to conclude. As for the standard view of Maturidis, the attributes of the essence are 8.

As for Ash’aris, they divide attributes a bit further to the point that some of them have stated 13 [3] and some have stated 20 [4].

In the end, most of that is just a difference in semantics. And the true difference is with relationship to what Ash’aris call ‘Abstract Attributes’, which are the 7 that Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh) mentions in Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar, while Maturidis add an eighth called ‘Takween.’

At any rate, notice how Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah) doesn’t make mention of the hand, face and self until he enumerates the attributes of the essence. And, so that the readers can see, here is the complete text prior to the mention of the hand, face and self:

“He doesn’t resemble anything of His creation, and nothing of His creation resembles Him. He has always and will always exist with His name and His attributes of the divine essence and those (attributes) of action.

As for those of the essence, they are: life, power, knowledge, speech, hearing, seeing and will.

And as for those of action, they are creating, providing, producing, originating, manufacturing and other attributes of action.

He has always and will always exist with His names and attributes. He has not acquired any new name or attribute.”

So if he hasn’t acquired any new name or attribute, there are truly no other definitive attributes of essence other than those mentioned above [5], and the hand, face and self aren’t included among them.

Then he continues,

He has always been Knowing by His knowledge. And knowledge has been an attribute since pre-eternity.

(He has always been) Powerful by His power. And power has been an attribute since pre-eternity.

(He has always been) A Speaker by His speech. And speech has been an attribute since pre-eternity.

(He has always been) Creator by His creative-will [6]. And the creative-will has been an attribute since pre-eternity.

(He has always been) A Doer by His will to act [7]. And the will to act will has been an attribute since pre-eternity. The Doer is Allah, High is He. The will to act has been an attribute since pre-eternity. And the resulting entity of His will to act is created, while Allah’s will to act, High is He, is uncreated. And his attributes have been since pre-eternity un-invented and un-created. So whoever says that they are created or invented, remains silent about them, or entertains doubts about them is one who rejects faith in Allah, High is He.”

He also says,

“And Allah, High is He, was indeed a speaker at a time when He had not yet spoken to Musa, upon him be peace. And Allah was indeed a Creator in pre-eternity even though He had not yet created. (There is nothing like unto Him. And He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing). So when He spoke to Musa, He spoke to his with His speech, which has been an attribute of His since pre-eternity. And all of His attributes are withoit beginning for pre-eternity; contrary to the state of the attributes of created beings.

He has knowledge, not as our knowledge. He has power, not as our power. He sees, not as our seeing. He hears, npt as oir hearing. And He speaks, not as our speech. We speak with tools and letters while Allah, High is He, speaks without a tool and without letters. The letters are created. And the speech of Allah, High is He, is uncreated.

He is a thing, not like other things. And the point of saying ‘thing’ is to confirm His existence while not being a divisible body, an indivisible body, and not an accident of a body.

He has no boundary. He has no opposite. He has no rival. And He has no equal.

Then he finally says,

“He has a hand, a face and a self. So what is He, High is He, mentions in the Qur’an of the mention of the face, hand and self, they are all Attributes of His with no modality (or description).

It is not said that His hand is His power or His blessing, since such would be a nullification of the attribute. And such is the statement of the People of Qadar and I’tizaal. [A]

Rather, His Hand is His attribute with no modality (or description). And His anger and His satisfaction are two of His attributes with no modality (or description).

So what are we to understand from all of this? How do we reconcile between Imam Abu Hanifa’s (rahimahullah) saying after mentioning the seven attributes of the essence:

“He has always and will always exist with His names and attributes. He has not acquired any new name or attribute.”

And between his saying,

“He has a hand, a face and a self. So what is He, High is He, mentions in the Qur’an of the mention of the face, hand and self, they are all Attributes of His with no modality (or description).”

I believe that the best way to reconcile between the two is to say that ‘hand, face and self’ are reference to either one of Allah’s true attributes of the essence as stated in the first clause by Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh). Or they are references to one  of His attributes of action [9].

One cannot deny that by such words being annexed to Allah’s name or pronoun in the Qur’an, they are being ‘attributed’ to Him directly even if calling them  ‘attributes’ doesn’t coincide with the original linguistic definition of what an attribute is.

So calling them attributes will be a metaphorical application as opposed to a literal application. And if it is a metaphorical application, it would have to be accepted that such named ‘attributes’ are metaphorical ‘attributes.’  So the hand, face and self would have to a metaphorical ‘hand, face and self,’ which are references to one of Allah’s true attributes, since there is nothing like unto Him. And ‘hand’ in its original linguistic understanding applies to only created beings.

Abdur-Rahman Ibn Al-Jawzi (rahimahullah) says while mentioning the mistakes of some Hanbali scholars in the area of scriptural interpretation of the problematic verses of the Qur’an:

“And those writers who I have mentioned have erred in seven areas. The first of them is that they called the ‘reports’ as ‘attributes.’ When they are annexations/possessive forms. And not every possessive form is an attribute. For Allah, High is He, has said: (And I have blown into him from my spirit) [Al-Hijr: 29]. And Allah doesn’t have an attribute inown as a ‘spirit.’ So those who have called ‘the possessive form’ (idaafa) ‘an attribute’ are guilty of innovation.”

The linguist, Thalab says in Taj al-‘Aroos,

“A na’t is a descriPtion given to a specific part of the body like the word lame (a’raj). A ‘sifa’ attribute is for non-specificity ‘umoom’, like the word magnificient (‘azeem) and generous (kareem). So Allah is described with a ‘sifa’. But He is not described with a ‘na’t’

What this would mean is that the word ‘sifa’ (attribute) is being used metaphorically to mean ‘na’t’, which is another word for ‘attribute’ or ‘trait.’ The difference is that a na’t’ describes a specific part of the body, like ‘lame’ or ‘blind.’

For this reason, Imam Bukhari (rahmatullah alayh) uses the word ‘nu’oot’ (plural of na’t’) instead of ‘sifaat’ (plural of ‘sifa’) to refer to those reports that make mention of Allah’s anger, laughter, foot, hand and face even though He isn’t a body and doesn’t have a body.

This would have to be the accepted interpretation. Otherwise, we must accept that Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh) contradicts himself by first limiting the attributes of the essence to the 7 mentioned above, and then later adding Allah’s face, hand and self.

Another important question is, ‘Why doesn’t Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah) add to what he considered attributes ‘the shin, the side, the eyes, the foot and the spirit?’

This is important because Allah annexes His name or personal pronoun to each of these things in the Qur’an or the Messenger does so in the hadith. So if I am to accept that Allah has a face, hand and a self, simply because He annexes such things to His name or pronoun. I should also accept that He has eyes, a spirit, a foot, a side, a shin, a she-camel, a house and any other thing that He has attached His name or pronoun to.

And if the Salafis agree with Imam Abu Hanifa’s (rahimahullah) creed, they should only accept as attributes those things that Imam Abu Hanifa  declared to be attributes. This would mean that Salafis have to stop saying that Allah has a foot, a shin, a side and eyes.

But we know that they won’t do that, because Salafis are very selective about what they want to accept from the Salaf and what they don’t want to accept, all the while claiming that their ‘aqeeda is the ‘aqeeda of the Salaf.

If they use Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah)’s words about the face, hand and self as being proof that they follow the manhaj and understand of the Salaf, they should only say what the Salaf said and stop adding to their words.

So to accept that these are the words of Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh), we’d either have to accept the first interpretation or we’d have to accept the second, which would mean that he is in contradiction with his self.

And if that is so, we’d have to accept that Imam Abu Hanifa may not have been an authority on this subject.

As for referring to these problematic verses and hadiths as “Attributes Verses” (Aayaat al-Sifaat) or ‘Reports of Attributes’ (Akhbaar as-Sifaat), this was the specific terminology that scholars used to refer to them even though they didn’t actually mean that such ascriptions mentioned in the scripture were attributes of Allah. Imam Ibn al-Jawzi’s words above clarify the error of this sort of designation. So hopefully that should resolve any confusion about the issue.

Footnotes:

[A] In other words, to say such a thing would be equal to saying what the people who deny the divine decree (Qadar) say and like Mu’tazilities who say that everytime Allah ascribes a hand to His self, it means ‘power’.

[1] In Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah’s 1998/1418 publication of Kitaab al-Ibaanah, it reads on page 40:

“Haarun Ibn Ishaq al-Hamdani mentionee about Abu Nu’aym feom Sulayman Ibn ‘Eesa al-Qari that Sufyan ath-Thawri said: “I said to Hammaad Ibn Abi Sulayman: “Proclaim to Abu Hanifa, The Idolator, that I am innocent of him.” Sulayman said: “That’s because he used to say, “The Qur’an is created”.

Sufyan Ibn Waki’ said: “I heard ‘Umar ibn Hammad, the grandson of Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh), say: “My father said to me: “The comment that Ibn Abi Layla demanded that Abu Hanifa repent from his statement: “The Qur’an is created” He (Hammad) said: “So he repented from it and announced his repentance publicly. My (Hammad) said: “How did you tuen to this?” He (Imam Abu Hanifa) said: “I feared – by Allah – that I would be disciplined. So I used a misleading expression to trick him (heela).

Harun Ibn Ishaq said, I heard Isma’eel Ibn Abi al-Hakam mention about ‘Umar Ibn ‘Ubayd At-Tanaafusi that Hammad – i.e Ibn Abi Sulayman – sent someone to Imam Abu Hanifa to say: “Verily I am innocent of what you say until you repent”.

Ibn ‘Abi Inabah was with him (i.e. Hammad) and said: “Your neighbour told me that Imam Abu Hanifa invited him to what he was asked to repent from after he had alrwady been asked to repent from it”.

And it was mentioned that Imam Abu Yusuf said, “I debated with Imam Abu Hanifa for two months until he retracted his statement about the createdness of the Qur’an”. [Al-Ash’ari, Abu al-Hasan (ascribed to him), Kitaab al-Ibaanah ‘an Usul ad-Diyanah: 1998/1418 Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah. Marginal notes by ‘Abdullah Mahmood Muhammad ‘Umar]

On the same page, the commentator, ‘Abdullah Mahmood Muhammad ‘Umar, makes the following comments:

“Tahaawi, states in his book, Al-Aqeedah al-Tahawiyyah, what contradicts these narrations that claim that Imam Abu Hanifa used to state that the Qur’an is created. And Tahaawi is more reliable in transmission and more knowing of the creed of his comrades (Imam Abu Hanifa and his two Companions) than Al-Ash’ari is. Imam Tahaawi, the Hanafi, says: “The Qur’an is the word of Allah. It came from Him as speech without it being possible to say how. He sent it down upon His Messenger as revelation. The believers accept it as absolute truth. They are certain that it is, in truth, the word of Allah. It was not created like the speech of human beings…’

So the commentator, in spite of the fact that he seems to accept that the book is properly ascribed to Imam al-Ash’ari, he establishes that such a claim made by him cannot be substantiated, since it conflicts with the reports given by those who have better knowledge of the creed of Imam Abu Hanifa who conveyed it to the Ummah.

Add to this, Al-Ash’ari doesn’t list Imam Abu Hanifa among those who believed the Qur’an to be created in his book, Maqalaat al-Islamiyyeen, even though the narrations above from Al-Ibaanah give the impression that Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah) never actually relinquished the presumed belief that the Qur’an is created.

[2] These seven attributes are referred to by the Ash’ari’s as ‘The Abstract Attributes’ (Sifaat al-Ma’ani).

[3] In addition to the seven aforementioned attributes, Ash’ari’s include the following six:

– Existence

– Permanance without beginning

– Endurance without end

– Absoluteness Independence

– Dissimilarity to Created Beings

– Oneness

Existence is known as the ‘Essential Attribute’ (As-sifah an-Nafsiyyah), since without it  Allah would not be able of being described by any of the others.

The other 5 are known as the ‘Negating Attributes’ (As-sifat As-Salbiyyah). This is because by establishing them, one negates their opposites from Allah’s being.

[4] Ash’ari’s also include seven other attributes called ‘Signifying attributes’ (As-Sifaat al-Ma’nawiyyah). They are:

– That Allah be Powerful
– That Allah be Willful
– That Allah be Knowing
– That Allah be Living
– That Allah be Seeing
– That Allah be Hearing
– That Allah be Speaking

They are called the ‘Signifying attributes’ (As-Sifaat al-Ma’nawiyyah), because they signify that Allah has the attribute that each adjective implies, i.e. power, Will, knowledge, sight, hearing and speech.

Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh) mentions only the 7 abstract attributes. But this doesn’t mean that he denies the existence of the other thirteen mentioned by the Ash’ari’s. This is because the ‘essential attribute’ of ‘existence’ and the other five negating attributes are characteristics of the 7 ‘essential qualities. So they go without saying.

[5] The reason that Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh) doesn’t mention the 5 ‘negating attributes’ (i.e. permanence without beginning, endurance without end, absolute independence, dissimilarity to creation, and oneness), the ‘Essential Attribute’ (Existence) and the 7 signifying attributes stated above, is that these attributes are actually qualities of Allah’s main qualities, which are the 7 Attributes of the Essence or as Ash’aris call them, ‘Abstract Attributes’.

[6] The ‘Creative-Will’ is a translation of what Maturidis refer to as ‘takhleeq.’

[7] The ‘will to act’ is a translation for the word, ‘fi’l’, usually translated as ‘action.’ I translated as ‘will to act’ since it is more in line with the actual creed of Maturidis who based much of their creed off of the doctrine of Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah). To translate fi’l as ‘action’ or ‘act’ would imply that the creation – one of Allah’s actions – is eternal without a beginning, since the author states that the ‘fi’l’ is uncreated.

[8] In other words, to say such a thing would be equal to saying what the people who deny the divine decree (qadar) say and like the Mu’tazalities who say that everytime Allah ascribes a hand to His self, it means ‘power.’

[9] Imam Shawkani states in his Irshad al-Fuhool while discussing the different relationships that tie between literal and figurative language that one of them is, “Assigning a thing the name of one of its forms and manifestations, like using the word ‘hand’ to refer to ‘power’….[Irshad al-fuhool 1/119] In other words, the hand is a form or manifestation of power. This would mean thar when one says that the ‘hand’ is one of Allah’s attributes, he really means that it is His power even though a different word is used to apply to it. And Allah knows best.

Science Can Not Disprove GOD’s existence.

There is actually no scientific basis that can tell you that God does not exist. It is not science’s domain to test whether there is God or not. Science is simply a tool to test what is empirically true. Science operates on induction. The inductive method entails searching out things in the world and drawing generalized conclusions about those things based on observations. Scientists can only draw conclusions on what they find, not on what they can’t find. So how can Science disprove something which they can’t see and will never be able to. As GOD cannot be seen for sure. Because from Qur’an we know that GOD is unlike His creation [See Qur’an 42:11]. And, No vision can grasp Him  [see Qur’an 6:103]. Moreover, How can a Creator be a part of His Creation?

It is totally unreasonable for one to think in a scientific framework to put God as an extra element. Within scientific framework, it is true that an extra element is not needed, since we already made the assumption that everything is contained and confined within the universe and nothing can be lost. But this does not mean that science denies the existence of God. There is no reason to think that way. People has a distorted view of Science. Because some take the position that if science doesn’t give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. As Freeman Dyson says and I quote, “The public has a distorted view of Science because Children are taught in schools that science is a collection of firmly established  truths. In fact, science is not a collection of truths. It is continuing exploration of mysteries.”

There is no reason to consider God’s actions in a scientific framework and in the same time, there is no reason to consider that God does not exist based on scientific deduction. Scientific theories only propose that which is falsifiable. That means the scientific method can’t answer any questions but only shows what is a false answer out of innumerable possibilities. We should not try to apply science outside of the fields for which it is meant. Some take the position that if science doesn’t give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That’s simply the false assumption scientism. However, it would be a mistake to expect it to be able to test everything. In this case, ”GOD’s existence”. There are many more intellectual tools available to us than just science, and as the old saying goes, when all you’ve got is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail!  Science is not deficient in any way; but it’s just not the right way to find few particular kinds of truths. To try to do so would be like trying to ascertain whether a banana is tasty by sticking it in your ear and listening to it; it’s simply the wrong method!

I really do not understand why a scientist and let alone a non-scientist would have to throw away their religious identity over a scientific theory, which cannot be proven in a universal way. Of course if someone wants to become atheist it is their choice, but don’t ever think religious people are inferior. Religious people could be smarter than an atheist person, and religious people could cleverly manage their life so they can achieve many things without losing their religious identity.

And one more thing I wanna say that if any non-scientist reading this article of mine I would like to advice them that, before you ever accept or even think about a scientific result, try to think like a scientist for a while, in the correct way, not in the way that the atheistic propaganda wants you to think. Then make your decision based on your own thought, not theirs. They are also human, so they can be wrong and so can I.

Ibn al-Humam in al-Tahrir on the Issue of Imkan al-Kizb

This post was shared by a brother in the now defunct Sunniforum.com.

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?74141-Ibn-al-Humam-in-al-Tahrir-on-the-Issue-of-Lying-in-Allah-s-Power&p=628921#post628921
by Muzzammil Husayn

In the following translated passage from Ibn al-Humam’s al-Tahrir fi ‘Ilm al-Usul and Ibn Amir al-Hajj’s commentary, they ascribe to the Ash’aris the view that apparently reprehensible acts (qaba’ih) like lying are included in Allah’s power but impossible due to His eternal choice. Regardless of whether this ascription is accurate or not, Ibn al-Humam continues to say that this view is acceptable and does not differ in outcome from the other view, and it is not permissible to repudiate it. The section from al-Tahrir with the commentary can be found here: http://feqh.al-islam.com/Page.aspx?p…kID=87&PID=219

In favour of the Hanafis [i.e. Maturidis] and the Mu‘tazilah in the third [issue of contention] i.e. the impossibility for Allah of punishing the obedient and burdening [a soul] more than can be borne, is that it is established with certainty that an action has the quality of goodness (husn) and badness (qubh) in reality [even if this cannot be determined rationally] so it is impossible for it i.e. the action of Allah (Most High) to have this quality i.e. badness, Exalted is Allah from that.

Furthermore, there is agreement [between the Maturidis, Mu‘tazilah and Ash‘aris] on the independence of the intellect to grasp them i.e. goodness and badness, in the sense of an attribute of perfection (kamal) and imperfection (naqs) like knowledge [is an attribute of perfection hence good] and ignorance [is an attribute of imperfection hence bad] according to what has preceded*, so by immediate necessity that in which an imperfection is perceived is impossible for Him i.e. Allah (Most High). And since that in which an imperfection is perceived is impossible for Him, the certainty of the impossibility of giving Him i.e. Allah (Most High) the quality of lying and its like, Exalted is He from that, is manifest.

Furthermore, if it was not impossible for His action to have the quality of badness (qubh), trust in the integrity of His promise and the integrity of His report besides it i.e. promises from Him (Most High) will be lifted, as well as the integrity of prophecy; i.e. there can be no certainty of His integrity at all, neither rationally, because it is supposed there is no judgement in favour of it [i.e. His integrity], nor legally, because it is from that which cannot be affirmed by transmission because transmission being a proof, rather its establishment, is a corollary of His (Most High) integrity; since if lying were possible for Him, His confirmation of the Prophet by producing a miracle by his hands would not be [effective] because He is in effect saying “he is truthful in his claim” indicating his integrity, but when transmission is dependent on His integrity, this will not be established thereby. This also entails that the integrity of the claimant of prophethood cannot in essence be held with certainty due to the possibility of a miracle appearing on the hands of a liar so the door of prophethood will close and trust in his speech will be lifted, and this consequence is unacceptable so the cause is likewise [unacceptable]…

According to the Ash‘aris, there is certainty of not attributing Him (Most High) with anything bad but not rational impossibility, like all knowledge in which it is certain that the reality is one of two opposites despite the possibility of the other if it were supposed that it is the reality; just like the certainty of Makkah and Baghdad, i.e. their existence since their non-existence is not rationally impossible. Therefore, i.e. since the matter is such, trust [in His integrity] being lifted is not necessary because the possibility of something rationally does not entail not having certainty of its absence.

The disagreement occurring in the rational impossibility and possibility of this occurs in every deficiency: Is His (Most High) power absent or is it i.e. the deficiency contained within it i.e. His power, while it is certain that He will not do [it] i.e. while the situation is that it is certain that He will not act on that deficiency? The Hanafis and Mu‘tazilah are [agreed] on the first i.e. that His power over it is absent due to the impossibility of His power being associated with impossibilities; and based on this they derive the impossibility of burdening [a soul] what cannot be borne and the impossibility of punishing the obedient.

His [i.e. Ibn al-Humam’s] words in al-Musayarah are: “Know that the Hanafis, since they made it impossible for Him to burden [a soul] that which cannot be borne, they prohibit more strongly that He will punish the good-doer who spent his life in obedience opposing the passions of his soul to please his Master, in the sense that He is exalted beyond that, for it is from the issue of transcendence, since making the good-doer and the sinner equal is unfitting in the dispositions of all intellects, and indeed Allah stated clearly its reprehensibility where He said: ‘What! Do those who seek after evil ways think that We shall hold them equal with those who believe and do righteous deeds,- that equal will be their life and their death? Ill is the judgment that they make.’ (Qur’an 45:21) Hence He considered it evil. This is regarding the possibility and impossibility for Him. As for occurrence (wuqu‘), it is certain of its absence, although according to the Ash‘aris it is because of the promise contrary to it, and according to the Hanafis and others, because of that and because of the reprehensibility of its opposite.”

We mentioned in al-Musayarah that the second [opinion], i.e. that He is able but He will definitely not do [it], is most inclusive [of the two opinions] in transcendence. That which is in al-Musayarah is: “The author of al-‘Umdah from our [Maturidi] scholars said: ‘He (Most High) is not described with power over oppression, foolishness and lying because the impossible is not included in the power and according to the Mu‘tazilah, He has the power but will not do [them].’ There is no doubt that excluding power from what was mentioned, it is the position of the Mu‘tazilah, and as for its establishment and then the impossibility from associating with them, it is more suitable to the position of the Ash‘aris. There is no doubt abstention from them is from the issue of transcendence, so the mind understands which of the two opinions is further in transcendence from ugliness: Is it power over them and then abstention from them by choice or abstention due to the absence of power, and the view of the most inclusive of the two opinions in transcendence is incumbent.”

This [being said], had Allah willed, a speaker would have said: It i.e. the dispute between the three groups is semantic; for the opinion of the Ash‘aris is that the intellect does not find it impossible for one who has the quality of divinity and sovereignty over everything to be described with oppression (jawr) and all that is not fitting since its outcome would be that he is an oppressive king and the intellect does not find it impossible for a king to be so i.e. oppressive; and it is not permissible for the Hanafis and Mu‘tazilah to repudiate this [view].

This passage is sufficient to dismiss the claim that the view that lying is included in the divine power but contingently impossible is heretical or even disbelief. According to Ibn al-Humam it only differs semantically from the other view as its outcome is the same, and he states clearly that it is not permissible to repudiate it.

*Ibn al-Humam is referring to his following statement:

There is no disagreement [between the Ash’aris, Maturidis and Mu’tazila] on its i.e. the intellect’s perception of the quality of an action in the sense of [it being] a quality of perfection (kamal) as is sometimes meant by “goodness” (husn) and a quality of imperfection (naqs) as is sometimes meant by “badness” (qabih) like knowledge and ignorance, as is said: “Knowledge is good [and perfect]” and: “Ignorance is bad [and imperfect].”

And there is no [disagreement] on them [i.e. on describing an action with goodness and badness] in the sense of praise and dispraise i.e. there is also no disagreement on the intellect grasping goodness in that which is unconditionally termed good of that which is associated with praise in the practices of norms and customs and [the intellect grasping] badness in that which is unconditionally termed bad of that which is associated with dispraise in the practices of norms and customs.

Rather, the disagreement is on the intellect grasping goodness and badness regarding them i.e. good and bad, i.e. on that which they are unconditionally used in the sense of deserving His (Most High) praise and His reward for the doer of that action as is sometimes meant by “good” and their opposite i.e. in the sense of deserving His (Most High) dispraise and His punishment for the doer of that action as is sometimes meant by “bad.”

وَلِلْحَنَفِيَّةِ وَالْمُعْتَزِلَةِ فِي الثَّالِثِ ) أَيْ امْتِنَاعِ تَعْذِيبِ الطَّائِعِ وَتَكْلِيفِ مَا لَا يُطَاقُ أَنَّهُ ( ثَبَتَ بِالْقَاطِعِ اتِّصَافُ الْفِعْلِ بِالْحُسْنِ وَالْقُبْحِ فِي نَفْسِ الْأَمْرِ فَيَمْتَنِعُ اتِّصَافُهُ ) أَيْ فِعْلِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى ( بِهِ ) أَيْ بِالْقُبْحِ ( تَعَالَى ) اللَّهُ عَنْ ذَلِكَ ( وَأَيْضًا فَالِاتِّفَاقُ عَلَى اسْتِقْلَالِ الْعَقْلِ بِدَرْكِهِمَا ) أَيْ الْحُسْنِ وَالْقُبْحِ ( بِمَعْنَى صِفَةِ الْكَمَالِ وَالنَّقْصِ كَالْعِلْمِ وَالْجَهْلِ عَلَى مَا مَرَّ فَبِالضَّرُورَةِ يَسْتَحِيلُ عَلَيْهِ ) أَيْ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى ( مَا أَدْرَكَ فِيهِ نَقْصٌ وَحِينَئِذٍ ) أَيْ وَحِينَ كَانَ مُسْتَحِيلًا عَلَيْهِ مَا أَدْرَكَ فِيهِ نَقْصٌ ( ظَهَرَ الْقَطْعُ بِاسْتِحَالَةِ اتِّصَافِهِ ) أَيْ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى ( بِالْكَذِبِ وَنَحْوِهِ تَعَالَى عَنْ ذَلِكَ وَأَيْضًا ) لَوْ لَمْ يَمْتَنِعْ اتِّصَافُ فِعْلِهِ بِالْقُبْحِ ( يَرْتَفِعُ الْأَمَانُ عَنْ صِدْقِ وَعْدِهِ وَ ) صِدْقِ ( خَبَرِ غَيْرِهِ ) أَيْ الْوَعْدِ مِنْهُ تَعَالَى ( وَ ) صِدْقِ ( النُّبُوَّةِ ) أَيْ لَمْ يَجْزِمْ بِصِدْقِهِ أَصْلًا لَا عَقْلًا لِأَنَّ الْفَرْضَ أَنْ لَا حُكْمَ لَهُ وَلَا شَرْعًا لِأَنَّهُ مِمَّا لَا يُمْكِنُ إثْبَاتُهُ بِالسَّمْعِ لِأَنَّ حُجِّيَّةَ السَّمْعِ بَلْ ثُبُوتُهُ فَرْعُ صِدْقِهِ تَعَالَى إذْ لَوْ جَازَ كَذِبُهُ لَمْ يَكُنْ تَصْدِيقُهُ لِلنَّبِيِّ بِإِظْهَارِ الْمُعْجِزَةِ عَلَى يَدَيْهِ فَإِنَّهُ فِي قُوَّةِ قَوْلِهِ هَذَا صَادِقٌ فِي دَعْوَاهُ دَالًّا عَلَى صِدْقِهِ وَإِذَا كَانَ السَّمْعُ مُتَوَقِّفًا عَلَى صِدْقِهِ لَمْ يَكُنْ إثْبَاتُهُ بِهِ وَيَلْزَمُ مِنْهُ أَنْ لَا يَجْزِمَ أَيْضًا بِصِدْقِ مُدَّعِي الرِّسَالَةِ أَصْلًا لِجَوَازِ إظْهَارِ الْمُعْجِزَةِ عَلَى يَدِ الْكَاذِبِ فَيَنْسَدُّ بَابُ النُّبُوَّةِ وَأَنْ يَرْفَعَ الثِّقَةَ عَنْ كَلَامِهِ وَاللَّازِمُ بَاطِلٌ فَالْمَلْزُومُ مِثْلُهُ وَلَعَلَّ الْمُصَنِّفَ إنَّمَا لَمْ يُفْرِدْ الْوَعِيدَ بِالذِّكْرِ كَمَا أَفْرَدَ الْوَعْدَ إمَّا اكْتِفَاءً بِدُخُولِهِ فِي خَبَرِ غَيْرِهِ وَإِمَّا مُوَافَقَةً لِلْأَشَاعِرَةِ فِي جَوَازِ الْخُلْفِ فِي الْوَعِيدِ كَمَا هُوَ ظَاهِرُ الْمَوَاقِفِ وَالْمَقَاصِدِ لِأَنَّهُ لَا يُعَدُّ نَقْصًا بَلْ هُوَ مِنْ بَابِ الْكَرَمِ وَقَدْ أَشْبَعْنَا الْكَلَامَ فِيهِ فِي حَلْبَةِ الْمُجِلِّي وَعَلَى هَذَا فَيَكُونُ قَوْلُهُ وَخَبَرُ غَيْرِهِ مَخْصُوصًا بِمَا سِوَاهُ ( وَعِنْدَ الْأَشَاعِرَةِ كَسَائِرِ الْخَلْقِ الْقَطْعُ بِعَدَمِ اتِّصَافِهِ ) تَعَالَى بِشَيْءٍ مِنْ الْقَبَائِحِ ( دُونَ الِاسْتِحَالَةِ الْعَقْلِيَّةِ كَسَائِرِ الْعُلُومِ الَّتِي يُقْطَعُ فِيهَا بِأَنَّ الْوَاقِعَ أَحَدُ النَّقِيضَيْنِ مَعَ عَدَمِ اسْتِحَالَةِ الْآخَرِ لَوْ قُدِّرَ ) أَنَّهُ الْوَاقِعُ ( كَالْقَطْعِ بِمَكَّةَ وَبَغْدَادَ ) أَيْ بِوُجُودِهِمَا فَإِنَّهُ لَا يُحِيلُ عَدَمُهُمَا عَقْلًا ( وَحِينَئِذٍ ) أَيْ وَحِينَ كَانَ الْأَمْرُ عَلَى هَذَا ( لَا يَلْزَمُ ارْتِفَاعُ الْأَمَانِ ) لِأَنَّهُ لَا يَلْزَمُ مِنْ جَوَازِ الشَّيْءِ عَقْلًا عَدَمُ الْجَزْمِ بِعَدَمِهِ ( وَالْخِلَافُ ) الْجَارِي فِي الِاسْتِحَالَةِ وَالْإِمْكَانِ الْعَقْلِيِّ لِهَذَا ( جَارٍ فِي كُلِّ نَقِيصَةٍ أَقُدْرَتُهُ ) تَعَالَى ( عَلَيْهَا مَسْلُوبَةٌ أَمْ هِيَ ) أَيْ النَّقِيصَةُ ( بِهَا ) أَيْ بِقُدْرَتِهِ ( مَشْمُولَةٌ وَالْقَطْعُ بِأَنَّهُ لَا يَفْعَلُ ) أَيْ وَالْحَالُ الْقَطْعُ بِعَدَمِ فِعْلِ تِلْكَ النَّقِيصَةِ ( وَالْحَنَفِيَّةُ وَالْمُعْتَزِلَةُ عَلَى الْأَوَّلِ ) أَيْ أَنَّ قُدْرَتَهُ عَلَيْهَا مَسْلُوبَةٌ لِاسْتِحَالَةِ تَعَلُّقِ قُدْرَتِهِ بِالْمُحَالَّاتِ ( وَعَلَيْهِ فَرَّعُوا امْتِنَاعَ تَكْلِيفِ مَا لَا يُطَاقُ وَ ) وَامْتِنَاعَ ( تَعْذِيبِ الطَّائِعِ ) وَلَفْظُهُ فِي الْمُسَايَرَةِ وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ الْحَنَفِيَّةَ لَمَّا اسْتَحَالُوا عَلَيْهِ تَكْلِيفَ مَا لَا يُطَاقُ فَهُمْ لِتَعْذِيبِ الْمُحْسِنِ الَّذِي اسْتَغْرَقَ عُمْرَهُ فِي الطَّاعَةِ مُخَالِفًا لِهَوَى نَفْسِهِ فِي رِضَا مَوْلَاهُ أَمْنَعُ بِمَعْنَى أَنَّهُ يَتَعَالَى عَنْ ذَلِكَ فَهُوَ مِنْ بَابِ التَّنْزِيهَاتِ إذْ التَّسْوِيَةُ بَيْنَ ” – ص 97 -” الْمُسِيءِ وَالْمُحْسِنِ غَيْرُ لَائِقٍ بِالْحِكْمَةِ فِي فِطَرِ سَائِرِ الْعُقُولِ وَقَدْ نَصَّ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى عَلَى قُبْحِهِ حَيْثُ قَالَ ( أَمْ حَسِبَ الَّذِينَ اجْتَرَحُوا السَّيِّئَاتِ أَنْ نَجْعَلَهُمْ كَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ سَوَاءً مَحْيَاهُمْ وَمَمَاتُهُمْ سَاءَ مَا يَحْكُمُونَ ) فَجَعَلَهُ سَيِّئًا هَذَا فِي التَّجْوِيزِ عَلَيْهِ وَعَدَمِهِ أَمَّا الْوُقُوعُ فَمَقْطُوعٌ بِعَدَمِهِ غَيْرَ أَنَّهُ عِنْدَ الْأَشَاعِرَةِ لِلْوَعْدِ بِخِلَافِهِ وَعِنْدَ الْحَنَفِيَّةِ وَغَيْرِهِمْ لِذَلِكَ وَلِقُبْحِ خِلَافِهِ ( وَذَكَرْنَا فِي الْمُسَايَرَةِ ) بِطَرِيقِ الْإِشَارَةِ فِي الْجُمْلَةِ ( أَنَّ الثَّانِي ) أَيْ أَنَّهُ يُقَدَّرُ وَلَا يُفْعَلُ قَطْعًا ( أَدْخَلَ فِي التَّنْزِيهِ ) فَإِنَّ الَّذِي فِي الْمُسَايَرَةِ ثُمَّ قَالَ يَعْنِي صَاحِبَ الْعُمْدَةِ مِنْ مَشَايِخِنَا وَلَا يُوصَفُ تَعَالَى بِالْقُدْرَةِ عَلَى الظُّلْمِ وَالسَّفَهِ وَالْكَذِبِ لِأَنَّ الْمُحَالَ لَا يَدْخُلُ تَحْتَ الْقُدْرَةِ وَعِنْدَ الْمُعْتَزِلَةِ يَقْدِرُ وَلَا يَفْعَلُ ا هـ وَلَا شَكَّ أَنَّ سَلْبَ الْقُدْرَةِ عَمَّا ذَكَرَ هُوَ مَذْهَبُ الْمُعْتَزِلَةِ وَأَمَّا ثُبُوتُهَا ثُمَّ الِامْتِنَاعُ عَنْ مُتَعَلِّقِهَا فَبِمَذْهَبِ الْأَشَاعِرَةِ أَلْيَقُ وَلَا شَكَّ أَنَّ الِامْتِنَاعَ عَنْهَا مِنْ بَابِ التَّنْزِيهَاتِ فَيَسْبُرُ الْعَقْلُ فِي أَنَّ أَيْ الْفَصْلَيْنِ أَبْلَغُ فِي التَّنْزِيهِ عَنْ الْفَحْشَاءِ أَهْوَ الْقُدْرَةُ عَلَيْهِ مَعَ الِامْتِنَاعِ عَنْهُ مُخْتَارًا أَوْ الِامْتِنَاعُ لِعَدَمِ الْقُدْرَةِ فَيَجِبُ الْقَوْلُ بِأَدْخَلِ الْقَوْلَيْنِ فِي التَّنْزِيهِ ا هـ ( هَذَا وَلَوْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ قَالَ قَائِلٌ هُوَ ) أَيْ النِّزَاعُ بَيْنَ الْفِرَقِ الثَّلَاثَةِ ( لَفْظِيٌّ فَقَوْلُ الْأَشَاعِرَةِ هُوَ إنَّهُ لَا يَسْتَحِيلُ الْعَقْلُ كَوْنَ مَنْ اتَّصَفَ بِالْأُلُوهِيَّةِ وَالْمِلْكِ لِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ مُتَّصِفًا بِالْجَوْرِ وَمَا لَا يَنْبَغِي إذْ حَاصِلُهُ أَنَّهُ مَالِكٌ جَائِرٌ وَلَا يُحِيلُ الْعَقْلَ وُجُودُ مَالِكٍ كَذَلِكَ ) أَيْ جَائِرٌ ( وَلَا يَسَعُ الْحَنَفِيَّةُ وَالْمُعْتَزِلَةُ إنْكَارَهُ

we ask barelwis: can Allah do Makr as in this verse

{وَيَمْكُرُونَ وَيَمْكُرُ اللَّهُ وَاللَّهُ خَيْرُ الْمَاكِرِينَ

isn’t Makr a defect (qubh) just like you say lying is ??

Seeing Allah in Dreams

Is it possible to see Allah in a dream? It is reported from Imam Abu Hanifa and others that they saw Allah in a dream, is that true?

ANSWER

In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,

The position of the mainstream Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah (Asha’ira and Maturidiyya) is that the vision of Allah Most High with the eyes of the head is rationally (aqlan) possible and that the believers will be blessed with this vision in the hereafter. This vision, however, will be without encompassment (ihata) or delimitation (tahdid) within any given limit (hadd), whether from the front, the back, above, below, right, or left. Allah Most High will be seen (unlike any material being) not in place or in a direction so far as being confronted, nor by the conjunction of the rays of light, nor by a certain definite distance between the one who sees and Allah.

In other words, the believers will see Allah Most High in Paradise without our specifying how and in a manner Allah knows best. It is impossible and wrong to draw analogy for the unseen from the seen. This vision of Allah is certainly unlike the vision of material things in this world, for vision in this world requires the seen to be in a place, direction, at a specific distance, etc, whilst the vision of Allah Most High in the hereafter will be free from such restrictions. Allah Most High will enable the believers to see His esteemed self. (Culled from Mulla Ali al-Qari’s Sharh Fiqh al-Akbar P: 245-246, Taftazani’s Sharh al-Aqa’id al-Nasafiyya P: 131, Nuh Ali Suleyman’s commentary on Jawhara al-Tawhid P: 113 and Bajuri’s commentary on the Jawhara P: 114)

The above is the position that the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah scholars have always maintained. The Mu’tazila and some other groups such as the Shi’a held that Allah Most High could not be seen at all, even on the Day of Resurrection or in Paradise. They interpreted certain verses of the Qur’an erroneously, rejected some sound hadiths claiming that such vision necessitated a physical body for Allah and a direction, which He Most High is free from. However, the position of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah is supported by many evidences of the Qur’an and Sunnah, of which some are presented below:

1) Allah Most High says:

“Some faces, that day, will beam (in brightness and beauty), looking towards their Lord.”(Surah al-Qiyama, V: 22-23)

2) Allah Most High says regarding the Prophet Sayyiduna Musa (Peace be upon him):

“When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: “O my Lord! Show (Yourself) to me, that I may look upon You.” Allah said: “By no means can you see Me (direct); But look upon the mount; if it abides in its place, then you shall see Me…” (Surah al-A’raf, V: 143)

In the above verse, Sayyiduna Musa (peace be upon him) requested to see Allah Most High. Had the vision of Allah been impossible, the request of Sayyiduna Musa (peace be upon him) would have been out of ignorance or foolishness or he would be making a request for the impossible, whereas all the Prophets of Allah are far removed from such things. Secondly, Allah Most High connected the vision with the abiding of the mountain firm in its place, which is something that is possible in itself. Hence, that which is connected to the possible is also possible. (Taftazani and Nasafi, Sharh al-Aqa’id al-Nasafiyya, P: 127-128)

3) Allah Most High says:

“There will be for them therein (in Paradise) all that they wish, and more besides in Our presence.”(Surah Qaf, V: 35)

The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) interpreted “more” saying that it referred to the vision of Allah Most High. (Narrated by Muslim and others)

4) Allah Most High says regarding the disbelievers:

“Verily, from their Lord, that Day, will they be veiled.”(Surah al-Mutaffifin, V: 15)

This verse explains that the disbelievers will be deprived from the vision of Allah; hence by contrast, it implies that the believers will be blessed with this vision. Thus, Sayyiduna Imam Shafi’i (Allah have mercy on him) said:

“Allah Most High’s veiling Himself from a people (disbelievers) due to His displeasure indicates that a group (believers) will see Him due to His pleasure. By Allah, had Muhammad ibn Idrees (Shafi’i himself) not been convinced that he will see his Lord in the hereafter, he would not have worshipped him in this world!” (Bajuri, Tuhfat al-Murid)

5) Sayyiduna Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the people (companions) said: “O Messenger of Allah! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?” He replied: “Do you have any doubt in seeing the full moon on a clear (not cloudy) night?” They replied: “No, O Messenger of Allah” He said: “Do you have any doubt in seeing the sun when there are no clouds?” They replied in the negative. He said: “You will see Allah (your Lord) in the same way….” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 773)

6) Sayyiduna Jarir ibn Abd Allah (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that we were sitting in the company of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) on a fourteenth night (of the lunar month), and he looked at the (full) moon and said: “You will see your Lord as you see this moon. You have no trouble in looking at it. So, whoever can should not miss the offering of prayers before sunrise (Fajr prayer) and before sunset (Asr prayer).” Then the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) recited: “And celebrate the praises of your Lord, before the rising of the sun and before (its) setting.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 4570 and others)

7) Moreover, the occurrence of the vision of Allah has been narrated from Sayyiduna Abu Bakr, Sayyiduna Huzayfa ibn al-Yaman, Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud, Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Abbas, Sayyiduna Abu Musa al-Ash’ari and many others (Allah be pleased with them all). No Companion (sahabi) of the Messenger of Allah is reported to have rejected the vision of Allah; hence there is complete consensus of the Companions on this. (Sharh al-Aqa’id al-Nasafiyya, P: 131 & Tuhfat al-Murid Sharh al-Jawhara, P: 115)

As far as the verse “Visions comprehend Him not, but He comprehends (all) vision” (6: 139) is concerned, it refers to encompassing Allah Most High with our vision. Vision and encompassment are two different things, the latter is rejected in this verse, in that the visions of humans will not be able to encompass Allah most High (even in the hereafter), whilst the former (vision) has been proven in many verses of the Qur’an and many Hadiths. (ibid)

The vision of Allah Most High in this world

The above few evidences were relating to the possibility of seeing Allah and the believers seeing Him Most High in the hereafter. As far as seeing Allah Most High in this world is concerned, there are two situations here. Seeing Him whist awake and secondly seeing Him in sleep.

a) Seeing Allah whilst awake

There is, more or less, a consensus amongst the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah scholars that, though logically possible, nobody is able to see Allah Most High in this world in the state of being awake. However, there is a difference of opinion as to whether the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) saw Allah Most High in the night of ascension (me’raj) or not.

The renowned Hadith scholar and Hanafi jurist, Mulla Ali al-Qari (Allah have mercy on him) states:

“There is an agreement among the Muslims (scholars) that no believer will see Allah Most High with his eyes in this world. The scholars only differed with regards to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) seeing Allah during his ascension to the heavens.” (Sharh Fiqh al-Akbar, P: 354)

Mulla Ali al-Qari then said, there is a consensus on the fact that the vision of Allah cannot take place in this world for other than the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace). He quoted Ibn al-Salah and Abu Shama saying that the one who claims to have seen Allah whilst being awake will not be believed, for this (vision of Allah whilst being awake) is something that even Sayyiduna Musa (peace be upon him) was prevented from when Allah Most High said to him: “By no means can you see Me”. However, there is a difference of opinion whether this vision occurred for the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace). (ibid)

Some scholars went to the extent of considering such a person, who claims to have seen Allah whilst awake, a Kafir, although most scholars were precautions and did not consider such a person to be an outright Kafir. However, there is no doubt that this person will be considered to have severely deviated. (ibid) Hence, no individual (besides the Messenger of Allah) is able to see Allah Most High whilst being awake in this mortal world.

As far as the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) is concerned, the Companions differed as to whether he (Allah bless him & give him peace) saw Allah in the night of Isra’ and Me’raj or not. Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Abbas and others (Allah be pleased with them all) related that he did, whilst Sayyida A’isha, Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud and others (Allah be pleased with them all) were of the opinion that he did not see Allah with the eyes of his head during his ascension to the heavens. As a result, the scholars of the Ahl al-Sunnah also have conflicting views on this issue.

Imam al-Bukhari relates that Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) said regarding the statement of Allah: “And We granted the vision (Ascension to the heavens) which We showed you, but as a trial for men…” (17.60): He said: “The sights which the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) was shown on the night he was taken to Bayt al-Maqdis (i.e. Jerusalem) were actual sights, (not dreams). And the cursed tree (mentioned) in the Qur’an is the tree of Zaqqum.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 3675)

Imam Tirmidhi has also related some narrations from Abd Allah ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) wherein he states that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) did see his Lord in the night of Isra’ and Me’raj. (See: Sunan Tirmidhi, chapter on the commentary of the Qur’an, Surah al-Najm)

On the other hand, Sayyida A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) has rigorously denied that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) saw Allah Most High with the eyes of his head. The following is the narration expressing her viewpoint:

Imam al-Bukhari (Allah have mercy on him) narrates from Masruq that the latter said: “I said to A’isha: “O my mother! Did Muhammad (Allah bless him & give him peace) see his Lord?” She replied: “My hair stands on end because of what you said. Have you no idea of three things? Whoever tells them to you is lying. Whosoever tells you that Muhammad (Allah bless him & give him peace) saw his Lord, is lying.” She then recited: “Visions comprehend Him not, but He comprehends (all) vision. He is the Subtle, the Aware” and “And it is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil”. (Secondly), whosoever tells you that he knows what shall happen tomorrow is lying.” She then recited: “No soul knows what it will earn tomorrow” And (thirdly) whosoever tells you that he (Allah bless him & give him peace) concealed something, is lying.” She then recited: “O Messenger. Proclaim the (message) which has been sent to you from your Lord”. “However, he (Allah bless him & give him peace) did see (the angel) Jibra’il (peace be upon him) in his actual form twice.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 4574).

Some scholars explained that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) had a vision with the eyes of the heart, and not with the eyes of his head. This is elucidated by Ibn Abbas’ other narrations in Sahih Muslim and elsewhere where he said: “He saw him with his heart.” Hence, in this way, the two opinions may be reconciled. (Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari, 8/430)

Imam al-Bajuri (Allah have mercy on him) said that the preferred position according to the Ulama is that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) did see his Lord in the night of al-Isra’ and al-Me’raj with the eyes of his head. The Hadith of Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) will be given preference over the position of Sayyida A’isha (Allah be pleased with her), as the principle states “Affirmation (ithbat) takes precedence over the negation (nafi)”. Hence, the position of Ibn Abbas and others (Allah be pleased with them all) will be given preference and it will be said that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) was blessed with the vision of his Lord in the night of al-Isra’ and al-Me’raj. (Bajuri, Tuhfat al-Murid, P: 117-118)

The best statement on the issue is of Shaykh Muhyi al-Din ibn Arabi (Allah have mercy on him). He said: This world is that which is below the heavens and anything above the heavens is considered to be part of the next world (akhira). Hence, the vision of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) will not be considered a vision of this world; rather it is a vision of the next world, and there is no disagreement concerning the vision of the hereafter. Hence, this vision of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) was also a type of the vision of the hereafter. (See: Ma’arif al-Qur’an, 3/412)

b) Seeing Allah in a dream

As far as the vision of Allah Most High in a dream is concerned, Imam al-Taftazani (Allah have mercy on him) states in his commentary of Imam Nasafi’s al-Aqa’id:

“As far as the vision of Allah in sleep is concerned, it is something that has been related from many predecessors (salaf). And there is no doubt that this is a type of observation by the heart rather than the eye.” (Sharh al-Aqa’id al-Nasafiyya, P: 135)

Mulla Ali al-Qari (Allah have mercy on him) states in his renowned Sharh Fiqh al-Akbar:

“The majority of the scholars are of the view that the vision of Allah Most High in sleep is possible, without any given description of modality (kayfiyya), direction (jiha) or quiddity (hay’a). It is recorded that Imam Abu Hanifa (Allah have mercy on him) said: “I saw Allah Most High 99 times whilst asleep.” Then he saw Him the hundredth time also, the story of which is long and not feasible to be mentioned here. It is recorded that Imam Ahmad (Allah have mercy on him) said: “I saw Allah Most High in a dream, I said: “O Lord! How is it possible to achieve closeness to You?” He replied: “By the recitation of my speech (Qur’an).” I said: “O Lord! Recitation with understanding or (even) without understanding?” He replied: “With or without understanding.” It is also narrated from the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) that he said: “I saw my Lord in my sleep.” Hence, the vision of Allah in sleep is recorded from many predecessors (salaf) and it is a type of observation by the heart observed by noble people…” (Sharh Fiqh al-Akbar, P: 356-357)

Imam al-Bajuri (Allah have mercy on him) states:

“As far as seeing Allah Most High in sleep, it is narrated from Qadhi Iyadh that there is no difference of opinion regarding its occurrence and truth, for the Satan cannot take the form of Allah Most High like he cannot take the form of the Prophets (peace be upon them)….. (Tuhfat al-Murid, P: 118)

The above-mentioned few texts of the scholars indicate clearly that Allah Most High can be (and has been) seen in a dream. It is something that His noble and pious servants are blessed with, and one cannot deny its occurrence. Indeed some Ulama did deny the possibility of seeing Allah in sleep, but that is a minority position not accepted by the majority of the scholars.

Imam al-Bajuri (Allah have mercy on him) has mentioned some additional notes regarding the vision of Allah in sleep in his commentary ofJawhara al-Tahid.

He states that, if one sees Allah in a manner that is not impossible for Allah, then one has surely seen Him. However, if one sees Him in a form that is impossible for Him such as seeing Him in a form of a specific individual, then that is not Allah rather it is the creation of Allah, and the dream will need to be interpreted by those qualified to do so. Some scholars said that even in such a case, one did actually see Allah, but the form seen is not the reality of Allah; rather, it is reflecting the mind of the one having the vision. (Tuhfat al-Murid Sharh Jawhara al-Tawhid, P: 118)

Imam Ibn Sirin (Allah have mercy on him), a major classical scholar considered to be a master in the science of interpreting dreams, states in his renowned book, The Interpretation of Dreams: (This book incidentally covers over 900 dreams with their meanings explained. It explains what facts are to be taken into account when interpreting a dream, when is a dream regarded as true or false, etc.)

“Sayyiduna Daniyal (peace be upon him) relates that if a believer was to see Allah Most High in his dream unequalled and incomparable, as is related in the verses of the Qur’an and in the Hadiths, he will be blessed with the magnificent sight of Allah Most High (in the hereafter) and his needs will also be fulfilled. If an individual was to see a dream in a manner that he was standing before Allah Most High and that He Most High was watching him, then the dream is a sign of his piety and spiritual well-being. He will be chosen for forgiveness, and if he is sinful he will repent.” (Ta’bir al-Ru’ya, P: 67)

Imam Ibn Sirin then goes on to mention many types of dreams in which one sees Allah Most High and gives their interpretations. For example, if one sees that Allah Most High is talking secretly with one, then this means one is close to Allah Most High. If one sees that Allah Most High is advising one and giving one Nasiha, then this alludes to the fact that Allah Most High is not completely happy with one’s actions. A glad tiding from Allah is a sign of His pleasure and admonition from Allah is a sign of His wrath and anger (ibid). For more details, one may refer to Imam Ibn Sirin’s above-mentioned book, but one should consult a reliable scholar of knowledge, piety and wisdom before coming to any sort of conclusion.

To sum up, the vision of Allah Most High is rationally possible and the believers will be blessed with this vision in the hereafter. However, no one is able to see Allah in this world whilst in a state of being awake besides the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace), and regarding the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) too, there is a difference of opinion amongst the Companions (Allah be pleased with them all). As far as seeing Allah in sleep is concerned, this is possible and is related from many pious servants of Allah, saints and scholars.

And Allah knows best

[Mufti] Muhammad ibn Adam 
Darul Iftaa 
Leicester , UK

Source

What does “Omnipresence” of Allah Ta’ala mean??

A Brain-dead Anthropomorphist ‘Salafi’  after having a look at the article: Divine Omnipresence of Allah Ta’ala  posts a non-sensical question regarding the term ‘Omnipresence of Allah Ta’ala’, his stupid Question was:

“Um… do you lot not know what “omnipresent” means?”

These duffer Salafi-modernists agents of Iblees, when they could not refute the proofs laid down academically, resort to transform into ‘quiz-masters’ as if like they had already refuted the contention which had been made, their moto is “If you cannot refute them, then question them and confuse them!”

OMNIPRESENCE

The Principle of Omnipresence for the Divine Attributes are not literal as the Juhhaal Salafis want the people to believe and get mis-leaded to their “Quiz-masters ‘baboon’ tactic”

“Omnipresence” is an Attribute of Allah Ta’ala mentioned in simple Qur’aanic terms without delving into philosophical, metaphysical, academic and copro-arguments with all their hair-splitting paraphernalia, incongruities, absurdities, etc.  –  argument and exposition which are totally destructive for the masses, arguments which display the  ghabaawah (density of brains)  of even so-called ‘shaikhul islams’, and which open the avenue for kufr.

‘Omnipresence’ or ‘Everywhere’ is the most logical and simplest way for negating makaan for Allah Azza Wa Jal. It is the best manner of refuting the Taimiyyite-Hashawi Aqeedah concept of confining Allah Azza Wa Jal to a specific place and space of His creation. The Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah absolutely deny and negate the Taimiyyite belief of the confinement of Allah Ta’ala in space and direction  –  high is He above such blasphemy which the anthropomorphists and Taimiyyites ascribe to Him.
(Did you know??: ‘Salafi’ is just a label to deceive masses but they follow 7th century scholar Ibn Taymiyyah!, know more: Are the Salafis “followers of Salaf Saaliheen”?? )

Allah Ta’ala states in the Qur’aan Majeed:

The east and the west belong to Him. Wherever you turn your face, there is the Face (Presence) of Allah.

He is with you wherever you are.

He is with them wherever they are.

He is Allah in the heaven and Allah in the earth.

Thus, Allah’s Presence as mentioned in the Qur’aan, is Everywhere without confinement to makaan, and to our understanding it is Divine Omnipresence bila kayf. The uncorrupted minds of simple people do not dwell into avenues of kufr nor embroil themselves in hair-splitting academic issues and arguments. The simple belief of  ‘everywhere bila kayf’  is an affirmation of the belief of the Ahlus Sunnah that Allah Ta’ala is not confined to any specific space. This is the belief of Imaam Abu Hanifah and of all the Salf-e-Saaliheen  –  a belief inherited from the Sahaabah.

We do believe that Allah Ta’ala is in the Arsh, but at the same time we also believe that He is near to our jugular veins bila kayf (i.e without how) but unlike the hypocrite Salafis we do not take the literal meaning (with howness) for the first one and a selective ‘Ta’weel‘ for the second (Note: according to the crooked “Manhaaj” of the brain-dead Salafis, Ta’weel is not valid, yet one will see a Salafi moron hypocritically making Ta’weel for the ayat of “Allah being near to us than our Jugular veins”  as “knowledge” or even the ayat t “He is with you wherever you are” to mean “His knowledge is with us” and so on).

In the exposition of the Qur’aanic  verse: “He (Allah) is with you wherever you are.”, Imaam Bayhaqi narrated that the Sahaabi, Hadhrat Ubaadah (radhiyallahu anhu) said that the best Imaan of a Mu’min is that he understands and has implicit faith that Allah is with him wherever he is.  [Al-Asmaa’].

In simple terms: Allah Ta’ala being everyhwere (Omnipresent) in the meaning of  the context of the above Qur’aanic verses affirming Omnipresence  for Him  –  a meaning which is beyond the comprehension of the created human mind with its finite boundaries of operation.

Describing the non-existence of  makaan in relation to Allah Azza Wa Jal, Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) stating the belief of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah, said: 

“He existed (since Eternity) and there had not existed makaan (space/place i.e. not even the ‘Arsh).”

We are to simply believe just as Allah Ta’ala says in the Qur’aan and Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in the Hadith. The Qur’aan says: Allah is wherever you turn your face. We say: Yes, we believe Allah is bila kayf  wherever we turn our face. The Qur’aan says: Allah is with you wherever you are. We say: We believe Allah is with us bila kayf  wherever we are. The Qur’aan says: Allah made istiwa on the Arsh. We say: We believe Allah’s  istiwa on the Arsh, bila kayf,  whatever it may mean without us attempting to fathom the  haqeeqat  of this istiwa. The Qur’aan says Allah is in the heaven and in the earth. We say: We believe Allah is in the heaven and in the earth bila kayf – bila makaan.

The only benefit and utility of the polemical and philosophical expositions of the Akaabireen Salaf-e-Saaliheen and of our recent Ulama on the issue of Allah’s  Sifaat and Zaat were to refute the corrupt, kufr beliefs of  the many baatil sects which had mushroomed in the Ummah. All of them were the illegitimate offspring of Greek philosophy initiated by the Mu’tazilahs & Hashawiyyah-Taymiyyites.

Also read: A Response to: “Akhi! If Allah is Everywhere, then is He also in Filthy Places??”