Tag Archives: Salafi misuse of the term ‘filthy places’

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

By Majlisul Ulama

Presenting another argument to bolster the Taimiyyite belief of makaan  for Allah Azza Wa Jal, the coprocreep says: 

“The same Molvi was asked about Allah being in  filthy places  after having implied that Allah is everywhere…..The Salaf have clearly used the argument of filthy places to negate that Allah is everywhere coupled with the many evidences to prove that Allah is Above everything….” 
The coprocreep is mired in confusion as an effect of his stupidity. The argument of ‘filthy places’ was utilized by the Salaf-e-Saaliheen to negate the Jahmiyyah/Taimiyyah belief of makaan  for Allah Azza Wa Jal. It was not used to negate ‘everywhere’ in the meaning in which the masses understand it, viz. there is no makaan  to confine Allah Azza Wa Jal. The coprocreep’s difficulty stems  from his kufr belief of Allah Ta’ala being physically confined to the Arsh.  In the Qur’aan Majeed Allah Ta’ala states with clarity and emphasis that His  Wajh (Face)  is ‘everywhere’  –  wherever you turn your face, there is the Divine Face. Since ‘Face’,  ‘Hand’, etc. do not have physical meanings in the Aqeedah of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah as expounded by Imaam Maturidi, these being among His  Sifaat, the  question of ‘filthy places’ does not apply to the concept of ‘everywhere bila makaan–bila kayf’.  Yes, undoubtedly, it applies to those who confine Allah Ta’ala to physical space like the Jahmis and Taimiyyis.  The coprocreep should answer: Is Allah Ta’ala aware of what goes on in filthy places? Does Allah Ta’ala see into filthy places? Does Allah Ta’ala  hear what takes place in filthy places? Does Allah’s power extend into filthy places, etc., etc. ad infinitum  in relation to His  Sifaat? Whatever the coprocreep’s answer is to these questions will be our answer to the question in relation to ‘Presence’.  

Just as Allah’s Sifaat of  Basr, Sam’a, Kalaam, Hayaat, Ilm, Qudrat, Takhleeq, Tarzeeq, etc.  are not the effects of physical appendages, so too is His  Sifat of Wajh (Face).  His  Presence  is His  Sifat  which has absolutely no physical connotation, hence the stupid question of ‘filthy places’ does not apply. It dwells only in the filthy minds of coprocreeps who assign Allah Azza Wa Jal into a confined created space, thereby stripping Allah Azza Wa Jal of His  Sifaat.  It is utterly baseless to direct the ‘filthy places’ argument to those who do not believe in  makaan for Allah Ta’ala. 

The coprocreep’s contention that there are many evidences to prove that Allah is above everything  is  baatil.  It should be understood that when the coprocreep uses ‘above’ in relation to Allah Azza Wa Jal, he means physical aboveness. He assigns makaan  to Allah Ta’ala, and he confines Allah Azza Wa Jal to the restricted space of the created Arsh. There is no ‘evidence’ of the Salaf-e-Saaliheen for such a corrupt and blasphemous belief. None of the Salaf believed in this copro-doctrine of kufr which is the disease of the Taimiyyites.  

The belief of the Ahlus Sunnah regarding Allah’s Presence is the concept of  Nufoothul Ilaahiyyah (Permeation of Divinity), and this is precisely what the masses understand when it is said Allah Ta’ala is ‘everywhere’. The masses with their uncorrupted minds do not believe in a physical being and the confinement of Allah Azza Wa Jal to physical  makaan  as the Taimiyyites do. Thus, if the ‘filthy places’ argument is directed to the  Sifat of Wajh,  it should likewise be directed to all the other Divine Sifaat,  for verily, they are all in the same category  –  azli, abadi, and NOT physical.  The coprocreep’s confusion is the product of his physical concept fabricated for Allah Azza Wa Jal.

Presenting another stupid argument for ascribing physical space and dimension to Allah Azza Wa Jal, the coprocreep says:

I  confronted him with the text of Sharh Aqaa’id  “and Allah is not set in ANY place”. His reply (while smiling): ‘I need to check it up.’”

The Molvi’s inability to understand or his lack of knowledge of the finer points of Aqeedah is not an adverse reflection on the Ulama of Deoband or on Imaam Maturidi. The text of Sharah Aqaa’id is 100% correct. Allah Ta’ala is not confined to any  makaan.  This is our Aqeedah. It is the Aqeedah of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah while the belief of the Taimiyyites is that Allah Ta’ala is confined to the created space of the created Arsh. Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) stated unequivocally that the belief of confining Allah Ta’ala to makaan is kufr

The coprocreep’s criticism of Allaamah Kauthari is grounded in his (the coprocreep’s) jahaalat. At no stage did Allaamah Kauthari deny the greatness, highness, glory, grandeur and majesty of Allah Azza Wa Jal. It devolves on this moron to produce the precise statement/s of Allaamah Kauthari to back up his slander.  Like the rest of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah, Allaamah Kauthari denied the physical ‘highness’  –  the confines of the physical space of the Arsh  –  the Taimiyyite belief of kufr. There is no person even among all the baatil sects subscribing to a multitude of kufr beliefs who ever had the kufr audacity to deny the ‘highness’ of Allah Ta’ala in the abstract meaning of the term. The denial relates to the rejection of the Jahmi/Taiymi belief of the physical ‘highness’ (presence) which the coprocreeps ascribe to Allah Azza Wa Jal.

Little does the coprocreep realize that the blasphemous belief of physical ‘aboveness’ spawns for Allah Azza Wa Jal the defective attributes of derogation and imperfection, since it makes Allah Ta’ala subservient to His makhlooq (created space – makaan) –Nauthubillaah! Continuing with his spurious arguments, the coprocreep  says:

“A former colleague studying Saheeh Muslim in a Darul Uloom asked the Sheikh for some guidance about how to counter the Salafis on this particular Hadith. The teacher hesitated, then referred them to Nawawi’s Sharh. But no answer.”

The inability  of the student and the Ustaadh to provide a satisfactory answer cannot by any stretch of imagination or logic be interpreted as being a conflict in the  Minhaaj  of the Ulama of Deoband. It is ridiculous to expect every student and every Ustaadh to be experts  in the polemical science of  Aqeedah. Great Ulama too are unacquainted with many issues due to lack of research in particular fields of knowledge. Sometimes there is no need to waste time on research for which there is no need. Not everyone is inclined to  a subject. Not everyone has the intellectual ability to grasp the hair-splitting arguments which are encountered in philosophy and Kalaam within the parameters of which the polemics of Aqeedah are discussed. It is therefore no blot whatsoever on the Ustaadh who was unable to answer the student on the specific question pertaining to a specific Hadith. In short, this issue of the Ustaadh and the student is an insipid stupid copro-filled, silly argument which is devoid of any substance.

Presenting another  nonsensical argument, the coprocreep says:

“Another guy responded to me: And Allah is with you wherever you are (al-Hadeed). A trait of the People of Whims and Innovation is that they do not look at the whole picture; they concentrate on perverted interpretations of some theological provisions and use them to create doubts within the minds of their masses.” 

In fact, the Taimiyyites do not look at the ‘whole picture’, hence they apply their corrupt principle of  ta’weel  selectively. When it suits their whims and fancies, they adopt ta’weel  to innovate blasphemous beliefs such as their corrupt interpretation of the  Istiwa’ aayat to innovate the blasphemy of a physical Allah confined by physical space on a physical throne, all of which are His creations. Taimiyyites look at issues with oblique vision. They fail to understand the consequences of a corrupt belief. Specifying physical dimension and direction for Allah Azza Wa Jal, spawns a physical deity – Nauthubillah

They are the ones guilty of not looking at the whole picture. They are the ones who corrupt the minds of the ignorant masses by propagating a kufr belief which was originated by the Jahmiyyah centuries prior to the appearance of Ibn Taimiyyah. His idea of physical ‘aboveness’ or physical ‘highness’ for Allah Azza Wa Jal is his heritage from the Jahmiyyah.

As for the aayat in question, the Qur’aan Majeed states in Surah Al-Hadeed:

“It is He Who has created the heavens and the earth in six days, then He established (His Qudrat) on the Arsh. He knows what enters into the earth and what  emerges  from it. He is with you wherever you are. And, Allah sees whatever you are doing.” [Al-Hadeed, aayat 4]

The coprocreep interprets part of the aayat literally, and part of it figuratively. While ascribing a literal meaning to the Istiwa’ part, to convey the notion that Allah Ta’ala sits on the Arsh, he ascribes an abstract meaning to the presence in the heavens and the earth. Thus, he says that Allah Ta’ala is in reality on the Arsh, but not in reality in  the heavens and in/on the earth. What is his  daleel  for creating this difference? While we are not averse to the interpretation applicable to the statement:  ‘in the heavens and in the earth’, the coprocreep should explain why it is not possible for ascribing a similar or identical meaning to  fissamaawati wa fil ardh –  the meaning ascribed to  istiwa  alal arsh?  Both issues could be depicted as being  bila kayf.  The Qur’aan affirms both conditions for Allah Azza Wa Jal.

Refuting the idea of Allah Ta’ala sitting on the Arsh, Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) states in his  Kitaabul Wasiyyah: “If He (Allah) was dependent on sitting and resting, then before the creation of the Throne where was Allah? Thus He is free from this. High and great (is He).”

Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) further states in his Kitaabul Wasiyyah: “We acknowledge that Allah has made ‘istiwa’ on the Arsh without Him having any need for it (the Arsh) nor any need for resting thereon. He is the Protector of the Arsh and (everything) besides the Arsh.”   

It is best to refrain from presenting a translation/interpretation for the word  ‘istiwa’ due to the corrupt notions which stem from translations and interpretations. The notorious idea which the Taimiyyite conception of  ‘istiwa’  spawns is that Allah Ta’ala sits on the Throne like a human king. In this regard Mullah Ali Qaari states in the annotations of  Sharah Fiqhil Akbar:

“Imaam Abu Hanifah said that whoever says that Allah is in the heavens or on earth is a kaafir because the (logical) conclusion of this statement is that he has fixed a place for Allah Ta’ala. He who entertains this notion (of makaan) for Allah Ta’ala is a Mushabbihah (a deviant sect).”

The dogmatic and bigoted averment that Allah Ta’ala is stationed on the  Arsh is tantamount to fixing makaan  for Allah Ta’ala since the Arsh is a created finite structure. With regard to the Arsh being Allah’s creation as  was explicitly and emphatically confirmed by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the later reviver of the Hashwi anthropomorpic cult, Ibn Taimiya propounded the kufr that the Arsh in its species was not created by Allah Azza Wa Jal, but is co-eternal with Allah Ta’ala, having had no temporal origin. This kufr  has been demolished in this treatise: The Kufr and Shirkiyyah Philosophy of Ibn Taymiyyah

In Anwaarul Baari, Hadhrat Allaamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri (rahmatullah alayh) enumerates several of Ibn Taimiyya’s beliefs. One of his beliefs, is: “Allah sits and rests on the Arsh. Eight rams  are bearing aloft the Divine Arsh. ……In Fathul Baari, Vol.13, page 314, Haafiz states that the math-hab of the Jismiyyah sect who interprets  istiwa’ to mean istiqraar (to rest), is baatil. On page 316, Vol.13, Haafiz narrated that Imaam Muhammad said the  Sifaat  of Allah Ta’ala should be accepted without analogy and interpretation. Whoever resorts to interpretation like Jahm (the founder of the Jahmi sect),  is far from the path of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Sahaabah, and beyond the fold of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah.”

“Inside Allah Ta’ala is such mass (weight) which is heavier than the mass of the entire world, hence there is so much pressure on the Arsh (as a consequence of this weight)……Allah is in a direction, viz., above, hence people  inhabiting mountain peaks and top floors of buildings are closer to Allah…….On the Day of Qiyaamah, Allah Ta’ala will seat Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) alongside Him on the Arsh. …. The Arsh along with Allah Ta’ala is eternal.”

There are many other absolutely baatil beliefs of Ibn Taimiyyah. These corrupt beliefs of Ibn Taimiyyah scuttle the coprocreep’s lament, viz.: 

“They (i.e. the Deobandis) constantly put words in the mouth of the Sunni Hanaabilah like: ‘If Allah is on the throne, this would  mean He has a body and is restricted and is subject to direction and has a literal/physical presence’ and all that nonsense.” 

All of that ‘nonsense’ has in fact been propounded by Ibn Taimiyyah, and all of that ‘nonsense’ is the logical and rational conclusion of confining Allah Azza Wa Jal to a specific  makaan (space).  The Ulama of Deoband are not putting any words in the mouths of the Taimiyyites. The Taimiyyites themselves are  gorging  out these words of nonsense.


Presenting another spurious argument, the coprocreep says:

“I asked  a Molvi about this, and he replied with the verse: ‘And Allah is in the skies and the earth’, implying that Allah is everywhere. But this is wrong. In Arabic, the structure of this verse is similar to one saying:

Abu Bakr is the Khalifah in the East and  the West. So does this mean that Abu Bakr is everywhere? In the light of this, the correct translation of the verse in al-An’aam is: And He is the Allah in the skies and the earth, i.e. the one who is worthy of worship in the skies and the earth…”
It is  most significant that the coprocreep has resorted to ta’weel  (interpretation) to explain this aayat. In terms of his crooked ‘manhaaj’ta’weel  is not valid. Just as the Taimiyyites posit a literal translation for the ayaat pertaining to  Istiwa alal Arsh,  so too does it behove them to accept the literal meaning of this aayat which he has subjected to  ta’weel  to avoid conflict with the Taimiyyite belief pertaining to  Istiwa.  In terms of logic, there is no valid reason to negate  ta’weel  for the  Istiwa’  aayat, and to affirm it for aayat 3 of Surah An’aam (the above verse). There is no Shar’i basis for this selective adoption of  ta’weel, especially by a sect which ostensibly and deceptively negates Ta’weel.   

While there are several versions in the tafseer  of this aayat, there is consensus of the authorities of the Shariah in rejection of the Jahmiyyah belief of the existence of Allah Azza Wa Jal in every  makaan.  This consensus is likewise extended to the Taimiyyite belief of the attribution of  makaan  for  Allah Azza Wa Jal. They assign a confined  makaan,  viz. the Arsh, for Allah Ta’ala with their literal  ta’weel  of the  Istiwa’  aayat while they have no rational reason for negating the literal meaning of aayat 3 of Surah An’aam. In addition to seeking refuge  in  ta’weel  of this aayat, the coprocreep deletes the term  ‘fi’ (in)  from  ardh (the earth).  He has no right to discard the  ‘fi’  on the basis of  ta’weel which the Taimiyyites deny when it comes to the  Istiwa’  aayat. He has committed downright chicanery by deleting the term ‘fi’.  

The coprocreep has no basis for decrying  someone who resorts to  ta’weel  for  istiwa’  in view of the Salafi  ta’weel  of ma-akum (together with you).  The coprocreep who inhabits a glasshouse should beware of casting stones at others.

The Molvi merely said what Allah Ta’ala Himself says: “And, He is Allah Who is  in  the heavens, and  in  the earth.” While the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah are entitled to resort to ta’weel  of this aayat to refute confinement of Allah Azza Wa Jal to  created makaan,  Taimiyyites have no such entitlement in view of their corrupt belief of confinement of Allah Ta’ala to  the created makaan of the created Arsh. They are logically bound to literally translate and literally understand this aayat just as they do with the Istiwa’ verse. 

The ‘everywhere’ explanation is the way to convey to the masses the negation of  makaan  for Allah Azza Wa Jal. In other words, Allah Ta’ala is not contained in any specific space/place. So where and how does He exist? This He Alone knows. We believe in His Existence and Presence  bila kayf.  All the philosophical contentions regarding the manner of Allah’s Existence are futile and dangerous for the layman.