devbandi euphemism: "issue an untrue statement"

http://sunniport.com/index.php?thre...lah-is-a-mutazili-belief-also-devbandi.14727/

we come back to zaleel's inanities.




zaleel says: "we know with absolute certainty that falsehood will never actualise from Allah"

we ask: HOW? how do you know this? if you say that it is because He Himself has said so, we ask: since it is possible for Him to lie (according to your filthy aqidah, ta'ala Allah uluwwan kabeera), what is the guarantee that He is telling the truth in that piece of information?

try this with a sensible atheist or a christian: "it is possible that I can lie. but I always speak the truth. therefore, everything that I say is only the truth"

-----
zaleel says: "To go beyond this and say that He is not even able to issue an untrue statement is in fact to admit a flaw within Allah's complete power (over all things intrinsically possible)."

classic case of: "paint it anything so long as it is black". and it is amusing how zaleel can live with this kind of self contradiction.

but first, why is zaleel now acting like a drama queen about "admitting a flaw" - isn't it the same wretch who said: 'where is it written that Allah ta'ala cannot have a flaw'?

1. is kadhib a flaw?

2. if yes; then, can a flaw be present in Allah (al-iyadhu billah)?

3. if not, then you must declare that kadhib is an attribute of perfection. and Allah ta'ala has sent damnation upon such an attribute of perfection of devbandis.​

---
the trailing brackets ("intrinsically possible") tie zaleel in a gordian knot.

1. "issuing an untrue statement" - is intrinsically impossible.(according to ahl al-sunnah).

2. if something intrinsically possible cannot be governed by Divine Power, then indeed it is a flaw.

3. since falsehood or "issuing an untrue statement" is intrinsically impossible, denying it to be in Divine Power does not imply a flaw.​

so zaleel devbandi should explain what is he blabbering about?

he could say: "we do not believe that falsehood is intrinsically impossible"

fine. here is my retort:

1. alright. but is there ANYTHING that is intrinsically impossible? give examples.

2. your statement implies: there ARE THINGS which are intrinsically impossible and out of Divine Power.

3. but according to your claim there is NOTHING that is out of Divine Power. so why this exclusion of "intrinsically impossible".

perhaps your education has progressed and knowledge improved. we are trying to push you in the right direction.


====
now zaleel turns to lying which is his old habit and the attribute of perfection of his accursed gang of devilobandis. because he cannot prove his filthy aqidah with truth, he restorts to lies.

zaleel says;

"This was precisely the mistake of the Mu`tazilah: They tried to affirm Allah's transcendence by negating His total power (over all things intrinsically possible), but by denying His total power they negated His full transcendence!​

hold on.

1. where did sunnis ever say negate Allah's Divine Power of all thing intrinsically possible?

2. we have been saying this from the beginning that Allah's Power concerns ALL maqdurat meaning mumkinat. we NEVER said that anything mumkin is out of Divine Power.

3. bringing the mutazilah heresy here is a red herring. as you can see in my next post (in sha'ALlah) it is a different issue. they might have negated his power of maqdurat, but we sunnis NEVER negated power over maqdurat.

4. zaleel devbandi like his filthy elders is a liar, a cheat whom a back-alley swindler will not find honourable to spit upon.

5. either he should demonstrate that sunnis ever denied Allah's total power of all possible things (i.e. mumkinat) OR apologise. or at least delete the filth on his cesspool.

6. no. no. kazzab! we affirm Allah's transcendence by saying that His Divine Power is total and absolute over all contingent things. only muHalat and wajibat are precluded from it.

7. kadhib and dhulm [lying and oppression] are defects, flaws and impossible - intrinsically impossible - for Allah ta'ala to be attributed with it. and since this is not in the realm of possible existence (mumkinat), we say that Allah sub'hanahu wa ta'ala is transcendent from "uttering an untrue statement"

 

As far as I remember, even the world's most adabful arbitrator for desis, nuh keller, didn't touch on this nafsi/lafzı argument neither did his devbandi consultants in those times, Faraz, ibn adam, et al.

If keller knew about it, he surely would have offered his expert opinion and a superb out of court settlement to us poor brown skinned desis who don't understand our own language.

 

i got to read posts by brothers below. here are my observations and some advice for brothers.

1. keep your post focused and take one issue at a time. it will be easy to follow separate topics without getting distracted.

2. those without background on kalam concepts should not venture to offer explanations based on their own understanding. do not take this as a rebuke, but sincere advice from a brother.

3. rest assured, that zaleel will be answered as always. wa billahi't tawfiq.

4. juhd al-muqill is a laughable and silly book written by the devbandi mahmud al-hasan, which devbandis take great pride in. for perspective it is similar to muhannad of khalil. zaleel and co. only feed off the idiocies in such books. we will address those things in sha'Allah. devbandis never had capabilities in branches of knowledge that require intelligence and things such as logic, kalam etc; of course, there is no competition to the devvies in the field of shamelessness and an ability to lie without hesitation.

5. alahazrat's sub'Han al-subbuH is the most comprehensive refutation of this neo-mutazili belief.

===

let us not forget fundamental concepts.

1. the Divine Power of Allah ta'ala is related to mumkinat / things contingent; neither muhalat / rational impossibilities nor wajibat / rationally necessary.

2. we know by basic definitions that Allah ta'ala and His Sifaat (Divine Attributes) are wajib. the Divine Power of Allah ta'ala is not related to His Essence (dhat) or His Attributes. because, if His Essence and Attributes were subject to Divine Power, then He could potentially destroy Himself (al-iyadhu billah). and if that COULD happen, then He would not be wajib!

the very definition of wajib is that wajib has to exist always and can NEVER be annihilated.

3. so also, if Divine Power were concerned with muHalat, then He could CREATE something which is muHal. thus a second god, a partner or a rival is muHal. by definition, muHal means it CAN NEVER EXIST. if muhalat were subject to Divine Power, then it would necessitate that a second god or a partner could be created. [al iyadhu billah. laa ilaaha illa Allah]

going by devbandi logic, a faithless wretch can say: "oh, but then if Allah could not create a rival, then you are imposing limits on His Power".

the answer to such a nincompoop would be: "this is because you have not understood basic definitions properly. muHalat and wajibat are NOT subject to Divine Power. so, there is no question of a wajib being annihilated OR a muHal being created. this does not impose limits. let us give you another example:

you will have to acknowledge that Divine Power (qudrah) is an Attribute of Allah and that it is wajib. if it were subject to Divine Power, then potentially, Allah ta'ala could DESTROY this attribute and make himself powerless. [al-iyadhu billah]. as alahazrat writes:

"what a fine way to describe "all-encompassing" power, that could make oneself devoid of power!"

4. falsehood is a flaw. both ash'aris and maturidis believe that falsehood or "ability to lie" is precluded from Divine Power. it is muHal and it is muHal dhati.

now many a devbandi low-lives claim that muHal is possible. either their jahl is so murakkab that they simply cannot understand basic definitions and by imam al-Haramayn's ruling, such people are not considered as sane or have the ability to think (aaqil).

muHal and possible are two distinct categories. muHal can never exist - perhaps zaleel devbandi or his elders never came across this basic statement.

in the light of some definitions above, let us examine zaleel's comment:

====



============================
there are multiple fallacies here. zaleel's argument goes like this:

1. nazzam was a mutazili.
2. nazzam rejected that Allah ta'ala could have power over zulm or kazib.
3. therefore ALL mutazilis negated His total power (i.e. including over zulm and kazib)
4. sunnis/barelwis reject that Allah ta'ala could have power over zulm or kazib.
5. therefore, sunnis are like mutazilis.


the answers:

1. nazzam was a mutazili
Response: YES. no argument.

2. nazzam rejected that Allah ta'ala could have power over zulm or kazib.
Response: YES. but he had a different approach to argue against it.

3. therefore ALL mutazilis negated His total power (i.e. including over zulm and kazib).
Response: HEY WAIT! you are generalising the mutazilis. agreed you are a jahil who is incapable of reading books properly. instead you hunt for scraps quoted here and there and jump insanely like a hungry monkey with a banana. you should at least ask people who know. anyone who has cursory knowledge of the history of mutazilah could have told you. but alas! your love for your tawagheet is far higher than your love for Allah! what else explains this madness to prove falsehood for Allah ta'ala and truth and righteousness for the wretched devbandi elders?

fie on your existence. waylak!

the possible reasons for this stupid mistake are:

1. devbandis did not know that qudrat on zulm-kazib is a mutazili belief.
2. they knew it, but they concealed it from others.
3. some other reason.​

let zameel choose the correct answer, and if it is 3. he should describe the 'other reason'.

we will educate zameel and other devbandis on this topic in another post.

---
4. sunnis/barelwis reject that Allah ta'ala could have power over zulm or kazib.
Response: yes. but we come from a sound position and our argument is not the same as nazzam's. it is just incidental that the conclusion of nazzam coincides with sunni belief that zulm/kadhib is precluded from divine power. other than this there is nothing similar to nazzam.

5. therefore, sunnis are like mutazilis.
Response: nazzam also believed in One God. so devbandis according to zameel do not have the same faith like nazzam. and if any devbandi talks of tawHeed, he is a mutazili according to zaleel logic.

=====
more on the above passage. in sha'Allah.

 

when the deos couldn't run anywhere, they latched on to an issue that they thought could give them leeway. but like the wajib dhati/aradi thing, they are just muddling the issue with wordplay.

 

That is the standard "proof" for all wahabi dawah boys. Just replace the word bible with Quran in that pic.

If you show them the stupidity of their reasoning, they start squealing 'kalam, kalam- it's evil. greek invention!'

 

@abu Hasan can you please advise if this nafsi/lafzı subterfuge is a modern internet phenomenon or an actual historical position of theirs?

 

More exposition on the "word-play" of the deobandiyah to get around their Kufr.
(This is being done to make layman aware of the tactics of the deobandiyah and the extent they would go to defend their scholars in their kufr).


Black text: emphasis mine.

Imran Khan writes: Obviously a Lie cannot be connected to Allah's self speech (Kalam Nafsi) since Self-speech (Kalam Nafsi) corresponds with His knowledge of things and as such, a lie cannot be conceived therein.
Deobandis don't deny this.

Moving on!

Imran Khan writes: Quran itself points to Allah's self speech therefore a lie cannot be conceived in Quran.

How do you know "The QURAN" (THE KALAM LAFDHI) itself points to Allah's KALAM NAFSI?

^The reason why this question is being asked from you, is because you believe there could be a lie in HIS KALAM LAFDHI which DOES NOT SIGNIFY HIS KALAM NAFSI.

(Proof that you believe this is, in your own words:"The argument here is Allah's ability to express something in His uttered speech (KALAM LAFDHI) that does NOT point to His self-speech (KALAM NAFSI)".

The only answer you will have to this question i asked above, is by bringing the verse of the Quran (Circular reasoning) where Allah has informed that He is truthful. But how do you know this particular verse (KALAM LAFDHI)that you brought points to His KALAM NAFSI or not? In other words, it is true or not?

I will proceed forward now and demonstrate the contradiction entailed from your world view:

Imran Khan writes: The argument here is, Allah's ability to express something in His uttered speech (KALAM LAFDHI) that does not point to His self-speech (KALAM NAFSI)

Then on what grounds, would it be said to be Allah's speech or HIS UTTERED SPEECH in the first place? And that's a contradiction.

Coming back to the fundamentals:

1. Aļļaah’s Eternally Speech (which is not letters, sounds, or language) must be true, and cannot be untrue, because it is not created. (KALAM NAFSI)
2) The uttered speech (Kalam lafdhi) that is called "Aļļaah’s Speech" tells us what He said with His Eternal Speech (kalam nafsi).The Qur’aan in the sense of the book with Arabic expressions is utterable speech that tells us what Aļļaah said eternally.That is why it is called Aļļaah’s speech.
3)An utterance that says something other than what Aļļaah said eternally is not His Speech.
4)Therefore, any uttered speech that is not true cannot rationally be said to be Aļļaah’s Speech, because it does not tell us what He said eternally.

The contradiction:
1) Any uttered speech that is NOT true cannot rationally be said to be HIS SPEECH.

Where as you believe, it is rationally possible for a lie to occur in KALAM LAFDHI (Allah's speech) and that is contradiction because by default then, it wouldn't be signifying Kalam Nafsi and therefore by rational necessity cannot be said to be "Allah's speech" in the first place. After all, Allah's speech (kalam lafdhi) informs us of what He said eternally.

The contradiction is in the claim: That a lie is possible in Kalam Lafdhi and that it does not point to Kalam NAFSI yet it is referred to as ALLAH'S SPEECH at the same time.*
And that's absurd and a violation of law of non-contradiction. Since a lie cannot signify a truth, any false utterance cannot be said to be Allah's speech, His expression or His communication by definition.

*And if it is said: It wouldn't referred to as Allah's speech,

Then your whole CONTENTION breaks apart namely that "The argument here is Allah's ability to express something in His uttered speech (KALAM LAFDHI) that does not point to His self-speech (KALAM NAFSI)."

It wouldn't be "HIS EXPRESSION", and it cannot be called as "HIS SPEECH" by rational necessity.

You would then be simply talking about a speech existing in a creation like the speech of Pharoah when he claimed: I am God. The lie is attributed to Pharoah because he spoke it and it relates with his internal speech.

Or
when John utters a lie: I am a doctor. (when he is not).

Allah is the creator of John's speech, but the LIE is attributed to the one who spoke it i.e. in this case John. We do not say, it is Allah's speech - al-iyaad u billah.

Christians tampered with the bible and wrote: Jesus (A.S) is the son of God.
It is the Kalam lafdhi (speech) of the one who wrote that (namely the Christians) and it signifies their internal speech. It cannot be said to be Allah's speech. Al - iyaad u billah.

The words, sounds and letters (the collection of which) constitutes a lie, that Allah creates, in some of the creations CANNOT BE SAID to be Allah's speech because by definition it does not signify Allah's Kalam Nafsi.

^This conversation would take us away from our original topic namely that of "Allah's speech'.


Imran Khan writes: Keep in mind, that such a speech will never materialize because Allah doesn't lie. It exists only theoretically.

Nobody is talking about materialization in the first place. What we are refuting is your contention that it is rationally possible.

We are talking about Allah's speech here:
The lie in KALAM lafdhi (Allah's speech) is rationally impossible because it signifies KALAM NAFSI (Allah's speech).
Your claim that lie is possible in KALAM lafdhi (Allah's speech) and that it does not signify KALAM NAFSI (Allah's speech) is a violation of law of non-contradiction because then THIS LIE wouldn't be by default Allah's speech (Kalam lafdhi) to begin with, because falsehood cannot signify truth. It cannot be said to be something that Allah expressed or revealed or communicated.

Imran Khan writes: The imperfection and blasphemy is only warranted if it ever materialized which it wouldn't due to Allah's will. Obviously if Allah doesn't will it to occur then why should it occur? and why should we feel any impression that it should occur?
Allah has already told us in the Quran (self-speech) that he is truthful.

First, The Quran that we see, touch and read is KALAM LAFDHI not KALAM NAFSI.
Secondly, since you believe it is possible for Allah to express something (A lie) in HIS KALAM LAFDHI and that does not signify Kalam NAFSI, how do you know this verse which talks about Him being truthful is true?

If you say: this verse is talking about Kalam Nafsi, and NOT Lafdhi.

I would respond: This is a side-track. You have a problem to solve now. The problem is you would have to establish the truth of every verse in the Quran (KALAM LAFDHI) because according to you it is possible for Allah to express something untrue in HIS speech (Kalam lafdhi). You cannot even bring the verse that establishes HIM being truthful to PROVE that He has never expressed a lie in KALAM LAFDHI. Why?
Because for that very verse (kalam lafdhi), the truth of it remains to be proven.

 

@SaadSohail

I shared your post as a reply to Imran Khan's comment. Hopefully it stays up there and is not deleted.

 

Refutation of the Contention of the Deobandiyah (see attached scan below)
Imran Khan wrote: Why do you believe attributing power to lie to Allah, while absolutely negating its occurrence is an evil thing?

It is evil for the following reasons:

1) It implies God's Attribute of Speech is contingent and that is impossible. Claiming that His power pertains to His speech is like saying it is created and that's impossible.
Aļļaah’s Eternally Speech (which is not letters, sounds, or language) must be true, and cannot be untrue, because it is not created. In a speech that could tell a lie, a specific lie is only one possibility among infinite possibilities, thus such a speech would need to be specified and brought into existence, i.e. it would have to be created. This is unlike true speech, because the truth can only be one about any particular matter, and is known by Aļļaah eternally. This is the meaning of imam Ahmad’s saying, "His Speech is from His knowledge," i.e. "agrees with His knowledge," and His knowledge is One, Eternal, and True just as His Speech.

2) If you try to act smart and say we are talking about Kalam Lafdhi and NOT KALAM Nafsi, then know this is also rationally impossible because:

The uttered speech (Kalam lafdhi) that is called "Aļļaah’s Speech" tells us what He said with His Eternal Speech (necessarily TRUE). The Qur’aan in the sense of the book with Arabic expressions is utterable speech that tells us what Aļļaah said eternally. That is why it is called Aļļaah’s speech, even though Aļļaah’s actual attribute of speech is eternal, and is not letters, sounds, or language.

An utterance that says something other than what Aļļaah said eternally is not His Speech.
Therefore, any uttered speech that is not true cannot rationally be said to be Aļļaah’s Speech, because it does not tell us what He said eternally.

3) Therefore claiming that Allah has the power to lie is to either say His Eternal attribute of speech is contingent (and that's impossible) or that Falsehood could signify truth (Kalam Lafdhi reflects what Allah said eternally (Kalam Nafsi) and that's impossible.

4) Another Proof:

• • Lying is necessary for God, such that signifying truth is impossible for Him.
  • Lying is possible for God, such that if He did signify a lie, He could have signified the truth instead of it.
  • Lying is impossible for God, such that signifying truth is necessary for Him.

The first two options are impossible, so the third must be true.

As for the first, it is impossible because we have established that some of what God revealed to Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) is true by rational necessity. Information like the emergence of the world, God’s own existence, and the falsehood of polytheism. And the truth of some of this revealed information, is proof that signifying truth is not impossible for God.

As for the second, it is impossible because it entails the contingency of Speech. As this would mean that the Speech is contingent upon an extrinsic specifier to select between God’s signifying either truth or falsehood, by virtue of this Speech’s existence. And we have already established that Speech is a necessary attribute.
*As for those who claim falsehood being possible in KALAM Lafdhi (Allah's speech), then we have already established that it tells us what Aļļaah said eternally.Therefore, any uttered speech that is not true cannot rationally be said to be Aļļaah’s Speech, because it does not tell us what He said eternally.

Therefore, it is rationally impossible for God to signify lies.


5) More on this here.
(If you don't like reading LONG TEXTS)



Denial of 1,2,3,4 is denial of principles of Logic and Aqal. Once a person denies that which is known to be impossible for Allah, then he would by default permit any flaw and falsehood as possible for Allah such as believing that his creator is a body, in a space and subject to movement, emotions and taghaur.

In a nutshell , you have opened door to


6) ATHEISM:
Once somebody denies some of that which is proven to be rationally impossible for Allah, then it clearly opens doors to all kinds of absurdity and KUFR such itehad, hulool, anthropomorphism.

Moreover, the BIGGER question is:
How will you prove that Allah's speech is TRUE or that the information He revealed is true if you believe it is possible for HIM to a lie?

You will never be able to answer this question without committing what is known as "circular reasoning".
Your condition has become similar to that of a christian.






Imran Khan wrote: Why are you conflating Ability with occurrence?
This is known as "Straw-manning" fallacy.


We aren't conflating "possibility" with occurrence. We are demonstrating why the claim "Possibility of KIDHB" is a rationally absurd/impossible proposition. This is known as the proof by contradiction.

And therefore by default, power and Will of Allah does not pertain to it (because Falsehood is RATIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE for him). Just like it doesn't pertain to a square circle.

Moreover, we are asking you to demonstrate via logical syllogisms that since you believe it is possible for Allah to tell a lie, why do you think the information that Allah has revealed is NECESSARILY true "without" resorting to circular reasoning?

Imran Khan wrote: it would be evil if the person espousing this doctrine, believed that Allah lies, has lied or will lie.

Side-track & straw-manning. Let's break this apart.

1) It is evil if a person believes that Allah is a body or that his attributes are created or that He has a creator.

2) Likewise, it is ALSO EVIL if a person believes Allah could turn HIMSELF into a body, He could terminate his existence, or He could create His attributes.
*could* denotes He is CONTINGENT (It is rationally impossible for Necessary existence to be subject to changes) , His power pertains to it and therefore "possible in existence (mumkin).

3) Why do you think 2 is NOT EVIL?

4) Would it be just for someone to argue that He only affirmed (2) and NOT (1)? Would it evade him from his KUFR? Think and reflect.

Before you try to side-track by saying "I never wrote what is mentioned in the point (2). It will be reminded to you:

All we are showing is utilization of double standards at your end.
If you hold what is mentioned in point 2 to be evil and rationally impossible (THINK and ponder) then you should have no problems in holding kidhb being necessarily evil for Allah based on the fact that affirming it leads to rational impossibilities (proven earlier).

Imran Khan wrote: We don't attribute flaw to the person if he/she merely has the ability to commit a sin. You have the power to disbelieve and apostatize but simply having this ability doesn't turn you into a disbeliever or an apostate.

This is one of the ugliest forms of TASBIH.

The creation eats, drinks, lies, tells the truth, moves, sits, answers the call of nature e.t.c

Does possible attributes of creation necessitate that Allah also has them?

It is possible for you to tell a lie, OR to speak the truth.
It is possible for your existence to be terminated OR sustained.
It is possible for your body to be at rest in the next moment INSTEAD OF MOVING.

That does not translate to what's possible for you is also possible for Allah.

The error in this is your inability to accept that Allah's power and will doesnot pertain to rationally impossible. More on this here.

1)Movement and rest is rationally impossible for Allah because He is not a body.
2) Coming to non-existence is rationally impossible for Allah because His existence is intrinsic (WAJIB DHATI).
3)Falsehood is rationally impossible for Allah because it implies either contingency of His speech or that Lie signifies His eternal attribute of Speech which is impossible. A lie by definition CANNOT signify TRUTH.


If a KAFIR states:
1) Allah has the ability to move or rest.
2) Allah has the ability to terminate His existence.
3) Allah has the ability to tell a lie.

Then this Kafir has affirmed that:
1) Allah is a body. (RATIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE)
2) Allah's existence is possible NOT NECESSARY. (RATIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE)
3)Allah's attribute of speech is created or that a Lie could signify His Eternal Attribute of TRUE Speech. (RATIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE).


Imran: Why is it inconceivable for any person to regard Allah as absolutely truthful while believing he still has the ability to tell a lie? What's the catch here?

It is inconceivable for the reasons mentioned above. Give them a sincere read.
Moreover, there is no way to prove for someone that Allah is absolutely truthful if he also believes He has the ability to tell a lie?
Why?
Because the best proof you will bring is from the Quran, but how do you know that this "particular" information (that you have brought) is TRUE?
And you will have never have answer to this and all you would be doing is committing circular reasoning.


Message for Zaleel: Remember! On the day of judgement you will be responsible for leading people away from the truth . Don't forget this.

 

now, all of a sudden, he allowed for the post...

 

انا لله و انا اليه راجعون
he already deleted it.
God-forbid someone potentially gets guided to the truth.

 

I shared the links brother @SaadSohail provided as a response to one of the comments on Zaleel's blog. Lets see if he allows them to remain on the blog or if he deletes them.

 

جزاك الله خيرا
I appreciate you taking the time out to provide all the appropriate corrections and the excellent breakdown
Ma sha' Allah
ان شاء الله I will take some time to look through all the links you provided and read through them
بارك الله فيك

 

Asalam o Alaikum,
So there a few "major" mistakes in this post that need be clarified.

You wrote:"Zaleel is equating 'ability' with 'possibility'."

First, he is a Zaleel without a shadow of a DOUBT.

Secondly, he is right* ,as far as this is concerned where he wrote"ABILITY" pertains with possibility. His equivocation STANDS correct.
*Just like a KAFIR is right when he says 2+2=4.

Zaleel's errors lies NOT in equivocating "ABILITY" with "POSSIBILITY".
His error lies in 1) "bringing" rational impossibilities in the REALM of rational POSSIBILITIES .
Allah's Will and Power pertains to rational possibilities, NOT rational impossibilities.
Therefore talking about ability when talking about rational impossibilities is like saying "rationally impossible" is possible and that's absurd. (will be discussed in details below in sha Allah).

________________________________________________________________
The proof that is RATIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ALLAH TO LIE:

1) Aļļaah’s Eternally Speech (which is not letters, sounds, or language) must be true, and cannot be untrue, because it is not created. In a speech that could tell a lie, a specific lie is only one possibility among infinite possibilities, thus such a speech would need to be specified and brought into existence, i.e. it would have to be created. This is unlike true speech, because the truth can only be one about any particular matter, and is known by Aļļaah eternally. This is the meaning of imam Ahmad’s saying, "His Speech is from His knowledge," i.e. "agrees with His knowledge," and His knowledge is One, Eternal, and True just as His Speech.

2) The uttered speech that is called "Aļļaah’s Speech" tells us what He said with His Eternal Speech. The Qur’aan in the sense of the book with Arabic expressions is utterable speech that tells us what Aļļaah said eternally. That is why it is called Aļļaah’s speech, even though Aļļaah’s actual attribute of speech is eternal, and is not letters, sounds, or language.

3) According to 2), an utterance that says something other than what Aļļaah said eternally is not His Speech.

4) Therefore, any uttered speech that is not true cannot rationally be said to be Aļļaah’s Speech, because it does not tell us what He said eternally.

5) Conclusion: it is impossible in the mind’s eye that Aļļaah’s so called kalaam lafţħiyy (speech of utterable expressions) could contain a lie.
_______________________________________________________

BLUE IS QUOTED SPEECH from your post.

So he says that it is 'possible' for Allah to lie because he has the ‘ability’ to lie.

The response is: Allah's will and power DOES NOT PERTAIN to rational impossibilities and we have shown above Lie in KALAM NAFSI and Kalam LAFDHI is RATIONALLY ABSURD/IMPOSSIBLE.

This Zaleel is trying to make the same mistake which ATHEISTS MAKE.

Atheists ask: Can your God create a square circle?
The response is: His power doesnot pertain to rational impossibilities. The question is meaningless. Because the term "square circle" is meaningless because it is an affirmation and negation of a thing (violation of law of identity).
Finally we respond: This has got nothing to do with God's power and ability.

Atheists take that to mean "restriction" of Divine's attribute of Power, when it clearly isn't. A person well versed in KALAM and Mantiq KNOWS this. More on this here.

So if Prophet’s are physically ‘able’ to commit sins, then according to his logic, it is 'possible' for sin to occur by them?
And if it is 'possible' for Prophets to sin, then why would they still remain Masum? (Astaghfirullah)

This is a false analogy fallacy, a NON-SEQUITOR and a rationally absurd proposition.

1) It is a false analogy because he (Zaleel) had to speak about "Lie" being possible in Divine speech.
1a) It is rationally impossible for a PROPHET TO tell A LIE. The Kalam scholars clearly write "lying" being rationally impossible for Prophets in KALAM text UNDER RATIONAL PROOFS. This is known (Links attached. More will be provided upon REQUEST)
2) It would still be a non-sequitor because the conclusion DOES NOT logically follow from his primary KUFRI stance>>> "It is possible for Allah to tell a lie".
2a) It is a rationally absurd proposition because it is rationally impossible for a Prophet to commit a sin.
3a) The Position of Ahlus Sunnah is the Prophets are impeccable, protected from blasphemy, major sins and small sins that display vileness and low charachter in who commits them before prophethood and after prophethood. (This INCLUDES impossibility of LYING as well).
3b) The position of Ahlus Sunnah is also that it IS IMPOSSIBLE for a Prophet to commit sin at ALL.

"Ability does not necessarily establish possibility neither does impossibility necessarily imply inability."
When we talk about Allah's power pertaining to something, then it necessitates it is a possibility. And when we demonstrate that this something is rationally impossible, then it rationally follows that Allah's power does not pertain to it. This has got nothing to do with power or ability.

Example:
"At this moment, since I am physically 'able' to drive my car, it is, therefore, possible for me to drive my car."
"No it is impossible at the moment, because the car is completely depleted of gasoline."

A very bad example without a doubt. This impossibility which you talked about in this example is a "CONTINGENT" impossibility NOT RATIONAL IMPOSSIBILITY. Contingent impossibility is a RATIONAL POSSIBILITY in the mind's eye.

When we say: It is absolutely impossible for Allah to tell a lie, we mean it is rationally impossible like 2+2=5.

"To go beyond this and say that He is not even 'able' to issue an untrue statement is in fact to admit a flaw within Allah's complete power (over all things intrinsically possible)."

Zaleel = a rabid donkey.

Allah's power does not pertain to rational impossibilities. It is then NON-SENSE to say "His power" is restricted because His power pertains to MUMKINAT (possibilities) not rational impossibilities.

Click here to learn why saying "His power NOT pertaining to rational impossibilities is a deficiency" is JUST PLAIN NONSENSE.


Firstly, nobody said that He is "not even able to issue an untrue statement." (Not only because it is disrespectful to say but also because it is not even the argument being presented).

The reason why Ahlus Sunnah say the claim "Allah cannot create a square circle" is kufr because it is an INSULT to Allah's Power. The correct expression is to say His power does not pertain to rational impossibilities. The claim has got nothing to do with Power or Will, because they pertain to MUMKINAAT.


Rather what was said is that "it is impossible for Allah to lie." And just because it is impossible for Allah to lie, this does not imply any form of inability for Allah.

Why?
Because """Allah has the perfect 'ability' to always be truthful""".
This expression is NOT AT ALL PRECISE.
When we talk about "ability" we are always talking about Allah's attribute of POWER and Will.
Allah's speech IS ETERNAL (without a beginning and without an end).
His power and Will DOES NOT PERTAIN TO IT. This has got nothing to do with "ability".

And to say that "Allah is able to lie" is to say that "He is 'unable' to absolutely always remain perfectly truthful."

It isn't the case that Allah choose to be truthful as that would imply His speech is "Contingent". His speech is ETERNAL and MUST BE TRUE (because the alternative implies CONTINGENCY). His will and Power doesnot pertain to His ETERNAL attributes so this has got nothing to do with "QUDRAH" of Allah.

If Allah has the perfect 'ability' to always be truthful, then it is merely ‘possible’ for Allah to be truthful." (La hawla wa la quwwata illa billah)
(Note: Zaleel doesnt even believe that Allah has the perfect 'ability' to always be truthful)

Saying that his power pertains to His speech is to say that His speech is "created" and it would open gateway to play in the hands of the ZANDAQAH.
Syllogistically:
1) If Allah has the perfect 'ability' to always be truthful,
C)then it is merely ‘possible’ for Allah to be truthful.

The conclusion logically follows from premise (1) (Al iyaad-u billah). Therefore 1 is incorrect.
We say: Allah's attribute of SPEECH is NECESSARY and ETERNAL. Qudrah and will doesnot pertain to it. Finally His SPEECH must be true because CLAIMING OTHERWISE implies CONTINGENCY.

_______________________________________________

Now if Zaleel argues that:
"why should it be Wajib for Allah to be Truthful? Allah is under no obligation to be truthful."

Then the response is that, according to Zaleel logic:

"Why is it Wajib for Allah to be One? Allah is under no obligation to remain undivided. He should be able to divide into as many units as He wants" (Al-iyadhubillah)


This is not the correct response brother.

If this ZALEEL donkey asks us: "Why should it be Wajib for Allah to be truthful. Allah is under no obligation to be truthful"
Our response would be:
1) It is rationally necessary that Allah is NOT OBLIGATED TO DO ANYTHING.
2) It is also RATIONALLY NECESSARY that Allah's speech is TRUE because the opposite implies CONTINGENCY and this is impossible. It is also impossible in KALAM LAFDHI because Kalam LAFDHI reflects what Allah said eternally (KALAM NAFSI).
3) Affirmation of 2 is NOT DENIAL of 1 because they (1 and 2) are NOT TRUE OPPOSITES . Rationally necessary is NOT EQUAL to being compelled/forced/ obligated to.
4) Zaleel donkey has a hidden assumption that Allah's attribute of power pertains to His ETERNAL attribute of speech. It doesn't. More on this here.
5) Zaleel is committing a false equivocation fallacy by his usage of word "Wajib". The equivocation being "OBLIGATION" = "RATIONAL NECESSITY/ that which is MUST BE TRUE like 2+2=4".
Allah is not subject to obligations or obligated to do anything. His speech MUST BE TRUE NOT because He is obligated to tell the truth (as that would imply His power pertains to His speech or that it is contingent AND also that He is accountable to do something which entails dependency and contingency) BUT BECAUSE it is RATIONALLY NECESSARY that HIS SPEECH MUST BE TRUE as claiming otherwise entails His speech being contingent.


"Why is it Wajib for Allah to be One? Allah is under no obligation to remain undivided. He should be able to divide into as many units as He wants" (Al-iyadhubillah)"
1) It is rationally necessary that Allah is one as opposite entails multiplicity which entails contingency.
2) His power doesnot pertain to His "SELF" as He and His attributes are ETERNAL.


Jazak Allah.

 

Be sure the go thru the psychotic i3tezal this idiot is peddling in the comments section (take screenshots before he deletes it)

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2020/12/20/shahid-ali-imkan-al-kidhb/#comments

 

the drunken toadstool is raving mad as usual. I will post a short juxtaposition in a few days time.

in sha Allah

 

https://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/...en-in-the-sense-of-so-called-kalaam-lafthiyy/

this jahil (zameel) is dancing around "kalam lafzi". the above is a very clear and simple refutation of the idiocy of the devbandi.

plus his accusations of us being mu3tazila-like (moreso based on sleight of hand and misquoting out of context) are pretty rich considering that he is the only one doing i3tizal proper.

 

This issue is a microcosm of why the Sunni/Deo divide has persisted Instead of looking at the statements and positions of the elders objectively, the deos decided to engage in word play, utilise obscure categories and make fanciful interpretations to make it seem the issues of contention are nuanced and simply part of scholarly differences.

The reality is somewhat different. Ismail Dehlwi got taken to task for his erroneous positions and the deos in their defence of him just fell deeper into the quagmire. I call it a quagmire because despite their very best efforts, their interpretations when analysed open up more questions than answers.

Instead of making false equivalences; this issue is akin to Ibn Hazm statement about the possibility of Allah most High taking a son. The argument is exactly the same, and was roundly refuted. Zameer and co will need to prove that Ibn Hazm's position is a valid position.