devbandi euphemism: "issue an untrue statement"

Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by abu Hasan, Apr 25, 2020.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. SaadSohail

    SaadSohail Active Member

    You wrote "Allah’s Will is executed by His Power."

    Allah's Attributes are eternal without a beginning and without an end.

    To say His will is executed by His power is to say He brought His beginningless will into existence by His Power and that's rationally impossible. It's impossible because His will is eternal, beginningless, so bringing it into existence is to say It has a beginning. This is gathering of the two contradictories (Beginningless has a beginning) and that's absurd.

    More on this here.

    "So even though He has Power to enter Kuffar into Paradise, He has already Willed to use His Power to enter Kuffar into Jahannam permanently. And His Will is Eternally permanent."

    Allah's will and power pertain to that which is rationally possible (like the entry of Kafir into paradise), we know this is never going to happen (i.e. contingently impossible) because Allah has willed eternally that they will stay in hell fire forever.

    I wouldn't use the term "Use his power".

    One must also know what we mean when we say Allah is attributed with Power and Will. This should help in sha allah.

    "Deobandis try to argue (without saying it directly) that Allah has Power to contradict His Will and enter Kuffar into Paradise by purposely misapplying the term “rational possibility.”


    This is indeed implied from their nonsense. To be more precise, it is implied that it is possible for Allah to change His decree or His will. This is impossible because His will, Power, Knowledge are necessary attributes of His and cannot be subject to changes.

    And they might argue:

    “we don’t say that ‘He has the Power to change His Will,’ but only that He has Power to directly create untrue speech that does not correspond with His Eternal Will.’”

    Ok there are a few things that need to be clarified.
    Allah's will is not equivalent to HIS SPEECH.
    His speech is necessary attribute of HIS, and so are His Will, Power and knowledge.

    His Power and will pertain to that which is intrinsically possible NOT that which is intrinsically necessary.

    This would help clarify in sha Allah.

    Screenshot_2020-12-30 Kalam Speech – Sunni Answers.png

    What the deobandiyah is trying to say is that His speech can contradict His knowledge.

    What they forget is that Allah's knowledge agrees with REALITY and His speech pertains to that what His knowledge pertains to.

    At the end of the day, His knowledge pertains to the past, present and future (What has been, what is, and what will be). As well as what could have been, what will never be, what is impossible to occur and what is necessary.

    He "eternally" knows the past, present and future because HE eternally DECREED IT. There's no past, present or future, had Allah not decreed it.

    Therefore to say His speech is flawed is to say His Knowledge is flawed, or that His will undergoes change or that His speech is contingent.

    Deobandiyah say: He has the Power to create speech that is untrue (does not agree with reality).

    When we refute them by saying His speech is eternal and necessary attribute of His, and His power and will does not pertain to it, they run like rats in a hole where they try to bring "absurd" set of arguments in their insane desire to protect their "mule" shaykhs.

    To better able to understand what Kalam lafdhi and Kalam Nafsi means, click here.


    ________



    The implication of such a belief is the following statement:

    If Allah had Eternally Willed to directly create untrue speech, Allah could have used His Power and directly created untrue speech which, by the way, would not have corresponded with His Eternal Will (i.e to directly create untrue Speech)”


    I wouldn't say this is their argument. But what I can guarantee is it is as gibberish and nonsensical and insulting as you have written above. :)

    (Also, Allah’s speech is eternal and not created. To say that it is possible for Allah’s speech to be a a direct creation is literally I’tizal, no? Isn't this the exact belief that Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal adamantly rejected and strove against?)
    Yes. Beshak.
     
  2. Abdullah Ahmed

    Abdullah Ahmed Active Member

    جزاك الله خيرا brother @SaadSohail for all the thorough clarifications/explanations.


    (I wrote the following summary based on what I have understood. Can you please check to see if everything written below is correct?)



    Allah’s Will is executed by His Power. So even though He has Power to enter Kuffar into Paradise, He has already Willed to use His Power to enter Kuffar into Jahannam permanently. And His Will is Eternally permanent.


    Deobandis try to argue (without saying it directly) that Allah has Power to contradict His Will and enter Kuffar into Paradise by purposely misapplying the term “rational possibility.”


    And they might argue:

    “we don’t say that ‘He has the Power to change His Will,’ but only that:

    ‘He has Power to directly create untrue speech that does not correspond with His Eternal Will.’”


    The implication of such a belief is the following statement:


    “If Allah had Eternally Willed to directly create untrue speech, Allah could have used His Power and directly created untrue speech which, by the way, would not have corresponded with His Eternal Will (i.e to directly create untrue Speech)”


    In other words, “Allah has the Power to contradict His Will.”


    This is actually very insulting to Allah. And this insult is disguised in the word “Power.”



    If a deobandi said about Ashar Fi’li that “he has the power to write kufr in his book even though he expressed his will to do “Hifz-ul-Iman,” any sane person would reject this and say that the word this deobandi is looking for is “imbecility” and not “power.”



    (Also, Allah’s speech is eternal and not created. To say that it is possible for Allah’s speech to be a a direct creation is literally I’tizal, no? Isn't this the exact belief that Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal adamantly rejected and strove against?)
     
  3. SaadSohail

    SaadSohail Active Member

    Please see post 57 for a detailed exposition and breakdown of ZALEEL'S argument that you highlighted.

    I forgot to answer your question, hence adding this here.

    Breakdown of your question:

    "Allah has the Power to enter a kafir into paradise since it is a “rational” possibility".

    Correct.

    "However, this “rational” possibility for a kafir to enter paradise is CONTINGENT upon Allah’s Will which is Eternal."

    Rational possibilities by themselves are "Non-existent". (This discussion goes back to wujud-e-kharji and wujud-e-dhinni.).

    Saying it is Allah's will that makes a thing as "rationally possible" is a violation of law of non-contradiction and law of identity. Because then "rationally possible" was rationally impossible prior to it being made possible. This is absurd.

    I think what you wanted to ask was: The KAFIR's entry into JANNAH is contingent upon Allah's will and Power on it being "ACTUALIZED" (i.e. specified and brought into existence). And that would be correct.

    "And it is rationally impossible for Allah’s Will to change".
    Correct.

    "Therefore, the actual occurrence of this event is impossible".

    Yes. But this impossibility is not intrinsic to the event. (Not rationally impossible).
    It is contingently impossible, meaning it WILL NEVER EVER BE. The reason why it will NEVER EVER BE is because Allah has NOT willed it. And He has informed of this decree in the Quran and it is rationally impossible for Him to tell a LIE.

    And since it is impossible, the Power of Allah is no longer in question since Allah’s Power only pertains to possibilities.

    This is wrong brother.

    You have affirmed the event is a rational possibility, saying it became impossible and hence Power of Allah does not pertain to it, is to say "Rationally Possible" became "Rationally Impossible" and that's absurd and entails restriction of Allah's power.
    Allah's power is eternal and beginningless-ly pertains to All rational possibilities (including the entry of Kafir into JANNAH).


    The reason why Power of Allah is out of the question is not because "rationally possible" has become "rationally impossible" and therefore His power doesn't pertain to rational impossibilities (This is absurd because it would entail his power got restricted. It pertained to it as a rational possibility but now rational possibility has become rational impossibility, and then it does not pertain to it. This is absurd and also implies taghaur.

    It is out of the question (meaning irrelevant) because this is a matter of Allah's decree, knowledge and Speech.
    Raising the issue of Power (by the deobandiyah) would be a side-track because Allah's Qudrah pertain with everything rationally possible (mumkin) and this pertaining DOES NOT entail that All rational possibilities are actualized. It depends on what Allah has decreed, willed and specified.
    So they have not gained anything at all. (This is just another sleight of hand of the deobandiyah).

    So, al iyaad u billah, Allah's creating the event where the entry of a Kafir in Jannah takes place WOULD entail that:

    1) Allah's eternal speech is flawed and
    2) that He revealed a lie in the Quran or
    3) that His knowledge is flawed (Because His knowledge pertains to that which His Speech pertains to) Or
    4) that His will undergoes change.

    1, 2, 3 and 4 are rationally impossible.

    His informing us that A kafir's abode is Hell fire "forever" is simply a way of saying that He has decreed that they (Kuffar) will never come out of it. EVER

    This essentially means He hasn't willed or decreed that they come out of HELL. EVER.


    Therefore, a kafir's entry into Jannah will remain a "rational" possibility (Non-existent) without ever being actualized because OUR LORD has NOT WILLED IT to exist. The Proof then that this is NEVER going to happen, is His informing us that the KUFFAR will remain in hell forever. And it is rationally impossible for HIM to tell a lie, or that His knowledge is flawed, Or that His Will changes.

    Therefore:
    Allah could have decreed a Kafir's entry into Jannah BUT He hasn't. And it will remain non-existent (a possibility in the mind's eye) without ever being actualized (or brought into existence).


    Jazak Allah.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2020
    Abdullah Ahmed likes this.
  4. Khanah

    Khanah New Member

    May Allah bless you, these responses are truly eye opening for a lay person such as myself.

    Just a related question - is this particular belief disbelief in itself or is it bidah?

    Jazak Allah khair
     
  5. SaadSohail

    SaadSohail Active Member

    Ma sha Allah you are learning very quickly, my beloved brother.

    I would formulate Zaleel's argument like this for clarity:

    Zaleel's Argument:

    1. Allah has the Power to enter a kafir into paradise.
    2. So it is not intrinsically impossible for Allah to enter a kafir into paradise.
    3. It is only contingently impossible because He has willed otherwise (namely that Kafir's abode is Hell fire forever).
    4. Allah has informed of us His decree in the Quran.
    5. Allah has the Power to act contrary to what He has willed.
    6. Therefore (from 5 it follows), Allah has the Will to act contrary to what He has WILLED.
    7. Therefore it is not intrinsically impossible for Allah to contradict what He has has already willed.
    8. Contradicting of His own Will= going against His own Decree/Promise= Going against what He has informed us in the Quran= RATIONALLY POSSIBLE (ONLY CONTINGENTLY IMPOSSIBLE)
    9. Therefore, it is only contingently impossible for Allah to tell an untruth/lie.
    10. Therefore Allah has the Power to Lie.
    ____________________________________________

    Demonstrating the SLEIGHT of HAND of the DEOBANDIYAH.

    The PREMISES IN RED= TRUE RATIONALLY= The POSITION of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah.

    Premise: 3 CONTRADICT that which is in BLUE.
    Meaning:
    How do the deobandiyah know, it is contingently impossible for a Kafir to enter Jannah (He will never enter Jannah) or that its wuqu (occurance) is MUHAL (impossible) when they believe it is rationally possible for Allah to tell a lie or that His Kalam Lafdhi could contain a lie?

    If it is said: It is contingently impossible for Him to tell a lie meaning He can lie but He wouldn't.

    It will be said to him: How do you know that He wouldn't? When according to you, this VERY PIECE OF information could contain a lie!

    There's no way to know this. It does not logically follow (A NON-SEQUITOR) from the principles (in BLUE) held to be true by our adversaries.

    Premise 5 and 6: Implies Allah's will is contingent or that it changes, this is rationally impossible.

    Consider the distinction:

    1)A body is at rest at T1.

    2)A body is moving at T2.

    Allah has Willed from eternity with His eternal will i.e. specified the movement of the body and its accident at every moment of its existence and brought it into existence by His eternal Power. This is not TAGHAUR or CHANGE of Will. It is the creation/makhluq that undergoes change.

    Now consider:
    Allah has eternally willed for the body's existence and its motion At T1.
    And then it is said: Allah has eternally willed for the same body to be at rest At T1.

    This simply entails Taghaur of WILL and it entails that Allah has MULTIPLE WILLS or that His will is specified. This is rationally impossible.

    If somebody denies taghaur:
    then He affirms Allah has willed "rest and motion" of the body at the same time and that's Rationally impossible and His will does not pertain to rational impossibilities.

    Premise 7 is simply regurgitating vomit of Premise 5 and 6 and from that vomit infering it is rationally possible for Him to break His promise or tell a lie.

    Premise 9: is a non-sequitor, because from the premises it does not EVEN logically follow that Allah's telling a lie is contingently impossible (He can but He WOULDN'T). How do the deobandiyah even know it is contingently impossible FOR HIM TO TELL A LIE when they hold that Allah telling a lie is rationally possible?
    Deobandi: It is contingently impossible for Allah to tell a lie.
    Brelvi: How do you know He wouldn't?
    Deobandi: Because He said it.
    Brelvi: But you hold it is rationally possible for Allah to tell a lie, so how do you know this information that He has revealed that "He doesn't lie" is true, when according to you, this information carries equal possibility of being false according to the intellect?

    There are some more "sleight of hands" IN THIS very argument that need to be exposed as well.
    Please note that our adversary (wretched deobandi) can Hold multiple positions which contradict what is in blue. Extreme care must be taken to avoid "Straw-manning".

    For e.g The adversary might say he doesn't believe that Allah could will against His decree or promise and only believes that He could inform something which is contrary to reality (which is sugar-coated way of saying telling a lie). Meaning according to him, Allah has decreed the matter eternally and it is not subject to changes.
    HOWEVER, according to Him, Allah could inform about something which is contrary to what He has decreed.

    In this case we will directly demonstrate the rational impossibility entailed from saying it is possible for Allah to tell a lie.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2020
    Abdullah Ahmed likes this.
  6. Abdullah Ahmed

    Abdullah Ahmed Active Member



    (Disclaimer: This is not intended to be a refutation or an explanation. This is just my own weak, non-expert perspective of what I see is Zaleel's argument and where the mistake(s) lies. Corrections are more then welcome so that I can correct my own understanding of the matter)


    Just to elaborate on what I meant in my previous post:

    As far as my weak perspective sees, this is Zaleel's argument:
    1. Allah has the Power to enter a kafir into paradise even though He willed otherwise.
    2. So it is not intrinsically impossible for Allah to enter a kafir into paradise even though He willed otherwise
    3. It is only contingently impossible because He has already willed otherwise
    4. Entrance of Kafir into paradise=Acting contrary to Will
    5. Therefore, Allah has the Power to act contrary to His Will.
    6. Therefore it is not intrinsically impossible for Allah to contradict what He has has already willed.
    7. Therefore, it is only contingently impossible for Allah to contradict what He has already willed.
    8. Contradicting of His own Will= going against His own Decree/Promise= breaking a promise= telling an untruth
    9. Therefore, it is only contingently impossible for Allah to tell an untruth/lie.
    10. Therefore Allah has the Power to Lie.


    The problem I see is that Zaleel is using Point number 1 which is only PARTIALLY TRUE for his whole argument.

    It is only PARTIALLY TRUE because:

    Allah has the Power to enter a kafir into paradise since it is a “rational” possibility. However, this “rational” possibility for a kafir to enter paradise is CONTINGENT upon Allah’s Will which is Eternal. And it is rationally impossible for Allah’s Will to change. Therefore, the actual occurrence of this event is impossible. And since it is impossible, the Power of Allah is no longer in question since Allah’s Power only pertains to possibilities.

    ^^Is this a correct understanding?
     
  7. SaadSohail

    SaadSohail Active Member

    Asalamo alikum my dear brother Abu Hassan.

    The deobandiyah try to escape (YET BADLY FAIL) using "arguments" from:

    1) The Rational possibility.

    2) The issue of Khulf Al W'AD and Khulf Al Wa'id.

    3) Kalam Lafdhi. (
    Already tackled this in my previous posts)

    The Rational possibility:

    My previous post dealt with the "Rational possibility". And NOT Al-kħulf Fi-l-Waˆiid.

    Meaning when I say "it is "rationally possible" for a Kafir to enter Jannah or A believer to enter Hell"

    The deobandiyah extrapolate that to mean it is rationally possible that Allah tells a lie or breaks His promise. This is a very wrong INFERENCE. A rationally absurd one.


    What I am trying to say is:
    In the mind's eye, it is Possible that A kafir enters Jannah or A believer enters Hell or vice versa.
    No rational impossibilities is ENTAILED from this.
    In the mind's eye, not one proposition has dominance over the other.

    Then how do we know "what" Allah has willed and decreed?

    Allah has informed us of His Decree, in the Glorious Quran, that a KAFIR will stay in HELL FIRE forever, and a Believer will stay in Paradise forever, we can then AFFIRM the entrance of a Kafir in Jannah is IMPOSSIBLE (not rationally but contingently>) because of Allah's decree and His will.

    In other words, the simpler break down of this is:

    Allah "could have" decreed the entry of a Kafir in Jannah but this is not something that He has decreed. We have been informed of His decree and that is: He has willed for the Kafir to stay in Hell forever. We then know the entry of a KAFIR into JANNAH will never ever Be, not because this proposition has become rationally impossible but because it is RATIONALLY impossible that Allah's decree changes or that He tells a lie.


    ^This is the KEY POINT of my previous discussion.
    And there's NO DISPUTE among the Asharis regarding this.

    Based on the views of majority of Ahlus Sunnah, it is sharan Muhal (Impossible with respect to Shariah, Mustahil Aradi) and Aqlan Mumkin Bil dhaat (Intrinsically possible/ Rationally possible) for a KAFIR to enter Jannah while according to some scholars (Imam Nasafi and others) it is also rationally impossible*.


    *The Maturidis deem it rationally impossible because of some other reasons (such as Al Khilaf Al Hikma as I have heard. Not that I have read it). Lest assured, they are NOT proponents of Inqilab Al-Haqa’iq.

    _______________

    2) The issue of Khulf Al W'AD and Khulf Al Wa'id.

    This issue is entirely "different" than what's highlighted previously.


    I follow Shaykh Abu Adam on this.

    From his site:

    Question: what is Khulf al-Wa`d and Khulf al-Wa`id

    Question: what is Khulf al-Wa`d and Khulf al-Wa`id and what is the difference between Imkan al-Kadhib, Khulf al-Wa`d, and Khulf al-Wa`id?

    Answer: There is no big difference, just different words for the same thing. Imkan al-Kadhib, means “possibility of saying something untrue,” “Khulf al-Wa`d” means to promise something, and then not do it. “Khulf al-Wa`id,” means to threaten something, and then not do it. When Aļļaah says that the blasphemers will be in Hell forever, for example, then this is a threat that must come true, because Aļļaah does not lie, and nothing can prevent what He wills. When Aļļaah tells us this, it is because He knows what will happen in the future.


    Someone asked in the comments:

    Question: Ya Sayyidi! Is it correct to say that “Allah Almighty has the power to put a Kaafir in Jannah but He has told us otherwise and hence, doing so would be Khulf al-Wa`d, so He will never put a Kaafir in Jannah.”

    Shaykh Abu Adam writes: Yes, that is correct.
    __________


    In another place, in the comment section, Shaykh Abu Adam Writes:

    I do not accept to say that “the AsħˆAriyys say that Al-kħulf Fi-l-Waˆiid is possible.

    You can find many strange things in books. That is one reason why a novice is not allowed to read books alone. If there is something obviously wrong in a book then we reject it, because as Asħˆariyys we hold that imitation is not correct in beliefs. That is why the wahabi claim of Abu Hasan Al-Asħˆariyy rejecting Asħˆariyy doctrine and becoming an anthropomorphist in the end is unimportant to us, even if it was true (which it is not).

    So the issue then is al-kħulf fi-l-Waˆiid karam? It may be so at some cases for humans, at least from a position of power. It is not a praise to say this about Aļļaah, because it implies lying, and lying is a flaw. What is a praise for a human being may be kufr to say about Aļļaah. For example, it is a praise for a human to say to him that he has nice children.

    Many Asħˆariyys attacked those who said Al-kħulf fi-l-waˆiid is possible. Among them Az-Zaraksħiyy, Al-Qaraafiyy, Al-Għazaaliyy, Al-Raaziyy, and Al-Urmawiyy (who told Ibn Taymiyyah during a debate, “”You are a sparrow flying here and there,” ) and since this is the only possibly valid saying we ignore the rest, and affirm that al-kħulf fi-l-waˆiid is impossible.

    It is impossible that Aļļaah should not do what He said He would, because He is informing us of what will happen in the future, and Aļļaah knows what is in the future. It is an obvious ijmaaˆ consensus in the Asħˆariyy creed that Aļļaah’s speech pertains to what His knowledge pertains to, and not to lies. Allaah’s kalaam does not belong to the possible category of things. As has been made abundantly clear already. The bottom line here is that in belief matters, imitation is not allowed, and the expressions used even by several individual authors, if proven used, are their own problem. Not the least when they contradict basic principles, such as knowing that Aļļaah being attributed with Speech is not a possibility, but a must. That is why quoting books is not very interesting if they contain contradictions to such basics.


    ______


    DISCLAIMER: Those who did believe Al-kħulf Fi-l-Waˆiid is possible, DID NOT DEEM it MUMKIN for Allah to tell a lie.

    ^This is THE KEY POINT. >>> MEANING there's NO IKHTILAF among ASHARIS and MATURIDIS pertaining to LIE being RATIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE for Allah.

    When refuted, some Deobandis switched the argument and said that kadhib is a corollary of khulf fi’l waýīd; and since some Ashárīs differed that, it is permissible (khulf fi’l waýīd), the Deobandis stretched it to include kadhib. The Deobandi argument is: a. khulf fi’l waýīd is differed upon by Ashárī mutakallimūn b. kadhib is a corollary of khulf fi’l waýīd c. Therefore, Ashárī scholars differed upon imkān al-kadhib. (Truth about a Lie, PAGE 5)

    One important thing to note here is, that the Ashárīs* vociferously reject the implication of falsehood that the Māturīdīs say khulf fi’l waýīd necessitates. Ashárīs write elaborate proofs refuting that it necessitates falsehood. This clearly shows that they abhor the idea that falsehood is contingent. Otherwise, there was simply no need to refute the Māturīdī objection. All they had to say was, ‘So what? We already believe that falsehood is only contingently impossible; your objection does not apply to us. Move on.’ (TRUTH ABOUT A LIE: Page 44).

    *Those who deemed khulf al Waid is possible. (Footnotes mine).
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2020
    Abdullah Ahmed and abu Hasan like this.
  8. Abdullah Ahmed

    Abdullah Ahmed Active Member

    Edit: I meant to use the word "influence"
     
  9. Abdullah Ahmed

    Abdullah Ahmed Active Member


    جزاك الله خيرا brother @SaadSohail for the clarification and explanation.

    I agree 100% with you entire breakdown and explanation.

    I certainly do understand that the word "rational" before possibility/impossibility refers to what the mind can/cannot conceive of. And therefore, it is in fact a "rational" possibility for a pious believer to enter jahannam. Also, I understand that an external factor such Divine will/promise can negate what is still "rationally" possible and cause it to become "contingently" impossible (and not "rationally" impossible, since it is still in fact "rationally" possible).

    Hence, the statement made by Zaleel is in fact correct, especially if said by a Sunni. However, considering the context and implications of Zaleel's actual argument to try to prove possibility of lying for Allah, would it be incorrect to say that this correct statement of his is in fact a cover/wordplay being used to try to make the unsuspecting mind accept "possibility of Allah contradicting his own Divine Will?"

    And please correct me if I am wrong, but I understand it is instrinsically impossible for Allah to contradict His own Divine Will, EVEN if it is rationally possible for a pious believer to go to Jahannam. Is this correct?
     
  10. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i second that.

    the matter of khulf fi'l wa'yid is a known matter and a valid point of difference. deobs try to drag that in to prove their aqidah of imkan al-kadhib. and as i have noted in my books, mulla ali qari has written a monograph on this subject, in addition to various authors in their kalam treatises.

    al-qawl al-sadid fi khulf al-wa'yid.

    ---
    one shouldn't be quick to deride something without the knowledge of the nuances and finer points in kalam literature. and the reason why i am so vehemently against this fasid aqidah. wa lillahi'l hamd i have perused more than a hundred books of aqidah and have never seen anything like the devbandis say - except as citations of mutazili aqa'id. i even started compiling a list of citations from these books just so people understand that it is not a matter of difference.

    the ahlu's sunnah in unanimous agreement: kadhib and zulm are not included in Divine Power, because Divine Power pertains to only maqdurat which are ONLY mumkinat. kadhib is muhal, mustaHil in Divine Speech. and the muHal is dhati.

    this is the standard belief and everything else should be brought to confirm with this.

    wAllahu a'alam.
     

    Attached Files:

    SaadSohail and Abdullah Ahmed like this.
  11. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

  12. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    @abu Hasan
    this below is the summation of zaleel's current arguments, as i see them:

    zaleel says that - regarding the readable/hearable expressions that are manifestations of His Eternal Speech (kalam lafzi) - zaleel says that Allah can create without intermediary, letters, sounds, etc. that 'do not conform to reality', and here he says denying this is to place limitations on His Power (subhanahu 3amma yasifoon)

    now remember, we are creation, and all created speech essentially eventuates out of creation. so a person lying in writing or speaking is a creation, as well as his deeds. Allah is the Creator of us and all that we do. Allah is the Creator of all good and all evil, but good earns His Rida and evil earns His Ghadab

    but zaleel's argument is not that. his argument is that Allah can create (but won't) sounds or letters etc. (kalam lafzi) that convey lies, without an intermediary (he says it explicitly and clearly 'without an intermediary'). think of a fake news media outlet with no creation running it, and all the fake news (sounds, letters, words) being created directly by Allah (ma3az Allah) with no creation speaking it or writing it and so on. (al-3iyadhu billah).

    and to strengthen his claim, zaleel says that it is not necessary for this "kalam lafzi" to be compliant to "kalam nafsi" (vide juhd al-muqill) forgetting that nafsi or lafzi, kalam pertains to the mutakallim's knowledge; and not caring about the implications of essentially saying kalam lafzi can contradict with kalam nafsi.

    upload_2020-12-28_9-45-16.png upload_2020-12-28_9-46-52.png
     
  13. SaadSohail

    SaadSohail Active Member


    My beloved Brother Abdullah Ahmed,

    As much as I appreciate your passion for refuting the deviant deobandiyah, I am also extremely KEEN on making sure 'OUR" premises check out with our own principles.

    ^That is the sole purpose for this reply.
    Note: It is not an attempt to belittle you but to encourage you that if you want to learn to refute the deobandiyah, Hulooliyah, Wahabiyah, and other deviant sects you must "know" and "understand" the basics REALLY REALLY WELL.

    You wrote:

    Zaleel said:
    "Allah has the power to do everything that is rationally possible...Allah's promise..does not make it rationally impossible for a pious believer to enter jahannam...the promise makes its occurence impossible...due to divine will"


    ^There is nothing wrong with what that Zaleel has written* here.

    *I am strictly talking about what is written in blue (ABOVE).

    In sha Allah, I will be expanding in detail later on the two scans I posted here from the deobandi website to show where the sleight of hand is taking place.

    To give you a primer:

    I have seen the deobandiyah who use arguments similar to the one written above to fool their supporters into thinking that IF what is written in BLUE above is "TRUE", it lends support to
    KUFRI AQAID like IMKAN KIDHB, or breaking the PROMISE.


    Unfortunately, I have also seen some of the opponents from our side "DENY"
    what is written in Blue (above) because they think such a notion lends support to KUFR AQAID like "IMKAN KIDHB", or breaking the PROMISE.

    While the wrong "inference" of DEOBANDIYAH from this (a rather deliberate attempt to cover the dirty tracks of their putrid scholars) has led them to land in the pot-hole of KUFR, I feel the opponents (especially LAYMAN) MUST familiarize with the basics to iterate our arguments in a way that is precise and does not lead to saying something which lies in opposition to what we believe to be true by RATIONAL NECESSITY. After all, we are on HAQ. And the deobandiyah are on falsehood. So we should be able to demonstrate it "without" contradicting ourselves.

    This needed to be said!

    But I can't keep you in the dark of what I mean by above.

    So allow me to explain in detail.

    This discussion goes back to the FUNDAMENTALS:

    Rationally Necessary: a proposition that does not accept negation in of itself[1]. This is because negating it would violate the law of identity. For example: the proposition “an even number is divisible by two”[2], which must be true, and cannot be false.

    Rationally Impossible: a proposition that does not accept affirmation in of itself. This is because affirming it would violate the law of identity. For example: the proposition “an even number is not divisible by two”, which must be false, and cannot be true.

    Rationally Possible: a proposition that accepts both affirmation and negation in of itself, because neither entails a violation of the law of identity. For example: the proposition “Zayd will die tomorrow”, which can be true, and can be false.

    Note that these categories refer to purely intellectual judgments, regardless of any physical evidences or other information.
    ___________________________________________________________

    What is the RATIONAL IMPOSSIBILITY entailed from the notion:

    1) That a KAFIR is granted entry into JANNAH.

    2) That a BELIEVER is granted entry into Hell.

    ?

    By entailment I mean "WITH RESPECT" to the PROPOSITION ITSELF.
    What is the INTRINSIC IMPOSSIBILITY entailed from such a proposition?

    In the mind's eye, supposing the existence of a Kafir in JANNAH or a Believer in Hell DOES NOT lead to any INTRINSIC or INTERNAL CONTRADICTION (with respect to the proposition itself) like it is entailed from saying "A square circle exists" or "2=5".

    NOTE:
    An intrinsic rational judgment is one about a proposition, irrespective of anything other than the essence of the subject and the essence of the predicate.


    For example: it is intrinsically impossible for a seven-faced cube to exist. This is because a cube is a six-faced shape by virtue of what it is, and so a seven-faced cube would be a seven-faced six-faced shape, which is a contradiction. It’s existence therefore, is said to be impossible in of itself.


    Question 1: Oh but wait does that mean, that a KAFIR's entry in JANNAH could occur on the DAY OF JUDGEMENT ?

    No claiming that would be KUFR. It is IMPOSSIBLE. Not because it is intrinsically or rationally impossible (with respect to the INTELLECT. The mind judges the proposition as rationally possible).

    It is IMPOSSIBLE because Allah has DECREED that a KAFIR will STAY in HELL FIRE FOREVER.
    And He has informed us of this DECREE in the QURAN.

    And it is RATIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE that
    1. HIS Will under goes changes (It is rationally impossible for His will to undergo change because it is ETERNAL) or
    2. That He lies (It is rationally impossible For Him to tell a lie because His speech is ETERNAL and Kalam Lafdhi signifies His Eternal TRUE speech) or
    3. That He breaks His promise (Because His telling a lie is RATIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE).

    Question 2: If the entry of A kafir into Jannah is NOT rationally impossible. What kind of impossibility are you speaking about?

    I am talking about Contingent Impossibility (Mustahil Aradi).
    Contingent impossibility is an impossibility which is NOT intrinsic BUT extrinsic to itself.

    On the other hand, an extrinsic rational judgment is one about a proposition, while also taking into consideration other factors that may affect its truth. Other factors that are external to the essence of the subject and the essence of the predicate.

    For example: it is intrinsically possible for Zayd to occupy a chair. For Zayd’s occupation of a chair, in of itself, is not absurd. However, this can become impossible when we take into consideration the occurrence of something other than Zayd’s occupation of the chair, like ‘Amr’s occupation of the same chair (Since it is impossible for both Zayd and ‘Amr to occupy the same chair, at the same time). In this case, it is said that Zayd’s occupation of the chair is impossible, but for other than itself.


    Question 3: Why can't I say that a Kafir's entry into Jannah IS made RATIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE in relation to Allah's decreeing His entry into Hell?

    Answer: Changes in intrinsic truths are called transformations of realities (Inqilab Al-Haqa’iq).
    For example: an essence whose existence is an intrinsic possibility, to become intrinsically necessary or impossible.

    The transformation of realties is impossible. This is because what is intrinsic to an essence is that which makes it itself, without which it is not itself. And so claiming that a reality changed, is tantamount to claiming that an essence is no longer itself, and that would be a violation of identity.

    For example: if existence were intrinsically possible for a particular essence, then this essence accepts both existence and non-existence by virtue of what it is. So to claim that this essence no longer accepts existence (i.e. that its existence is now an intrinsic impossibility), or non-existence (or an intrinsic necessity), is to claim that this essence is no longer this essence. And that is absurd.

    In simple terms:
    Claiming something that by virtue (intrinsically) accepts both non-existence and existence and then by virtue (intrinsically) does not accept existence is to say that thing is no longer that thing and that is absurd.

    It is further nonsense, because Allah's power pertains to rational possibilities. To say "rational possibility" became "Impossible" is to say His power got RESTRICTED (and that's impossible) or that it under went taghaur (and that's impossible).

    More on this here.


    Question 4: Can you please elaborate what you have elaborated here from the Ulema?

    Sure.
    SANUSI.png

    Refined explanation of Imam Sanusi's Creed.

    1.jpg


    Fatawa Fayzul Rasool by Mufti Jalaludin Amjadi.

    b.png

    Answer: Based on the views of Jumhur/majority of Ahlus Sunnah, it is sharan Muhal (Impossible with respect to Shariah, Mustahil Aradi) and Aqlan Mumkin Bil dhaat (Intrinsically possible/ Rationally possible) while according to some scholars (Imam Nasafi and others) it is also rationally impossible.

    [​IMG]

    Question: Is forgiveness of mushrikeen within the Qudrah of Almighty Allah (swt) or not?

    Answer: Without a doubt the pardon of the Kufar is within the Qudrah of Almighty Allah (swt) but its occurrence (wuqu) is muhal. The pardon of mushrikeen is Aqlan mumkin bil dhaat (Rationally possible or intrinsically possible) but Sharan Muhal bil ghayr (Mumtaniý bi’l Ghayr or Mustaĥīl Árađī) .


    From Shaykh Abu Adam of Sunnianswers:

    Mustaheel `arađiyy is when something is possible, like the existence of any created thing, but Allah tells us that it will not be, such as a mukallaf kaafir entering Paradise. That is, it is rationally possible that a kaafir could go to Paradise, but contingently impossible, because Allah has told us that this will never happen, as this is His decree.

    Note: According to the Maturidis, it is rationally impossible for Allah to enter a Kafir into Jannah because (I have heard from a few, not read) it is Khilaf ul Hikma.
    However, it is not the case that Maturidis deem "rationally possible" became "Rationally impossible."

    In the Upcoming Post In sha Allah, I will demonstrate "The sleight of Hand" of the Wretched deobandiyah.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2020
  14. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    madder and madder he gets.
    --
    Devbandits and Atheists are joined at the hips.

    Atheists ask illogical questions like "Can God create a Stone He Himself can't lift"?

    Which is actually asking, "Does the All-Powerful Creator have the Power to render Himself powerless?", but couched in a phrasing that would make it appear as a logical question - rather than a self-contradiction that it really is.

    Like Atheists, like Devbandas.

    The Qura'n tells us: "Sleep does not touch Him, nor Fatigue"

    The devbandi turns back and says:
    "Oh what do you mean? Is God an insomniac? In fact, He can sleep, but will not sleep - because He has told us so in the Qur'an. The inability to sleep is a flaw. Humans who can't sleep are unhealthy and are put on medication. So, Sunnis believe that God doesn't have the power to sleep. It is enough to say that He doesn't sleep, but then to go beyond this and say that He doesn't even have the power to go to sleep if He so wishes is to put limitations on God, like the mu'tazili humpty dumpty or whatever the guy's name was"

    --
    The Qur'an tells us: "He doesn't have Offspring".

    Now, the devbandis will make a baatil qiyas with humans and say ... what?
     
  15. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    @abu Hasan @SaadSohail

    for human beings: is there a some special "power" to lie and another special power to "speak truth"?

    as I see it, the only "ability" is the ability to speak/write. And both involve the same set of physical, physiological and mental "ability/power".

    human beings have the "ability" to speak - and what they speak, will either accord with reality or be at variance with it.

    To choose the content of one's speech is a moral choice and realted to will and knowledge.

    But whence is it related to "power/ability"?

    Whether a speech is a truth or a falsehood - is an evaluation of it vis-a-vis objective reality.

    A person who "lies" can do so due to lack of courage, or knowledge or under coercion or due moral decrepitude.

    But it doesn't involve any categorical sub-division of "power".

    Now some people might label the process of lying as a special power, distinct from the general ability to speak, and may boast about it as though it were a possession that the general masses of humanity are deprived of.

    But that is merely a subjective opinion of evil people - like the shameless dayabina.
    ---

    Now, Muslims affirm the attribute of God, al-Mutakallim, and they affirm that He speaks whatever He Wills.

    Simultaneously, Muslims also believe that it can never ever happen that He speaketh and His speech contradict His Knowledge (because His knowledge is the only and the ultimate reality).

    We have not denied His attribute of speech, nor His absolute Will, we only deny the possibility that His Spoken Word ever be "categorizable" as consisting of information beyond His Perfect Knowledge.

    1. All reality is subsumed in His Knowledge
    2. Nothing whatsoever escapes His Knowledge
    3. The ultimate reality is His Knowledge
    4. His Speech can never contradict His Knowledge (because that would imply something exists beyond His knowledge - which is impossible)
    5. Thus His speech can never contradict reality
    6. Thus His speech can never be untrue
    Where from does this impose any limitation whatsoever?

    ---
    Deobandits first imagine "lie-ability" to be some sort of latent ability/power, using which humans produce false information.

    Then they do a baatil qiyaas and imagine that since God is Almighty, He too must possess this certain latent power - and can execute it if He wishes.

    Then they are faced with the problem that lying would render His word untrustworthy - so they bring in an additional caluse out of the blue - that He will never exercise this Hidden power.

    Someone should ask them, what would happen to His attribute of Al-Saadiq, if He did exercise it?

    So the dayabina first impute an ignobility to God and then say that He is Wise enough to not act ignobly.

    1. Their first subterfuge is defining "lie" to be a sort of special power
    2. Their second subterfuge is claiming that God is like human beings, nay greater, in possesing this power
    3. The rest, is history
     
  16. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    ha ha .. I can imagine his dilemma - perhaps he wakes up in the middle of the night worrying if keeping the post will cause more humiliation or removing it?

    be prepared for the post to make at least a few more fleeting appearances - just to keep up the pretence of coolness, and then, a quiet strangulation and overnight burial.
     
    Abdullah Ahmed likes this.
  17. Abdullah Ahmed

    Abdullah Ahmed Active Member







    Considering that Allah is transcendent above and beyond zaleel's ascription, its not far-fetched that zaleel worships a god other than Allah.

    In which case, what zaleel should have actually said is:

    "i believe that since my dev is bipolar, he/she may renege on a promise already made. However, since i (zaleel) am bipolar, i dont believe that he/she may ever do this."
     
  18. Abdullah Ahmed

    Abdullah Ahmed Active Member

    [​IMG]


    Zaleel said:

    "Allah has the power to do everything that is rationally possible...Allah's promise..does not make it rationally impossible for a pious believer to enter jahannam...the promise makes its occurence impossible...due to divine will"


    in other words, Zaleel is saying:

    "My mind rationalizes that Allah's Power allows possibility for Allah to reject His own Divine Will, if He so Wills. However, His Divine Will wont actually permit Him to exercise this Power because He does not Will for it. "

    (naudhubillahi min dhalik)
     
  19. SaadSohail

    SaadSohail Active Member

    Alhamdollilah. Excellent points raised.

    Actually, I never got the chance to open this website of theirs. There's so much sophistry and "non-sequiturs" riddled through out, that if I were to begin writing the refutations and point out the fallacies they would go over a 1000 pages. And note that I am NOT a scholar. NOR do i consider myself one. Just an average Joe.

    This book juhd al-muqill looks like is a "deceitful" (Oh the irony!) way of getting out of the contradiction entailed from Imkan Kidhb. But it doesn't help their case at all.

    Take for example the following text from their website:

    123.png


    ^Very soon, IN SHA Allah, if time allows, I will be providing a refutation for this style of arguments mentioned above. There's a sleight of hand involved in both of these arguments.

    But before that, It is important that to revive the BASICS of ILMUL KALAM:

    1) What is Rationally necessary, What is Rationally impossible and what is rationally possible?

    2) Can Intrinsically possible transform into intrinsically IMPOSSIBLE? Do REALITIES TRANSFORM?

    3) On Speech and sounds and letters.

    4) On Lie being rationally impossible for Allah in KALAM NAFSI and Kalam Lafdhi.

    5) Qudrah DOES NOT pertain to "Rational impossibilities".

    6) Sanusi CREED.

    7) AND MOST IMPORTANTLY: the truth about a lie


    My rebuttal would involve "appealing" to these very FUNDAMENTALS.
    The Awam needs to develop affinity for these fundamentals and talk about them day and night so that they become second nature. Reflect on them. So that it becomes easy to spot kidhb from far. Understanding these fundamentals is the KEY.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2020
    Abdullah Ahmed and Unbeknown like this.
  20. Abdullah Ahmed

    Abdullah Ahmed Active Member

    he deleted the post...
     

Share This Page