in the absence of kalam...

Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by Noori, Aug 22, 2017.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    The above post by shaykh. abu Adam covers this:

    He says: "What Muslim Theologians failed to grasp is that God has two natures ....blah blah"

    He probably forgot to mention that a lot of Christian theologians failed likewise ...

    Interestingly, even Newton, arguably one of the most important figures for the Christian faith's claim to rationality today, rejected trinitarianism - and thus failed to grasp the utterly simple concept of a polyphusic (or multi-natured) deity.


    Some further good reading on Newton's theology (papers I enjoyed reading):

    1. Myth of the Clockwork Universe
    2. Rationalizing Christianity

    About his papers.
  2. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    Sayyidi Alah Hazrat did not say that it is not kufr, he abstained from doing takfir on the basis ot ta'wil.
  3. Ashrafi1

    Ashrafi1 New Member

    As Salāmu ʿAlaykum,

    Mawlanā @abu Hasan ,

    I recall hearing that that in Subḥān as-Subbuḥ Ala Hazrat says that according to the Mutakalimīn it is severe deviance but takfīr would not be done, whereas according to the Fuqaha takfīr would be done. Can you please clarify this in light of what Mawlanā Abū Adam wrote above?

    Jazak Allāh Khayr
  4. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    shaykh abu adam on what happens in the absence of kalam.


    I wonder how Christians claim to believe in a transcendent Creator. Their explanation of transcendence itself is a confused medley of notions as if they are unable to make up their minds as to whether the their god is truly transcendent or only partially so.

    They worship this fabled creature cantering through the skies riding other fabled creatures!

    Praise be to Allah, even an average Muslim who is in touch with his deen will draw blank and stare disbelievingly at this puddle of codswallop.
  5. FaqirHaider

    FaqirHaider Shajar-e-Sharjeel Shajar-e-Uthman

    forgive me for the confusion
  6. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    The poster's name on ILoveImamRabbani is Abdullah Mujaddidi Naqshbandi, and his writing style is different from Shaykh Abu Adam. Also, my question was regarding sunnianswers.
  7. FaqirHaider

    FaqirHaider Shajar-e-Sharjeel Shajar-e-Uthman

    His last post on ILoveImamRabbani was May 20, 2016.
  8. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    The last message Shaykh Abu Adam posted on sunnianswers was on Jul 23rd, 2014, what happened?
  9. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

  10. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    The idea that it is not absolutely impossible for Aļļaah to lie is mentioned in some books attributed to famous scholars. Can we seriously consider calling such illustrious `ulema who were masters of `aqida to be kufar and those who deny their kufr themselves kufar?

    There is a difference between saying something is kufr and making takfiir for specific individuals. One of my sħaykħs’ way in these matters is to give the rules, without commenting on specifics. So if you told him, “but what if one said so and so, or did so and so,” or “someone said this,” he will simply repeat the rule. Otherwise it becomes a waste of time, and a source for generating satanic whispers with 100s of people coming with 100s of questions. I try to follow his way and I won’t be commenting on individual sayings or statements.

    Moreover, I can tell you for a fact that when he reads Al-Ĥaasħiyah in public lessons, and comes to the statement which states that it is permitted to write Qur’aan with blood for healing purposes, he reads a fatwa which states that it is kufr to believe this. Yet far be he from saying that the author of the Ĥaasħiyah, Ibn ˆAabidiin, is a kaafir! Why? Because finding this in a book attributed to him does not necessarily mean that he said it, and because we think well of him, and do not believe he would say something like that.

    I have no certain knowledge that any scholars said that for Aļļaah to say something untrue belongs to the possible category of things, and neither do you. I do not even have two witnesses, which is a requirement for takfiir if one did not witness it directly. Forgeries and slips of the pen are very real possibilities (remember Ibn ˆArabiyy?), and we still have the possibility that a scholar might slip. The Ummah as a whole is protected, and the Prophet of course, but not individuals. The comment of Al-Fakhr Ar-Raaziyy comes to mind about the ĥadiith which states about Ibrahim having told 3 lies, “I’d rather call all of the narrators liars, than saying that Prophet Ibrahim lied.” Remember that taqliid (imitating others) is of no benefit in Aqiidah matters. What you are saying is, “since these scholars might have said this, (because you don’t know that,) I am not going to say it is kufr,” even though you know without a doubt it is an ugly thing to say about Aļļah. You can do better than that.

    Al-Imam An-Nawawiyy says that one is not allowed to rely on reading books of fatwa, even if one finds the same answer in several books. Ibn ˆAabidiin mentions this in Rasm Al-Muftiyy, so quotes in books are of limited value even in fiqh, so what about ˆaqiidah? Reading books without a solid Sħaykħ, or his prior training, is very dangerous. How to decide who is solid? Well, you can begin by finding out what he says about attributing the possibility of lying to Aļļaah! And if that is not a criteria, then enlighten me in terms of what would be.

    One more thing, even IF it was not kufr, which I do not accept, saying this still shows a silly mind that stumbles in basics of ˆAqiidah science. Someone that correctly says that Aļļaah is not in time, and does not change, and that everything is predestined, and that His knowledge is perfect, and that His Kalam is not created, but a must, and pertains to what His knowledge pertains to, but then turns around and says (incorrectly) that it also pertains to lying, and adds that lying is possible (and not a must – which would mean that the kalaam would have to be created in the first place)! A person that self-contradictory cannot be considered to know belief science, let alone be an imam by any reasonable standard, so what would you achieve by saying it is not kufr? It might also be said that you have a choice between saying he is an idiot or a kaafir, and if idiot is the only other option, then why not just go with the obvious, which is to say “kaafir,” because he has insulted Aļļaah while thinking himself clever, and making takfiir for an idiot who does this is unproblematic.

    You won’t save our view of scholars who have calamities in books attributed to their name by saying it is not kufr, because idiocy or deviance are the only other options. The only way out is to say that it is a forgery, or a slip of the pen (they had something in mind, but wrote something else by mistake), or in some cases, where it is not far fetched, you can make ta’wiil. This is the sensible way to deal with this, not blindly accepting words found in books.
  11. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    Question: Someone wrote that if we say that lying is not possible for Allah, it would then imply that humans could do something that Allah cannot do. Is this logic valid?

    Answer: No. This is because Allah’s power pertains to the possible category of things. It does not pertain to what cannot ever be, the rationally impossible. It also does not pertain to what must be, such as Allah existing and being one without a parter. Lying is a flaw of speech, so saying that Allah can lie is to say that He can have a flaw. This is kufr, like saying He can have a son or a partner.

    Note that it is also kufr to say that Allah is unable to lie, because this is to insult Allah’s attribute of Power. Furthermore, it is kufr to say that Allah is obligated not to lie, because a need to fulfill obligations is a flaw, and attributing a flaw to Allah is blasphemy.

    The answer then is that lying is a flaw, and it is impossible for Allah to have a flaw. Allah’s Power is only related to what could possibly exist.

    For example, if Allah said that Fir`awn is going to Hell, then it is impossible that Fir`awn never goes there. This is because Allah’s Speech pertains to His Knowledge, that is, He told us of what He knows, namely that Fir`awn will enter Hell. If you say that it pertains to Allah’s Power for Fir`awn not to enter Hell, after knowing that Allah has said otherwise, then you are saying that Allah’s Knowledge is flawed, or that His Will changes, which would again mean flawed knowledge and change. This is all kufr.
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  12. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    The thing to note is that even an irrational moron such as him found the idea of 'god' who has the 'power' to lie wholly repugnant - not even in one of 'his humbled states'.

    And here we have a 'muslim' 'theologian' and a whole group of 'muslim scholars' defending the idea of a 'god' who can lie!

    Read Shaykh Abu Adam's forceful and angry rebuttal of this pugnacious dogma here.

    I'll quote a few passages:

    To say that it rationally possible that Allah can lie, but does not, is to say that He can have a flaw. This is obvious to even the most simple minded Muslim. A believer will feel ill for even hearing such words. Tell me, if this is not kufr, then what is? How would you like to account for your deeds on the Day of Judgment having believed, or said, that it is not absolutely impossible that Allah could lie? Did they not hear Allah’s saying:

    Meaning: “And you say by your mouths what you have no certain knowledge of, and you think it is a simple matter, while it is in Allah’s judgment gruesome.” (An-Nuur ,15)

    Similarly, it was narrated by Ahmad, Al-Tirmidhi and others that the Prophet said:

    “Verily a man may speak a word he thinks is not bad, but due to it he falls a fall that lasts seventy autumns <i.e. years> into the Hellfire.”

    This hadith was judged as good (hasan) by Al-`Asqalani. Al-Munaawi said about the expression “seventy autumns into the Hellfire” in his book Al-Taysir bi Sharh-al-Jaami-al-Saghir: “It means that he will be forever rising and falling.” That is, the person became a non-Muslim for saying this, because only non-Muslims go there forever.

    In another aayah Allah said:

    Meaning: “Allah is the one that has the most beautiful namings, so call Him by them, and leave those who deviate with respect to His namings. They will pay for what they have done.” (Al-‘A`raaf, 180)

    There is no taqlid in such an issue, and finding a quote in some book will not help one on the Day of Judgment in something like this. Imagine yourself saying, “but I found this on page 256, volume 4 of book so and so, that it is rationally possible that it is not impossible in the minds eye that you could lie!” Even if you found supporting quotes in one hundred books, by famous authors, this is not an excuse.

    Every sound minded person can understand that saying that it is not absolutely impossible that Allah could lie is an ugly thing to say about Allah. Actually, even the Christians and the Jews would consider this ugly. The one who denies that this saying is kufr, let alone blames those who say it is kufr, is himself a kaafir. The reason is that this person is saying that one can attribute an obvious flaw to the creator, and still be a Muslim. When one says something about Allah that is not of the most beautiful names, then one has either sinned or fallen in kufr. This is according to the aayahs and hadith mentioned above. Now, as the hadith says, if one might say something that one thinks nothing of, and fall out of Islam, then what about saying something that just about any human being, even a kaafir, would consider an ugly thing to say about Allah? I mean, the christians do not have a problem saying that Allah has a son, but they would have a problem with this. This is because the word son does not strike them as ugly, but the latter does. I think it is clear enough then, that saying “believing that lying is rationally possible for Allah, as long as one does not believe that He does, does not make one a non-Muslim,” is kufr in itself.
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  13. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    So what does a trinitarian do when forced to admit the superiority of kalam over his 'biblical arguments'?

    1. He belittles the kalam argument by saying that it is something which 'anyone can come up with'. He writes:

    Craig’s solution is the most popular solution, and it is on the right track, but it doesn’t answer the paradox. Instead, it highlights the fact that God’s power is exercised only through His nature, and God will never violate his nature. This is a response that mostly any theist can come up with, but as we will soon find out, Christianity provides a direct answer to this paradox. A uniquely Biblical and Christian solution is superior to a generally philosophical one.

    2. Just out of spite for anything 'Islam' he goes to the extent of validating the paradox itself. He writes:

    The question that is asked is flawed. After all, the heaviness of a rock assumes the laws of physics. Also, God being an immaterial and omnipresent being, is not a physical being. (Jeremiah 23:24) Is an immaterial and omnipresent being subject to gravity? The answer is no. Some may say that the question poised by the omnipotence paradox is a loaded question, but typically paradoxes will sound like loaded questions. Truly, the problem presented is a paradox for omnipotence, and it is a valid question even if some may find it to be unfair.

    3. Next he makes a huge boast that 'biblical argument' is far superior and that it defeats the atheists on their own turf. He writes:

    But it would seem that the Omnipotence Paradox is self-defeating. If we were to adopt the definition of omnipotence that is given by the skeptic, it would seem that God would not be subject to the law of contradiction, yet the skeptic tries to impose the law of contradiction on an infinitely powerful God when a task is given in order to refute them. But would a God with infinite power be subject to the law of contradiction? The answer is no. A God that is literally able to do anything would not be subject to the law of contradiction, and therefore, the question the omnipotence paradox poses is self refuting.

    Despite the flawed assumptions in the question, the Christian God is able to solve the paradox.

    4. After all this trumpeting of his 'biblical arguments' what does he do? He brings up one of the most illogical arguments in human history, presents it as a 'fact' without bothering to prove it (which he can't) and then builds his entire airy castle on it! In conclusion, what he ends up offering to his readers is bitter poison after having promised them a drink sweeter than honey.

    He starts off somewhat okay when he writes:

    Can God do Everything?

    The answer depends on what you mean by “can.” Most theologians say that God can do anything which is logically possible; however, The Bible teaches that God is able to do everything within his nature. ...................Any action that God cannot perform is not due to a lack of power. Instead, any limitations of his actions is due to his nature. To ask for God to violate his nature would be a meaningless question, because the question itself consists of a contradiction. If God violates his nature, then it means that he doesn’t have that specific nature in the first place. So then, God is all powerful, but his power will only be exercised within the context of his nature. It is not possible for God to lie, because God is not a liar.(Numbers 23:19) This is not because of a lack of power, rather, it’s because God keeps his promises.(Psalm 111:7)

    But then he does a somersault and crashes on his head:

    The Christian God is unique because he is a trinity of three divine persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Note that all three persons are distinct, but they are not to be divided in the being of God. For instance, Jesus is not 1/3 of God, rather, Jesus is God. God the Father is not 1/3 of God, but he is God. The Holy Spirit is not 1/3 of God, but rather, he is God. Rather all three persons are fully the being of God, despite being distinct.

    There are two types of states that we have seen Jesus Christ in scripture:

    1.) The Humbled State: Jesus Christ possesses the limitations of humans in this state. As a human, he is not omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. However, he retains his holy nature that abstains from all sin and wickedness.(Phillipans 2:1-11)

    2.) The Eternal State: Jesus Christ, like God the father, possesses omniscience, omnipotence, and is omnipresent. (Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, John 8:58)

    This author is convinced that only the Triune, Christian God is able to answer the question poised by the skeptic. The two states mentioned above will be crucial for solving the omnipotence paradox.

    The “Omnipotence Paradox” can come in many forms, but the question we are concerned with now is: “Can God make a rock so big He cannot pick it up?” Again, this question is in reference to omnipotence, which means that it addresses only God’s power.

    The answer is, “Yes.” As we can see through the hypostatic union, Jesus Christ, who is fully God, humbled himself and became a human(Philippians 2:1-11), and likewise, had our human limitations. For instance, in his human state, he was not omniscient, for he gained wisdom(Luke 2:52). So, Jesus Christ could not lift a mountain in his human form. Also, God cannot die, yet the person of Jesus Christ did die for our sins, this was because Jesus Christ was in a humbled state where he was fully human. So then, can God create a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it? The answer is yes, because he is able to humble himself to a state that does not possess omniscience or omnipotence. However, Jesus could stop suppressing those attributes at any time so that he is able to lift any rock. Therefore, the omnipotence “dilemma” is solved.

    I mean WHAT?

    I am not linking to this moron's article since there is a lot more rubbish of this sort, not worth reading.
  14. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    In fact it is clearly evident that a sizeable chunk of Craig's arguments are informed by his studies in Kalam. It seems that he abandons a lot of biblical text in favour of the arguments provided by the mutakallimun.

    Consider for example his solution to the so called 'Omnipotence Paradox', which can be summarized as:

    If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do.

    Craig's reply:

    Immediately, when dealing with the subject of omnipotence, we confront the so-called paradoxes of omnipotence. We have all heard these. For example, if God is omnipotent, can he make a stone too heavy for him to lift? If he can make a stone too heavy for him to lift, then there is something he can’t do, namely, he can’t lift the stone. But if you say he can’t make a stone too heavy for him to lift, then there is something that he can’t do, namely, he can’t make such a stone. So the idea is that omnipotence is an inherently paradoxical idea. How should we understand, then, divine omnipotence in such a way as to avoid these paradoxes?

    First, we need to ask ourselves, “Can God act in ways that are contrary to his own nature?” For example, could God create another God and fall down and worship him? Could God commit adultery? These are obviously not things that God could do. God cannot act contrary to his own nature. So such actions are usually exempted from divine omnipotence. To say that God is omnipotent or almighty doesn't mean he can contradict his own nature.

    What about logical impossibilities? Can God do things that are logically impossible? For example, could God make a square circle? Could God make a married bachelor? Could God bring it about that Jesus both came and died on the cross and that he did not come and die on the cross? Could God make a round triangle? These sorts of things are also usually exempted from God’s omnipotence. Most theologians – the vast, vast majority of theologians – have not understood omnipotence to mean that God can do things that are logically impossible. Indeed, when you think about it, these really aren't things at all. There isn't any such thing as a married bachelor. There is no such thing as a round triangle. These are just combinations of words which, when put together, are incoherent combinations. They are just logical contradictions. Therefore, to say that God cannot do logical contradictions is not to say that there is some thing that God can’t do because these aren't really things at all. Thus, to say that God can’t bring about a logical contradiction is not really to inhibit God’s omnipotence at all.
  15. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    Lane Craig:

    "A lot of Christian children’s books tell us that God can do anything. Very few actually decide to qualify their terms and define anything. Perhaps before reading this book, you should ask your children to name some things that God can’t do.

    But…but…he’s all¬-powerful. Well, yes, but there still some things God can’t do. Can God sin? Can he make a square circle? Can he make a rock so big he can’t lift it? God is All-Powerful not only shows us the greatness of God, but it also clearly and simply shows that omnipotence does not apply to things that are nonsensical, whether that’s God violating his own nature or violating the rules of logic."

    That's probably because craig has studied kalam to quite an extent:

    Craig is best known for his resuscitation of a version of the cosmological argument for the existence of an uncaused first cause. In recognition of the medieval Islamic contribution to the development of this version of the argument, Craig coined the name "kalam cosmological argument" (kalam being medieval Islamic theology), an appellation which has stuck....................Philosophically, Craig refurbishes two traditional kalam arguments for the finitude of the temporal series of past events: an argument based on the metaphysical impossibility of the existence of what modern mathematicians call an actual infinite and an argument based on the metaphysical impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by a process of successive addition.............One of Craig's contributions to the historic kalam cosmological argument is his use of empirical evidence from contemporary astrophysics in support of the universe's beginning. He uses two lines of evidence from current cosmology: the expansion of the universe and the thermodynamic properties of the universe.
  16. Wadood

    Wadood Veteran

    to be fair to him, he has quipped in the right direction about historic roman empire (at least for the Byzantines, including alexandrra).

    and i dont think its civil to deride someones education
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2015
  17. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    ... you end up here:

    "3. God is not all-powerful if there is something He cannot do. God cannot lie, therefore God is not all-powerful.

    Bang! Owned.

    Not so fast. This argument would be fantastic—devastating maybe—if God was more of the ancient Greek god persuasion, where the gods themselves were subject to fate and limited to their specific roles in the cosmos. The Orthodox doctrine of God is much different. Christians (at least Orthodox Christians) view God’s ontology as subject to His perfect free-will. Why is He good? Because He wills to be good. Why does He not lie? Because He wills to be honest. Why does God exist as Trinity? Because He wills it. He could just as easily will to not exist. And yes, He could just as easily will to lie. The fact that He doesn’t is no commentary on whether He could."

    And he quips:

    "But the claim that Christianity was viable in the ancient world because it was endorsed by wide spread ignorance is a profoundly ignorant idea. Christianity arose in one of the most highly advanced civilizations in human history. The Roman Empire was not known for its stupidity. It was the epicenter of innovation and philosophical giants. I would wager that if a common person of today found himself in a philosophical debate with a common person of first century Alexandria, the moderner would be utterly humiliated in the exchange."

    His learning:
    "I hold a BA in Pastoral Ministry and a M.Th in Theological and Historical Studies from Oral Roberts University, and an MS in Counseling Psychology from Northeastern State University."

    and credulity:
    "Zen actually set me up long ago to accept the physical rigor of aseticism, something the churches I grew up in rejected without question. Not that I’ve ever lived as a hermit, but I’ve always been oriented in that direction (I once spent 2 weeks alone in the woods fasting and praying for a radical visitation from God, IT WORKED)."

Share This Page