mawlana zayn ul aqtab siddiqi

Discussion in 'Siyar an-Nubala' started by ghulam e Ghaus, Oct 28, 2011.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. yes, all that you say is excellent and correct, atleast, according to my undertstanding.

    however, just to understand the difference amongst philosophers and theologians

    divine attributes being 'qaaim biDhat' means that they 'depend' on the essence? attributes are qaaim biDhat but Dhat is not qaaim bil-wasf? is that right? what is the nature of this relation between the TWO?

    secondly, Dhat is eternal and sifaat are also eternal. wouldnt we have two eternals? the problem is that a sifat, for example, being a creator/khaliq only materialised when there was khalq. surely, you cant say bil-fe'l and bil-quwwa because khaliq becomes a khaliq when He creates! so the question is what was the nature of the sifat of being khaliq actually before any khalq. it is here that, atleast, rationally, essence being everything makes sense.

    anyway, al-Ghazali argues that essence is not dependent on the attributes but the latter are. in his al-iqtisad and tahafut.

    I think, I need to stop this discussion here and do so some more reading, when have time and then return here, though KS I do not disagree with you but only trying to explore it so we can defend the traditional position though amongst the traditionalists there are differences on the finer points.
  2. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran



    Regarding whether the Sifaat not being a'yn alDhat and not being Ghayr alDhat then the position of the Ahl alSunna Mutakallimun makes much sense.

    Firstly the Sifaat are qaaim biDhat and this is by way of wujub (necessity). Then it is also necessary that the Sifaat are free from a mukhassis (need of a doer to bring it into existence from the non-existence it was in).
    The very fact that they are Sifaat makes it impossible that they be self-established (qaaim bidhat) because this would necessitate a topsy-turvy change of realities (qalb alhaqaiq).

    The very reality of a sifat is that it requires (istilzam) a mawsuf by which it can carry out ittisaf. If it were independent it would not be a sifat.
    The separation of a sifat from its own reality, which is its being a sifat of a mawsuf, is impossible (muhal). Therefore if it were considered self-established that would mean it is separated from its own reality which is impossible.

    There is no meaning of a sifat being with a mawsuf except its establishment (qiyam) with the mawsuf. If it were not qaaim with the mawsuf it would not be sifat for it. Otherwise, if one did say it is still sifat, that would be tarjih bilaa murajjih.
    If it were not established with its mawsuf it would not be a sifat of it and neither a sifat of anything else because of the absence of a coercive factor (mujib alikhtisas). If one were to say the sifat is independent it would mean that there is a sifat without a mawsuf and that in is destroying the very meaning of what a sifat actually is.

    In the same way to say a sifat is the very essence of a mawsuf is also ibtaal alhaqaiq.

    The Sifaat of Allah fall into iiii) And that which is existing in a mahall and is not needy of mukhassis.
  3. Dear Brother, I have not seen the clip but that is preposterous. just for other brothers & Sisters. the word NUR in the aayah is masdar/infinitive/verbal noun; and an infinitive resembles a verb i.e. shibha fe'l so a masdar in arabic is either used as mabni lil fa'il or mabni lil maf'uool. in this aayah it is grammatically used as nomen agentis/active participle...which means nur is mabni lil fa' Allaho nur al-samawat means 'munawwir al-samawat' the one who is GIVER of LIGHT and not light itself. we cannot say Allah is the light because light itself emanates from a source external to itself and Allah cannot be dependent on anything. therefore, in light of arabic grammar the meaning of the verse is that Allah is munawwir, the one who gives light and not light itself. this meaning comes from the fact that 'nur' is a masdar and masdar is used either as mabni lil fa'il as in this case or mabni lil maf'uool as in many other instances in arabic language
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 17, 2011
  4. Ghulam

    Ghulam Veteran

    Hasnayn Shah Sahib is doing the same in his speech on tafzil on Tahirs page rambling about Takfir and like his Pir misquoting Imam Ashari.
  5. subhana Llah, you're using ibn rushd al-hafid to prove Allah is everywhere! LOL maybe it has something to do with your enimity of al-Ghazali.
  6. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    as always, some people think that making an accusation is sufficient proof. takfir of who and where?

    your rambling posts may look profound to your pals, but not everybody is ignorant of aqidah texts. you should remember this.
  7. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

    In one of the above links the verse 'Allahu nur alSamawati walard' (Surah Nur verse 35) is quoted to prove that Allah subahanahu wa ta'ala is everywhere!!

    This is what happens with literalism and an ignorance of i'lm albalagha.

    Knowing the method of Arabs in understanding their language can prvent such blunders (fihmu turuqi majazaatil A'rab). Knowing the subtleties of majazaat, isti'arat, and tafannun of eloquent (baleegh) tashbihaat.

    A reading of primary works like 'Talkhis alMiftah', 'Durus alBalaghah' and 'alBalaghatul Wadiha', 'alA'laqa' and others can facilitate understanding the Quran better.
  8. I understand what you are saying. Nevertheless, those three relations mentined above can be best understood from the perspective of necessary being and contingent being i.e. wajib al-wujud and mumkin al-wujud. see there are two other distinctions, namely, eternal and temporal i.e. qadim and hadith.a necessary being does not have a cause but a contingent being does. therefore, dhaat and sifaat are 'both' eternal. Hence the problem of composition. so in order to dispel this doubt philosophers have considered the essence and divine attributes as one and the same. whereas, mutakallimun generally struggled with the question. the reason for that is that philosophers were trying to demonstrate non-composition of God as their undertsnding of dhaat and sifaat division by focusing on the necessary/contingent existence whereas theologians on the other hand could neither accept that God's divine attribues are his 'ayn' nor His 'ghayr'. this is not clear philosophically but have faith! the story continues.
    each group spotlights different aspects. the Philosophers see it thorugh wajib/mumkin and theologians through qadim/hadith.
    I think, I should stop here lest the inveterate takfiri machinery brings their handcuffs!
  9. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

    When you say dependent do you mean 'iftiqaar' need of each other? The dhaat and the sifaat cannot be descrbed with iftiqaar.

    If you mean something else then let us know what you mean.

    To say mawjud (existing) fil mahall is different to saying muftaqir ilal mahall.
  10. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

    Existing things with regard to mahall and mukhassis (the meaning of these two will come) are four types:

    i) That which is free from mahall and mukhassis, and that is the Dhat of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala.

    ii) That which is needy of mahall and mukhassis, and those are aghrad.

    iii) That which is need of mukhassis and not mahall, and that is ajram.*

    iiii) And that which is existing in a mahall and is not needy of mukhassis.

    *That which is shaaghil (filling) of a mahall by way of movement or stillness. The same applies for a jawhar or fard except it is more akhass than a jirm.

    The meaning of neediness to mahall or existence in a mahall is it its qiyam (establishment) by the mahall by way of ittisaf.

    The meaning of mukhassis is the doer out of choice who specifies the possible contingent things with irada (will).

    The meaning of neediness to a mahall or its existence in it is the ittisaf of that mahall with it.

    The meaning of its istighnaa of a mahall is that it in itself is a dhat with sifaat and is not a sifat itself.

    The meaning of a thing being need of a mukhassis is that it i contingent need of a doer to bring it into existence from th non-existence it was in.

    The question for you (as i'am the saail and you are makin the da'wa) which of the above four categories do the sifaat of Allah fit into??

    If you disagree with that categorisation then be free to do naqd of it.
  11. chisti-raza

    chisti-raza Veteran

  12. of course, I meant al-Hafid. however, sometimes one has to view it from the other side. what i mean is that KS is overloaded with tautological i.e. it is tanatmount to saying attributes are attributes, etc.
    for example, I believe, God is existent, eternal a parte ante and eternal a parte post ; He is neither jawhar nor 'arad. He is not in a direction. God is one. God is knowing, powerful, living, willing, hearing, seeing and speaking. The maker of the wolrd is knowing according to knowledge, living according to life, powerful according to power and so is the case in the rest of the attributes....wa ghayra.

    all the above is a tautological rendition but what I was generating through my questioning with KS ya AH is the following questions so from dogma we can progress towards reasoning behind those dogmatic-formulations.
    therefore, the questions to be considered, since there can be three types of relations between essence and attributes:

    1. both essence and attributes are independent from each other.
    2. they depend on each other.
    3. the essence is not dependent on the attributes but latter are.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 16, 2011
  13. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

    So wherever the Sifat are present the dhat is also present? The attribute of alRahman is everywhere and also above the throne. That would mean that you conclude that the dhaat of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala is also above the throne!!

    I have not denied the position of Ahl alSunna regarding la a'yn aldhat wa ghayr aldhat.

    Look, the sifat of I'lm is muta'alliq to mustahilat. Does that mean the dhat is muta'aliq to mustahilat and present within them? Of course not.

    But the reasoning you have proposed would mean it does.
  14. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    first, KS is right in what he says (below) about the aqidah.

    existing 'everywhere' is related to His - sub'Hanahu wa ta'ala - Power and Knowledge; not in the corporeal sense.

    and for GG - since when is ibn rushd (do you talk about the grandson or the grandfather?) considered an authority on aqidah? and if you remain obstinate that you will work with only ibn rushd, then fine. let us start - which book of ibn rushd and what is the point and what is your view concerning this?
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2011
  15. just to make a point as an example: you are saying that dhaat and sifaat are ghayr. if He(s) is everywhere with His sifaat but not dhaat then please first go and read the discussion of ashaira's la-ayn la-ghayr on it. your idea is that of mu'tazila.
  16. Ghulam

    Ghulam Veteran

  17. we have different frame of reference therefore it is futile because you do not even understand the questions; not raised by me but by the likes of Ibn Rushd. night! night!

  18. *MUST WATCH*



    though I dont understnd what they are talking about yet you *MUST WATCH*
  19. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

    Place does not apply to Him as he created place and is free from it.

    Allah is as He always was.

    So not only this place of the world is negated but any place. Allah exists without place.
  20. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

    Two things for you to think of:

    a) Why does anyone need to be IN a place in order to interact with it? You are interacting with us here, but you are not within us.

    b) What is out of time and place? Non-existence, or a void (faragh)? Is non-existence a shay' (thing) or la shay'?

    Who has negated that Allah subhanahu wata'ala is everywhere with his sifat?

    From a textual perspective how would you prove that Allah is everywhere with his dhaat?

Share This Page