mawlana zayn ul aqtab siddiqi

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

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. I wanted to continue the discussion and hoped KS would lose the jargon and just focus on the justification. however, then our pehlwan brother abu hasan wants a 'debate'....what? so i thought it is best to leave it because i know what i will expect, namely, the classic truth by authority argument. never mind. next time.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 28, 2011
  2. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

    Teachers are important not books, especially if you haven't been trained under a specialist.

    Being untrained in kalam, or any science can lead to major blunders.

    A teacher directs you to how to ride the bike properly with all the intricacies.

    After that you can read as many books as you want on any subject.
     
  3. i have found this discussion between GG and KS fascinating. i'd like to explore it further in detail myself. any books you recommend [without knowing arabic]?
     
  4. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

    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.
    What is meant by mahall (as i said the Sifaat exist in a mahall): is a Dhaat with which Sifaat are qaaim and not a place (makan) that neighbours bodies (ajsaam).
    And the correct meaning of iftiqaar ila almahall (neediness to a mahall) or alwujud filmahall (existence in mahall) is its qiyam (establishment) by way of ittisaaf. So Dhaat is muttasif biSifaat.

    The existence of the Sifaat is by impossibility of existence by themselves and necessary existence by (wujub alqiyam) by their mawsuf (the Dhaat).
    A clear definition of alsifat is that noun (ism) which is indicative (daall) upon the state of a dhaat, like someone being tall, short, stupid, intelligent etc.

    Of course between sifat and na't there is u'mum and khusus mutlaq, as one is used for madh and dhamm and one only for madh.

    Also sifat is defined as the hallmark (imaara) that is necessary for the mawsuf by which he is known.

    If i say Zaid is tall. Tallness is neither the dhaat of Zaid and neither other than
    Zaid, it is a sifat for Zaid that is qaaim (established) with him. Because Zaid is haadith his sifaat are also haadith with him. alsifaatu laa yanfakku a'ni aldhaat.

    Nowhere in the above posts was it stated that the Sifaat of Allah Ta'ala are 'caused' by the Dhaat. Rather it was stated that they are qaaim bi alDhaat which is different. Also above it was demonstrated how i'lal can be misconstrued with huduth and jawaaz, when what is meant by it is talaazum.
    I re-iterate a few points if understood well along with my last post it removes many difficulties for the would be philosopher.

    The existence of the Sifaat is by impossibility of existence by themselves and necessary existence by (wujub alqiyam) by their mawsuf (the Dhaat).

    The usage of the words ihtiyaaj' or 'iftiqaar' is not used for the Sifaat but qaaim. This point has been made by the Ash'ari's.

    As for the point of kathratul qudama then this is false because a thing does not become numerous with numerous attributes (alshay' laa yatakatharu bi kathrati sifaathi). The Dhaat is qadima with numerous Sifaat and that is what the ijma' is upon. So the connection of the ijma' relates to the Deity (aaliha) which has numerous Sifaat.
     
  5. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i must remind you that i am just a student and a beginner.

    if i have to discuss imam ghazali, i prefer to talk about iHya or kimiya. i positively abhor discussing kalam in public as it causes confusion.* and those people who talk of such things are either trying to show-off their new found knowledge or do not give a damn about the aqidah of people. knowledge should be aware of its responsibility.

    in these perilious times, quoting imam ghazali from ibn rushd's citation from a treatise on philosophy, is irresponsible. if you are concerned about common muslims, either STATE the established aqidah, or talk about imam ghazali's: iljam al-`awam.

    ---
    O Allah, we ask Thee to give us knowledge that has benefit and benefit us from such knowledge. O Allah, we seek Thy refuge from knowledge that is of no benefit, and a heart that does not fear [Thee].

    wa billahi't tawfiq.


    *and the reason i am dragged into it is, Wallahu A'alam, when people incite fitna.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2011
  6. Ghulam

    Ghulam Veteran

  7. Oh! its a shame, you won't be enlightening us.
     
  8. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    which means you have not run away yet...

    neither do i have time to waste. but i am piqued at people who raise issues of little concern to common people in public. and it is therefore, i am forced to answer people who stoke fitna.

    wa billahi't tawfiq.
     
  9. we don't know that yet....look man! I have no beef with you. it was all about the relation between essence and attributes, the three possibilities as stated by imam al-ghazali. just enlighten us about what you have researched and perhaps we can all learn from your educated and refined input. thats it. I know that if this was a formal 'debate' then I have to postpone my priorities and dedicate myself to you; which is impossible at the moment.
     
  10. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    so, a straight question is being melodramatic? i am sorry, what do you mean by melodramatic? debate doesn't always mean munazarah in english.

    even if you don't state your own? yet, it is you who began the argument.

    which means, if it is one of my 'classic blenders,' you will take part. so, is this one of my classic blenders or not?

    because,
    1) if it is one of my classic blenders, you will take part.
    2) if it is not one of my classic blenders, you will run away.
    3) and since you run away, it means, this is not one of my classic blenders.

    ---
    i didn't even ask what you meant by a blender. but then,
     
  11. Ya AH!

    there is no need for being melodramatic. This is not a debate. just state your opinion. and Yes, I run from you. Unless it is one of your classic blenders, I won't even take part.

    Baarish se dosti achhi nahin faraz
    kacha tera makan hai kuch to khayal kar!
     
  12. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    actually, you run away.

    my offer is still open for a proper debate - but only starting with preliminaries. guerrilla attacks by picking a random hotch-potch from books of philosophers (or flawed translations) and then throwing statements without any commitment or stating one's one position is not the way of a courageous gentleman but reeks of ignorance and wannabe-philosopher.

    because, this method is used by people who always a backdoor open, unlike people of truth who state their own belief upfront and then accept or reject (or acknowledge their ignorance of the matter) without equivocation.

    ----
    as i have said before, what you say may sound profound to the uninitiated, but those who have read books of kalam and philosophy will only laugh at the nonsense. and at the first opportunity, you seek a way to escape.

    ----
    in geekdom, this is a classic troll - warts and all.
     
  13. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

    I re-iterate a few points if understood well along with my last post it removes many difficulties for the would be philosopher.

    The existence of the Sifaat is by impossibility of existence by themselves and necessary existence by (wujub alqiyam) by their mawsuf (the Dhaat).

    The usage of the words ihtiyaaj' or 'iftiqaar' is not used for the Sifaat but qaaim. This point has been made by the Ash'ari's.

    As for the point of kathratul qudama then this is false because a thing does not become numerous with numerous attributes (alshay' laa yatakatharu bi kathrati sifaathi). The Dhaat is qadima with numerous Sifaat and that is what the ijma' is upon. So the connection of the ijma' relates to the Deity (aaliha) which has numerous Sifaat.
     
  14. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

    A clear definition of alsifat is that noun (ism) which is indicative (daall) upon the state of a dhaat, like someone being tall, short, stupid, intelligent etc.

    Of course between sifat and na't there is u'mum and khusus mutlaq, as one is used for madh and dhamm and one only for madh.

    Also sifat is defined as the hallmark (imaara) that is necessary for the mawsuf by which he is known.

    If i say Zaid is tall. Tallness is neither the dhaat of Zaid and neither other than
    Zaid, it is a sifat for Zaid that is qaaim (established) with him. Because Zaid is haadith his sifaat are also haadith with him. alsifaatu laa yanfakku a'ni aldhaat.

    Nowhere in the above posts was it stated that the Sifaat of Allah Ta'ala are 'caused' by the Dhaat. Rather it was stated that they are qaaim bi alDhaat which is different. Also above it was demonstrated how i'lal can be misconstrued with huduth and jawaaz, when what is meant by it is talaazum.
     


  15. thank you. I rest my case.
     
  16. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i am glad that you have clarified your position.

    the emphasis was not required, but we understand.

    i insist that you do not have to keep repeating your methodology or shall we say tautology?

    well, if you say so.

    i beg to differ: you are sophistically confusing the terms, not rhetorically.

    i am forced to ask the question: 'what do you mean by 'ittisaf'? you have to also explain the [meaningless rhetorical] terms: 'shift' or 'logical demonstration'.

    the rhetorical shift that you mention, is it logical or just a shift? as said earlier, "relinquish" is debatable when dealing with dichotomies vis-a-vis dependent eternity and non-dependent eternity. (if something is dependent on something else, which is of the two is eternal? and if it is eternal, how can it be dependent on something else? does it not cause a redundantly cyclic argument?)

    rest assured, your brothers don't exist here.


    ---------------------------------
    "the realities of things are (known and) established".
     
  17. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

    Before we discuss the main points with the Philosophers, both groups must agree on the basic definitions. How do they define sifat generally? And how do they define mawsuf? Once we are able to see their definitions of all things (ashyaa) we can discuss the core issues.
    Alongside that we must cover the preliminaries of definitions with where we disagree and show the flaws of each others definitions. This is where logical demonstration is done. For this we must refer to the mutawwalaat. A very time consuming process.

    This is precisely why 'alUmur alAammah' is taught in Dars e Nizami which deals with these issues precisely.
     
  18. the charge is that they are all assumptions and assertions. Premises masquerading as logically demonstrative. the terms are empty of application and demonstration. for example, the shift from being a khaliq from irada to being a khaliq in actualisation is an assumption i.e. an unstated premise, one that is taken for granted. 'adam and wujud are opposites. yet the term creator/khaliq is applied to both existent and non-existent. it is here that we find a leap of faith!
    on the other hand, the relation between essence and attribute has also been rhetorically confused by meaningless terms, for example, crucially the following statement by implication suggests dependency upon the other yet it is considered eternal and necessary:
    the point is that merely ambiguous terms such as ittisaaf cannot provide a shift or logical demonstration. it is just a rhetorical shift without actually relinquishing the dichotomy of a dependent-eternity and a non-dependent eternity.

    however, it cannot be the case that one thing, x, is the cause of another thing, y, where y is in turn the cause of x such that, while x and y are both necessary in themselves, r-xy is necessary in itself. inasmuch as x is the cause of y, x must be essentially prior to y and conversely, y inasmuch as it is the effect of x is posterior to x. consequently, if x is both cause and effect of y, x must be both prior and posterior to y. thus, that which exists necessarily through itself cannot be a composite of two subsisting entities.

    besides the fact of necessary existent's existing necessarily, all other attributes with which it is described, in fact, indicate either certain negations of imperfections or relations that created things have to the Necessary Existent. one and the same thing can be described in numerous ways relative to other things.

    bytheway, the maqdur idea is also how imam al-ghazali interpreted the existence of the Noble Prophet(s). where he says that the hadith 'I was the first one to be created and last one to be sent..etc.' and other similar meaning ahadith and verses, where a pre-existence of the Prophet(s) can be posited in actuality were actually 'taqdiran' and the Prophet(s) had no prior existence and the only time He existed in actuality other than the plan of God was when He was born! no noor, no soul, no nothing is what Imam al-ghazali said. this was due to him being consistent in his general thesis about existence, etc. I wonder, what happened to the idea of 'qalu bala'.

    the point is that unstated-premises/assumptions/assertions hiding behind sophisticated terms will not postpone the inevitable demand for a logical demonstration rather than merely leap of faith of a reactionary dialectical theology.

    *all the above is for stimulating the discussion so hold on my takfiri brothers. thank you.
     
  19. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

    The ma'dum (non-existent) is still under the Qudra of Allah Ta'ala. He subhanahu wata'ala is Khaliq before the makhluq was brought into existence. The non-existence was because it was by the Irada and Qudra. So the makhluq in its non-existence was maqdur (under Qudra). So the makhluq from its a'dam, wujud and all its being has always been under the Irada and Qudra of Allah Ta'la, and the Khaliq with His Irada (Will) brings a thing into existence but also out of existence. A thing not existing is still under the power of the Khaliq. It does not become maqdur from its wujud but from eternity in whether it should exist or not!!

    subhanAllah.
     
  20. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

    What is meant by mahall (as i said the Sifaat exist in a mahall): is a Dhaat with which Sifaat are qaaim and not a place (makan) that neighbours bodies (ajsaam).
    And the correct meaning of iftiqaar ila almahall (neediness to a mahall) or alwujud filmahall (existence in mahall) is its qiyam (establishment) by way of ittisaaf. So Dhaat is muttasif biSifaat. (The use of the word 'iftiqaar' can be discussed later).

    The existence of the Sifaat is by impossibility of existence by themselves and necessary existence by (wujub alqiyam) by their mawsuf (the Dhaat).

    The Mu'tazila accepted the Sifaat Ma'nawiya but rejected the Sifaat alMa'ani. The foundational reasons were two, 1 was that the Sifaat Ma'nawiya would become ma'lul because of the Sifaat alMa'ani and this would necessitate huduth (contingency) which is impossible for Allah Ta'ala. 2 was the existence of numerous qudamaa. And there is Ijmaa' that the Qadim is one, opposing this would mean numerous deities.

    Also they argued that Qidam was from the most akhass attributes of Allah Ta'ala. If sharing (mushaaraka) was possible in the akhass attributes it would also be possible in the a'amm. And then this would mean mushaaraka in all divine attributes.
    There reasoning is flawed.

    They have misunderstood the expression of ta'lil when used for the alSifaat alMa'nawiya by the Sifaat alMa'ani. The ta'lil here does not mean huduth but rather mulaazama and cannot be proven except by it (that is the Ma'anawiya cannot be proven except by Ma'ani) and both of these are qadim and wajib.
    It does not mean that the Sifaat Ma'ani done ta'theer on the Sifaat Ma'anawiya and established them!

    Therefore the meaning of ta'lil is talaazum which does not indicate jawaaz or huduth in any way. In the same way two jaizaan (possible things) can have talaazum in our presence, two wajibs which we cannot see also have talaazum.

    This does not affect the wujub in any way. If we say that He the Most High is Qaadir this is mulaazim because of Him subhanahu wata'ala being Mureed and both attributes are mulaazim of Him being A'lim.

    Then the word i'lal is applied to Ma'nawiyya as opposed to Ma'ani because the latter can be understood (ta'aqqul) without the former and the former (Ma'nawiya) can only be understood in light of the other. So if the Ma'nawiyya is tabia'a (following) in ta'aqqul they expressed the word i'lal for Ma'ani because it is i'lla for the Ma'nawiyya to be understood. And the expressed ma'lul for the Ma'anawiyya.


    As for the point of kathratul qudama then this is false because a thing does not become numerous with numerous attributes (alshay' laa yatakatharu bi kathrati sifaathi). The Dhaat is qadima with numerous Sifaat and that is what the ijma' is upon. So the connection of the ijma' relates to the Deity (aaliha) which has numerous Sifaat. And the ijma' does not relate to the unity of the mawsuf with qidam without the limitation (taqyid) of Dhaat.

    As for the point of akhass (above) then it is flawed: because qidam is not sifat nafsiyya. The proof for that is comprehension of existence of the Dhaat (wujud alDhaat) before comprehending its qidam.

    There is a chapter on this issue in Sharh alAqaid with a different method of explaining the same thing. Some notes from that can also be transferred here into this discussion.
     

Share This Page