Refuting the Accusation that Asharis Consider it Rationally Possible for Allah to Lie

this difference of 'hypothetical possibility' and 'factual possibility' is a needless muddling by translating synonymous terms into english and trying to squeeze a difference there. you do not have to be a kalam specialist to examine the absurdity of this seeming difference; just ask yourself this question:

- is there a hypothetical possibility of Allah ta'ala having a son?
- is there a hypothetical possibility of Allah ta'ala exterminating Himself?
- is there a hypothetical possibility of a partner unto Allah ta'ala existing?
- is there a hypothetical possibility of Allah ta'ala having a flaw?

Al-Iyadhu Billah. Astaghfirullah. Ma'adhAllah. Ta'ala Allahu `uluwwan kabira `amma yaSifun. fa sub'HanAllah `an kulli `aybin wa naqS - Quddusun SubbuH.
​

if not, then how can a 'hypothetical possibility' of Allah ta'ala to lie exist?

---
secondly, this is against the basic of kalam principles and al-dussuqi rightly said that anyone who has not understood these terms is not qualified for this science [reworded]. i am quoting this from imam al-sanusi's first paragraph in his book umm al-barahin:

"there are three categories of rulings [hukm al-aqli]: al-wujub, al-istiHalah, al-jawaz.

- wajib/wujub is that which cannot be imagined to be non-existent

- mustaHil/istiHalah is that which cannot be imagined to exist

- jayiz/jawaz is that which is contingent - whose existence or non-existence is a rational possibility.

[fa'l wajibu ma la yutaSawwaru fi'l `aqli `adamuh; wa'l-mustaHil ma la yutaSawwaru fi'l `aqli wujuduh; wa'l jayiz ma yaSiHHu fi'l `aqli wujuduhu wa `adamuh.]
​

if you read al-dussuqi's marginalia on al-sanusi's umm al-barahin, you will know that jawaz and imkan are synonymous.

-----------
imkan means possibility to exist - and it is a corollary of jawaz. al-dussuqi explaining the meaning of jawaz/jayiz in Hashiyah umm al-barahin:

aw bi'l imkan ayy maa yumkinu wujuduhu wa `adamuh.
or the possibility - that is the possibility of a thing to either exist or to be non-existent.
​

so when we say that a certain thing is mustaHil, it simply means that such a thing cannot exist hypothetically or factually or whatever. that is the definition of istiHalah. and when kadhib or falsehood is an attribute of flaw and flaw is mustaHil for Allah ta'ala - there is no point in lexical hair-splitting further.

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

as for the sequel as pointed out by brother sherkhan, i would like to add to shaykh abu adam's response which is about the right principle: regardless of who has attested to this repugnant filthy and absolutely demonic aqidah that Allah sub'Hanahu wa ta'ala can lie!

i add a question: where has any sunni scholar permitted this filthy aqidah?

note that deobandi and modern day scholars don't count. show us from one classical book of kalaam that the elders deemed it permissible. even the mutazilah considered it muHal but their method of arriving to the conclusion was wrong even though the conclusion is itself right.

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

my apologies for not saying anything about the article by shaykh abu adam here. indeed it is heart-warming to see that someone is explaining the issue so clearly and with such confidence. may Allah reward the shaykh amply for his noble deed.

we have many quotes to support the shaykh here in this thread:
http://www.sunniport.com/masabih/showthread.php?t=4735

wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

asif said:

i couldn't have said that any better perhaps. and asif beat me to it.

however, i would like to add that shaykh nuH has not been soundly refuted though the idea of imkan al-kadhib and the false accusations on ash'aris that they hold such a repugnant belief has been soundly refuted.

refuting shaykh nuH's mistakes in that article is still pending, overdue.

as for abu fadl, he has carelessly accused shaykh nuH of committing kufr whereas the shaykh has categorically categorized imkan al-kadhib as kufr; however, the shaykh's statement confuses the reader and this requires a formal examination by a mufti if at all it has to be classified kufr. alahazrat did not slam someone kafir straightaway without examining the issue comprehensively and exhaustively and neither should we; neither do we have a right to issue summary judgements - particularly in takfir.

here i requote from the shaykh's article:

a detailed exposition is required as an analysis of the article; however this passage in question can be better understood if the compound sentence is broken down into smaller bits.

original :

restated:

a. gangohi's concept was 'jawaz aqli'

b. imam ahmed rida mistakenly translated jawaz aqli as imkan al-kadhib

c. whereas imkan al-kadhib is unbelief

d. and surely any muslim cannot hold this unbelief and gangohi DID NOT hold this unbelief, that is gangohi did not hold the belief of imkan al-kadhib.

e. imam ahmed rida's mistaken translation was unfortunate for muslim unity in india.
​

-----------------
the above is a broken down version of shaykh nuH's compound statement. for the uninitiated, it may look quite logical; but the mistakes there are quite apparent on deeper investigation.

1. did gangohi/deobandis really speak of 'jawaz aqli' OR did these folk speak of imkan al-kadhib?

2. did imam ahmed rida really mistranslate 'jawaz aqli' to 'imkan al-kadhib'?

3. if that is the case, then why do deobandis - not at the least on this forum itself - defend imkan al-kadhib, tooth and nail?

4. let us assume that deobandis really said 'imkan al-kadhib'; is it right to rule them kafir then?

5. concerning this newly introduced red herring of 'jawaz aqli': which ash'ari or maturidi text asserts this position?

6. what is the difference in jawaz and imkan (regardless of being aqli or naqli/sharyi)?

7. are the words/terms jawaz aqli and imkan kadhib originally from urdu? and if so, are they that difficult to translate into arabic?
​

but all of this can be attributed to poor research and not malicious intent of the shaykh. because look at the citation - footnote no.21 - for shaykh nuH's assertion that 'gangohi did not hold imkan al-kadhib'!

from the footnotes in the article:

one needs to ask shaykh nuH who is doing the mistranslations - and who is confusing the terms. the citation is about wuqu' or OCCURENCE. and this is being used to exonerate imkan or POSSIBILITY.

but more importantly, alahazrat's fatwa did not cite muhannad - which is an apologia. the fatwa was based on other statements prior to muhannad. muhannad is a clear example of blatant deobandi hypocrisy which has been roundly refuted by many including mawlana nayimuddin muradabadi. muhannad is a bald faced lie and anyone reading this should throw back the so-called hadith knowledge in the face of author who is a patent liar.

and what wisdom is it to quote as proof, the statement of the accused themselves that they are not guilty?

----
suppose a man steals gold and is caugh red-handed and brought to court for prosecution and the judge says to the prosecutor:

you are falsely accusing this man of theft because he says that he has never stolen a car. and you shall be reprimanded for causing unrest.
​

without even caring to examine the prosecutor's argument!

-----
the shaykh should have investigated the documents on which alahazrat based his fatawa; he should have read through his superlative sub'Han as-subbuH which is incidentally mentioned in his fatwa [or the book Husam al-Haramayn if you will].

and then made sure that indeed, alahazrat had misunderstood the terms on which he based his fatwa.

and then investigated if the deobandis were indeed talking about imkan al-kadhib or if they have said so ANYWHERE ELSE?

lastly, the shaykh should surely differentiate between apples and oranges? wuqu' and imkan? and gangohi's fatwa vide the article is about wuqu' NOT imkan.

al-iyadhu billah, wa billahi't tawfiq.
wAllahu ta'ala a'alam wa `ilmuhu atam.

 

To ah, i did not know that my post was deleted but i thought i may have not posted it properly. In terms of my post, nothing wrong is said in it as i just quoted what was said in the refutation by Sheikh Abu Adam - you should delete the link then. Stating the truth does not give Sunnis a bad name but rather the two-faced hypocracy that is someties seen does. Anyway, i leave you and lurker to it.

 

Lurker crawls out of the woodwork whenever deobandis are fumigated. No surprise that he had to gloat.

 

Lurker,
Don't gloat--it doesn't become you. And Shaykh Nuh has been soundly refuted by this article. And though Abu Fadl's manner may be harsh and a bit blunt, it doesn't detract necessarily from his point.

 

Thank you! jazaakumullaahu khayran for finally putting this character in his proper place!

 

to abu fadl:

in all probability, you have not read shaykh nuH's article and if you have, you haven't understood it properly. you have proved yourself once that you are just a chest-beater sunni whose chief achievement on our forum is to have given sunnis a bad name.

abu nibras deleted your crass post earlier, but you have posted it once again which is why i had to respond.

---
why don't you read something beneficial before hastening to comment? and throw accusations of kufr ever so lightly? if you keep this distasteful habit, you will be kicked out from our forum like certain deobandis, whom you claim to hate, but so dutifully emulate.

 

Good refutation of Nuh Keller, he shows that Nuh Keller committed kufr in his article.

 

Sequel

Sequel to the above discussion by Shaykh abu Adam here.

 

simply spot on and so beautiful!

 

:s1:

Masha allah, a beautiful refutation of Gandgohi's kufr by Allama Abu Adam sahib.

 

http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2...ider-it-rationally-possible-for-allah-to-lie/