so far zaleel did not give a definition of kalam lafzi from the books of kalam. the problem with these devbandi mongrels is that they have no working guidelines or definitions to go by, they cook up imaginary definitions, rules, meanings etc., and attack straw men just to absolve their tawaghit of their blasphemies. pretty rich of zaleel to say this:
Another part he did not address. The context is Imam al-Ashari in Kitab al-Lum'. The Imam al-Ash'ari extract: He attempted to say the impossibility of kidhb he is referring to is kidhb in Allah's Kalam Nafsi as that would entail kidhb in His Ilm, which is the naqs Imam al-Ash'ari talks of. I said, Imam al-Ash'ari says in the same sentence that for Allah to be ignorant is impossible so he has already asserted the impossibility of kidhb in His Ilm and hence His Kalam Nafsi. It would only make sense for him to be referring to kidhb in Kalam Lafdhi or otherwise the statement would be redundant. I also asked, Imam al-Ash'ari states it is impossible for Allah to move and be ignorant, both of which humans can do. The Deobandi narrative is that Allah is powerful over all things, including rational impossibilities, because it would entail we are more powerful than God, which they claim to be the Ash'ari position. Was Imam al-Ash'ari wrong when he stated this? I asked the above questions 3/4 times and he kept ignoring them.
There's quite a lot more back and forth after the latest screenshot so if anyone does want to read the rest of it, I'd say it's worth just going to the article and reading it there. As for why I am now posting on here, see below: To explain and dissect the above since its the finalising point that makes or breaks either argument - we were now discussing Kalam Lafdhi and its susceptibility to falsehood according to the definition of Kalam Nafsi he was using - the one held by Imam Ghazali which I had completely forgotten - as opposed to the other definition of Kalam Nafsi which I had been using until then. Imam Ghazali's 'definition': كل ما يعلمه الإنسان يقوم بذاته خبر عن معلومه على وفق علمه ولا يتصور الكذب فيه فكذلك في حق الله The first paragraph of the first image is his translation of this. Consider the below arguments from this definition only. His argument is that since all Kalam Nafsi, regardless of whether it is Allah's or a person's, must be true, and since humans can lie, Kalam Lafdhi does not by definition have to correspond to Kalam Nafsi. Therefore, (note the assumption he makes of Kalam Lafdhi being the same for humans and Allah), Allah's Kalam Lafdhi is not by definition in correspondence to His Kalam Nafsi and can therefore contain lies. If his assumption is proved incorrect (i.e., if the ontological nature of our Kalam Lafdhi and Allah's Kalam Lafdhi are shown to be different) his argument does not function, as what is true of our Kalam Lafdhi would then not necessarily be true of Allah's. Humans being able to speak lies would have no relevance to whether or not Allah can. I claim the assumption to be incorrect by saying the Kalam Lafdhi of humans is not synthetically true. For humans, Kalam Lafdhi is not necessarily an indication of Kalam Nafsi, known by the fact we can speak lies. As for Allah's Kalam Lafdhi, it is created with the purpose (his understanding of 'purpose' seems to be something that is gained after the action - only after my fist connecting to someone's face do I assign the purpose of harm) of indicating to His Kalam Nafsi. That is it's very nature and definition. He misunderstands this point by replying that this is only in reference to the Kalam Lafdhi we know, and not another Kalam Lafdhi that Allah may possibly create. My point is, any Kalam Lafdhi that is created by Allah on virtue of it being created the Kalam Lafdhi of Allah must be correspondent and indicative of Kalam Nafsi. He is saying, 'you are talking about *this* Kalam Lafdhi rather than *a* Kalam Lafdhi.' This makes absolutely no sense as a reply to my argument. It is the same as if he were to respond to a person saying, 'Bicycles are 2-wheeled,' by saying that, 'you are only talking about *these* bicycles and not *a* bicycle.' Thus, his logic leads to a bicycle having the intrinsic possibility of being three wheeled. In reality, any bicycle, on virtue of it being a bicycle, must intrinsically be two wheeled. His attempted differentiation between power and intent has no significance - Allah does not intend the bicycle to be two wheeled after He wills to create the bicycle. His Intention to create the bicycle entails it to be two wheeled I attempted to make this ontological difference between our Kalam Lafdhi and Allah's Kalam Lafdhi even more clear [given his and his friend's incapability to understand what definitions are and imply] with the below. (Blue are additional, aimed to clarify my point) If x has a different property to y in any given moment, it cannot be the same thing. His assumption is therefore proved wrong. If anyone is wondering what I'm referring to about Dr Hamza in the 2nd reply, I had sent him a video of Dr Hamza explaining in a lecture the exact extract of Imam Ghazali that he quoted. However, he deleted the video from my reply. I had managed to get a screenshot from an unloaded tab of what I posted. I kept a bit on the top and bottom to show where it was in the reply Here it is with an English translation. I think one point he makes doesn't fit in with the discourse but otherwise he uses similar, if not the same, reasoning to reach the same conclusion (falsehood is intrinsically impossible in the Kalam Nafsi and Kalam Lafdhi of Allah). Summary of the entire discourse: - Kalam Lafdhi being truthful for Allah is established according to the definition I was using to begin with (if anyone reading this wants further information, please ask. I am assuming it is already known) - From the 2 replies I gave towards the end [in which both he and I were both using the Kalam Nafsi given by Imam Ghazali (the images at the top). i.e., the most important part of the debate], he misunderstood one reply and he ignored the other. He also deleted a video of a scholar explicitly giving the conclusion I was proposing and then said "~all smart people agree with my conclusion and disagree with yours. I don't want to talk anymore. Do not reply with any more arguments". Makes little sense considering those 3 messages were the most relevant point in the debate. Any questions/objections welcome.
------- for the record - this "L S" person talking to zameel isn't me. i just happened to witness a lot of to and fro today between zameel and him.
there's stuff in there to talk about - later. taking screenshots and pdfs of the entire page for reference. for now Zameel needs to take a stand and give a clear explanation for his question that he asked us my request for further clarification/zameel's stand - based on his question to us: is it intrinsically possible (according to you/deoband) for the Sacred Pen to have inscribed lies onto the Sacred Tablet? if you believe this to be intrinsically possible, please explain how so. likewise, if you believe this to be intrinsically impossible, please explain how so.
i'm repeating my request for clarification, to zameel, just so it doesn't get buried under other posts
someone called L S counter-replied to zameel's response to alfesaani zameel counter-counter-replies to L S
a request to zameel please use the words LIE or LIES or LYING, rather than "ISSUE UNTRUE STATEMENT" it's just a bit easier on the eye!
for those brothers and sisters who don't want to bother with mentally taxing verbose discussions in kalam books, in 2010, Shaykh Abu Adam addressed the exact same jahl when keller-fans and devbnadis raised it mentioning the same esteemed scholars Eeji, Jurjani, Taftazani. please do read these two posts for a very simple and lucid, bottom-line oriented explanation https://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/...en-in-the-sense-of-so-called-kalaam-lafthiyy/ https://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/the-quraan-and-allaahs-attribute-of-speech/
