Attributing Zamaan, Makaan, Jism and Jihah to Allah

Unbeknown said:
"magar woh to alag baat hai"
Click to expand...
but in this particular case perhaps he is talking in the language of awam because he himself is denying that Allah occupies space. however, you are correct that he should have explained what did he mean by 'har jagah'. a similar instance happened to me when last year i heard a mawlana explaining on imkan al kadhib, he mistakenly (while he was roaring refuting heretics) said "Allah dosra khuda bana sakta hay, banay ga nahi" while he wanted to say it is impossible. when I approached him to correct this error, he said "main nay kafi wahazt kar di thi, log samjh gay hongay". I know this is not his creed, but he just uttered it being in a state of "josh-e-khitab".
 
Last edited:
So what is the Sunni response when asked where is Allah (SWT)? What is a simple, concise answer that can be given to laymen (children and adults) without getting into 'specifics' or too 'technical'?
 
my answer: the question 'where is' is invalid because it presupposes that a place/makan/co-ordinates can be attributed to Allah ta'ala. He exists pre-eternally and He is as He was before 'place/where/makan' came into being for His dhaat is not subject to changing.

It is because of the limitation of language and human perceptions and understanding that the words 'is' 'was' and 'before' have been used above. It does NOT mean that His existence can be divided into pre-creation and post-creation phases for His actions do not take place serially in time like human activities. 'Time' itself is a creation. The phrase 'before time was created' is meaningless. This is the same difficulty astronomers and physicists face when explaining the Big Bang. There was no 'time' 'before' the Big Bang. Perhaps this difficulty can be alleviated by redefining what we mean by the word 'time' 'before' etc.

so the short answer is: Invalid question. He subHanu wa ta'ala is exalted beyond subsisting in a place or direction.

for a a head-churning discussion see these links: 1 2
 
the person who wrote that makes the common mistakes most selfies do online.

they claim to not make ta'wil but happily translate istiwa and yad and the rest into english!
their simple minds cannot comprehend the fact that translation is a form of ta'wil, and if indeed one has to do ta'wil, they should do it in a way that demonstrates tanzih - not tashbih.

we assert that Allah is stationed on his throne above his creation in a manner that befits his sublime and transcendent essence.
Click to expand...
it would have better for him if he said:
we believe in istiwa of Allah ta'ala on the Throne - the meaning of which only He knows and that which befits His transcendence. this is the madh'hab of tafwiD; the latter ulama explained it in a way that does not confuse common people or force them to make deductions and things that come to their mind.

so if you tell a common man: istiwa literally means to sit, he will most likely imagine a form "sitting" on the Throne - al-iyadhu billah. to avoid this dilemma, ulama explained such things in a way a common man can understand, and such an explanation - or ta'wil - is not far-fetched. so if 'yad' is explained as Divine Power, the selfies/wahabis go into a fit, but do not see the simple thing:

- no one can deny Divine Power, not even the extreme anthropomorphist selfie. so the description per-se is not wrong.

so, if we say that 'yad' may mean Divine Power - as a well-known idiom in arabic - but the real meaning is known to Allah ta'ala alone; we believe in it unconditionally and submit to Allah ta'ala, saying we believe in it as He Intended.

wAllahu a'alam.
 
that Allah is above his creation in
Click to expand...
sub'HanAllah!

wa dhatan an jihati's sitti khaali
He is transcendent from all the six directions (right, left, above/top, below/bottom, front and back)
 
abu Hasan said:
it would have better for him if he said
Click to expand...

So it's clear then that an individual who answers the question in the manner he did is incompetent / not safe to take or learn aqidah from. Does it also result in the individual being classified as deviant (because he did ta'wil in a way that demonstrates tashbih)? Or does he escape this because he qualified his statements with:
  • "Allah is not confined or restricted to a direction or space in any shape or form";
  • "The true nature and condition of this is only known to him as this is derived from the ambiguous texts (mutashäbihät) and no one is aware of its interpretation except Allah. Hence our stance in such matters is that we believe in such texts as is without investigating its details"; and
  • "...in a manner that befits him"?
 
abu Hasan said:
they claim to not make ta'wil but happily translate istiwa and yad and the rest into english!
their simple minds cannot comprehend the fact that translation is a form of ta'wil
Click to expand...

So when he says: It is for this reason Imam Malik ibn Anas said very angrily when being asked about the nature of Allah’s being stationed on his throne, “The nature is inconceivable, his stationing is known, believing in it is obligatory and asking about it is an innovation.”

then he has probably misinterpreted Imam Malik as well; because Imam Malik spoke Arabic and likely would have used the term istiwa (which is appropriate since that is from the Qur'an and Hadith; in fact Imam Malik probably used the same wording from the Qur'an), and not the term or meaning of 'stationing' (which he has most likely interpreted into English incorrectly).
 
Brother Aqib Qadri's English translation of Surah 57 verse 4 based on Kanz ul Iman:
"It is He Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then (befitting His Majesty) established Himself upon the Throne (of Control);..."

But Kanz ul Iman uses the term "istiwaa farmaayaa", not established*. For whatever reason, I had in mind that brother Aqib's work was a translation of Kanz ul Iman** (as such I was thinking Ala Hazrat translated istiwaa as established in Urdu), but it's not; it's a beautiful English translation of the Qur'an based on and inspired by (but not 100% exact match to) Kanz ul Iman.


* I can see the dilemma though of how to translate this into English, and established is a much safer and better term than stationed or sitting

** My PDF copy has the title AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY QUR’AN (FROM URDU TRANSLATION CALLED “KANZ UL IMAAN” BY IMAM AHMED RAZA KHAN) - the word from threw me off (or I'm probably being too nitpicky)
 
Last edited:
sunni_porter said:
Brother Aqib Qadri's English translation of Surah 57 verse 4 based on Kanz ul Iman:
"It is He Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then (befitting His Majesty) established Himself upon the Throne (of Control);..."

But Kanz ul Iman uses the term "istiwaa farmaayaa", not established*. For whatever reason, I had in mind that brother Aqib's work was a translation of Kanz ul Iman** (as such I was thinking Ala Hazrat translated istiwaa as established in Urdu), but it's not; it's a beautiful English translation of the Qur'an based on and inspired by (but not 100% exact match to) Kanz ul Iman.


* I can see the dilemma though of how to translate this into English, and established is a much safer and better term than stationed or sitting

** My PDF copy has the title AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY QUR’AN (FROM URDU TRANSLATION CALLED “KANZ UL IMAAN” BY IMAM AHMED RAZA KHAN) - the word from threw me off (or I'm probably being too nitpicky)
Click to expand...

brother, I am sure you know the various meanings of the word "establish" - and like you said, it is much safer than "stationed / sitting". The dilemma is that if you use the word "istiwa" again in English, then it is not a translation at all - and will in fact leave the readers perplexed.

despite that, to avoid any misinterpretations / ambiguities, you will see "(befitting His Majesty)" and "(of Control)" used in the same sentence.

I have tried my best, but I am not even a speck compared to Ala Hazrat. may Allah forgive me for the unintentional errors that may have crept in due to my limited abilities. and only Allah is the Most Perfect.

Suggestions for improvements if any are welcome, and will be incorporated in the next edition - in sha Allah.
 
Yes, my post wasn't meant to be a critique :) Was just a comment on me mistakenly thinking Ala Hazrat had translated istiwaa...

If anything my appreciation for your efforts has grown!
 
Tauqeer Sahib AKA 'Spirit Priest' still says Allah is everywhere...
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20160520-025912.png
    Screenshot_20160520-025912.png
    627.9 KB · Views: 533
Muhammad786 said:
Read this entire thread, especially Mawlana AH's refutation of Tauqeer Sahib and you'll be able to answer that question for yourself bhai.
Click to expand...

Oh subhanAllah, didn't realise before, I follow him on facebook, and that ismaeel de silva, he's dodgy too then
 
One "Salafi" said to me today " We do not believe Allah is in a Makan as Makaan is only present in the khalq but Allah is above the khalq and so makaan cannot apply here. We believe Allah is above the Arsh even when He "descends" to the lowest heaven. Also the 4 imams Rahmatullah Alayhim believe Allah is above the Arsh bi dhatihi. And this is clear from the Hadith of the Jariya . We only take from the ulama such as Ibn Hajar Asqalani and Imam Nawawi Rahmatullah alayhim in matters that agree with Salafus Salih, as for their statements in Aqeedah that contradict them we do not take, they were Asharis yet Imam Abul Hasan Ashari Rahmatullah Alayh retracted from his earlier opinion on turned to the "Salafi manhaj" and wrote a work called Al Ibaanah that was his last word on the matter"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top